Notes on T255

Taishō text No. 255 is a version of the extended Heart Sutra. It is not found in the ancient catalogues. The Taishō editors noted: Dùnhuáng shí shì běn 燉煌石室本 i.e. "based on a manuscript from Dunhuang" meaning it was unknown before the 20th century. T 255 is attributed by Taishō to Fǎchéng 法成, in 856 CE. In turn Fǎchéng has been identified with the Tibetan translator Chos grub (pronounced like Chodrup; fl. early 9th century).

In perusing the literature of the Heart Sutra, one often encounters the assertion that T255 was translated from Tibetan. This claim is usually unattributed, however I recently noticed that Channa Li (2021: 13, n.19) attributes the claim to the Japanese scholar Ueyama Daishun 上山大峻 (1934 - 2022). Li references Ueyama (1968, 1990) and notes that two texts, including T255, "were presumed by Ueyama to be possibly translated from Tibetan, which should be verified by more concrete studies." Li (2024: 24) adds:

Ueyama claims that this version may have been translated from the Tibetan version of the longer version of the Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya [Heart Sūtra]. However, he does not elaborate on the concrete evidence.

Li ultimately leaves the question open, but notes (2024: 25):

One piece of supporting evidence lies in Chödrup’s translation of the term mingliao (明了, literally meaning ‘illumination’), which was more likely translated directly from the Tibetan term snang ba (‘illumination,’appearance’) than from Sanskrit avabhāsa (‘appearance’).

What follows are my edited notes of my attempt at a more concrete study. Since this post is long, I should warn readers up front that, in the end, there is only one example of such a difference, and it is countered by one which seems to point to a Sanskrit original. But neither is entirely unequivocal. So the end result of this study is no result. I cannot see anything in T255 that forces me to conclude it was translated from Tibetan. It's entirely possible that someone with a better eye and more language skills will find an example, however (a) no one else seems interested in carrying out these kinds of detailed studies, so don't hold your breath, and (b) if there is an example, it's likely to be a very subtle thing and, thus, ambiguous. If you are only interested in the conclusion, you can stop now. If you are interested in the process, please read on.

At the outset we need some idea of how we could tell if a Chinese text was translated from Tibetan or Sanskrit. How could tell, for example, if an expression such as 明了 is better attributed to a Tibetan or Sanskrit source. My basic method is to do a close reading of the four texts outlined below, looking for two things:

1. An expression found in T255, but not found in T253.
2. A lexical or grammatical mismatch between the Sanskrit and Tibetan texts that explains the difference between T255 and T253.

SOURCES

I will mainly compare four texts:

• T 253, as representative of the Chinese extended text.*
• T 255.
• The canonical Tibetan extended Heart Sutra, especially as reflected in Silk's (1994) Recension A (hereafter TibA).
• The extended Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya in Conze's edition (taking into account my published corrections: Attwood 2024).

* T252 is also extended, but has added a very different introduction and conclusion. T254 is merely a lightly edited version of T253. T257 was only translated ca 1000 CE.

For convenience, I will use Silk's divisions of the text into paragraphs, focussing on paragraphs D-W, i.e. ignoring the preliminaries, the title, and any colophons, and focusing only on the text of the Heart Sutra per se. I parsed the Tibetan with help from the Tibetan and Himalayan Library translation tool in conjunction with Silk's (1994) texts and translations.

Li notes that T255 is more like Silk's TibA, however we cannot assume that Chos grub had the canonical Tibetan text to hand, if indeed he did translate from Tibetan.

Something to keep in mind is that all the extended Heart Sutra texts, including the odd ones like T252, largely reproduce the standard text where possible (with only minor variations). In other words, the middle part of the extended text follows the standard text in Chinese, Sanskrit, and Tibetan. I'm not sure that this amounts to anything more than being a curious fact.

So now let's dive into a close reading, noting variants. I use colour coding for comparative purposes. I haven't been very consistent in doing this.

COMPARISON

Paragraph D

• 253: 如是我聞：一時佛 在王舍城 耆闍崛山中，與大比丘眾及菩薩眾俱。時佛世尊即入三昧，名廣大甚深。
• 255: 如是我聞：一時薄伽梵住王舍城鷲峯山中，與大苾蒭眾及諸菩薩摩訶薩俱。爾時，世尊等入甚深明了三摩地法之異門。
• TibA. 'di skad bdag gis thos pa dus gcig na / bcom ldan 'das rgyal po'i khab bya rgod phung po'i ri la dge slong gi dge 'dun chen po dang / byang chub sems dpa'i dge 'dun chen po dang thabs gcig tu bzhugs te / de'i tshe bcom ldan 'das zab mo snang ba zhes bya ba chos kyi rnam grangs kyi ting nge 'dzin la snyoms par zhugs so //
• Skt. evaṃ mayā śrutam | ekasmin samaye bhagavān rājagṛhe viharati sma gṛdhrakūṭe parvate mahatā bhikṣusaṃghena sārdhaṃ mahatā ca bodhisattvasaṃghena | tena khalu samayena bhagavān gambhīrāvabhāsaṃ nāma dharmaparyāyaṃ bhāṣitvā samādhiṃ samāpannaḥ.
• Thus have I heard. One time the Bhagavan was dwelling on Vulture's Peak in Rājagṛha, together with a large assembly of bhikṣu-s and a large assembly of bodhisatvas. At that time, the Bhagavan entered a samādhi named "appearance of the profound".

Notes:

• T253 fó 佛 "Buddha" versus T255 bógāfàn 薄伽梵 “Bhagavān”
• zài 在 "at" vs zhù 住 "residing" (= viharati sma). Very similar characters, easily mistaken.
• Different spellings of Gṛdhakūṭa 耆闍崛山 vs 鷲峯山
• T253 sānmèi 三昧; T255 sānmódì 三摩地 = Skt samādhi. Tib ting nge 'dzin.
• T255 adds 明了 “clear” = snang ba and 法之異門 “distinct mode”

Both T253 and T255 refer to a great assembly 大 ... 眾 (mahatā ... -saṇghena) of bhikṣu-s 比丘, but drop "great" for the assembly of bodhisatvas. T253 has plain "bodhisatva-assembly" 菩薩眾, but T255 has bodhisatva-mahāsatva. Neither Tibetan nor Sanskrit have mahāsatva here though both have it elsewhere in the text. Conze notes no variants with mahāsatva here and I'm not aware of any.

Silk (1994: 172) "...the Blessed One was entered into the concentration of the Preaching of the Dharma called "profound illumination". However, on gambhīra-avabhāsa, compare Han (2020: 398):

In the same way, as many as there are the appearance of thoughts, the appearance of forms (rūpāvabhāsa), or the appearance of sounds (śabdāvabhāsa), all those reflect in a single appearance of the bodhisatva who maintains the ocean-seal samādhi, thus it is called the ocean-seal samādhi.

Also note the following Pāli passage from the Mahānidāna Sutta (DN 15)

Gambhīro cāyaṃ, ānanda, paṭiccasamuppādo gambhīrāvabhāso ca. (DN II 55)

Ānanda, this dependent arising is profound and appears profound.

Also:

Siyā nu kho, bhante, esevattho vitthārena vuccamāno gambhīro ceva assa gambhīrāvabhāso cā’’ti? (SN 12.24)

Gambhīro cāyaṁ, ānanda, paṭiccasamuppādo gambhīrāvabhāso ca. (SN 12.60)

Note that in Aṣṭa no bodhisatvas are identified as being present. Also bodhisatvas are discussed in the abstract, no one is ever directly addressed as, or referred to as being, "a bodhisatva".

明了

Since Li (2024) identified 明了 as a possible indicator of Chodrup having a Tibetan source text lets examine this closely, beginning by parsing each version of the passage separately so we can compare them.

253: 時 / 佛世尊 / 即 / 入 / 三昧 / 名/ 廣大甚深。
At that time / tathāgata / then / entered / a samādhi / named / vast and very profound

Where 廣大甚深 is 廣大 "broad vast" and 甚 "very" 深 "deep"

255: 爾時 / 世尊 / 等入 / 甚深 / 明了 / 三摩地 / 法之異門。
At that time / bhagavan / fully entered / a very deep / lucid / samādhi / dharma teaching.

TibA: de'i tshe / bcom ldan 'das / zab mo snang ba / zhes bya ba / chos kyi rnam grangs / kyi / ting nge 'dzin / la / snyoms par zhugs so.
At that time / Bhagavan / Profound Illumination / named / dharmaparyāya / (of) / samādhi / (into) / entered

Note that in TibB, the phrase chos kyi rnam grangs is transposed into the phrase zab mo snang ba giving zab mo chos kyi rnam grangs snang ba, substantially changing the meaning of this passage. Although Silk does not discuss this problem, see the different translations (Silk 1994: 172-173)

Skt: tena khalu samayena bhagavān gambhīrāvabhāsaṃ nāma dharmaparyāyaṃ bhāṣitvā samādhiṃ samāpannaḥ.
At that time / the Bhagavan / profound appearance / named / dharma teaching / having spoken / samādhi / entered.

So the terms we are discussing are

• Chinese: shèn shēn míng liǎo 甚深明了 "very deep and lucid"
• Sanskrit: gambhīrāvabhāsa "profound appearance"
• Tibetan: zab mo snang ba = gambhīra-avabhāsa

(Note: Hopkins Dictionary s.v. snang ba "appear; perceive; light; illuminate; appearance; illumination")

As far as I can see 明了 in T255 suggests someone has misread avabhāsa due to the etymological fallacy. Semantically, the root is √bhā "shine" but pragmatically, the prefix ava- changes the sense to "appear". Compare this with lokayati "look" and avalokayati "examine" (not, as Conze mistakenly asserts, "looks down"). The standardised Tibetan translation of avabhāsa is snang ba. The ambiguity between the semantic "shine" and pragmatic "appear" senses occurs in both Sanskrit and Tibetan. So this does not seem to be diagnostic as Li (2024) suggested. As far as I can see.

Paragraph E

This para mirrors the standard text, in the sense that it shows Guanyin in his characteristic role (in this context), i.e. observing the skandhas.

• T253: 爾時眾中有菩薩摩訶薩，名觀自在，行深般若波羅蜜多時，照見五蘊皆空，離諸苦厄。
• T255: 復於爾時，觀自在菩薩摩訶薩行深般若波羅蜜多時，觀察照見五蘊體性悉皆是空。
• Skt: tena ca samayena āryāvalokiteśvaro bodhisattvo mahāsattvo gambhīrāyāṃ prajñāpāramitāyāṃ caryāṃ caramāṇaḥ evaṃ vyavalokayati sma pañca skandhāṃs tāṃś ca svabhāvaśūnyaṃ vyavalokayati.
• TibA: yang de'i tshe byang chub sems dpa' sems dpa' chen po 'phags pa spyan ras gzigs dbang phyug shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa zab mo spyod pa nyid la rnam par blta zhing / phung po lnga po de dag la yang rang bzhin gyis stong par rnam par blta'o //

Here Guanyin is practising the practice of profound perfection of prajñā. He observes (vyavalokayati sma) the five skandhas. However, the text goes awry after this, at least in Sanskrit and Tibetan.

In English, Sanskrit, and Tibetan we divide visual actions into looking and seeing, which are analogous to seeking and finding. In the standard Sanskrit text, the two verbs are both in the periphrastic past (a third person singular present indicative verb with the periphrastic particle sma): vayavalokayati sma "he observed" and paśyati sma "he saw". These are derived from the roots vyava√lok and √paś respectively. In Tibetan, we might expect to contrast blta "looking" with mthong "seeing". The latter occurs for example, in TibB, para I.

In the Sanskrit and Tibetan texts, where we expect the second verb to mean "seeing", we find a repetition of vyavalokayati "observing" but without sma and thus in the present tense. So instead of "he observed" and "he saw", we have "he observed" (past) and "he observes, he is observing" (present tense).

This is a previously unnoticed grammatical error called a constructional mismatch. What we expect, per the standard text is a combination of vyava√lok and √paś in the same person, number, tense, mood, etc.

However, since the error occurs in both Sanskrit and Tibetan, this uncorrected error is not diagnostic for our purposes. Moreover, we cannot tell whether the mistake occurred in composition or copying. However since it occurs in both Sanskrit and Tibetan, we can infer that the canonical Tibetan text was translated from an already defective Sanskrit text.

Paragraphs F and H

In Para F, TibB spells Śāriputra as shā ra dwā ti'i bu, i.e. Śāradvātiputra. This spelling is also found in TibA in para H.

This spelling is not reflected anywhere in T255, or any other Chinese Heart Sutra text.

Paragraph I

This paragraph is the end of the extended introduction. As with Para E, something goes wrong here.

In T251 the sentence has four clauses: (1) Guanyin practiced (行) Prajñāpāramitā; (2) he observed (照見) the five skandhas, and (3) [saw] they are absent; (4) and [as a result] he transcended (度) suffering. The verb for "see" is omitted (and generally no one notices this). The Sanskrit standard text only has three clauses, with (4) being omitted in all known witnesses; with the three verbs being (1) caramāṇo*, (2) vyavalokayati sma, and (3) paśyati sma.

* Actually a present participle, used to indicate an action simultaneous with the main verb.

In T251, Guanyin is the agent of all four verbs. In the extended texts, the agent has become the kulaputra/kuladuhitṛ (hereafter kula°), but there is another constructional mismatch.

Compare:

• T253: 「舍利子！若善男子、善女人行甚深般若波羅蜜多行時，應觀五蘊性空。
• T254: 「若善男子及善女人，欲修行甚深般若波羅蜜多者，彼應如是觀察，五蘊體性皆空。
• Skt: yaḥ kaścic chāriputra kulaputro va kuladuhitā vā asyāṃ gambhīrāyāṃ prajñāpāramitāyāṃ caryāṃ cartukāmas tenaivaṃ vyavalokitavyam pañca skandhāṃs tāṃś ca svabhāvaśūnyān paśyati sma.
• TibA: shā ri'i bu rigs kyi bu 'am rigs kyi bu mo gang la la shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa zab mo spyod pa spyad par 'dod pa des 'di ltar rnam par blta bar bya ste / phung po lnga po de dag kyang rang bzhin gyis stong par rnam par yang dag par rjes su blta'o //
• TibB (2): ... / phung po lnga po de dag ngo bo nyid kyis stong par yang dag par rjes su mthong ba de ltar blta bar bya ste//

In Paragraph G, Śāriputra asks the question, How should a kula° practice (kathaṃ śikṣitavyaṃ)? Since the verbal form here is a future passive participle (or gerundive), we expect the answer to be in the same mode, i.e. "The kulaputra should [do something]."

Para I begins the reply as expected using the same verbal mode, i.e. vyavalokitavya "[the kula°] should observe" , in the same future passive mode. And what they should observe is the five skandhas (a classic Buddhist meditation practice). Having stated this, we have a complete and comprehensible sentence.

However, in Para I, all the extended texts now add some variation on "and he sees them [i.e. the skandhas] as lacking svabhāva".

However, the counterpart "see", uses the periphrastic past paśyati sma "[the kulaputra] saw", when we expect a future tense verb here: i.e. "The kula° should observe the skandhas and they [will see something]." The shift in tense is a constructional mismatch.

While the look/see structure must be explicit in Sanskrit and English (and Tibetan?), it may be implied in Chinese. Hence, in the Chinese versions, we see verbs meaning "look, observe, etc" (i.e. yīngguān* 應觀, guān 觀) but no verb meaning "see". For comparison, T251 has zhàojiàn 照見 "observe, inspect".

* note that yīng 應 is also transcribed yìng in Buddhist contexts, cf. DDB s.v. 應

What Guanyin sees when he looks at the five skandhas (zhàojiàn wǔ yùn 照見五蘊) in T251 is jiē kōng 皆空, literally "all empty" or "everything is absent" (Note: T250 omits jiē 皆). We might not have noticed this without the Sanskrit translations, which have to specify both look and see.

My interpretation of this is that we are describing a samādhi in which dharmas have stopped arising and thus the branches of experience (skandhāḥ) are absent (śūnya). Where absent is an epistemic term meaning "cannot be perceived" or "is not found" and not, as usually assumed, a metaphysical term meaning "does not exist". Treating this an epistemic denial is far less paradoxical and far more interesting.

In the standard text (T251, 250) Guanyin is the agent of both looking and seeing.

Note that where T251 asserts that the skandhas are 皆空, the Sanskrit standard text and all the extended texts append some reference to svabhāva, i.e. T253 性空 "absent-natured" (omitting 皆) and T255 體性皆空. "intrinsic natures are all absent".

Tibetan: rang bzhin gyis "intrinsically" stong par "empty" = Skt svabhāvaśūnyān

I can find no diagnostic differences between Sanskrit and Tibetan in this paragraph.

Paragraph J

This is the famous passage usually translated "form is emptiness..." etc. Silk translates the Tibetan as "Matter is empty", which seems to be an uncharacteristic blunder.

My approach to Prajñāpāramitā sets aside the usual metaphysical overlay. Following the way that Sue Hamilton approached the Pāli suttas, I read the Heart Sutra as concerned with experience rather than reality. That is to say, without any implied reference to Husserl, that the Heart Sutra is making phenomenological points rather than metaphysical points. We can call this the Hamiltonian hermeneutic.

Similarly, the negations that follow (na rūpa etc) reflect the absence of sensory experience following the "cessation of recognition and experience" (saṃjñāvedayitanirodha), which is brought about by yǐwúsuǒdégù 以無所得故. Huifeng (2014) showed that Kumārajīva coined this term to translate anupalambhayogena "by means of the practice of nonapprehension", which refers to withdrawing attention from sense experience using meditative (or, better, self-hypnotic) techniques.

When no sense experience arises, due to nonapprehension one cannot apply ontologies of sense experience such as skandha, dhātu, or āyatana to the resulting absence. An ontology of absence would be an oxymoron.

As I have repeatedly said in my writing: rūpa is to the eye as sound is to the ear. This fundamental observation has to be kept in mind because it tells us that the one thing that rūpa-skandha absolutely cannot be is "matter".

Here, we encounter for the first time a difference that might be diagnostic. The highlighted term occurs in Tibetan but not Sanskrit, and in T255 but not T253.

• T253: 舍利子！色不異空，空不異色。色即是空，空即是色。受、想、行、識亦復如是。
• T255: 色即是空，空即是色。色不異空，空不異色。如是受、想、行、識亦復皆空。
• Skt: rūpaṃ śūnyatā, śūnyataiva rūpam; rūpān na pṛthak śūnyatā, śūnyatāyā na pṛthag rūpam. Evaṃ vedanā-saṃjñā-saṃskāra-vijñānaṃ.
• TibA: gzugs stong pa’o // stong pa nyid kyang gzugs so // gzugs las stong pa nyid gzhan ma yin no // stong pa nyid las kyang gzugs gzhan ma yin no // de bzhin du tshor ba dang / ‘du shes dang / ‘du byed dang / rnam par shes pa rnams stong pa’o //

Having compared rūpa and śūnyatā, T251 summarises for the other skandhas: 受想行識亦復如是, i.e. "Vedanā, saṃjñā, saṃskāra, and vijñāna are the same as this". And T253 follows T251. All of these Chinese texts are consistent with the Sanskrit: evaṃ vedanā-saṃjñā-saṃskāra-vijñānaṃ.

However, T255 phrases this differently:

如是受、想、行、識亦復皆空。i.e. "Similarly, vedanā, saṃjñā, saṃskāra, [and] vijñāna [are] likewise all insubstantial".

The redundant "likewise" is for emphasis. The Tibetan reads:

de bzhin du tshor ba dang / ‘du shes dang / ‘du byed dang / rnam par shes pa rnams stong pa’o //
Likewise, vedanā and saṃjñā and samskāra and vijñāna [are] empty.

The phrase rnams stong pa corresponds to jiē kōng 皆空. There is no expression in the Sanskrit text that corresponds to this. This suggests that the translator may have been working from a Tibetan source similar to TibA (and not similar to TibB which has a major transposition error in this passage).

Paragraph K

There are no significant differences between Sanskrit and Tibetan in this paragraph.

In K, where T253 has zhū fǎ kōng xiàng 諸法空相 "all phenomena are marked with absence". T255 has the synonymous expression yī qiè fǎ kōng xìng 一切法空性. 諸 and 一切 both effectively mean "all". 相 is perhaps the most common translation of lakṣana "characteristic"; while 性 means "nature" (it's used about to translate svabhāva in Para I).

Paragraph L.

Here there is a different in the opening clause:

• 253: 是故空中無色...
• 255: 舍利子！是故爾時空性之中，無色...
• Skt: Tasmāt tarhi śāriputra śūnyatāyāṃ na rūpam...
• TibA: shā ri'i bu de lta bas na stong pa nyid la gzugs med /

T253 does not include the name Śāriputra, T255 does. However, both Skt and TibA include the name.

T253 has 是故 "therefore". T255 has 是故 爾時 "therefore, at that time". However, in this case, T255 follows the Sanskrit and not the Tibetan.

• Skt. Therefore (tasmāt) at that that time (tarhi), in absence (śūnyatāyām) no appearance (na rūpaṃ)
• TibA: de lta bas na (therefore) stong pa nyid la (in absence) gzugs med (no form).

Paragraphs M, N, O

No significant differences.

Paragraph P

• T253: 以無所得故，菩提薩埵依般若波羅蜜多故心無罣礙。無罣礙故，無有恐怖，遠離顛倒夢想，究竟涅槃。
• T255: 是故舍利子！以無所得故，諸菩薩眾依止般若波羅蜜多，心無障礙，無有恐怖，超過顛倒，究竟涅槃
• Tasmāc Chāriputra aprāptitvena bodhisattvānāṃ prajñāpāramitāmāśritya viharati cittāvaraṇaḥ| cittāvaraṇanāstitvādatrasto viparyāsātikrānto niṣṭhanirvāṇaḥ|
• shā ri'i bu de lta bas na byang chub sems dpa' rnams thob pa med pa'i phyir / shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa la brten cing gnas te / sems la sgrib pa med pas skrag pa med de / phyin ci log las shin tu 'das nas mya ngan las 'das pa'i mthar phyin to //

T253 opens with 以無所得故 which Huifeng (2014) identified as Kumārajīva's unique translation of (tacca) anupalambhayogena "(and that) by means of practising non-apprehension", coined for the purpose of translating the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā (Pañc). The term recurs throughout Pañc and T223. As such, we have to see aprāptitvāt as a mistranslation of 以無所得故, based on confusion between 得 (pra√āp) and 所得 (upa√labh), fostered by the previous phrase 無得 "no attainment" (Skt na prāptiḥ). Huifeng also showed that, in Pañc, the final negation is given as "no attainment and no realisation" na prāpti nābhisamayaṃ (followed by examples of each that are omitted from the Heart Sutra). And as such Kumārajīva either mistranslated or had a defective manuscript.

Huifeng noted this term ought to go at the end of Para O, since it qualifies all the negations from L-O. And I confirmed that the term almost always occurs in the sentence or paragraph final position, where it qualified what comes before.

And keep in mind that for this para there is a serious mismatch between Chinese and Sanskrit, with the Sanskrit translation being particularly garbled at this point. This makes comparison difficult if not impossible.

The main difference occurs here:

• T253 心無罣礙, where 罣礙 means “being caught, entangled, impeded from within.”
• T255 心無障礙, where 障礙 means “being blocked, obstructed more generally.” This phrase may be influenced by the Sanskrit term citta-āvaraṇa, which Huifeng (2014) noted is a mistranslation of 心無罣礙. While no exact Sanskrit counter part exists, we can show indirectly that it likely corresponds to na kvacit sajjati "not stuck on anything".

However, there is no corresponding difference in Skt or TibA, since cittāvaraṇaḥ = sems la sgrib pa

Paragraphs R, S, T

No significant differences.

Paragraph U

• T253: 如是說已。即時，世尊從廣大甚深三摩地起，讚觀自在菩薩摩訶薩言：「善哉，善哉！善男子！如是，如是！如汝所說。
• T255: 爾時，世尊從彼定起，告聖者觀自在菩薩摩訶薩曰：「善哉，善哉！善男子！如是，如是！如汝所說。
• Skt: atha khalu bhagavān tasmāt samādher vyutthāya āryāvalokiteśvarasya bodhisattvasya mahāsattvasya sādhukāram adāt. sādhu sādhu kulaputra | evam etat kulaputra, evam etad.
• TibA: de nas bcom ldan 'das ting nge 'dzin de las bzhengs te / byang chub sems dpa' sems dpa' chen po 'phags pa spyan ras gzigs dbang phyug la legs so zhes bya ba byin nas / legs so legs so // rigs kyi bu de de bzhin no //

There is a minor difference between T253 and T255 in the first clause. Both use the construction: 從 "from" …. 起 "arose". T253 repeats the name of the samādhi and uses the same transcription, i.e. 三摩地. However, T255 abbreviates this to 從彼定起 "... arose from that samādhi, this time translating samādhi 定 rather than using the transcription in Para D above.

However, there is no corresponding difference between Skt samādher vyutthāya and Tibetan ting nge 'dzin de las bzhengs te, which both mean "arose from samādhi"

Paragraph V

• T 253: 甚深般若波羅蜜多行，應如是行。如是行時，一切如來皆悉隨喜。
• T 255: 彼當如是修學般若波羅蜜多。一切如來亦當隨喜。
• Skt: gambhīrāyāṃ prajñāpāramitāyāṃ caryāṃ cartavyaṃ yathā tvayā nirdiṣṭam anumodyate sarva-tathāgatair arhadbhiḥ.
• TibA: rigs kyi bu de de bzhin te / ji ltar khyod kyis bstan pa de bzhin du shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa zab mo la spyad par bya ste / de bzhin gshegs pa rnams kyang rjes su yi rang ngo //

rigs kyi bu / de de bzhin te /
kulaputra / in the same way

ji ltar / khyod kyis / bstan pa / de bzhin du / shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa / zab mo la / spyad par bya ste /
just as / by you / was taught / likewise / Prajñāpāramitā / profound / should engage in

de bzhin gshegs pa rnams / kyang rjes su yi rang ngo //
Tathagatas (all) / rejoice //

For reasons that are not clear to me, Silk (1994: 184-185) translates de bzhin gshegs pa as "the Sugatas", rather than the more conventional tathāgata (per the THL translation tool).

The two Chinese texts are obviously quite different here. Apart from the fact that T255 omits the middle two clauses, present in both Skt and Tibetan, the sentence construction is different.

T253: "The practice of the profound Prajñāpāramitā should be practiced this way. When practising this way, all (一切) the tathāgatas entirely (皆悉) rejoice.

T225: Prajñāpāramitā should be (當) cultivated and practiced (修學) in this way (如是) by him (彼).

Neither Chinese text has a parallel to "just as you have taught it" (yathā tvayā nirdiṣṭam) or "worthy" (arhadbhiḥ).

However, the differences here are not diagnostic, since Skt and TibA are more or less same, except that TibA has no parallel arhadbhiḥ either. Arguments from absence are weak. In this case, an omission might occur for any number of reasons, including scribal error.

Paragraph W.

• T253: 爾時世尊說是語已，具壽舍利弗大喜充遍，觀自在菩薩摩訶薩亦大歡喜。時彼眾會天、人、阿修羅、乾闥婆等，聞佛所說，皆大歡喜，信受奉行。
• T255: 時薄伽梵說是語已。具壽舍利子， 聖者觀自在菩薩摩訶薩，一切世間天、人、阿蘇羅、乾闥婆等，聞佛所說，皆大歡喜，信受奉行。
• Skt: Idam avocad bhagavān. āttamanā āyuṣmānc chāriputraḥ āryāvalokiteśvaro bodhisattvo mahāsatvo sā ca sarvāvatī pariṣat sadeva-mānuṣāsura-gandharvaś ca loko bhagavato bhāṣitam abhyanandann iti.
• TibA: bcom ldan 'das kyis de skad ces bka' stsal nas / tshe dang ldan pa shā ri'i bu dang / byang chub sems dpa' sems dpa' chen po 'phags pa spyan ras gzigs dbang phyug dang / thams cad dang ldan pa'i 'khor de dag dang / lha dang / mi dang / lha ma yin dang / dri zar bcas pa'i 'jig rten yi rangs te / bcom ldan 'das kyis gsungs pa la mngon par bstod do //

Note that here the punctuation added to the Chinese by CBETA is inconsistent. And there is a slight difference in the construction, with T253 has Guanyin and Śāriputra rejoicing individually, before everyone else, while T255 has everyone rejoicing at the same time.

Otherwise, there are no significant differences.

Conclusion

Given that every manuscript copy of the Heart Sutra is different, when we compare any two versions of the text, we expect to find differences. Moreover, we also expect different translators to use different expressions for the same passage. And indeed, there are many such differences between T253 and T255.

The goal was to identify distinctive features of T255 that could be explained by a similar distinction in the Tibetan texts, and absent from Sanskrit. To achieve this goal, I carefully parsed each of the four texts, one sentence at a time, looking at lexicon, syntax, and grammar.

I did note two previously unreported instances of construction mismatch, i.e. cases of sentences where the verb unexpected changes tense or mood. These occur in Para's E and I. This is further evidence that the extended text was also a Chinese production. I've already noted that the extended text exists in two distinct recensions: T252 and the rest. Ben Nourse's unpublished conference presentation makes it seem likely to me that the extended texts were composed in or around Dunhuang.

I found only one example of a significant difference in which T255 followed Tibetan rather than Sanskrit. In Paragraph J, T253 and the Sanskrit text both follow T251 in concluding the discussion of appearance and absence by noting that the other skandhas are the same.

• T251: 受想行識亦復如是
• Sanskrit: evaṃ vedanā-saṃjñā-saṃskāra-vijñānaṃ.

T255 alone adds "and likewise all are absent" 亦復皆空

The Tibetan, in both TibA and TibB (Silk 1994: 120-121) also adds a similar qualification:

de bzhin du tshor ba dang / ‘du shes dang / ‘du byed dang / rnam par shes pa rnams stong pa’o //< br/> Likewise, vedanā and saṃjñā and saṃskāra and vijñāna [are] empty.

And contrarily, we find one example that appears to point the other way in Paragraph L:

• T253: 是故... "Therefore".
• T255 是故 爾時... "Therefore, at that time".
• Skt. tasmāt tarhi... "Therefore at that that time."
• TibA: de lta bas na... "Therefore..."

Unfortunately, while this exercise took many hours, there are no unequivocal examples that force us to adopt Ueyama's conclusion that Chos grub translated T255 from Tibetan. While I don't rule out someone else finding such evidence, I cannot find any. This result doesn't disprove the assertion by Ueyama. What it does is call into doubt the rationale for making the assertion in the first place. There seems to be no reason to believe that Chos grub was working from Tibetan, and thus no reason to assert this as a possibility.

~~Φ~~

Bibliography

Attwood Jayarava (2024). "Revised Editions of the Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya and Bānrěbōluómìduō xīn jīng «般若波羅蜜多心經»." Asian Literature and Translation. 11(1). 52-92.

Han, Jaehee. 2020. The Sky as a Mahāyāna Symbol of Emptiness and Generous Fullness: A Study and Translation of the Gaganagañjaparipṛcchā. Volume 2: Edition and Translation. Dissertation for Dr Philos, University of Oslo.

Li, Channa. 2022. "Toward A Typology of Chödrup’s (Tib. Chos Grub, Chin. Facheng 法成) Cursive Handwriting: A Palaeographical Perspective." BuddhistRoad Paper 1.2. Ruhr Universität Bochum.

Li, Channa. 2024. “Toward a History of Chödrup’s (fl. First Half of 9th C., Tib. Chos grub, Chin, Facheng 法成)Monastic Activities: An Introduction and a Working Chronology.” BuddhistRoad Paper 1.3. Ruhr Universität Bochum.

Ueyama Daishūn上山大峻. 1968. “大蕃國大徳三藏法師沙門法成の研究(下). 東方學報 39: 119–222. [Daibankoku daitoku sanzōhōshi shamonhōjō no kenkyū (ge) .” [Tōhō gakuhō Studies on the Great Monk of Tufan Empire, Tripiṭakācārya, Śramaṇa ChödrupJournal of Oriental Studies, Kyoto]

Ueyama Daishūn 上山大峻. 1990. 敦煌仏教の研究 [Tonkō bukkyō no kenkyū Studies on Dunhuang Buddhism]. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, .

Minor Figures: Prajñā.

Bānrě 般若 or Prajñā, was a Buddhist monk from India who travelled to China and translated Buddhist texts. Prajñā was credited with the translation of Bānrě bōluómìduō xīn jīng «般若波羅蜜多心經» (T 253), though as we saw in the essay on Lìyán 利言, Chinese records show that Prajñā could not communicate in Chinese.

The following comments are my notes based on the biographical sketch of Bānrě 般若 or Prajñā found in the Zhēnyuán xīn dìng shìjiào mùlù «貞元新定釋教目錄» (T2157: 55.891a-), a catalogue of Buddhist texts in Chinese translation, compiled ca 800 CE by Yuánzhào 圓照. I draw additional material from Siu Sai-Yau's 蕭世友 PhD thesis (2019) and his recent book (2024). I'm processing this information for inclusion in my book.

My Thanks to Siu Sai-Yau for pointing me to this passage and for making his (2024) book open access. Bānrě 般若 is important to my work because he is credited with translating the Bānrě bōluómìduō xīn jīng «般若波羅蜜多心經» (T 253), along with Lìyán 利言 and others. 

Prajñā travelled to China by the southern sea route.

Upon learning that Mañjuśrī Bodhisattva was preaching in the Central Plains, Prajña resolved to visit China and propagate Buddhism. Carrying the original Sanskrit scriptures, he arrived in Guangzhou, during the early years of Emperor Dezong’s Jianzhong 建中 period (780–783) via the sea route. From there, he made his way to the capital. Upon the onset of the Zhenyuan 貞元 period, Prajña took up residence at the home of his relative, Luo Haoxin 羅好心, who held the position of a commander in the forbidden army, and patiently awaited an opportunity to commence his scripture translation endeavors. (Siu 2024: 61)

Introducing himself to the Emperor Táng Dézōng 唐德宗 (779 – 805 CE), Bānrě 般若 says:

I humbly state that I was born in Kapiśa. At fourteen, I left my homeland and travelled south to India, where I heard teachings I had not understood before. For over twenty years, I made pilgrimages to the sacred sites, including the Twin Trees and the Eight Stūpas. Having studied the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, I vowed to repay the four kindnesses. From afar, I have long admired China, often wishing to present offerings to the court but lacking the means. Recently, through my cousin Luó Hǎoxīn 羅好心, a tenth-rank officer of the Right Divine Strategy Army and Prince of Xīnpíng, who serves in the Imperial Guard, I was able to submit my petition and have it heard by Your Majesty. This is indeed my great fortune. (T 2157: 55.893a7-11)

The imperial response to Bānrě was positive:

On Zhēnyuán 貞元 6.7.25 [i.e. 25 August 790 CE], an imperial edict granted the honorary title Tripiṭaka and a purple kāṣāya robe. An edict was also issued for the Kingdom of Kapiśa to present a Sanskrit copy of the Liù Pāramì Jīng «六波羅蜜經» *Ṣaṭpāramitā Sūtra. The śramaṇa Bānrě 般若 should be granted the title “Tripiṭaka Bānrě” and also given a purple robe. (T 2157: 55.893c6-9)

The Liù Pāramì Jīng «六波羅蜜經» is no longer extant. Regarding the Heart Sutra, Siu (2019: 33) notes

般若、利言重譯廣本《心經》的原因，主要是因為時人認為玄奘舊譯內容有不足之處。般若來華所攜梵本中，有內容更為完備、前所未見的《心經》版本。

"As for the reason behind Bānruò and Lìyán's retranslation of the expanded Heart Sūtra, it was primarily due to the perception among contemporaries that Xuanzang’s earlier translation was lacking in some respects. Bānruò had brought with him a Sanskrit version containing a more complete and previously unseen rendition of the Heart Sūtra."

Traditionally, in China, a sutra is held to be composed of three “sections” (sānfēn kē jīng 三分科經): (1) an introduction (xùfēn 序分 “introductory section”; Skt. nidāna), (2) the main body of the text (zhèngzōng fēn 正宗分 “primary teaching section”) and, (3) a conclusion (liútōng fēn 流通分 literally “dissemination section”). 

The early commentaries by Kuījī 窺基 (T 1710), Woncheuk 圓測 (T 1711), Jìngmài 靖邁 (X 522), Fǎzàng 法藏 (T 1712), and Huìjìng 慧浄 (X 521) all mention the absence of the intro and conclusion in the Heart Sutra (the implications of this are discussed in my forthcoming book).

There follows a lengthy biographical narrative, interspersed with letters to and from the Emperor. As with other Buddhist hagiographers, Yuánzhào was eager to represent Buddhists as favoured by the Emperor of the day.

Siu (2019: 34) also notes:

譯本有傳入韓國地區，現時最早的般若、利言本漢文抄經便是見於《高麗大藏經》。 

"The translation also reached Korea, where the earliest surviving copy of the Chinese Bānrě and Lìyán version [i.e. T 253] appears in the Goryeo Tripitaka." 

The Goryeo Tripitaka is known in Chinese as Gāolí Dàzàngjīng 高麗大藏經; Korean: Goryeo Daejanggyeong 고려대장경. It literally means: Korean Great Treasury [of] Scripture. Although the character zàng 藏 here means "store", it also means "hide, conceal". Gāolí 高麗 is literally "lofty and beautiful"; so not a bad ethnonym. 

The Goryeo Tripitaka was printed from carved woodblocks. The first version was created in the 11th century but was later destroyed by the Mongols. A complete set of the carved woodblocks of the second version commissioned ca. 1236–1251 survives and is stored at Haeinsa Temple in South Korea (a UNESCO World Heritage Site).

Note that the Goryeo Tripitaka has also been referred to as the Tripitaka Koreana. In 2013, Robert Buswell noted: "The reality is that Goryeo Daejanggyeong is much bigger and broader in scale than the nomenclature used for the Tripitaka Koreana". In my book, I follow Buswell's suggestion and refer to the Korean Buddhist Canon.

As Siu notes, there is a gap of some centuries between the ostensible production of T253 (ca 788) and the earliest witness to the content of the text in the Korean Buddhist Canon (ca. 1236–1251). And we have no idea what happened to the text in the meantime. There are no commentaries on T253.

The biographical sketch in the Zhēnyuán lù «貞元錄» (T 2157) discusses Bānrě 般若 and the Heart Sutra attributed to him and records a memorial sent to the Emperor by a Buddhist monk called Zhìróu 智柔.

Zhìróu 智柔, the senior monk from Qiānfú Temple 千福寺, was known for his lectures and discourses. His observance of the precepts was rigorous, and he took delight in the Mahāyāna. He transmitted the Huāyán jīng «華嚴經» “Avataṃsaka Sūtra” and the Dàfódǐng «大佛頂» “Mahābuddhatopa Sūtra”. He also regularly chanted and contemplated the Bānrě xīnjīng 般若心經. This sūtra was translated by Luóshí 羅什 [Kumārajīva] and is titled Dàmíng zhòujīng «大明呪經».

When the Dharma Master Xuánzàng 玄奘 was about to depart westward, a divine being (shénrén 神人) bestowed [the Heart Sutra] upon him. While travelling through the treacherous sands and dangers, he sincerely chanted and upheld it, causing calamities and obstacles to recede. This is a great incantation (dàshén zhòu 大神呪), and these words are not in vain (bù xū 不虛).

Note that the Dàmíng zhòujīng «大明呪經» (T 250) enters the historical record in 730 CE in the Kaiyuan Catalog, i.e. Kāiyuán shìjiào lù «開元釋教錄» (T 2154). The attribution to Kumārajīva is clearly false (see Watanabe 1990).

Later, a Sanskrit text (fàn jiā 梵夾) was obtained. It was translated with no differences, except the absence of the introduction section (xùfēn 序分) and the later distribution (liútōng 流通) section.

Then, near the end of the Kāiyuán 開元 era (713 to 741 CE), the Tripiṭaka monk Fǎyuè 法月 retranslated this sūtra (T252). Both texts are extant. Now, we have obtained a copy from the Tripiṭaka monk Bānruò 般若, which includes these [missing] sections, making it the same original text as Fǎyuè's translation, but a different version.

With sincere intention, I earnestly request the reissue of the authentic text. Before I could consult in detail, the Tripiṭaka monk departed on a mission.

On the eleventh day of the eighth month, the work of verifying meanings, polishing the text, and transcribing was completed. A memorial was prepared and submitted, with the intent to circulate it widely.

Śramaṇa Zhìróu states:

"I humbly submit that the profound wisdom of the sages is vast and, through dissemination, spreads even further. The true source, supremely wondrous, is conveyed through words and symbols to be transmitted. This is the origin of the teachings of the many sages and the mother of all sūtras. Previously, the śramaṇa Xuánzàng translated it for circulation, and while the meaning was fully conveyed without omission, the text was missing the beginning. Yesterday, I encountered Bānrě, a monk from the Kingdom of Kapiśa, and personally saw the Sanskrit text. I earnestly requested him to transmit this understanding and again added praise and assistance. Only then did I realize that the Vulture Peak monastery truly revealed these noble words.

Those who recite it dispel doubts, and the true teachings spread even further. I humbly submit that Your Majesty personally upholds the Buddha's instructions, doing all that is good without exception. The Way reaches all beings, transforming everyone. Zhìróu 智柔, without considering his own limited abilities, rashly offers his sincere but humble dedication.

I hope to support the imperial virtues and contribute to the longevity of the sage. I humbly beg that Your Majesty, with heavenly insight, will review these noble words. If they are suitable, I respectfully request that they be promulgated within and beyond the court. In this way, all deluded beings, even through countless ages, may find great happiness. Unable to fully express my utmost sincerity, I respectfully submit this memorial for Your Majesty's attention." —(T 2157: 55.893c9-894a1)

Note that Yuánzhào 圓照 considers T 252 and T 253 to be the same text. In the sense that both texts incorporate T251 verbatim, they are the same. However, the introduction and conclusions of T 252 and T 253 could hardly be more different. Which suggests he didn't actually compare them. 

Note also that Yuánzhào conflates Bānrě xīnjīng 般若心經 (T 251) and Dàmíng zhòujīng «大明呪經» (T 250). Again, while these two texts are broadly similar, there are some significant differences. These four texts—T 250, 251, 252, and 253—are four of the five major versions of the text. The fifth is the Sanskrit translation, i.e. Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya. T 252 is unique and was likely composed in Chinese. We know very little about the provenance of it. T 254 is a lightly edited version of T 253. T 255 was a Dunhuang text and has not yet been properly studied in its context. T 257 is a later translation from Sanskrit. 

Zhìróu 智柔 is relatively unknown. He is mentioned only once, in passing, in the Gāosēng Zhuàn «高僧傳» (T 2061: 50.721b27) and that in connection with Prajñā:

即貞元十一年也。至十二年六月，詔於崇福寺翻譯，罽賓沙門般若宣梵文，洛京天宮寺廣濟譯語，西明寺圓照筆受，智柔、智通綴文，成都府正覺寺道恒、鑒虛潤文，千福寺大通證義，澄觀、靈邃詳定，神策軍護軍中尉霍仙鳴、左街功德使竇文場寫進，十四年二月解座。(T 2061: 50.721b25-c2)

This was in the 11th year of the Zhēnyuán era. By the 6th month of the 12th year, an imperial edict was issued for the translation at Chóngfú Monastery 崇福寺. The śramaṇa Bānrě 般若 from Kapiśa recited the Sanskrit text, while the text was rendered into Chinese at Tiāngōng Monastery 天宮寺 in Luòyáng by Guǎngjì 廣濟. Yuánzhào 圓照 from Xīmíng Monastery 西明寺 recorded it in writing, with Zhìróu 智柔 and Zhìtōng 智通 editing the text. Dàohéng 道恒 and Jiànxū 鑒虛 from Zhèngjué Monastery 正覺寺 in Chéngdū polished the wording, while Dàtōng 大通 from Qiānfú Monastery 千福寺 verified the meaning. Chéngguān 澄觀 and Língsuì 靈邃 reviewed and finalized it. The Military Protector of the Divine Strategy Army, Lieutenant Huò Xiānmíng 霍仙鳴, and Dòu Wénchǎng 竇文場, Director of Merit on the Left Street, transcribed and submitted the work, completing the project by the 2nd month of the 14th year.

From this, we imply that Prajñā's only role in the translation was reciting the Sanskrit text. This seems to be quite typical. Indian or Central Asian monks who rocked up in Chang'an did not speak Chinese and most likely never gained the kind of mastery of the language required for discussion highly specialised Buddhist doctrines. If this was in Europe, we'd credit Guǎngjì 廣濟 with the translation. But Chinese traditions demands that it is credited to Prajñā. 

Of note, is the connection between Prajñā and the Japanese monk Kūkai, who was in Chang'an ca 802-804 and wrote the first esoteric interpretation of the Xīn jīng. This is mentioned several times in Hakeda (1972). According to Kūkai, in the Shōrai mokuroku, Prajñā expressed a desire to travel to Japan and regretted that circumstances did not allow it. He gifted Kūkai with copies of new translations of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (T 293) and the Ṣatpāramitā Sūtra (T 261), and a number of Sanskrit manuscripts.

What Did Prajñā Translate?

Siu's account of Prajñā and the Heart Sutra overlooks the fact that T 253 cannot be a straightforward translation from Sanskrit. Significantly, T 253 incorporates all of T 251, verbatim. This means that at best Prajñā and co. only translated the introduction and the conclusion of the Heart Sutra, while retaining all of the translation attributed to Xuanzang. And this seems to be a pattern with works attributed to Prajñā.

In the Chinese Buddhist Canonical Attributions database, created by Michael Radich and Jamie Norrish (who died recently), Bānrě is credited with a number of translations:

• Dàchéng Běnshēng Xīndì Guān Jīng «大乘本生心地觀經» (T 159)
• Bānrě Bōluómìduō Xīnjīng «般若波羅蜜多心經» (T 253)
• Dàchéng lǐqù liù bōluómìduō jīng «大乘理趣六波羅蜜多經» (T 261)
• Dàfāngguǎng fó huáyán jīng «大方廣佛華嚴經» (T 293)
• Dà huáyán zhǎngzhě wèn fó nàluóyán lì jīng «大花嚴長者問佛那羅延力經» (T 547)
• Zhūfó jìngjiè shè zhēnshí jīng « 諸佛境界攝真實經» (T 868)
• Shǒuhù guójiè zhǔ tuóluóní jīng «守護國界主陀羅尼經» (T 997)
• Fó shuō zào tǎ yánmìng gōngdé jīng «佛說造塔延命功德經» (T 1026)

Several of the entries repeat a note attributed to Atsushi Iseki, in which he summarises a Japanese article from 1954:

According to Tsukinowa [1954], it is recorded that Trepiṭaka Prajña/Prajñā 般若三藏 translated nine titles in seventy-five juan scriptures [sic], and also composed a Banre sanzang gu jin fanyi tu ji 般若三藏古今翻譯圖紀 in two juan. However, Tsukinowa states, probably the Gu jin fanyi tu ji 古今翻譯圖紀 was written by somebody else, and Prajña’s true translation work most likely only comprises the version of the “Heart” Sūtra 般若心經 in one juan T253, co-translated with Liyan 利言 and others. Tsukinowa believes that almost all other titles ascribed to Prajñā were his own compositions, because 1) no original texts of his works have been found; 2) no alternate translation have been found in Chinese nor in Tibetan; 3) none of those works are cited in Indian texts; and 4) the contents and style of those works of his are too peculiar to be proper translation.

Tsukinowa (1954) is in Japanese so I cannot check it, though the bibliographic details are included below. There also individual notes on all of these texts.

• T 159 "Translation attributed to Prajña, ed. 般若: 6th year of Zhenyuan (貞元), Tang dynasty (唐), 1 but it was more likely done by someone else at a later date."
• T261 is more complex. "It would be a little far-fetched to classify the entire text of T261 as apocryphal, since there probably did exist an original underlying Indic text. However, Yoritomi asserts, substantial additions were made in China."
• T 293 "T293 feigns the impression of a new translation by adding material to the text, but is based more on T279 than on the original Sanskrit."
• T 547 "Tsukinowa does not seem to believe that this text is a proper translation, but he does not state it explicitly"
• T 868 "Tsukinowa concludes that T868 is based on the Vajraśekhara, and was produced to serve as an introduction to it. He agrees with Ōmura Seigai 大村西崖, who states in his Mikkyō hattatsu shi 密教發達志 that T868 is a conspectus of various scriptures, refining, epitomising and synthesising their contents 綜合折衷し打て洗錬したるもの."
• T 997 "Tsukinowa argues that none of the ten juan of T997 is a true translation" The text is a compilation of passages from other texts.
• T 1026 "Tsukinowa states that T1026 is another example of a pattern by which Prajña uses bits of different texts in producing a scripture, while adding something new of his own composition."

See also the comments under the entry for Prajñā.

The overall impression is that Bānrě was more interested in transmitting ideas and practices than in upholding orthodoxy or faithfully transmitting texts. He used texts in a very flexible way. One of his signature moves was precisely adding new material to an existing translation and presenting it as a new translation. Which is exactly what happened to T 253.

Tsukinowa's comments are problematic for the historically dominant narrative. Given that (a) Bānrě didn't know Chinese and was reliant on Chinese Monks (notably Liyan) to translate; and (b) the "translations" attributed to him all seem to have copied material from a range of existing Chinese translations, we have to wonder what Bānrě's involvement in T 253 really was.

Conclusion

Bānrě 般若 or Prajñā, is a minor figure in the history of the Heart Sutra. He is credited with translating T 253, but this version of the text was never important in China: i.e. it was not used in liturgies or as magical protection in the way that the Xīn jīng (T 251) was. The oldest extant version of T253 is in the Korean Buddhist Canon from the 13th century.

Siu (2024) confirms that Chinese translation was generally a collective affair. We have to put aside the modern, European idea of a lone scholar toiling away in isolation. Moreover, it seems likely that visiting monks who brought Sanskrit texts were generally dependent on translators. Prajñā certainly was. 

Tsukinowa (1954) has made the case that all of his "translations" were not really translations. Prajñā mostly seems to have curated passages copied from existing texts, sometimes adding them to other existing translations. But this editing seems to have happened in Chinese and evidence suggests that Prajñā could not speak Chinese. So this is a mystery. 

Tsukinowa was of the opinion that only T 253 was a genuine translation. But T 253 perfectly fits that pattern of other works attributed to Prajñā. For example, the main body of T 253 simply reproduces the text of T 251, but it adds the missing introduction and conclusion. 

Thus, if Prajñā had any input at all, it was only in the introduction and conclusion that were added to give the impression that the Heart Sutra was an authentic sutra.

The role of Liyan in the creation of T 252 and T 253 seems to deserve more attention, especially in the light of his role as Prajñā's day-to-day translator. Liyan seems to have been from Kucha and thus would have approached China via Dunhuang, which is home to numerous Heart Sutra manuscripts and some unique versions of the text that have yet to be formally studied. Tibetans invaded and controlled Dunhuang ca. 786-848. (On the Tibetan occupation of Dunhuang see The Chinese under Tibetan rule). 

It seems possible that Liyan was responsible for adding the missing introduction and conclusion to the Xīn jīng, creating both T 252 and T 253. In the case of T 253, he did this under the guidance of Prajñā who clearly had no qualms about such things. 

It's likely that Prajñā taught Kūkai Sanskrit (ca 802-804), which is a notable contribution. And relevant to my work since Kūkai later (ca 834) composed the first esoteric Buddhist commentary of the Heart Sutra, though curiously Kūkai commented on the Xīn jīng rather than Prajñā's version. 

~~oOo~~

Bibliography

Lopez, Donald S. (1996) Elaborations on Emptiness: Uses of the Heart Sutra. Princeton University Press.

Siu, Sai-yau 蕭世友 (2019). 唐代般若、利言《般若波羅蜜多心經》的漢譯研究 . 香港中文大學. [On the Chinese Translation of Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya by Prajña and Satyacandra in the Tang Dynasty. PhD Dissertation. Chinese University of Hong Kong].

———. 2024. The Evolution of Team-Based Buddhist Scripture Translation in Tang China. Springer. [Open access online publication] https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-97-2293-8 [accessed 7 Nov 2024]

Tsukinowa, Kenryū 月輪 賢隆. (1954). “般若三蔵の翻經に対する批議.” [Criticism of Prajna Tripitaka's Translation of Sutras]. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū 4(2): 434-443.

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. [= 渡辺章悟. 1990. 「経録からみた『摩訶般若波羅蜜神呪経』と『摩訶般若波羅蜜大明呪経』」印度学仏教学研究 39-1: 54–58.]. My English translation is online: https://tinyurl.com/33n3d8h4