Zhìshēn 智詵 (609 – 702 CE) is little known in the English-speaking world. A key source for his biography is the Lìdài fǎbǎo jì «歷代法寶記» "Records of the Dharma Treasures of Successive Generations" (T 2075; 51.184b18–c2), compiled ca. 780 by members of the Bao Tang school (保唐宗). The Lìdài fǎbǎo jì is translated in Adamek (2007: 333-334). Online sources tend to simply repeat what is in this short biography.
Zhishen became a Buddhist monk at a young age. After Xuanzang returned from India in 645 CE, Zhishen spent a short time studying Yogācāra with him. Around 657 CE, Zhishen became a student of Hóngrěn 弘忍 (600 – 674 CE), considered the fifth patriarch of Chan Buddhism. Another student of Hongren was Huìnéng 惠能, who is regarded as the sixth patriarch.
Zhishen composed a commentary on the Heart Sutra, which takes a Chan approach. Although the commentary is undated, his dates mean that the commentary is one of the earliest we have. To the best of my knowledge, all the early commentaries are by men who had been students or associates of Xuanzang at some point. However, the views expressed in the commentaries are very diverse.
A pertinent story occurs in Lìdài fǎbǎo jì (T 2075; 51.184a6–b17) separate from (and immediately preceding) the general biography (Adamek 2007: 330-333; see also Rothschild 2008: 143). This story connects Zhishen with Emperor Wǔ Zétiān 武則天 (r. 690 – 705 CE). In this story, Zhishen received Bodhidharma's robe from Wu Zetian, via Huineng, who inherited the robe from Hongren. This suggests that Wu Zetian considered Zhishen the main successor of Bodhidharma's Chan lineage.
One might ask what Wu Zetian had to do with it? We must remember that monastic-centered Buddhism in China was sponsored and controlled by the Chinese state. The state decided who could be ordained, where they lived, and whether or not they were involved in projects like translations. In Xuanzang's case, for example, Emperor Gaozong appointed a board of censors empowered to change his translations as they saw fit. So endorsement by the Emperor was a significant event.
The role of Wu Zetian in the composition and popularisation of the Heart Sutra is still a matter of speculation. Jeffrey Kotyk and I believe that it is significant that the first literary mention of the text, which predates any of the extant witnesses, tells us that Xuanzang presented Emperor Gāozōng 高宗 (15 July 649 – 27 December 683) and his Empress Consort with a copy of the Heart Sutra in gold ink on 26 Dec 656 CE. The occasion for this gift was the survival of their infant son—Lǐ Xiǎn 李顯 (656 – 710) later Emperor Zhōngzōng 中宗 (reigned: 3 Jan 684 – 26 Feb 684; and 23 Feb 705 – 3 Jul 710)—born a lunar month earlier after a difficult pregnancy. Wu Zetian had requested Xuanzang's help to get through the pregnancy. We also know that in her rise from daughter of a (non-aristocratic) mercantile family to China's only female Emperor, Wu Zetian leveraged her good relations with the Buddhist establishment in many ways. This is still merely suggestive. What we can say is that is the milieu into which the Heart Sutra emerged.
There are no English-language studies or translations of Zhishen's commentary and, as far as I can see, it is only mentioned in passing in one English-language article. McRae lists the commentary but does so in a somewhat ambiguous way. McRae refers to three commentaries in manuscript form as "a complex" and to Zhishen's as "the third version", but he does not say what connected these documents. From McRae (1988: 91), we learn that there is:
A complex of three [Dunhuang] manuscripts, one anonymous, one bearing obviously fictitious or untraceable attribution... and one written by [Zhìshēn] (609-702), who is remembered in [Chan] as a student of [Hóngrěn] (600-674) and as the precursor of two important early [Chan] lineages from Sichuan.
NB I have amended Chinese Romanisation to Pinyin. Changed words are in square brackets.
This is supplemented with a longer note. McRae (1988: 109, n.23), which gives more information about each of the three. I cite the portion describing the Zhishen commentary:
The title of the third version is [Bānrě bōluómìduō xīn jīng shū «般若波羅蜜多心經疏»]; see Yanagida Seizan, 'Shishū Chisen zenji sen Hannya shingyō so ko". In Hana samazama (Tokyo: Shunjusha, 1972), pp. 145-77. On pp. 152-56, Yanagida indicates that there are five manuscripts of this commentary: Pelliot 2178 and 4940, Peking Wei-52 and ch'üeh-9, and Stein 839.
 |
| The beginning of Zhishen's commentary in Pelliot 4940, Bibliothèque nationale de France. |
There is an unanswered question at this point: Is Zhishen's commentary one of "a complex of three manuscripts" or are there "five manuscripts" of Zhishen's commentary? It's possible that this information is to be found in the articles by Yanagida (1999) or Cheng (2006a etc).
This was reprinted as Yanagida (1999). In the process, I discovered that Yanagida's edition is reproduced in part two of the three-part study by Cheng Zheng 程正 (2006, 2007, 2008). I extracted the Chinese text of the commentary from Cheng (2007) along with their glosses in Japanese (posted on Academia.edu).
My main interest in the commentaries is as leverage on the issue of provenance. Almost all the ancient commentaries comment on this issue. Perhaps the most revealing comment is from Kuījī, who says:
The Large Sutra is adapted to the audience, it is voluminous and extensive in meaning, and those who receive, uphold, transmit, or study it may easily become discouraged. Therefore, the sages who transmitted the Dharma, captured the intrinsic supreme essence by separately producing this sutra. Consequently, the three divisions and the two prefaces were left out. The most subtle and essential elements [of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā sūtra] were selected as the main points to be mentioned (Adapted from Shih and Lusthaus 2001: 12).
Translating:《大經》隨機，義、文俱廣，受、持、傳、習，或生怯退，傳法聖者錄其堅實妙最之旨，別出此經。三分、二序故皆遺闕，甄綜精微，纂提綱蹟 (T 1710. 33.524a25-28).
Note that Shih and Lusthaus (2001) translated 傳法聖者 as “the sages, for the purposes of propagating the Dharma”. Michael Radich (personal communication) notes that “this is not a possible interpretation” of the phrase. Shih and Lusthaus also omit the phrases suíjī 隨機 and lù qí jiānshí 錄其堅實.
The "three divisions" (sān fēn 三分), is a reference to sānfēn kē jīng 三分科經 "three divisions of a sutra": (1) xù fēn 序分 "introduction" (Skt: nidāna), (2) Zhèngzōng fēn 正宗分 "main text", and (3) Liútōng fēn 流通分, an explanation of the textʼs "dissemination". In Mahāyāna sutras, the dissemination is "characterized by praise of the sutra and a detailed description of the merit to be gained by studying and transmitting its teachings" (Adapted from DDB). Jingmai uses different words: shǐ 始 "beginning" and zhōng 終 "end".
The "two prefaces" (Èr xù 二序) refers to the two components of a sutra introduction: "Thus have I heard" (Rúshì wǒ wén 如是我聞; Skt. evaṃ mayā śrutam), and the declaration of the circumstances in which (ostensibly) the Buddha spoke the words, which takes the form: "...at one time, the Buddha was dwelling in such and such a place, talking with this or that audience."
These features were considered diagnostic of the category "sutra" in the sense that all sutra texts were expected to have these features. However, it's also true that Buddhists routinely supplied this information when it was missing, with the Mūlasarvāstivāda encoding rules for doing this in their Vinaya (Schopen 2004).
It is precisely the introduction and dissemination that are absent from the standard Heart Sutra. The two recensions of the extended Heart Sutra text—whose redactors were perhaps unaware of, or unsatisfied by the rationalisations supplied by Chinese commentators—both add formulaic introduction and dissemination sections to make a complete sutra.
Nattier (1992: 206 n. 33) long ago noted:
The most striking feature of [Kuiji's] description of the Heart Sutra, for our purposes, is the statement that the Heart Sutra was "published separately" (bié chū 別出) by 'the sages' who transmitted the Dharma--not preached separately by the Buddha.
This was based on the passage cited above and suggests that Kuiji understood this text was not Buddhavacana, but rather something "transmitted by the sages [shèng zhě 聖者]". Here, "the sages" connotes the awakened or ārya Sangha. Woncheuk is also aware of the anomaly:
The reason there is no introduction or conclusion is that [this text] selects the essential outlines from all the Prajñā texts. It has only the main chapter, without an introduction and conclusion, just as the Guānyīn jīng is not composed of three sections (Adapted from Hyun Choo 2006: 138).
所以無序及流通者，於諸般若簡集綱要，故唯正宗，無序、流通。如《觀音經》，不具三分。(T 1711. 33.543b17-19)
Woncheuk compares the Heart Sutra to the well-known Guānyīn jīng «觀音經». This text circulated independently and is also referred to as a jīng 經 “sutra”, is in fact the twenty-fifth chapter of the Miàofǎ liánhuá jīng «妙法蓮華經» (T 262; Skt. Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra), where it is titled Guānshìyīn púsà pǔmén pǐn 觀世音菩薩普門品 “Chapter of the Universal Gate of Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva”. Since it is a chapter of a larger sutra, the Guānyīn jīng naturally lacks introductory and concluding passages, which are found in the first and last chapters respectively. It is precisely this kind of text that Chinese bibliographers referred to as bié chū 別出.
Fǎzàng’s comments on this issue are more ambiguous and the existing English translations are quite divergent.
The word “heart” is an analogy for what is expressed. In other words, it is the excellent meaning that condenses the content of the Prajñā[pāramitā] and integrates what is essential. It is just like the heart of a person, which is core and essential [to that person]. It is the integrated and ultimate root [of the Large Prajñāpāramitā text]. (Adapted from Dreitlein 2011: 7, n.18)
「心」之一字是所引之喻，即般若內統要衷之妙義，況人心藏為主、為要，統極之本。 (T 1712, 33.552b23-25)
In the subsequent section of his commentary, Fazang also comments on the missing introduction and conclusion:
Since this is a heart text [xīn jīng 心經], the introduction is lacking, as well as a conclusion concerning the dissemination (Adapted from Cook 1978: 187).
此既心經，是以無序及流通也。 (T 1712. 8.552c2-3).
Note that what Fazang meant by "heart text" [xīn jīng 心經] is not clear, but in this case it does not seem to be a reference to "the Heart Sutra". Jìngmài (X 522; 26.598b12-24) also appears to comment on the source of the text and lack of an introduction and conclusion:
This sutra originates from a specific section of the Mahāprajñā [Text]. Therefore, it has neither an introduction nor a concluding section
今此經者。從摩訶般若一會所流。是以始無如是。終闕奉行矣。 (X 522; 26.598b23)
Some Japanese scholars, notably Fukui Fumimasa, believe that the undated commentary by Huìjìng 慧淨 (X 521) is the oldest. I don't know why. The claim is repeated by Tanahashi (2014) without providing any reasoning. Huijing also comments on this issue:
“This sutra contains only the main section: the introduction and dissemination sections are found at the beginning and end of the Great [Prajñāpāramitā Sutra].” 此經唯有正宗。序分流通在大品經首末。(X26n0521_p0591b03; punctuation amended)
This is the most explicit statement of the Heart Sutra being an extract from the Dàpǐn jīng «大品經»; i.e. the Dàpǐn bānrě jīng «大品般若經» "Large Prajñāpāramitā Text" (Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā). It is consistent with Woncheuk's view that the Heart Sutra is something like the Guānyīn jīng (a chapter circulating independently).
So this is the backdrop against which I wish to view Zhishen. He's one of a handful of early Tang commentators, all of whom were acquainted with Xuanzang. However, no two of them have the same approach to the text. By the beginning of the eighth century, we have Heart Sutra commentaries that reflect Madhyamka, Yogācāra, Huayan, Tiantai, and Chan. The first Tantric commentary I know of is by Kūkai (See Dreitlein 2011) and dated ca. 834 CE.
Zhishen's Commentary
So what then does Zhishen have to say on this topic? I cite the beginning of his commentary accompanied by a translation by ChatGPT 4o (edited by me).
Bānrě bōluómìduō xīn jīng shū «般若波羅蜜多心經疏» “Commentary on the Sutra of the Essence of Prajñāpāramitā” by Zhìshēn 智詵.
撰夫以眞宗沖寂、妙絶名詮之表、正覺幽凝、高栖像累之外。将求性・相、二有不能照其機、跡被淺深、三獸無以臻其極。即色非色、寄無色以爲源、即空非空、要假空而遣色。故知、萬11靈無像、而爲衆像之宗、妙理無言、抑乃群言之本。蓋像出於無像、言出於無言。無言言者、或感物以言生、無像像者、或因心而著像。無言言者、故四辯所以宣揚、無像像者、故丈六所以垂跡。然『多心經』者、乃五乘之寶運、嚴萬法以爲尊、超八藏之妙高、飾四珍而獨秀。然首稱〈般若〉、古釋有三、今解有五。一實相、謂眞理。二觀照、謂眞惠。三文字、謂眞教。四境界、謂諸法。五眷屬、謂萬行。要須福智倶修、有無齊照。尋經究旨、合理解生。惠性、惠資（糧）倶稱般若。〈波羅者〉、彼岸義。亦言離義。〈蜜〉者、到義。由行般若波羅蜜、離諸障染、境（地）盡有無、義洞眞如、覺圓智滿。〈多〉者大乘總名。〈心〉者此經之別稱。〈經〉者、爲常、爲法。是攝、是觀。常即道冠百王、法乃楷模千葉、攝則集斯妙理、觀則悟彼群生。庶令必離苦津、終登彼岸。〈一卷〉者、首軸無二、名之爲一、開合卷舒、目之爲卷。故言〈般若波羅蜜多心經一卷〉。
The author, with the true essence as profound and tranquil, transcends the expressions of names, realizing the ultimate truth and dwelling beyond the limitations of appearances. In seeking the nature of things, neither existence nor non-existence can fully illuminate their true function. The depth and superficiality of appearances cannot reach the ultimate essence. Thus, even though form is not form, it relies on the formless as its origin; even though emptiness is not emptiness, it depends on emptiness to negate form.
Therefore, it is understood that all beings (wàn líng 萬靈) have no form, yet they are the source of all forms; the wondrous principle is without words, yet it is the foundation of all speech. Indeed, forms arise from the formless, and words emerge from the wordless. When words arise from the wordless, they sometimes respond to things, bringing forth speech; when forms arise from the formless, they sometimes originate in the mind, manifesting as forms. Words arising from the wordless lead to the eloquent exposition; forms arising from the formless manifest in the statue of six zhàng 丈 (~ 18 metres).
However, the Duō xīn jīng «多心經» is the precious vehicle of the five paths, adorned as the highest of all teachings, surpassing the subtle heights of the eight treasuries, and uniquely flourishing among the four treasures. The opening word bānrě 般若 was explained in three ways by ancient interpretations, and in five ways by contemporary explanations:
- shíxiàng 實相 "original nature; dharmatā/dharmasvabhāva", which refers to the true principle
- guānzhào 觀照 "careful consideration", which refers to true wisdom (huì 惠*);
- wénzì 文字 "Literal†", which refers to true teachings (jiào 教);
- jìngjiè 境界 "perceptual objects; viṣaya", which refers to all phenomena (法); and
- juànshǔ 眷屬 "retinue", which refers to all practices (行).
* 惠 is synonymous with huì 慧 "insight"; prajñā.
† 文字 means "written words" but here refers to scriptures
It is necessary to cultivate both merit (fú 福) and insight zhì (智), illuminating both existence (yǒu 有) and non-existence (wú 無) equally. By examining the sutra and investigating its profound meaning, one can generate understanding in accordance with reason. The nature (xìng 性) of insight (huì 惠) and the resources (zī 資) (or sustenance; liáng 糧) of insight are both called bānrě 般若. The term bōluó 波羅 means bǐ'àn 彼岸 "the other shore", and it also signifies lí 離 "transcendence". Mì 蜜 means dào 到 "arrival". By practising bānrě bōluó mì 般若波羅蜜, one transcends all defilements and obstacles, exhausts the realms (jìng 境) [or states dì 地] of existence and non-existence, penetrates the true suchness, and achieves perfect enlightenment and full wisdom. Duō 多 refers to the general name of the Mahāyāna*; xīn 心 "Heart" is the specific name of this sutra.
* The character duō 多 typically means "many" or "much"; and thus it is sometimes used to represent the concept of "great" or "vast" i.e. Sanskrit mahā "great".
Jīng 經 "sutra" signifies permanence (cháng 常) and the Dharma. It encompasses both retention and contemplation. Permanence crowns the Way over a hundred kings, and Dharma serves as a model for a thousand generations. Retention gathers this profound principle, and contemplation enlightens the multitude of beings, ensuring that they will ultimately leave the harbour of suffering and finally reach the other shore.
Yī juàn 一卷 (One scroll) means that the beginning is without a second, hence it is named ‘one.’ The opening and closing of the scroll, as well as its unrolling and rolling up, are referred to as a ‘scroll.’ Therefore, it is called Bānrě bōluómìduō xīn jīng yī juàn 般若波羅蜜多心經一卷.
The commentary carries on to explain what Zhishen thinks the text means, but we can stop at this point because it's clear that he's not going to address the issue of the missing introduction and conclusion, i.e. the fact that the text is not a sutra.
Sometimes lines of research don't pan out. However, in this case, I have been made aware of and drawn to look at a wider range of Tang commentaries on the Heart Sutra (and for the first time I have the tools to make searching Chinese texts for concepts much easier). So it was not entirely fruitless, despite Zhishen's lack of comment on the issue that interests me.
Some Things to Note.
McRae (1988: 93) describes Zhishen's commentary as "proto-Chan" and notes that the three manuscripts in this "complex", as he calls it, "reveals usages that are characteristic of or even unique to early Chan texts". He gives an example of this from "the anonymous manuscript". Of the actual Zhishen commentary: "[it] uses several phrases and terms characteristic of certain later texts, but it is also unaware of a number of early Chan concepts." (1988: 94)
Zhishen doesn't seem to be au fait with Sanskrit, or the Sanskrit underpinnings of the terminology. For example, his grammatical analysis of bānrě bōluómìduō 般若波羅蜜多 treats prajñāpāramitā as four words: bānrě 般若, bōluó 波羅, mì 蜜, and duō 多. In Sanskrit, the compound is two words prajñā and pāramitā. And note that mì 蜜 usually means "honey; sweet".
Zhishen seems to take "form" to mean substance, ie. "forms arising from the formless manifest in the statue of six zhàng" (無像像者、故丈六所以垂跡). I think this is in error since rūpa is that which connects the visual object to the visual organ, analogous to the relationship between conch, sound, and ear. It is not the conch that enters the ear to produce perception, it is the sound. Rūpa is to the eye as sound is to the ear. The conflation of the visual object and rūpa is de rigueur in modern Buddhist exegesis, but it's clearly incorrect.
I think we also see here the first hints of what I call "revelling in contradiction". Zhishen repeatedly references pairs of opposites like "existence and nonexistence", or "form and formlessness". This becomes a central feature of modern commentaries on the Heart Sutra though it doesn't seem to feature in any of the other Tang commentaries. Indeed Kuiji appears to resist such a reading (see for example Heng-Ching & Lusthaus 2001: 90-91). Huifeng (2014) shows that there are no contradictions in the Heart Sutra; while Harrison (2006) has shown that there are none in the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā also. Stating contradictions is not a Prajñāpāramitā method at all.
I make use of these commentaries as leverage in my revisionist history and philosophy of the Heart Sutra. But I have never been much interested in the content more generally. The early commentaries reflect a broad range of Chinese Buddhist thinking: taking in Madhyāmaka, Yogācāra, Huanyan, Tiantai, and Chan. Given the revised histories, we now know that these commentaries were composed within a few decades of Xuanzang compiling the Xīn jīng. All of the early commentators had met and worked with Xuanzang at some point after his return from India (645 CE). Through these commentaries, therefore, we get a snapshot of Tang Dynasty Buddhism.
We have translations of commentaries by Kuiji, Woncheuk, and Fazang, but very little comparative work has been done and what has been done does not seem wholly reliable. There is at least one PhD and a book here for anyone who wants to do the work. And there is quite a bit of secondary literature in Japanese. But it needs sustained scholarly attention, not the usual dilettantism marked by a consistent failure to review the literature, combined with promoting religious apologetics.
Alternatively, imagine a conference at which each presenter talked about one of the early commentaries in detail on day one, and then on day two presenters took a comparative or contextual view. And this resulted in a published book with a translation and commentary of each commentary, along with more general comparative studies to put them all in context.
~~oOo~~
Bibliography
Adamek, Wendi L. (2007). The Mystique of Transmission: On an Early Chan History and Its Contexts. Columbia University Press.
CHENG Zheng. 程, 正 [テイ, セイ].
——. (2006a). “智詵撰『般若波羅蜜多心經疏』の譯注研究 (1)”. 駒澤大学大学院仏教学研究会 年報39: 85-96. http://repo.komazawa-u.ac.jp/opac/repository/all/31124/
——. (2006b). 『般若心經』と初期禪宗: 禪僧による注疏を中心にして駒澤大學佛教學部論集第三十七號 平成十八年十月 ["The Heart Sutra and Early Zen Buddhism: Focusing on Commentaries by Zen Monks". Journal of the Department of Buddhist Studies, Komazawa University, No. 37, October 2006"
——. (2007). “智詵撰『般若波羅蜜多心經疏』の譯注研究 (2)”. 駒澤大学仏教学部研究紀要65: 139-156.
——. (2008). “智詵撰『般若波羅蜜多心經疏』の譯注研究 (3)”. 駒澤大学仏教学部研究紀要66: 269-297.
Cook, F. H. (1978). “Fa-tsang’s Brief Commentary on the Prajñāpāramitā-hṛdaya-sūtra.” In Mahayana Buddhist Meditation: Theory and Practice, edited by Minoru Kiyota, 167-206. University of Hawai’i Press.
Dreitlein, Thomas Eijō. (2011). “An Annotated Translation of Kūkai’s Secret Key to the Heart Sutra.” 高野山大学密教文化研究所紀要 [Bulletin of the Research Institute of Esoteric Buddhist Culture] 24: 170-216.
Heng-Ching, Shih and Lusthaus, Dan. (2001). A Comprehensive Commentary on the Heart Sutra Prajnaparamita-hyrdaya-sutra. Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research.
Rothschild, N. Harry. (2008). Wu Zhao: China's Only Woman Emperor. (The Library of World Biography). New York etc.: Pearson Education.
Schopen, Gregory. 2004. "If you can’t Remember, How to Make it up, Some Monastic Rules for Redacting Canonical Texts." In Buddhist Monks and Business Matters, Still More Papers on Monastic Buddhism in India, 395-407. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Shih, Heng-Ching and Lusthaus, Dan. (2001) A Comprehensive Commentary on the Heart Sutra (Prajnaparamita-hyrdaya-sutra). Berkeley, CA. Numata Center for Buddhist Translation & Research.
Yanagida, Seizan. 柳田聖山. (1999). 「『資州禪師撰・般若心經疏』考」『禪佛教の研究』〈柳田聖山集 第一卷〉法藏館、一九九九年、三二七〜三四九頁。["Considerations on the 'Commentary on the Heart Sutra' Written by the Zen Master Zishu," Studies in Zen Buddhism, Yanagita Seizan Collection, Volume 1, Hozokan, 1999, pp. 327-349].