In the arena of Heart Sutra studies there is an old argument for the antiquity of the text, which is to cite the so-called "lost translations", and one in particular. This essay draws heavily on Watanabe (1990) an article, published in Japanese, but of which I have recently made an English translation, using ChatGPT and some other online translation apps. Watanabe was the first to make this argument and it was made in 1990, two years before Nattier stumbled on the fact that the Sanskrit text is a backtranslation.
We can see this trope of lost translations invoked, for example, in recent Zen Buddhist commentaries on the Heart Sutra by Red Pine (2004) and Tanahashi Kazuaki (2014). Both men cite a lost translation attributed to Zhi Qian 支謙 (fl. 222–254 AD) that enables them to date the Heart Sutra very early (first or second century CE). Tanahashi Kazuaki (2014: 62) says:
Among the vanished texts, the most noteworthy is the rendition by Zhiqian [sic] of the third century. Traditionally regarded as the oldest Chinese translation of the Heart Sutra, this text was reportedly included in [Sengyou’s Catalogue].
"Sengyou's Catalogue" refers to the Chūsānzàng jìjí «出三蔵記集» (T 2145), compiled by Sēngyòu 僧祐 (445-518 CE). Amongst the resources employed by Sengyou were older catalogues, notably one by Dao-an 道安 (312–385) compiled in 374 CE (itself now lost). In the Dao-an section of Sengyou’s catalogue we find two texts listed:
A. Móhē bānrě bōluómì shénzhòu yī juàn 摩訶般若波羅蜜神呪一卷 “Dhāraṇī of the Great Prajñāpāramitā”; one scroll. (T 2145; 55.31b9)
B. Bānrě bōluómì shénzhòu yī juàn (yìběn) 般若波羅蜜神呪一卷(異本) “Dhāraṇī of the Prajñāpāramitā”; one scroll (different version). (T 2145; 55.31b10).
The astute reader will note that neither text is called a Heart Sutra; or a sutra, for that matter. It is less obvious, perhaps, that neither text is attributed to Zhi Qian. The term shénzhòu 神呪 probably translates dhāraṇī or vidyā, but we don't know. Not only are there no Indic sources for these titles, the texts themselves were lost by the Tang dynasty. So these catalogue entries are almost everything we know about these two shénzhòu texts.
One may compare these with the two entries in the Tuóluóní jí jīng «陀羅尼集經» (T 901), translated by Atikūṭa 654 CE. I translate and comment on these entries in a blog post: Svāhā in The Heart Sutra Dhāraṇī (5 July 2019)
I say almost everything we know, but there is a little more because the texts crop up in some later catalogues with the notation: "produced from the Large Sutra" (Chū dà pǐn jīng 出大品經), which is used to indicate the text is an extract from the larger work. Furthermore, in the Zhòngjīng mùlù (衆經目録) (also known as Yàncóng Lù 録), compiled and written under the guidance of Yàncóng 彦琮 (602 CE), both the A and B shénzhòu texts are classified as “separately produced” (biéshēng 別生). This is a term used for locally produced Chinese Buddhist texts, and has also been applied to chāo jīng 抄經 or digest texts.
And all this evidence from the catalogues is consistent with the comments of Kuījī (T 1710) and Woncheuk (T 1711) who both composed commentaries on the Heart Sutra in the late-seventh century. They clearly state that they don’t believe the Heart Sutra to be an authentic Buddhist sutra; rather, they both see it as a compilation of passages from other Prajñāpāramitā texts. Moreover, physical and literary evidence stops entirely in the mid-seventh century: earliest artefact is from 661CE, earliest literary mention is from 656 CE.
So there are two processes to try to understand. How did the two shénzhòu come to be associated with Zhi Qian? And how did the shénzhòu texts come to be considered versions of the Heart Sutra?
Zhi Qian and Fèi Chángfáng
Following Sengyou, a series of three catalogues named Zhòngjīng mùlù «衆經目錄», by Fǎjīng 法經 (594 CE), Yancong 彥悰 (602 CE), and Jìngtài 靜泰 (663-665 CE), all list the two shénzhòu texts as "translator lost" (shī yì 失譯). However, in the midst of these we also have the Lìdài sānbǎo jì «歷代三寶紀» (T 2034) compiled by Fèi Chángfáng 費長房 (597 CE). The Lìdài sānbǎo jì is infamous amongst scholars for adding attributions to texts that were previously listed as "translator lost". Many of these attributions are false and the text is widely considered unreliable in matters of attribution. Fei's entry for the A text reads:
摩詞般若波羅蜜呪經 見宝唱録或直云般若波羅蜜呪經〔支謙訳〕
Móhē bānrě bōluómì zhòu jīng. See the Bǎochànglù; in some cases it is just called Bānrě bōluómì zhòu jīng. Translated by Zhi Qian.
Note the subtle change in the title. The character shén 神 "divine" has been dropped and the character jīng 經 "text, sutra" has been added. Still, everyone involved thinks this is the same text as found in Sengyou's Catalogue. Note that the Bǎochànglù is a reference to another catalogue that no longer exists: the Liángshì zhòng jīng mùlù «梁世衆經目錄» compiled by Bǎochàng 寶唱 ca. 520-521. It's possible that Bǎochàng was responsible for this attribution, but Fèi Chángfáng made up so many attributions that the finger points squarely at him. Also note that, contra the Zhòngjīng mùlù catalogues, Fèi Chángfáng considers the version without móhē 摩詞 in the title to be a variant of the A text rather than a distinct B text.
As far as we can tell, then, Chángfáng simply made up this attribution. And there is no reason to suppose that Zhi Qian translated the Móhē bānrě bōluómì shénzhòu or the Móhē bānrě bōluómì zhòu jīng. Rather, such texts were likely just extracts from the Large Prajñāpāramitā text that circulated independently. Note that it is quite definite that the Xīn jīng (T 251) copied multiple passages from the Móhē bānrě bōluómì jīng «摩訶般若波羅蜜經» (T 223), translated by Kumārajīva in 404 CE, as does the Dàmíngzhòu jīng (see below). Assuming that all the catalogue entries relating to the shénzhòu texts are references to the same text, the appearance in Dao-an's catalogue dated 374 definitely rules out it being a Heart Sutra. The passages copied did not even exist until thirty years after this date.
That said, the attribution to Zhi Qian is cited in influential catalogues such as the Neidian Catalogue (Dà Táng nèidiǎn lù «大唐内典録» T 2149), compiled by Dàoxuān 道宣 (664) and the Kaiyuan Catalogue (Dà Táng kāiyuán shìjiào lù «大唐開元釋教錄» T 2154), compiled by Zhìshēng 智昇 (730). The latter was especially influential as it was used to reconstruct the Buddhist canon after the purges of 849 and eventually provided the organisational scheme followed by the Tasihō canon.
At this point, then, the móhē shénzhòu text has been identified as a translation by Zhi Qian, while the B shénzhòu (sans móhē) is either noted as "translator lost" or is said to be the same text with a different title, despite Sengyou's clear note that they were different. What we do not have anywhere in the picture is a Heart Sutra text. We turn to this mystery next.
Zhi Qian and the Heart Sutra
The key moment here is the appearance, already mentioned above, of the Kaiyuan Catalogue by Zhìshēng, in 730 CE. Something new happens in this catalogue, which is the first mention of a text that we know to be a Heart Sutra:
A 摩詞般若波羅蜜呪經 或無摩詞学 見宝唱録〔支謙訳〕 Móhē bānrě bōluómì zhòu jīng. Some texts lack the Móhē characters; see the Bǎochànglù; (translator Zhi Qian).
B 欠 Missing.
C 摩詞般若波羅蜜大明呪經 亦云摩訶大明呪經 初出与唐 訳般若心経等 同本見経題上〔羅什訳〕 C. Móhē bānrě bōluómì dàmíngzhòu jīng. Also called Móhē dàmíng zhòu jīng, first produced in the Tang. A translation of the Heart Sutra, See the same Sutra title above. (Translated by Kumārajīva).
Like Fèi Chángfáng and unlike the earlier catalogues, Zhìshēng considers the texts without Móhē to be a variant title rather than a separate text.
Text C, the Dàmíngzhòu jīng, is extant and included in the Taishō as T 250. This entry in the Kaiyuan Catalogue is the first mention of the text in history. The Dàmíngzhòu jīng is not included amongst the translations of Kumārajīva in any older catalogue. And this means that it was almost certainly not by Kumārajīva. Indeed, this has long been the consensus. Back in 1932, when listing all the Prajñāpāramitā texts, Matsumoto Tokumyo (1932: 9) noted Er hat aber dieses Sūtra nicht übersetzt “But he has not translated this sutra”. Conze adds the detail that it was translated by one of Kumārajīva's "disciples" a theme recently taken up by Charles Willemen in a series of rather silly articles. Willemen asserts, on the flimsiest evidence imaginable, that Dàmíngzhòu jīng was translated by Zhu Daosheng. But he presents no plausible evidence for this assertion. Indeed, we know that the Heart Sutra per se is not a translation. It was composed in Chinese, in the middle seventh century (actually between 654 and 656 CE).
There is no doubt that this entry in the Kaiyuan Catalogue, dated 730 CE, is also the source of the conflation of the shénzhòutexts with the Dàmíngzhòu jīng, and combined with the idea that Zhi Qian translated the Móhē shénzhòu text, it explains why some people believe in a lost translation of the Heart Sutra by Zhi Qian. To be clear, no such thing ever existed and the evidence for it was always weak.
From the absence of the Dàmíngzhòu jīng in earlier catalogues we can also infer it was composed after the composition of the Xīn jīng. And Watanabe adds that it was not translated from Sanskrit, but composed in Chinese. Thus not only is the Dàmíngzhòu jīng not a translation, it is not (and could not be) a translation by Kumārajīva.
Conclusions
Watanabe (1990) concludes from this that the idea of a lost translation of the Heart Sutra by Zhi Qian was simply made up. The text in question was not a Heart Sutra and was not associated with Zhi Qian. Moveover the Dàmíngzhòu jīng attributed to Kumārajīva was not associated with him, was not even a translation, and was produced after the Xīn jīng.
There is no reliable evidence of the Heart Sutra prior to the 650s CE. Moreover, Jan Nattier (1992) showed that the Sanskrit text was a back-translation from Chinese. The first mention of a Sanskrit text is in Woncheuk's commentary, but it is vague and could be a reference to the Sanskrit Large Sutra, since Woncheuk knew that to be the source of most of the copied passages.
All attempts at pushing back the existence to dates earlier the seventh century fail for lack of evidence. The oldest physical evidence of the Heart Sutra from anywhere in the world, is the inscription from Fangshan (see Attwood 2019) dated 13 March 661. The oldest literary mention occurs in letter dated 26 Dec 656, reproduced in Yancong's hagiography of Xuanzang (T 2053), but also preserved independently (See Kotyk 2020). This gives us the terminus ante quem. The earliest commentaries are Chinese texts from the late seventh century by Kuījī (T 1710), Woncheuk (T 1711), and Jìngmài 靖邁 (X 522). Note that the latter has received almost no scholarly attention.
We find evidence of the Heart Sutra in Tibet from roughly the eighth century, though this date is dependent on the attribution of Tibetan commentaries to Indian authors, some of whom are otherwise completely unknown, and some of whom are the most famous Buddhists who ever lived. And from India? There is no evidence of the Heart Sutra from India. No manuscripts, no inscriptions, no mentions in other texts. This is consistent with what we expect given that the Sanskrit text is a back-translation made in China.
All the evidence points to the same conclusion: The Heart Sutra was composed in Chinese ca 654–656 CE, using copied passages from Móhē bānrě bōluómì jīng «摩訶般若波羅蜜經» (T 223) and a dhāraṇī from the Tuóluóní jí jīng «陀罗尼集經» (T 901) translated in 654 CE (giving us the terminus post quem).
It's interesting that translators like Red Pine and Tanahashi have drawn on Japanese scholarship where it suits their purposes, but have entirely ignored this very important work by Watanabe. The false idea of the lost translation by Zhi Qian plays into their anxieties about the authenticity of this sutra that is not a sutra. And they employ the idea uncritically despite a long standing consensus around Watanabe's solid debunking of it. It turns out that, despite being very popular, both Red Pine and Tanahashi belong with D. T. Suzuki and Edward Conze as unreliable guides to this text.
I have produced a draft English translation of Watanabe (1990) and uploaded it for comment on academia.edu. I will soon submit an article to an academic journal that discusses this material.
~~oOo~~
Bibliography
Attwood, J. (2019). "Xuanzang’s Relationship to the Heart Sūtra in Light of the Fangshan Stele." Journal of Chinese Buddhist Studies, 32, 1–30.
Kotyk, Jeffrey. (2019). “Chinese State and Buddhist Historical Sources on Xuanzang: Historicity and the Daci’en si sanzang fashi zhuan 大慈恩寺三藏法師傳”. T’oung Pao 105(5-6): 513.
Watanabe, Shōgo. 1990. “Móhē bānrě bōluómì shénzhòu jīng and Móhē bānrě bōluómì dàmíngzhòu jīng, As Seen in the Sutra Catalogues.” Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū 39-1: 54–58.
Extant Chinese Bibliographies
- Chūsānzàng jìjí «出三蔵記集» (T 2145), compiled by Sēngyòu 僧祐 (445–518 CE)
- Zhòngjīng mùlù «衆經目錄». (T 2146), compiled by Fǎjīng 法經 (594 CE)
- Lìdài sānbǎo jì «歷代三寶紀» (T 2034), compiled by Fèi Chángfáng 費長房 (597 CE).
- Zhòngjīng mùlù «衆經目錄» (T 2147), compiled by Yancong 彥悰 (602 CE)
- Zhòngjīng mùlù «衆經目錄» (T 2148), compiled by Jìngtài 靜泰 (663-665 CE)
- Dà Táng nèidiǎn lù «大唐内典録» (T 2149), compiled by Dàoxuān 道宣 (664).
- Gǔ jīn yìjīng tújì «古今譯經圖紀» (T 2151), compiled by Jingmai 靖邁 (7th century).
- Dàzhōu kāndìng zhòngjīng mùlù «大周刊定衆經目錄» (T 2153), compiled by Míngquán 明佺 et al. (695).
- Dà Táng kāiyuán shìjiào lù «大唐開元釋教錄» (T 2154), compiled by Zhìshēng 智昇 (730)
- Zhēnyuán xīn dìng shìjiào mùlù «貞元新定釋教目錄» (T 2157) compiled by Upāsaka Yuán Zhàozhuàn 照撰, (800)
