Xuanzang's Devotion

Introduction

In this essay, I will present a preliminary argument for a working hypothesis: that Xuánzàng 玄奘 (602–664) was not a devotee of Gunayin, but that this feature of his biography was added after his death to help legitimise the Heart Sutra. Given the historically dominant narrative, this proposition should be counter-intuitive and even cause cognitive dissonance. Xuanzang's devotion to Guanyin is literally the stuff of legends. A number of scholars have recently suggested, based on revisiting the traditional sources, that we need to rethink the standard biographies of Xuanzang: I think especially of Max Deeg, Jeffrey Kotyk, and Liu Shufen.

For example, Liu Shufen (2022) has drawn attention to the situation of Xuanzang in Gaozong's court: he was subject to virtual house arrest, unable to translate for long periods, and a board of censors was appointed to oversee his translation work with authority to change the translations as they saw fit. (see my summary Attwood 2023a). All of this runs counter to the historically dominant narrative.

My goal here is to persuade readers to take this proposition seriously. It would suit my purposes better if readers sought to refute my conjecture (and if they would tell me about it). As I state it, the proposition should be easy to refute and I will continue to look for evidence of Xuanzang's devotion to Guanyin. For now, I will present the evidence that raised questions in my mind and hope that it also raises questions for the reader.

The incident in which Xuanzang chants the Heart Sutra when he is lost in the Gobi Desert and facing demonic forces has long been a central element of what I now call "the Myth of the Heart Sutra." (aka the historically dominant narrative). The story occurs in at least two sources: the Yancong Biography (T 2053; 50.224b.9-10) and the preface composed in the eighth century by Amoghavajra for a manuscript copy of the Táng fàn fān duì zìyīn bānrě bōluómìduō Xīn jīng «唐梵飜對字音般若波羅蜜多心經» (T 256; hereafter Táng fàn Xīn jīng). English translations can be found in Li (1995: 26) and Hurvitz (1977: 108-110).

The story usually goes something like this: Xuanzang was lost in the desert and facing demonic forces, so he prayed to Guanyin. This doesn't work so he chants the Heart Sutra and all is well.

The story draws on a common theme in Chinese Buddhist mythology. Guanyin was believed to intercede in such situations if asked. A whole genre of Chinese literature exists in which people in peril pray to Guanyin who magically rescues them. The archetype for these stories is Chapter 25 of the Lotus Sutra (i.e. the Guânshìyīn Púsà pǔmén pǐn 觀世音菩薩普門品). Robert Campany (1991) has referred to this literature as "miracle tales".

Note, however, that in the Yancong version of the story, this prayer to Guanyin fails.

Despite chanting the name of Guanyin, he could not make them go away. However, when he recited this scripture [i.e. the Heart Sutra], the spirits dispersed upon hearing his voice, thus saving him from danger and providing real protection.
雖念觀音不能令去，及誦此經，發聲皆散，在危獲濟，實所憑焉。(T 2053; 50.224b11).

That Guanyin fails to perform a miracle is a strange twist for a miracle tale. And has long intrigued me. The miracle tale genre is a record of episodes in which Guanyin saves pious people in peril. Such religious stories circulated widely and provided Chinese Buddhists with "proof" of the value of faith and hope for earthly deliverance. However, this failure does not seem to lessen Xuanzang's faith because in the very next paragraph: "Then he reined in his horse and proceeded towards the northwest, whilst repeating the name of Guanyin Pusa" (Li 1995: 26-27).

Another key element of the Yancong version of the story is a narrative flashback to explain how Xuanzang came to have the Heart Sutra before he left China. Since an elaborate explanation is provided, we can deduce that Yancong felt an explanation was warranted. This suggests that despite the appearance of at least four inscriptions of the Heart Sutra existing by this time (dated 661, 669, 673, and 685), Yancong perceived that his readers would not be familiar with the Heart Sutra. Or that they would wonder how Xuanzang had the text before he went to India. Whatever his motivations, this is what Yancong takes the time to explain. And given that this seems to be the only narrative flashback in a relentlessly linear narrative, we might also suppose that Yancong imposed narrative on an already existing text that lacked it (contra Kotyk 2020 who doubts Huili's role in the creation of the Biography).

In the Táng fàn Xīn jīng version of this story, Guanyin's failure is omitted. Indeed, Guanyin plays a radically different role in this version of the story. Now it was Guanyin himself who gave Xuanzang the Heart Sutra, in the guise of a sick monk, before mysteriously disappearing. Guanyin then reappeared to Xuanzang in India, announced his role in the story, and then promptly "vanished into space". The latter miracle being the seal of authenticity for the Heart Sutra. This seems like pretty strange behaviour for an Indian bodhisatva. It is all rather oblique. But it was plausible enough for Tanahashi Kazuaki (2014: 82-84) to treat it as the answer to the problem of the provenance of the Heart Sutra:

The possibility that Xuanzang "received" the Hridaya in India cannot be entirely ruled out... [because] Xuanzang may have had contact with Avalokiteśvara in India. (84)

It was quite striking, therefore, to come across an episode in the biography of Xuanzang by his former colleague, Daoxuan. In this biography, faced with deadly peril Xuanzang prays not to Guanyin, but to Maitreya. This led me to look more closely at who Xuanzang "prays to" and at the words "prays to" and related terminology.

Sources

The Dà Táng dà Cí’ēnsì sānzàng fǎshī chuán xù «大唐大慈恩寺三藏法師傳序» "A Biography of the Tripiṭaka Master of the Great Ci’en Monastery of the Great Tang Dynasty" (T 2053) was compiled in 688 CE and is attributed to both Huìlì 慧立 (615- c. 677) and Yàncóng 彥悰 (fl. 688). T 2053 recounts an earlier compilation by Huili and subsequent editing and expansion by Yancong. However, note that Kotyk (2020) has cast doubt on this attribution. This biography has been translated into English several times but the older translations are not as reliable as the more recent translation by Li Rongxi (1995).

Some biographical details can also be found in Xuanzang's Travelogue: Dà Táng Xīyù jì «大唐西域記» The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions. (T 2087). This was completed ca 646 CE, with editorial assistance from a monk named Biànjī 辯機. This text has been extensively studied and written about by Max Deeg, but for this essay, the article by Kotyk (2020) is more apposite.

These sources tend to be used uncritically to tell the story of Xuanzang. In fact, more caution is warranted and the usual caveats apply. For example, any facts stated within should not be considered reliable unless they are independently corroborated. Any fact that only occurs in one source cannot be considered reliable.

Daoxuan

Daoxuan 道宣 (596–667) also composed a biography of Xuanzang for his Xù gāosēng zhuàn «續高僧傳» "Further Biographies of Eminent Monks" (T 2060; 50.446c1- 459c10). The date of composition is a matter of some conjecture. As Zou (2018: 234) notes:

[Daoxuan] himself asserts that he completed the text in 645 CE (Zhong Tang Zhenguan shi you jiu nian 終 唐貞觀十有九年). However, he includes details of several events that took place in later years, five of which are discussed by Chi Limei 池麗梅. The last of Chi’s examples occurred in the twenty-third year of the Zhenguan era (649 CE), but we know that some of the events that Daoxuan describes in Xu gaoseng zhuan took place even later.

These two texts generally meet the requirements of a primary historical source, i.e. they are first-hand accounts of the events written at or near the time they describe. Both Yancong and Daoxuan worked with Xuanzang. On the relationship between Xuanzang and Daoxuan see Zou (2018: 144-150). Kotyk (2020) makes the case that Daoxuan's Biography is a more reliable source for the history of Xuanzang, than Yancong's. It is still subject to the distortions of a hagiography, but Daoxuan was writing just four years after Xuanzang's death.

Some of Daoxuan's other works are relevant here:

• Dàtáng nèidiǎn lù «大唐內典錄» "Catalogue of the Inner Canon of the Great Tang" (T 2149), which includes a brief biographical sketch of Xuanzang and an early record of the Heart Sutra.
• Jí shénzhōu sānbǎo gǎntōng lù «集神州三寶感通錄» "Collected Record of Miracles Relating to the Three Jewels in China" (see Landry 2022).

The Frequency and Distribution of Terms

In the Yancong Biography (T 2053) we see some intriguing, but unfortunately not always decisive, distribution of terminology. The term qǐ qǐng 啟請 occurs just three times. At 222c12 and 276c3 the term means "make a request" in a conventional sense, but at 223b3 Xuanzang makes a request that Maitreya will send him a man to guide him on the route out of China. It is this term that is translated as "prays to".

Xuanzang is twice portrayed as reciting the name of Guanyin, i.e. niàn Guānyīn Púsà 念觀音菩薩 (223c7, 224b7). On four occasions, Xuanzang also "recites [a] scripture" 誦經 (e.g. 223c6-7, 273c7).

The distribution of names is particularly interesting. As we know, the name of the bodhisatva changed in Sanskrit from Avalokitasvara (avalokita-svara) to Avalokiteśvara (avalokita-īśvara) and in the Yancong Biography this is reflected in two distinct spellings: the older name Guānyīn 觀音, which translates Avalokitasvara, is used only in scroll 1. The newer name, Guānzìzài 觀自在, which translates Avalokiteśvara, occurs in scrolls 2,3 and 4. This seems to suggest (though does not confirm) that two different authors were at work. In scroll 2, the name is also transcribed: Ā fó lù zhǐ duō yī shī fá luó 阿縛盧枳多伊濕伐羅, [ Middle Chinese after Pulleyblank: ʔa bwa^H lɔ kiə̆^X ta ʔi ɕip̚ buat̚ la; i.e. A va lo ki te ś va ra] (230c08). This is followed by a note:

In Tang Chinese, this is known as Guānzìzài 觀自在. The combined pronunciation of the Sanskrit is as above. If divided into individual parts, Ā fó lù zhǐ duō 阿縛盧枳多 translates to guān 觀 and yī shī fá luó 伊濕伐羅 translates to zìzài 自在. The old translations such as Guāngshìyīn 光世音, Guānshìyīn 觀世音, or Guānshìyīn Zìzài 觀世音自在 are all incorrect. (230c8-10)

It's likely that this passage was copied from the Travelogue (T 2087; 51.883b; Li 1996: 75). If the author was Yancong on his own, and Yancong believed Guānyīn 觀音 to be an incorrect spelling, then why does he use it at all? Contra Kotyk (2020), this seems to suggest (at least) two authors at work.

The name Maitreya occurs more often and is more widely distributed. The text uses three ways of writing it. The partial transcription Mílè 彌勒 occurs 12 times (scrolls 1,2,3,6,10), while the translation Císhì 慈氏 "the Benevolent one" occurs 19 times (scrolls 2,3,4,6,10). However, scroll 3 includes a note: "In Tang speech called Císhì, which was previously erroneously called Mílè" 唐言慈氏，舊曰彌勒，訛也 (235c11). Even though Mílè is "erroneous", it is still used 12 times. Again, to me, this suggests two authors at work. Also in scroll 3, we encounter the name transliterated as Méidálì 梅怛麗 (235c11; juan 3). The Digital Dictionary of Buddhism notes that there are numerous different transcriptions.

While it is well known that the Travelogue (T 2087) does not mention the Heart Sutra, my research shows that this should not surprise us. The story that Xuanzang had it before he went to India is clearly apocryphal and the earliest it could have been composed is ca 654 CE, when Atikūṭa completed his translation of the Tuóluóní jí jīng «陀羅尼集經» (T 901). This was the source of the gate gate dhāraṇī so the Heart Sutra had to be composed sometime after this date. But the first reliably dated mention of the Heart Sutra occurs in the Biography and is from 656 CE.

With respect to Guanyin and Maitreya, the Travelogue shows a similar pattern. For example, Xuanzang records seeing not less than fourteen images of Guanyin in India. One of these (T 2087; 51.935b; Li 1996: 296) "answers prayers". But there is no narrative to go with most of these. It's just "At such and such a place, there is a statue of Guanyin". He also records a generic miracle tale involving Guanyin and a story in which the famous Indian monk Bhāvaviveka prays to Avalokiteśvara in order to live long enough to meet Maitreya. There is no suggestion in the Travelogue that Xuanzang himself was a devotee of Guanyin.

The mentions of Maitreya in the Travelogue are more varied. There are just seven mentions of Maitreya statues, though most of them seem to be associated with miracles. We also see mention of two Asoka-built stupas: one where Maitreya will appear on earth and one where he received his prediction of Buddhahood. The latter is accompanied by a story about that event (905c). More striking is a whole series of Maitreya-based backstories for Buddhists that profoundly influenced Xuanzang. So we see Vasumitra (887a), Guṇaprabha (891c), Asaṅga (896b-897a), [the arhat] Kāśyapa (919c), Nāgārjuna (930a), Dignāga (930c), and Bhavaviveka (930c-931b) all expressing devotion to Maitreya or interacting with him in some way.

In the Travelogue, Guanyin is largely a background figure that Xuanzang does not engage actively with. There is no sense that Xuanzang felt any particular devotion to Guanyin. By contrast, the mythology of Maitreya mythology is worked into the narrative whenever his name comes up. There is considerable emphasis on the role of Maitreya in initiating the Yogācāra lineage that Xuanzang was part of.

Daoxuan's catalogue, the Nèidiǎn lù (T 2149), lists the Heart Sutra (T 2149, 55.282c06), mentioning only a single text, but the biographical note on Xuanang that follows does not mention Guanyin or Maitreya. The fact that Daoxuan doesn't mention the Dàmíngzhòu jīng «大明呪經» (T 250) is an important part of the rejection of the attribution of it to Kumārajīva. If the Dàmíngzhòu jīng had existed in 665 CE, then it would have existed in Daoxuan's milieu, because his milieu substantially overlapped with Xuanzang's.

Dàoxuān's Biography includes a single reference to Guanyin. Regarding the region of Mòluójùzhà 秣羅矩吒 (Sanskrit: Malakūṭa; a southern coastal region of India), Daoxuan notes: "In the middle is the heavenly palace where Bodhisattva Guānzìzài 觀自在 always resides. This is the correct name for Guānshìyīn 觀世音." (452c2-3). Daoxuan does not use the common abbreviation, Guānyīn 觀音. There is no sense that Guanyin is important to Xuanzang.

By contrast, Dàoxuān's Biography contains nine references to Maitreya including four mentions of being reborn in Maitreya's Pure Land, e.g. "Xuanzang always wished to be reborn with Maitreya" 奘生常以來願生彌勒。(T 2060, 55.458a7). Notably, Daoxuan depicts Xuanzang, on his deathbed, silently repeating the name Maitreya (便默念彌勒 458a25-28) and encouraging those around him to chant a homage to Maitreya. This detail of his deathbed practice is particularly salient since it tells us what Daoxuan understood to be fundamentally important to Xuanzang.

Thus in Daoxuan's Biography, Xuanzang is unequivocally a devotee of Maitreya; and seemingly not a devotee of Guanyin at all.

A side note is that both Daoxuan and Yancong promote the idea that Xuanzang's translation Guānzìzài 觀自在 should be preferred. And yet, in modern-day China, the bodhisatva is universally known as Guānyīn 觀音. Xuanzang's innovation never caught on. This is probably because of the enduring popularity of Kumārajīva's translation of the Saddharmapuṇḍarikā.

Conclusion

On the whole, in the main biographical sources, Xuanzang is portrayed as a devotee of Maitreya. He is also portrayed as an avid consumer and translator of Buddhist literature attributed to Maitreya. And that Xuanzang saw himself as part of the Yogācāra lineage that traditionally goes back to Maitreya. For example, the Yogācārabhūmi śāstra «瑜伽師地論» (T 1579), a massive Yogācāra commentary attributed to Maitreya, was one of the first texts Xuanzang translated on returning from India (ca 646–648). We see references to his devotion to Maitreya distributed throughout the early biographical literature. The Travelogue contains major elements of Maitreya mythology, but Avalokiteśvara is merely a figure he saw depicted in statues and a figure of other people's devotion.

This leaves us in want of an explanation for why Xuanzang is depicted as a Guanyin devotee at all. Since we already know that the myth of the Heart Sutra was a fabrication, it is interesting to see that when Guanyin appears in the sources it is usually in connection with the Heart Sutra.

Daoxuan was aware of the Heart Sutra, which in his catalogue (665 CE) is a single text, without all the many versions we now know. He was also a collector of miracle stories. Per Kotyk (2020), we have reason to believe that Daoxuan's Biography is the more reliable witness. So the fact that Daoxuan does not mention Xuanzang's devotion to Guanyin is significant in its own right.

Arguments from absence are usually weak, unless, as in this case, there is a strong and reasonable expectation of presence. The presumption here is that, had Xuanzang been a devotee of Guanyin it would have been obvious in his own work. However, in the work he authored Guanyin is not a significant presence whereas Maitreya is. Similarly, if Xuanzang's devotion to Guanyin was significant in Daoxuan's eyes, it is exactly the kind of thing that he would have felt compelled to mention. Instead, Daoxuan depicts Xuanzang's religious life as centred on Maitreya. Again the deathbed scene in Daoxuan's biography carries extra weight since imminent death is known to cause people to focus on what is important to them.

Therefore, I now suspect that all the references to Xuanzang's devotion to Guanyin in Yancong's Biography are adventitious and that Xuanzang was not a devotee of Guanyin.

In our many discussions about Xuanzang, Kotyk and I think that Xuanzang included a reference to Guanyin when he composed the Heart Sutra ca 656 CE because the intended recipient was Wu Zhao, then Empress Consort to Gaozong. This was part of an elaborate religious response to Wu Zhou's difficult pregnancy with Lǐ xiǎn 李顯 (later Emperor Zhōngzōng 中宗) that included ordaining the month-old infant as a Buddhist monk. Wu Zhou was a Buddhist.

I have previously noted (Attwood 2024) that there is no indication in the Heart Sutra that Guanyin speaks. Rather all the conventional ways of indicating that a person is speaking—e.g. "..., he said"—are absent. Moreover, when the "core passage" is traced back to its source in the Large Prajñāpāramitā, the lines attributed to Guanyin come from a longer passage in which the Buddha is speaking. Nevertheless, most people (since the seventh century) have assumed that the lines are spoken by Guanyin because they read the Heart Sutra in isolation and are influenced by the historically dominant narrative.

My sense is that Xuanzang was re-envisaged as a devotee of Guanyin to help explain the apparent anomaly of Guanyin preaching in a Prajñāpāramitā text. His supposed role there is very different indeed from his role in the Lotus Sutra or his negligible role in Prajñāpāramitā (where he is only mentioned in passing). But that role was misinterpreted since he is not preaching.

It's also likely that the Heart Sutra presented to the court in 656 CE was intended to show how a new translation would preserve what was good about Kumārajīva's translation (T 223) and improve upon it by choosing better translations (I believe Kotyk first suggested this to me).

It seems to be only the Yancong Biography that supports the historically dominant narrative of Xuanzang as a devotee of Guanyin. Indeed, the Yancong Biography seems to be the principal (perhaps only?) source for this aspect of the narrative. Daoxuan by contrast saw Xuanzang as a devotee of Maitreya: he prays to Maitreya, he wishes to be reborn in Maitreya's pure land, he recites Maitreya's name on his deathbed. Moreover, even in Yancong's biography, Maitreya plays a much greater and more consistent role in Xuanzang's religious life.

This conclusion is provisional. I'm putting out feelers amongst relevant scholars and will be looking at other biographical materials to see what light they shed. Of course, as a standalone conjecture, it seems implausible. But in the context of numerous other observations about the history of Xuanzang and the history of the Heart Sutra, the conjecture that Xuanzang was not personally a Guayin devotee seems eminently plausible.

Buddhist Studies scholars in the twentieth century were far too willing to take Buddhist mythology as Buddhist history. While this attitude persists to some extent, more of us are trying to revisit the issue with greater attention to the best practice of historical methods. And this means that traditional "histories" are beginning to seem like religious narratives with religious purposes.

I have only mentioned Max Deeg in passing in this essay, but his extensive writing about the Xiyu ji (Xuanzang's Travelogue; T 2087) is an eye-opener: his works are online and well worth reading. His forthcoming multivolume commentary on the Xiyu ji will no doubt have a huge impact on Xuanzang studies.

~~o0o~~

Bibliography

Anon. Táng fàn fān duì zìyīn bānrě bōluómìduō xīn jīng «唐梵飜對字音般若波羅蜜多心經» (T 256).

Daoxuan 道宣. (645) Xù gāosēng zhuàn «續高僧傳» (T 2060).

———. Dàtáng nèidiǎn lù «大唐內典錄» (T 2149).

———. Jí shénzhōu sānbǎo gǎntōng lù «集神州三寶感通錄» (T 2106).

Xuánzàng 玄奘 (with Biànjī 辯機). (646). Dà Táng Xīyù jì «大唐西域記» (T 2087).

Yàncóng 彥悰 (with Huìlì 慧立). (688) Dà Táng dà Cí’ēnsì sānzàng fǎshī chuán xù «大唐大慈恩寺三藏法師傳序» (T 2053).

Attwood, J. (2020). "The History of the Heart Sutra as a Palimpsest." Pacific World, Series 4, no.1, 155-182. https://pwj.shin-ibs.edu/2020/6934

———. (2023). "Notes on Xuanzang's Waning Years." Jayarava's Raves (30 June 2023a). https://jayarava.blogspot.com/2023/06/notes-on-xuanzangs-waning-years.html

———. (2023). "How Xuanzang Saw Dhāraṇī." Jayarava's Raves (22 December 2023b). https://jayarava.blogspot.com/2023/12/how-xuanzang-saw-dharani.html

———. (2024). "Guanyin Does Not Speak in the Heart Sutra". Jayarava's Raves (9 February 2024), https://jayarava.blogspot.com/2024/02/guanyin-does-not-speak-in-heart-sutra.html

Campany, Robert F. (1991) “Notes in the Devotional Uses and Symbolic Functions of Sūtra Texts as Depicted in Early Chinese Buddhist Miracle Tales and Hagiographies.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 14(1): 28-72.

Hurvitz, Leon. (1977). “Hsüan-tsang 玄奘 (602-664) and the Heart Scripture.” In Prajnaparamita and Related Systems: Studies in Honor of Edward Conze, 103-113. University of California at Berkeley Press.

Kotyk, Jeffrey. (2020). “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.” In From Chang’an to Nālandā: The Life and Legacy of the Chinese Buddhist Monk Xuanzang (602?–664), eds. Shi Ciguang, Chen Jinhua, Ji Yu and Shi Xingding, 270–310. Singapore: World Scholastic Publishers. Republication of 2019 article in T’oung Pao. Online at academia.edu

Landry, Nelson Elliot. (2022). "Daoxuan and the Medieval Chinese Encounter with Relics and Images." Hualin International Journal of Buddhist Studies 5(1): 1–55. https://dx.doi.org/10.15239/hijbs.05.01.01

Li, Rongxi. (1995) A Biography of the Tripiṭaka Master of the Great Ci’en Monastery of the Great Tang Dynasty. (T 2053). Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research.

———. (1996). The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions. (T 2087) Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai America.

Liu, Shufen. (2022). “The Waning Years of the Eminent Monk Xuanzang and his Deification in China and Japan.” In Chinese Buddhism and the Scholarship of Erik Zürcher. Edited by Jonathan A. Silk and Stefano Zacchetti, 255–289. Leiden: Brill. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004522152_010

Zou, Ang. (2018). The Life of Daoxuan: According to Others and in His Own Words. Proefschrift voorgelegd tot het behalen van de graad van Doctor in de Oosterse talen en culturen. University of Gent.

Guanyin Does Not Speak in the Heart Sutra

In this short essay, I will challenge a universal presupposition about the Heart Sutra, i.e. that the lines that appear to be spoken to Śāriputra in the core section are spoken by Guanyin. I will show that, by all the conventions of Buddhist literature, this is not true. Guanyin does not speak. This observation further undermines the already weakened historically dominant narrative about the Heart Sutra.

For some years, I have made a practice of reading every scholarly publication on this text (in English), as well as selected popular works. To the best of my knowledge, no modern scholars have previously noticed the absences I mark below. I think Chinese Buddhist commentators in the late seventh–early eighth centuries were aware of this. And there were subsequently efforts made to obscure this fact.

A Buddhist sutra is, above all else, a record of speech. In Buddhist texts, speech is almost always indirect speech and the forms of indicating who is speaking to whom are essential to understanding the text. Forms of present speech in Buddhist texts are highly formalized and standardized; to the point of being universal across genres and over time. And they are not complex. We can easily describe the main forms and note the Chinese reflexes of these forms. I will focus on how they appear in the early Prajñāpāramitā literature, if only because this is the appropriate context for thinking about the Heart Sutra.

To begin with, we expect to see the speaker “addressing” (āmantrayate) the audience. At the beginning of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā (Aṣṭa), for example:

Then the Blessed One addressed the senior Elder Subhūti...”
(tatra khalu bhagavān āyuṣmantaṃ subhūtiṃ sthaviram āmantrayate sma… Vaidya 1960 2).

Here āmantrayate sma is the "pleonastic past". Here adding sma to a present tense verb makes it a past tense, but is also used for the "present in the past" tense so commonly used in storytelling. In Kumārajīva’s translation—the Xiǎopǐn bānrě jīng «小品般若經» (T 227)—this becomes…

Then he Buddha addressed Subhūti
Ěr shí Fó gào Xūpútí 爾時佛告須菩提 (T 227: 8.537a29)

Here the verb is gào 告 "to address". Note that Kumārajīva omits the honorific ayuṣman "Elder" and Subhūti's monastic title sthavira "Senior [monk]". In Chinese we also sometimes see:

“Subhūti addressed the Buddha, saying…” 

Xūpútí bái Fó yán 爾時須菩提白佛言 (T 227, 8.537b06)

The character bái 白 is polysemic but here means “to make plain, to state clearly”, while yán 言 means “speak, talk”.

The extracts found in the Heart Sutra are from a version of the Pañcaviṃśātisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā (Pañc). An example of the same form from the Gilgit manuscript of Pañc:

The Bhagavan addressed Elder Śāradvatīputra...”
(bhagavān āyuṣmantaṃ śāradvatīputram āmantrayata... Zacchetti 2005: 375).

The use of āmantrayate (in various conjugations) usually marks the beginning of a passage of discourse, but within a given conversation, the speaker of individual passages is also marked. It is usual to spell this out laboriously, including the name and title of each participant. In the following passage from Chapter One of Aṣṭa, we find all of the most common forms of ongoing verbal address:

Then Elder Śāriputra said this to Elder Subhūti, “Elder Subhūti, does this mind that is a mind without mind actually exist?”

When that was said, Elder Subhūti said this to Elder Śāriputra, “Elder Śāriputra, concerning that which is without mind, is the existence of mindlessness known or apprehended?”

Śāriputra said, “Indeed not, Elder Subhūti”.

Atha khalv āyuṣmān śāriputra āyuṣmantaṃ subhūtim etad avocat - kiṃ punar āyuṣman subhūte asti tac cittaṃ yaccittamacittam?
Evam ukte āyuṣmān subhūtir āyuṣmantaṃ śāriputram etad avocat kiṃ punar āyuṣman śāriputra yā acittatā, tatra acittatāyām astitā vā nāstitā vā vidyate vā upalabhyate vā?
Śāriputra āha - na hy etad āyuṣman subhūte / (Vaidya 1960: 3).

The forms I wish to highlight are “said this” (etad avocat), “when this was said” (evam ukte), and “said” (āha). Both avocat and ukte derive from √vac “speak”, while the āha is from the defective verb √ah “say”. The same forms are used in the same way throughout the Pāli Suttapiṭaka also. An electronic search of the Chaṭṭa Saṅgāyana Tipiṭaka (4.1) suggests that in the four main Nikāyas: āmantesi occurs about 590 times, etadavoca occurs over 2200 times; evaṃ vutte occurs some 530 times; while āha occurs about 100 times. A few other such forms are used, but these are by far the most common. 

When a person is addressed in Sanskrit or Pāli, their name occurs in the vocative case, e.g. “O Subhūti” (subhūte). In the CBETA version of the Taishō edition of the Chinese Tripiṭaka, the “vocative case” is represented by "!" following the speaker’s name. 

Note the repetitive use of the title “Elder” (āyuṣman) most of the time. Given that both characters use the title, they appear to be social equals. I speculate that āyuṣman is omitted precisely when Śāriputra acknowledges Subhūti’s superior insight.

These forms are largely preserved in Chinese translations. Turning to Huifeng’s (2017: 205) translation of this same passage in the Xiǎopǐn:

Thereupon, Śāriputra said to Subhūti: “Does this mind which is mindless exist?”

Subhti said to Śāriputra: “That mind which is mindless, is it apprehendable as either existing or not existing?”

Śāriputra said: “Indeed not!”

Here, two different words are translated as “said”: yǔ 語 (here translating avocat) and yán 言 (translating āha).

None of these conventions for indicating that someone is speaking or for who is addressing whom occurs in the Heart Sutra. The only indication we get that some parts of the text are indirect speech is the use of the vocative śāriputre “O Śāriputra” (Shèlìzi 舍利子！). This is how we know that Śāriputra is being addressed. The Heart Sutra does not say who is speaking and everyone assumes that it is Guanyin. 

The passage in which Śāriputra is addressed has been traced to the Large Sutra (see: T 223, 8.223.a13-a20 and Zacchetti 2005: 393). When we read the passage in this context, the lines are spoken to Śāriputra not by Guanyin, who has no speaking part in any Prajñāpramitā text, but by the Buddha. Interestingly, Woncheuk’s (613-696 CE) commentary (T 1711) appears to take the Buddha to be speaking as well.

Question: [Since] this [teaching of] prajñāpāramitā is the dharma for the bodhisattva, why does the World Honored One preach not to the bodhisattva but to Śāriputra? (Hyun Choo 2006: 149)

and

Therefore, in the [Heart Sūtra], the Buddha preached to Śāriputra and intended to lead the Hīnayāna to the Mahāyāna as well. (Hyun Choo 2006: 149)

It seems to me that Woncheuk could only have deduced this by looking at the source of the passage, i.e. Pañc.

Conclusions

In this brief essay, I have tried to show that the universal view that Guanyin is speaking in the Heart Sutra is based on presupposition and unexamined assumptions. I did this by outlining Buddhist conventions for expressing who is speaking to whom. I argued that such conventional expressions are universal in Buddhist texts (in Pāli and Sanskrit) and that such conventions are absent from the Heart Sutra. All indications of who is speaking have been omitted. Taking the Heart Sutra at face value, no one is speaking.

We can explain this by pointing out that the Heart Sutra is not, in fact, a sutra. It is not a record of speech, rather it's a compilation of ideas and extracts from existing speeches. This much was obvious to the earliest commentators, though subsequently forgotten. The lines in their original context were spoken by the Buddha, as accurately reflected in the commentary by Woncheuk. 

The (now disproved) "fact" that Guanyin was speaking has always been a problem for scholars since Guanyin plays no active role in any non-Tantric Prajñāpāramitā text (and the Tantric Prajñāpāramitā texts are more Tantra than Prajñāpāramitā). Various unsatisfactory explanations have been advanced (I've made several previous attempts to explain), but they have always been ad hoc or post hoc rationalisations, rather than real explanations (they all amount to hand-waving).

The most striking attempts to make sense of this situation are the two recensions of the extended Heart Sutra text (1. T 252; 2. T 253 and all rest), probably composed in the early eighth century, possibly in the oasis town Dūnhuáng 敦煌, on the edge of the Gobi Desert (from where it was transmitted to Tibet). 

In the extended texts, the two redactors have attempted to better integrate Guanyin into the narrative, by expanding the first paragraph. However, both recensions retained the rest of the standard Heart Sutra unaltered and in this part of the text, the verbs of speech are still absent. This means that despite more clearly articulating the reason for the presence of Guanyin, neither of the extended texts addresses the problem. Guanyin's presence seems more natural, but he/she still does not speak the lines directed to Śāriputra in the "core section".

The fact is that, in the Heart Sutra, Guanyin does not speak. Guanyin is invoked and then plays no further role in the text. In their original context, the lines are spoken by the Buddha. At this point, we can say that more or less all of the historical dominant narrative about the Heart Sutra is a post hoc invention. 

~~oOo~~

Bibliography

Huifeng. (2017). “An Annotated English Translation of Kumārajīva’s Xiǎopǐn Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra.” Asian Literature and Translation 4(1): 187-236.

Hyun Choo, B. (2006) “An English Translation of the Banya paramilda simgyeong chan: Wonch’uk’s Commentary on the Heart Sūtra (Prajñāpāramitā-hṛdaya-sūtra).” International Journal of Buddhist Thought and Culture 6: 121-205.

Vaidya, P.L.(1960) Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra. Darbhanga: The Mithila Institute. (Via the Gretil Archive, 2014. Including Karashima, S. (2013) On the "Missing" Portion in the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā. ARIRIAB, 16: 189-192. Accessed 6 Feb 2024)

Zacchetti, Stefano. (2005). In Praise of the Light: A Critical Synoptic Edition with an Annotated Translation of Chapters 1-3 of Dharmarakṣa’s Guang zan jing, Being the Earliest Chinese Translation of the Larger Prajñāpāramitā. (Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica, 8). Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University.

Revisiting Avalokiteśvara in the Heart Sutra

In my 2019 article on Xuanzang and the Heart Sutra, I argued that is was implausible for Xuanzang to have been involved in any clandestine attempt to pass the Heart Sutra off as a genuine sūtra. By contrast, Jeffrey Kotyk (2020) makes a good case for the Heart Sutra having been openly composed by Xuanzang as a condensation of the Prajñāpāramitā (i.e. a chāo jīng) and given to Gaozong and Wu Zhao as a gift on the birth of a son. On 6 January, 656, Xuánzàng sent a letter to the emperor celebrating the birth of a new prince the month before. He wrote in a letter: "I dare to offer a copy of the Prajñā Heart Sutra in gold letters, one scroll and a case." (輒敢進金字《般若心經》一卷并函 T 2053; 50.272b.12).

We still lack an explanation for the process of the text becoming an "authentic" sutra, although I have identified many of the components of the received myth and shown that they emerge over several decades. There must have been a point when the "fact" that the Heart Sutra was a translation by Xuanzang became established. If we accept Kotyk's thesis (and I am inclined to) then this transition occurred within five years because the Fangshan Stele, which credits Xuanzang as translator, is dated 13 March 661. 

Such considerations are tied up with questions of the historicity of sources. In the same article, Kotyk argued against the uncritical use of Xuanzang's Biography published in 688 CE* as an historical source because it is a hagiography with all that this implies: the religious and political agendas of the author are far from hidden. Unfortunately, when we strip out the magical and mystical elements we do not arrive at a narrative that tallies with the other historical sources (although, of course these also have their biases). In particular, the Biography appears to distort the relationship of Xuanzang and Taizong in ways that are favourable to the Buddhist community but not entirely plausible.

* i.e. Huìlì 慧立 and Yàncóng 彥悰. Da tang da ci'en si sanzang fasha chuan 大唐大慈恩寺三藏法師傳 (Biography of the Tripiṭaka Master [of the] Great Ci’en Monastery [of the] Great Tang), T 2053, 50.

Partly inspired by correspondence with Kotyk, I have also been critical of the use of the hagiography as history (Attwood 2019). By sheer bad luck my article was published before Kotyk (2020) whereas he was finished first and I had read a draft and corresponded with him about it while writing my article. Preceding us both, Max Deeg has been critical of naive readings of the Xuanzang's travelogue, Notes on the Western Regions (西域記 Xīyù jì), composed ca 645 or 646 CE.

More specifically Deeg (2016: 126-8) has pointed to historical inaccuracies in how Xuanzang portrays the Indian king, Harṣavardhana (606 to 647 CE), of the Puṣpabhūti Dynasty (henceforth King Harṣa). Deeg plausibly argues that these inaccuracies appear to be deliberate narrative devices on the part of Xuanzang. He seems to have tried create a sympathetic protagonist for the Tang Emperor Taizong to identify with, so that he might take a moral lesson worked into the story. In this essay, I will extend Deeg's argument: if we accept that Xuanzang took a didactic approach in writing Notes on the Western Regions and gave Avalokiteśvara an educational role, then it is worth reconsidering the unexpected appearance of Avalokiteśvara in the Heart Sutra in this light.

Avalokiteśvara

Name

The bodhisattva first appears in Chinese translations from the 2nd Century CE under a range of names (Nattier 2007). The various Chinese forms reflect two forms of the name in Sanskrit:, i.e. Avalokitasvara and Avalokiteśvara. The two names and the relative chronology were first noticed by Nikolaĭ Dmitrievitch Mironov (1927). The principal Chinese forms are:

• 廅樓亘  (Èlóuxuān). “Sound-Observer”
• 闚音      (Kuīyīn) “Sound-Observer”
• 見音聲  (Jiànyīnshēng) “He Sees Sounds” 
• 光世音  (Guāngshìyīn) “Sounds of the World of Light”
• 觀世音  (Guānshìyīn) “He Observes Sounds of the World”

Èlóuxuān 廅樓亘 might have been an attempt at a transliteration, perhaps of an even more primitive form of the name, i.e. Avaloka-svara. A possibility Nattier did not consider was a Prakrit form of the name: avalokita-svara in Pāḷi would be spelled olokita-sara.  The Gāndhārī form of the name is Ologispara.* 

* The Gāndhāri Dictionary) lists Olo'iśpare as representing Avalokeśvara (i.c. avaloka-īśvara). However, Salomon and Schopen (2002) have cast doubt on this reading of the inscription without being able to clarify what the correct reading should be. It is probably the locale the donor lived in. 

Up to about the 6th Century, Chinese translators were evidently encountering avalokita-svara since the translations all refer to having "observed" (avalokita) a "sound" (svara). This has a flavour of synaesthesia about it and I'm not aware of any convincing explanation of the name that deals with the fact that one does not usually observe sounds, one hears sounds and observes visual phenomena. The "spelling" Guāngshìyīn 光世音 is probably the result of having misheard the name as ābhā-loka-svara "light world sound".

It's sometimes suggested that the name Guānshìyīn 觀世音 was shortened during the Tang to Guānyīn 觀音 after the death of Emperor Taizong (r.  626 to 649), to avoid the wordshì 世 from his personal name 李世民 Lǐ Shìmín. Such taboos were common in China after Emperors died. However, the practice of shortening the name began long before the birth of Lǐ Shìmín. For example, Kumārajīva frequently uses the two character name in his Lotus Sutra translation (T. 262) dated 403 CE. In any case, the taboo usually required a substitution rather than a simple excision. For example, in some expressions 世 shì was substituted with 代 dài (Kroll 2015: 73).

From the 6th Century translations of Bodhiruci onwards, a new form of the name started appearing in which the word svara was replaced with īśvara "Lord, Master". These include Guānshìzìzài 觀世自在 (“Sovereign of the Observed World”), and Xuanzang's translation Guānzìzài 觀自在 (“Sovereign of the Observed”). Since Avalokitasvara absorbed some of the iconography of Śiva around this time it is assumed that he also absorbed one of Śiva's principle epithets, Maheśvara "Great Lord" to become Avalokita-īśvara (a-ī > e). Alexander Studholme includes a detailed discussion of the relationship between Avalokiteśvara in the Kāraṇḍavyūha Sūtra and Śiva Mahēśvara as we meet him in the Purāṇa texts (2002: 37 ff) 

In translating Xuanzang's Travelogue, Samuel Beal explained Xuanzang's choice of characters for the name. Beal correctly back translated 自在 as īśvara, but understood it to mean “self-existent” and interpreted its meaning as “god.” This apparently influenced many later interpretations of the name. In fact Sanskrit īsvara more straightforwardly means "Lord" or "Master" from √īṣ, which is related to the PIE root *aik- "be master of, possess." Cognate words are English "own" (as in possess) and "owe" and German "eigen". In the Chinese Āgama texts, 自在 simply means "master". Reading Chinese Buddhist texts without reference to the Indic sources can lead us astray, even when they are composed in Chinese.

Sanskrit texts and fragments noted by Mironov (1927) confirm that the name starts off as Avalokitasvara and transforms into Avalokiteśvara at some point. This change is more recently documented by Jan Nattier (2007) and Seishi Karashima (2016). It has also been noted by all and sundry that the latter name never caught on in China where the, now female, figure is still principally known as Guānyīn 觀音. The gender-change came much later than the period that interests me. 

What is not much discussed is the kind of compound that the words avalokita-svara and avalokita-īśvara might be. It is important to note that avalokita is a part participle, i.e. "seen, viewed, observed", not "seeing, viewing, or observing"; it comes from a root √lok meaning "look", i.e. it is rooted in the visual sense. The Chinese translation, guān 觀, also means "observe, consider"; the character combines the semantic radical xiàn 見 meaning "see" with a phonetic radical guàn 雚. As far as I can tell, few of the common  English translations correspond to possible grammatical analyses of the compound. The form avalokita-īśvara seems obviously to be a tatpuruṣa, "Lord of the seen [world]" or "Lord with [a compassionate] gaze."

However, avalokita-svara could be any of: "viewed sound" (karmadhāraya), "sound of the seen" (tatpuruṣa), or "whose sound is observed" (bahuvrīhi). None of these particularly makes sense to me, but then none of the traditional explanations follow the rules for interpreting Sanskrit compounds. There are certainly folk etymologies that sound plausible, but if you approach the compound from a purely grammatical point of view, then this name is strange.

One possibility is that the name was not composed in Sanskrit, but in Prakrit. So svara could be a wrong Sanskritisation of a Prakrit word. We know several examples of this (e.g. bodhisatva, sūtra, mahāyāna). We might note for example that Skt svara is Pāli sara "sound, voice". But Pāli sara is also Sanskrit:

• śara "reed, arrow" 
• śara "going" (√sṛ) 
• saras "lake"
• sara "remembering" (√smṛ)

Another root, √śṛ "crush", might also have given rise to sara (but this is not listed in the PTS Dictionary). So Pāli sara could stand for Sanskrit words śara, saras, sara, or svara. And only context can disambiguate them. With a name, the context could easily remain ambiguous. For example avalokitaśara "the one whose going is observed" is not entirely stupid as a name. The same root also gives us P. saraṇa "refuge" as in saraṇagamana "going for refuge", which could give the name a Buddhist flavour. I'm not saying this is the answer, but I am saying that answers we do have don't make much sense and this might be a way to seek a better explanation.

Roles

Nattier (2007) further summarises the roles that Guanyin tends to play in these early Mahāyāna texts:

1. A passive audience member. The name Guanyin crops up in lists of those present when doctrines are preached. 
2. As Èlóuxuān, the bodhisatva becomes an object of devotion. This is unusual because usually texts admonish us to become bodhisatvas, not the worship them. Paul Harrison has suggested that this role may be a Chinese invention. 
3. Receives a prophecy to Buddhahood.
4. Successor to Amitābha.

His first significant appearance is the Larger Sukhāvativyūha Sūtra. He was popularised in the translations of Dharmarakṣa, especially the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra. In none of these texts does Guanyin play the active role of teacher. In other words, what should surprise us about the appearance of Guanyin in the Heart Sutra is not that its a so-called wisdom text, since that compassion/wisdom distinction is anachronistic in relation to bodhisatvas at that time.  Of course, Guanyin is associated with compassion in the sūtras but not exclusively. For example, Kuījī describes him as "possesses wisdom and compassion, universally practices kindness, perpetuates pure lands, and rescues the defiled worlds" (Heng-Ching and Lusthaus 2001: 15. Translating 有具悲智遍行慈愍。紹隆淨剎府救穢方。T. 1710; 33.524c.10).

Before moving on I should say that Kuījī expresses no surprise at finding Guanyin in this text.  He tackles the name in his commentary as though it is just another set of characters. Woncheuk does spend some time establishing that Guanyin is fully enlightened, so we might infer that he uncomfortable about the absence of the Buddha. He notes "There is no introduction or conclusion in this [sūtra]. Since [this text] selects the essential outlines from all the Prajñāpāramitā-sūtras, it has only the main chapter, without introduction and conclusion, just as the Kuan-yin ching (Avalokiteśvara-sūtra) is not composed of three sections." (Choo 2006: 138)

The idea that Guanyin's presence is unexpected may be partly due to expectations that grew up later, perhaps as a result the tantric practice of dividing deities up into demarcated "families". What ought to stand out is the fact that Avalokiteśvara is giving instruction, using words that—in the Large Sutra—were put into the mouth of the Buddha. However, there is a text in which Avalokiteśvara does have such a role and that is Xuanzang's Notes on the Western Regions (西域記 Xīyù jì). Before we turn to this text, we need to consider some generalities about the politics of early medieval China.

The Politics of Buddhism in China

Politics is an important aspect of the historiography of Buddhism in China, especially in Tang China. In order to flourish, in the ancient world, any religion has to negotiate a relationship with state power. There is no right of free of religion, though the Chinese were often tolerant of heterodoxy at this time. This relationship with the state has political, economic, and social dimensions. We may say that, in the ancient world, Buddhism flourishes because of these relations with governments and rulers, if only because monks are economically unproductive and supporting large numbers of them requires surplus wealth. A small community may produce surplus food to feed an extra person or two. But the building of, for example, large monasteries for hundreds of monks to live in one place requires the kind of wealth and resources that usually only states have access to. Rulers expect return on investment, even if that return is an intangible like the promise of a good afterlife. But religion can be a double edged sword, because it comes with obligations, both personal and political. A ruler has to be seen to be pious and to support the institutions of religion. In Tang China, even Taizong gave imperial support to Buddhism though it is clear that he did not like it. 

The dynamic with respect to Buddhism is particularly interesting because of the social structure of Buddhism: the distinction between full-time monks and the devout laity is not absolute. People could move between these two worlds and the monastic sangha was (at least in theory open to anyone). Increasingly, women were excluded from the monastic side Buddhism so that by the Tang women play a marginal role in Buddhist history (with one very notable exception).

The relationship between Buddhist monks and the Chinese state is fascinating because monks are economically unproductive, eschew social norms (especially the Confucian ethos of filial piety), refuse to acknowledge the superiority of the emperor (monks refuse to bow to him), and yet rely on patronage for their existence. Confucians saw Buddhists as deeply immoral for these reasons. While Buddhism did evangelise and attract largesse from the merchant class, it was their appeal to rulers that ensured that Buddhism flourished. This is all the more apparent in the light of periodically anti-Buddhist sentiment and purges such as occurred in China during the Tang. In addition, religious institutions were exempt from paying taxes and so tended to accumulate wealth. Although there are technical restrictions on individual monks from handling money or owning property, in practice Buddhist monasteries in the Tang Capital of Chang'an had incalculable wealth, were involved in usury and commerce, and as a result caused economic imbalances in the Chinese economy. We could see the purges in 845 CE in which the wealth of Buddhist monasteries was appropriated by the state and the scale of Buddhist institutions was drastically reduced (although only briefly) as a rebalancing of the economy. The expansion of Buddhist monasticism is often an economic disaster for the countries in which it happens (more especially where they also capture the reins of governance). 

Those who invest want a good return. In the case of Buddhism, the beneficiaries promise that generosity goes towards good fortune in the present life and a good rebirth for the donor. In a pre-modern world where life and death appear to be entirely a matter of fate, the promise of good fortune and a good rebirth attracted considerable largesse. Buddhists also provided pageantry in the form of large-scale ritual performances. The key to survival in early Medieval China was to have the ruling family on side, and while the Sui Dynasty Emperors had been great supporters of Buddhism, the early Tang Emperors, Gaozu, Taizong, and Gaozong were all indifferent or, in the case of Taizong, hostile, to Buddhism. 

For Xuanzang to be a favourite of the Buddhism-hating emperor, Taizong, then, is a not inconsequential historical fact. In the Biography, Xuanzang is first portrayed as defying the emperor to seek the Dharma in the West, although Kotyk (2019) shows that this defiance may have been invented since the imperial ban on travel was lifted before Xuanzang set out. On his return from the West, Xuanzang is welcomed and feted by the same Emperor (i.e. his defiance has no negative consequences). This is the Buddhist struggle with temporal power in a nutshell. 

We also have to look at the audience for the Biography. Xuanzang's influence as a translator is facet that is often exaggerated. In fact very few works attributed to him were influential except for some of his translations of Yogācāra works for which there were no previous translations. When it came to sūtras, none of Xuanzang's translations displaced those of Kumārajīva from 250 years earlier. The Fǎxiàng 法相 School of Yogācāra Buddhism that he founded lasted only about a century and was never very influential (although Yogācāra per se was very influential). By 688, some 24 years after his death, Xuanzang's lack of influence must have started to be obvious. Yancong's Biography seems to be tuned to giving Xuanzang's remaining followers a boost and perhaps generating some positive PR amongst other Buddhists. It is, however, unlikely that the Biography was widely read outside of Buddhist circles. This circle may or may not have included the Empress Dowager Wu Zhao (her husband Gaozong died in 683 CE) although in 688, Wu Zhao had her hands full suppressing a rebellion by members of the ruling Li family, paving the way to becoming Emperor herself. Wu Zhao was not beyond inducing Buddhist monks to engage in conspiracies to promote the idea of a female emperor. 

Teachable Moments

With this overview, we can now consider the political dimension of Xuanzang's Notes on the Western Regions (西域記 Xīyù jì) and in particular the role played by Guanyin in the story of King Harṣa. Max Deeg (2009, 2012, 2016) has made a considerable contribution to our understanding of the Notes. He highlights and critiques the naive, positivist use of the text, in which everything is taken at face value. He also points out that little or no attempt has been made to position the Notes as one of a genre of Buddhist travelogues (2009: 35-41). In addition, while Xuanzang likely wrote notes for the book, the fincal composition was actually compiled and redacted by Biànjī 辯機. 

Deeg has shown that Xuanzang manipulated his narrative to make it more palatable to Taizong. 

"In the light of Taizong's sensitivity to his own standing, reputation and the impression he would make on future generations, it becomes clear that Xuanzang had to manoeuvre and act quite adroitly to convey the politically and morally critical message directed to his emperor" (Deeg 2016: 98).

As noted above, Deeg (2016) concentrates on King Harṣa. This is partly because Harṣa is quite well documented. We have inscriptions, three plays that are attributed to him, and a biography, Harṣacarita, composed in Sanskrit by Bāṇabhaṭṭa (Bāṇa). So we can directly compare Xuanzang's narrative with the Indian evidence. Deeg argues "that the Indian king is portrayed not as a historical person, but as an idealized Buddhist ruler and—as I have argued elsewhere [Deeg 2009: 51]—as a speculum, or a 'mirror,' held before Taizong." (2016: 100). Xuanzang has two political purposes in the Notes. Firstly to flatter Taizong and secondly to quietly admonish him by presenting kingdoms in Indian in ideal Buddhist terms. And to this end Xuanzang presents Harṣa as relatable, but also as a Buddhist (an ideal Buddhist) king. 

A clearly Buddhist embellishment in Xuanzang’s story is the episode of Avalokiteśvara’s advice to Harṣa to take up the royal or imperial duties without assuming the “lion throne” (shizi zhi zuo 師子之座, Skt. siṃhāsana) and the title “great king” (dawang大王, Skt. mahārāja, or mahārājādhirāja) which does not have any direct correspondence in any of the other sources on Harṣa. (Deeg 2016: 126-7).

In the story of Harṣa, as Xuanzang tells it, the reigning king is killed by a neighbouring kingdom. His son is dead, but his younger brother (Harṣa) is proposed as king instead. This idea is greeted with popular acclaim and the job is offered to Harṣa. However, Harṣa hesitates, protesting that he is hardly qualified and lacks virtue. Something Deeg does not comment on, I think, is that this level of modesty is a Chinese virtue that is not so prominent in India (Compare my discussion of Ajātasattu's meeting with the Buddha. Attwood 2010).

"The public opinion considers (me) suitable (for the throne, but how could forget (my own) shortcomings? Now, at the banks of the river Gaṅgā there is a statue of the bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara, Since it has (already shown) a lot of wonderful signs I wish to go there and ask for advice." (Deeg 2009: 52)

Translating: 物議為宜，敢忘虛薄？今者殑伽河岸，有觀自在菩薩像，既多靈鑒，願往請辭。(T 2087; 51.894.b8-10 ff.)

The Bodhisatva counsels Harṣa to take the job, predicting that because of his previous merit he will be a great king. This is where he advises Harṣa not to assume the “lion throne” (Shīzǐ zhī zuò 師子之座, Skt. siṃhāsana) and the title “great king” (dàwáng 大王, Skt. mahārāja, or mahārājādhirāja). Harṣa takes the throne and eschews the titles, but his first act is to vow vengeance on the neighbours who killed his elder brother. He goes on to conquer them and the rest of India in a sweeping military conquest. 

In his presentation of this material, Xuanzang is at pains to make Harṣa recognizable to Taizong, to make Harṣa a "mirror" for Taizong to see himself.

"The intention in the context of the [Notes] is clear: both rulers are lauded because of their pacification of the realm, the construction of stūpas and monasteries (vihāra), and the convocation of donation parties. This was certainly meant as a propagandistic and 'pedagogical' hint directed to the address of the emperor Taizong..." (Deeg 2009: 57)

Deeg (2016) returns to the Notes and draws out further reasons to think that this is so. For example, he draws parallels between Xuanzang's Harṣa narrative and the facts of how Taizong gained the throne, i.e. by murdering his brothers and the heir apparent, and forcing his father to Abdicate (2016: 125). Deeg notes that there was an ongoing power struggle between Taizong and his chief ministers over who would succeed him. In the end it was Li Zhi , his 9th son, who became Emperor Gaozong in 649 CE. Court factionalism raged on until 655 CE, when Wu Zhao became Empress Consort and decisively brought the still powerful Yang family in on the side of Gaozong (see for example the account in Eisenberg 2012).

In Xuanzang's narrative, Harṣa's older brother is killed and his taking the throne is encouraged by Avalokiteśvara. Taizong had murdered his own brother to take the throne. Deeg seems to argue that Xuanzang is offering Taizong a justification for his fratricide in the form of adopting Buddhist ideals of rulership. But this is achieved indirectly and Taizong is left to draw his own conclusions. Deeg speculates that Taizong might have felt reluctance to assume the throne given his means of ascension. I find this aspect of his account less plausible. A man who murders his brother and forces is father to retire does not seem the type to then have doubts. Taizong is, above all, decisive. However, as Deeg points out (2016: 128) the Harṣacarita does portray Harṣa as reluctant to assume the throne, so perhaps the comparison was intended to flatter Taizong (the man with no doubts). The other parallel between the two rulers is that Harṣa goes on to conquer all of India unifying it under his rule. This was ever the ideal for a Chinese emperor and something that Taizong was quite successful at.

"I think that the narrative of Harṣa's royal lineage and ascension to the throne is directed towards the ruling emperor Taizong—and maybe also towards the ambitious crown prince, and later emperor, Gaozong—as a reminder of the pious and correct behavior of an ideal ruler" (Deeg: 2016: 125).

Although Gaozong is mentioned in passing, and is not prominent in Deeg's articles, it is worth considering that Gaozong was part of the intended audience of the Notes.


Īśvara

Indian records show that Harṣa was not a Buddhist, he was a devotee of the benevolent forms of Śiva, particularly Maheśvara or Paramameśvara. Deeg suggests that if there were an historical event behind the story, that Maheśvara could mutatis mutandis become Avalokiteśvara for Xuanzang's purposes. Especially in Xuanzang's Chinese where the names are Dàzìzài 大自在 and Guānzìzài 觀自在 respectively (128). It is not that Buddhism was entirely foreign to Harṣa, Buddhists were a major presence in India at the time. The Harṣacarita, authored by "stern Śaiva" Bāṇabhaṭṭa, used Buddhist elements in his description of the king. 

For my purposes, what is significant is not simply that Xuanzang has altered the story to serve a political purpose, so much as that he has Avalokiteśvara step outside his role of saviour and protector to become a political advisor. One whose advice led to the annihilation of Harṣa's enemies (who had killed his brother) but which also led to a massive subcontinent spanning war of conquest. The model here, of course is Asoka. The key difference is that Asoka became a Buddhist only after being repulsed by his bloody wars of conquest. Asoka renounced violence to become the ideal Buddhist king, whereas Harṣa embraces violence on the advice of Avalokiteśvara. Taizong was also involved in pacifying remaining pockets of rebellion in the newly reforged Chinese Empire, but was also actively extending the boundaries. 

Summary and Conclusion

Max Deeg has argued that we need to be aware of the political and didactic elements in Xuanzang's Notes on the Western Regions (Xīyù jì 西域記). Focussing on the events that Xuanzang links to the historical figure of King Harṣa, we can see from Indian sources that this story has been changed (by Xuanzang) in ways that can be interpreted as manipulation for political ends. The story has been recast so as to reflect Chinese values. It makes flattering comparisons between Harṣa and Taizong, but reflects Xuanzang's views on ideal governance and regal deportment. Xuanzang is a Buddhist while Taizong is rather unsympathetic to Buddhism. Xuanzang therefore uses the medium of an historical morality take, based on a real story, to get his message across. In this cause, Śaivite Harṣa becomes a Buddhist who consults and receives political advice from Avalokiteśvara, the bodhisatva of compassion. This advice is apparently calculated to resonate with Taizong and to justify his wars of conquest. Xuanzang cannot come right out and chastise Taizong for usurping the throne, but he can show Taizong a way to atone for his usurpation by being a "good" emperor on Xuanzang's terms. This is a rather bold project on Xuanzang's part, but since no one in China at that time had the ability to fact-check his account, it was taken at face value.  It is only now that we can compare the Indian accounts and see the discrepancies.

The Biography by Huìlì 慧立 and Yàncóng 彥悰 portrays Taizong undergoing a deathbed conversion to Buddhism under the skilful guidance of Xuanzang. This is a kind of apotheosis for Taizong, since in embracing Buddhism he becomes in his last few days exactly the ideal ruler that Xuanzang had wanted. It is also the ultimate vindication of Buddhism to bring around the notoriously hostile emperor. However, again, the non-Buddhist Chinese historical sources make it very unlikely that Taizong did convert to Buddhism and few historians accept this account as factual. There is no supporting evidence from non-Buddhist (non-hagiographical) sources and it seems rather too convenient.

Avalokiteśvara is the bodhisatva par excellence in 7th Century China. Maitreya and Manjuśrī are also important but Avalokiteśvara's role in the Lotus Sutra and the Guanyin Sutra make him the most prominent "bodhisatva" in that context. And this alone could explain Xuanzang's use of Avalokiteśvara in the Heart Sutra. However, he had to have known that the words he copied from the Large Sutra were mostly from the mouth of the Buddha and that the principal protagonists of the Prajñāpāramitā were the Buddha, Subhūti, Śāriputra, and Śakra, Lord of the Gods; not bodhisatvas. The instruction in the Large Sutra begins with the Buddha speaking to Śāriputra, although in the Small Sutra the Buddha asks Subhūti to instruct the bodhisatvas in Prajñāpāramitā. 

If Deeg's conjectures about Xuanzang's relations with Taizong and his attempts to create teachable moments in the Notes are right, then the unexpected appearance of Avalokiteśvara might be explained by his role in Xuanzang's narrative of Harṣa. While the Heart Sutra is more or less what it appears to be—i.e. a short summary of Prajñāpāramitā doctrine—and lacks the obvious political overtones of the Notes, the mere reference to Avalokiteśvara could be enough to invoke that earlier narrative for Gaozong and Wu Zhao. Gaozong took the throne more conventionally than his father, although in a parallel to Harṣa, only after his two older brothers had been eliminated (although in this case they but Wu Zhao (if any story about her can be believed) may well have emulated Taizong in murdering rivals for her position and purging the opposition once she gained power.

It's worth emphasising this last point since it is seldom even mentioned: Wu Zhao was not some kind of psychopathic anomaly. She has to be seen in the context of Taizong's murder of his brothers and competitors, his ruthless suppression of opposition, and relentless wars of conquest. Both unexpectedly rose to high office. Both murdered those who stood in their way. Both were astute leaders and politicians.

Kotyk has proposed that Xuanzang composed the Heart Sutra ca February 656 CE as a gift for the birth of Wu Zhao's son, Lǐ Xián 李賢 (29 January 655 – 13 March 684) who would later go on to be Crown Prince. Around the same time, Lǐ Hóng 李弘 (652 – 25 May 675) was made Crown Prince, an event that also gave rise to the founding of Ximing and Jing'ai monasteries (in Chang'an and Luoyang respectively) and to projects to copy the entire Tripiṭaka and to catalogue all Buddhist texts in each city (which bore fruit in 664 and 666 CE respectively).

Xuanzang had to be very careful in expressing his criticism of Taizong. Wu Zhao was already a Buddhist and perhaps more likely target of the gift of a new condensed sutra which emphasised the ephemeral nature of experience than Gaozong. Perhaps Xuanzang felt less comfortable expressing criticism, but still managed to create a pointer back to the Notes by unexpectedly placing Guanyin where he was least expected. The gift of the sutra happened at a time when Wu Zhao had eliminated the most vehement opposition and cemented her grip on power. This did not end the factionalism that had begun during the reign of Taizong, but it was a decisive moment in bringing it to an end. Perhaps in retrospect the naming of Li Hong as Crown Prince is more significant than the birth of Li Xian.

I'm aware that the conclusion here is tenuous. As I revise the received tradition of the Heart Sutra I have to gently remove the layers of accreted myth and legend. What remains is fragmented and partial. It is not yet possible to clearly the shape of it. What is needed is for a qualified, preferably young, Sinologist to take up the enquiry and see what else may be discerned in the Chinese sources by someone with an open mind. As an enthusiastic amateur, who started this adventure far too late in life, I can only go so far with this. There are many questions about the Heart Sutra still to be answered, but we tend not to answer a question before it is asked. If I can contribute anything it is to show that there are open questions.

~~oOo~~

Bibliography

Attwood, J. (2010). "Did King Ajātasattu Confess to the Buddha, and did the Buddha Forgive Him?" Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 15, 279-307.

Deeg, Max . (2009). ‘Writing for the Emperor. Xuanzang between Piety, Religious Propaganda, Intelligence and Modern Imagination’, In Straube, Martin, et al. (eds), Pāsādikadānam. Festschrift für Bhikkhu Pāsādika. Marburg: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 32–60 (Indica et Tibetica 52).

Deeg, Max. (2012) “‘Show Me the Land Where the Buddha Dwelled …’—Xuanzang’s ‘Record of the Western Regions’ (Xiyu ji): A Misunderstood Text?,” China Report 48 (2012): 89–113.

Deeg, Max (2016). 'The political position of Xuanzang: the didactic creation of an Indian dynasty in the Xiyu ji.' In: Juelch, Thomas ed. The Middle Kingdom and the Dharma Wheel: Aspects of the Relationship between the Buddhist Saṃgha and the State in Chinese History, Vol. 1. (Sinica Leidensia, vol. 133). Leiden, Boston: Brill, pp. 94-139.

Eisenberg, Andrew. (2012) 'Emperor Gaozong, the Rise of Wu Zetian, and factional politics in the Early Tang.' Tang Studies 30, 45-69.

Karashima, Seishi. (2016) “On Avalokitasvara and Avalokiteśvara”, in Annual Report of The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University (ARIRIAB), vol. 20 (2017): 139-165.

Kroll, Paul W. (2015). A Student's Dictionary of Classical and Medieval Chinese. Brill.

Mironov, N. D. (1927). 'Buddhist Miscellanea'. The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. 2 (Apr., 1927): 241-279.

Nattier, Jan. (2007) ‘Avalokiteśvara in Early Chinese Buddhist Translations: A Preliminary Survey.’ In Magee, W and Huang, Y.H. (Eds). Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara (Guanyin) and Modern Society. Proceedings of the Fifth Chung-Hwa International Conference on Buddhism, 2006: 191-212. Taiwan: Dharma Drum Publishing.

Salomon, R. and Schopen, G. (2002) 'On an Alleged Reference to Amitābha in a Kharoṣṭhī Inscription on a Gandhārian Relief.' Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies. 25(1-2): 3-31.