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, .

Notes on T253 and T254

In this post, I will show that the extended Heart Sutra text T254 is a lightly redacted or edited version of T253, rather than an independent translation from Sanskrit. Moreover, T253 incorporates all of T251, including parts with no Sanskrit counterpart, which could only result from redaction in Chinese. Moreover, since the main text is essentially just a repeat of T251, only the extended opening section and additional closing sections of T253 were translated from Sanskrit. Given the history of this text, we do have to wonder if T253 was entirely composed in Chinese. I make no judgement on the value of Chinese-produced Buddhist texts, I merely wish to clarify the history of the text.

Both texts are titled: Bānrě bōluómìduō xīn jīng «般若波羅蜜多心經» "The Sutra of the Heart of Perfection of Insight". T253 is attributed to a Khotanese monk, Bānrě 般若 (Prajñā), a Chinese monk Lìyán 利言, and "others" (děng 等), and traditionally dated to ca. 788 CE. (A note in the Zhēnyuán lù «貞元錄» (T 2157), suggests that Bānrě 般若 had Sanskrit Heart Sutra text - I'll likely cover this in a  separate post). The text of T253 is 545 characters (not counting spaces or punctuation). It seems that Prajñā did not speak Chinese, and Lìyán 利言 acted as his translator in China (note: I will soon post an exploration of the dual identity of Lìyán 利言).

T254 is attributed to Zhìhuì Lún 智慧輪 (*Prajñācakra), a noted tantrika, and traditionally dated to 861 CE. I still cannot find where this attribution comes from. The text is 569 characters.

T253 is recorded in the Tripitaka Koreana, but T254 is not. In yet another forthcoming essay will look at the TK, which only records T250, T251, 252, T253, and 257.

After 12 years of literature searching, I know of no secondary literature on this issue except for my own preliminary investigations here and in Attwood (2021).

My method is simple. I break the text into 18 sentences. For sentences from the introduction and conclusion, I will paste the sentences from the two texts alongside each other, and I will compare them both with the Sanskrit, and occasionally with T251. There appear to be some errors in both T253 and T254, which I will indicate using strikethrough and explain in notes. At the very end, I've appended a list of all the differences, sentence by sentence.

My aim was to have the same punctuation in both T253 and T254, which Taishō does not provide and thus it required some changes. I have not noted such changes. Sometimes the punctuation is incorrect, which I have noted. 

I will also provide Middle Chinese transcriptions where it seems helpful. My approach to MC is indicative rather than systematic, meaning that anyone interested in MC should consult the experts. Two main problems make attempting to provide MC transcriptions difficult: no one system of reconstruction covers all the characters used in the Heart Sutra; and all of the many systems use different notation. The notation used is often idiosyncratic, but even when the International Phonetic Alphabet is used, most of the "letters" are unfamiliar most readers. That said, I have tried to use the IPA because at least it is easy to look up. 

Since the titles are identical, we begin with the text itself.

1. Introduction

Sentence 1.

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。
254	如是我聞：一時薄誐梵住王舍城　鷲峯山中，與大苾蒭眾及大菩薩眾俱。
Skt.	evaṃ mayā śrutam: ekasmin samaye bhagavān rājagṛhe viharati sma gṛdhrakūṭe parvate mahatā bhikṣusaṃghena sārdhaṃ mahatā ca bodhisattvasaṃghena |

One time 一時, buddha 佛 dwelled 在 Rājagṛha 王舍城, Gṛdhrakūṭa Mountain 耆闍崛山 on 中; together [with] 與 a great 大 bhikṣu 比丘 congregation 眾 and 及 a [great 大] bodhisatva 菩薩 congregation 眾 accompanied 俱.

The word order of the Chinese is similar to English, except for certain words that we would put at the beginning; go at the end. Here the word jù 俱 "accompanied by" would come earlier in English, as would zhōng 中 when used as a locative preposition "in, on".

Qí dū jué 耆闍崛 (MC: /gi dʑia gʷiᴇt/) is a partial transcription of Gṛdhrakūṭa (Pāli: Gijjhakūṭa), plus shān 山 "mountain"; while Jiù fēng shān 鷲峯山 is a translation: vulture 鷲 peak 峯 mountain 山.

Note that final sounds (in particular) were affected by changes in pronunciation of both Indic and Chinese languages. Notably for many Indic speakers, a final vowel, especially -a, would be de-emphasised to the point of ambiguity or absence (noted by Edgerton in his Grammar of Buddhist Hydrid Sanskrit). A modern Hindi speaker, for example, would pronounce Gṛdhrakūṭa as /ɡɾɪ d̪ʱɾə kuːʈ/ (Pāli /ɡɪd͡ʒ.d͡ʒʰə.kuːʈə/). So the transcription 耆闍崛 /gi dʑia gʷiᴇt/ could accurately reflect what a Chinese interpreter heard an Indian informant saying, even if the spelling seems a little off. And in the case of these two texts, neither of the named translators, Bānrě 般若 nor Zhìhuì Lún 智慧輪, could speak Chinese. 

Báo'éfàn 薄誐梵 (MC: /bɑk ngɑ bɨuam/), in T254, is an unusual transcription of Bhagavan that is used only this one time. Elsewhere T254 uses the expected Chinese phrase Shìzūn 世尊, literally "world honoured".

This is very much a standard opening for a Buddhist sutra. Compare these other examples from Kumārajīva's oeuvre:

• T 227: 如是我聞：一時佛在王舍城耆闍崛山中，與大比丘僧千二百五十人俱，...
• T 235: 如是我聞：一時佛在舍衛國祇樹給孤獨園，與大比丘眾千二百五十人俱。
• T 245: 如是我聞：一時佛住王舍城耆闍崛山中，與大比丘眾八百萬億，...

---

Sentence 2.

253	時，佛世尊即入三昧，　名廣大甚深。
254	爾時，世尊　入三摩地，名廣大甚深照見。
Skt	tena khalu punaḥ samayena bhagavān gambhīrāvabhāsaṃ nāma dharmaparyāyaṃ bhāsitvā samādhiṃ samāpannaḥ |

[Then 爾] at that time 時, Buddha 佛 Bhagavan 世尊 then 即 entered 入 [a] samādhi 三昧， named 名 vast 廣大 and profound 甚深.

Contrast shí 時 "then" with ěr shí 爾時 "at that time", both of which translate Sanskrit: tena samayena and ignore khalu "indeed" and punaḥ "again". Note that in Sentence 3: T253 爾時 vs T254 時.

While T254 began with a transcription Bhagavan 薄誐梵, here it reverts to the more usual translation Shìzūn 世尊 "World honoured". 

Sānmèi 三昧 and Sānmóde 三摩地 both transcribe samādhi. In S16 both texts have 三摩地.

T254 appends zhàojiàn 照見 (a binomial verb meaning "to observe") to the end of the sentence, but this is an obvious mistake. Possibly an eye-slip given that the same binomial occurs in the next sentence. Whatever the explanation, this phrase makes no sense here (and has no counterpart in Sanskrit). Were I editing this text, I would have omitted these two characters.

After the completely standard opening, we immediately run into problems here because the Sanskrit is substantially different from the "translations".

Then tena indeed khalu again punaḥ at that time samayena the Well-Endowed bhagavān profound illumination gambhīrāvabhāsaṃ named nāma Dharma teaching dharmaparyāyaṃ having spoken bhāsitvā meditation samādhiṃ entered samāpannaḥ |

The main clause is "At that time the Bhagavan entered samādhi." (tena samayena bhagavān samādhiṃ samāpannaḥ). The subordinate clause is "having spoken a Dharma teaching named profound illumination" (gambhīrāvabhāsaṃ nāma dharmaparyāyaṃ bhāsitvā). The Sanskrit text unambiguously tells us that having spoken (bhāsitvā) the dharmaparyāya the Buddha entered meditation (samādhiṃ samāpannaḥ). But no Chinese text has a term corresponding to dharmaparyāya.

Words like khalu and punaḥ tend to be ignored in the Chinese translations (as they often are in English translations).

Surprisingly, neither T253 nor T254 gets this sentence right. In T253 and T254 (and all of the other extended texts, including the Tibetan) the name gambhīrāvabhāsa is attached to the samādhi, not to the dharmaparyāya. Indeed, the dharmaparyāya is entirely omitted from T253 and T254. This kind of gross mismatch is problematic for the idea that either T253 or T254 are translations from Sanskrit. 

Reading this passage in isolation, it's not entirely clear what has happened here. But it is quite an oddity when every single one of the extant "translations", in both Chinese and Tibetan, has misapprehended, and thus mistranslated, this sentence in more or less the same way. Given the history of the text, perhaps we should be questioning which came first? Or perhaps the Sanskrit text was changed after the fact and we no longer have the original that was available in the early eighth century?

---

Sentence 3.

For this section, I include the relevant text from T251. I've colour-coded based on T251 to make it easier to see how all of this first sentence was assimilated into the expanded introduction. You can see that the whole of the text from T251 is preserved in both T253 and T254, with only minor variations.

251	觀自在菩薩行深般若波羅蜜多時，照見五蘊，皆空，度一切苦厄。
253	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。
254	時，眾中有一菩薩摩訶薩，名觀世音自在。行甚深般若波羅蜜多行時，照見五蘊，自性皆空。
Skt.	tena ca samayena āryāvalokiteśvaro bodhisattvo mahāsattvo gambhīrāyāṃ prajñāpāramitāyāṃ caryāṃ caramāṇaḥ evaṃ vyavalokayati sma pañca skandhāṃs tāṃś ca svabhāvaśūnyaṃ paśyati sma |

Then 爾 at that time 時 within the congregation 眾中 there was 有 a bodhisatva mahāsatva 菩薩摩訶薩，named 名 Guanzizai 觀自在，practiced 行 deep 深 prajñāpāramitā 般若波羅蜜多 {while 時}, examined 照見 the five skandhas 五蘊, all were absent 皆空，[he] got away from 離 all 諸 suffering 苦厄.

Here the Sanskrit largely follows the text of the standard Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya, including doubling up words from √car: cāryāṃ caramānaḥ. This is not idiomatic Buddhist Sanskrit. We never see "practising the practice of prajñāpāramitrā" in other Sanskrit Prajñāpāramitā texts. The word cārya seems never to be applied to Prajñāpāramitā in this way. On the other hand, we regularly see terms such as bodhisatvacārya and brahmacārya.

For example in volume one of Kimura's (2009) edition of Pañc alone there are 193 occurrences of passages ending ...bodhisattvena mahāsattvena prajñāpāramitāyāṃ śikṣitavyam "...bodhisatvas should be trained in prajñāpāramitā". According to convention, one may "train in prajñāpāramitā" (indicated by verbs from √śikṣ), and one may "practice prajñāpāramitā" (verbs from √car), but no one ever "trains in the practice of prajñāpāramitā".

Moreover, there are 73 occurrences of ...bodhisattvena mahāsattvena prajñāpāramitāyāṃ caratā with the present active participle caratā, and none at all with the present middle participle caramānaḥ. In the standard text, a mismatched synonym (like this) is taken to be a result of back-translating Chinese to Sanskrit. That such expressions were retained unchanged in the extended Sanskrit text is significant because it tells us that the "translators" were aware of the standard text and gave it priority. 

Here, it is the Chinese texts that conform to the expected idiom, which is one line of argument for the composition of the Heart Sutra in Chinese.

Notably, no known Sanskrit text has an equivalent to dù yīqiè kǔ è 度一切苦厄. Although T253 changes the verb from dù 度 "overcome" to lí 離 "separate [from]", and yīqiè 一切 "everything, all" to zhū 諸 "all", the overall meaning is the same. While the term is absent from this sentence of T254, the phrase lí zhū kǔ è 離諸苦厄 is appended to the end of S7 (see below).

There is also some variation in the name. The basic form of the name in Sanskrit is Avalokiteśvara bodhisatva. On this name see: Revisiting Avalokiteśvara in the Heart Sutra (10 April 2020). The Sanskrit has been elaborated by the addition of āryya "noble" and mahāsatva.

Over time, it becomes increasingly common to see mahāsatva added to bodhisatva. I still don't really understand what mahāsatva means. The traditional explanations ignore Classical Sanskrit grammar. As a suffix, it forms bahuvrīhi compounds of the type X-sattva, meaning "whose nature is X", "having X as their essence", and so on. A bodhisatva, therefore, is a person "whose nature is awakening".

T251 uses Xuanzang's preferred transcription of the name: Guānzìzài púsà 觀自在菩薩. T253 also uses the name Guānzìzài 觀自在, but does so in the context of being within "the congregation 眾中有 of bodhisatva 菩薩 mahāsatvas 摩訶薩"; all later occurrences in T253 add púsà móhēsà 菩薩摩訶薩 after the name as convention dictates.

However, both before and after Xuanzang, Chinese Buddhists strongly preferred the name Guānshìyīn 觀世音, often abbreviated to Guānyīn 觀音. Xuanzang's spelling never really took off. The fact that T253 uses Guānzìzài 觀自在 suggests that Bānrě 般若 or Lìyán 利言 had some a connection to Xuanzang, though such a connection is not obvious or explicit, since Xuanzang died in 664, some decades before Bānrě 般若 arrived in China.  

T254 adopts an unusual hybrid of the two forms Guānzìzàishìyīn 觀世音自在, throughout. Both of the later translations, i.e. T255 and T257, also spell the name Guānzìzài 觀自在, long after everyone else reverted to Guānyīn. Perhaps this reflects the lasting influence of T251, but it certainly speaks to the power of the existing Chinese texts in creating these new translations.

爾時/時 already discussed above.

T253 and T254 consciously place Guanyin amidst the congregation:  in the saṃgha 眾中 there was 有 [one 一] bodhisatva mahāsatva 菩薩摩訶薩.  T254 adds yī 一 "one", seemingly to emphasise that only one of the bodhisatvas assembled was called 觀世音自在. Which seems completely unnecessary, but is not wrong. This change cannot have been inspired by the Sanskrit text, because S3 of that version contains no mention of the bodhisatvasaṃgha.

T254 adds a superfluous superlative shèn 甚 "very, extremely" to the already superlative adjective shēn 深 "deep, profound" (Skt. gambhīra).

A problem I have commented on before is that the Sanskrit text has a structure based on complimentary verbs for "looking" (vyava√lok) and "seeing" (√paś). This look/see structure appears to be absent in the Chinese expression that T253 has copied verbatim from T251: zhàojiàn wǔyùn, jiē kōng 照見五蘊, 皆空 (universally printed without the comma I have added). In my view, "looking" is explicit in 照見, but "seeing" is implicit and what was seen was jiē kōng 皆空 "all absent". Thus I see the canonical 照見五蘊皆空 as two clauses: 照見五蘊，皆空 "[He] observed the five branches, [and what he saw was that] all [were] absent."

T251 has no term corresponding to svabhāva. T253 simply reproduces T251, but T254 has added a term meaning svabhāva, i.e. zìxìng 自性. This may reflect influence from Sanskrit, though T254 still doesn't translate paśyati sma "he saw", it's still a moot question whether is passage was translated from Sanskrit or composed/redacted in Chinese. 

---

Sentence 4.

T253	即時，　　舍利弗，承佛威力，合掌恭敬，白觀自在　　菩薩摩訶薩言：
T254	即時，具壽舍利子，承佛威神，合掌恭敬，白觀世音自在菩薩摩訶薩言：
Skt.	athāyuṣmān śāriputro buddhānubhāvena āryāvalokiteśvaraṃ bodhisattvam etad avocat-

At that 即 time 時，Śāriputra 舍利弗，receieved 承 buddha 佛 power 威力，joining hands 合掌 respectfully 恭敬，addressing 白 Guānzìzài 觀自在 bodhisatva 菩薩 mahāsatva 摩訶薩 he said 言：

T254 adds the honorific jùshòu 具壽, i.e. jù 具 "possessing, having" shòu 壽 "longevity, life" which equates to Skt. āyuṣmant "Elder" (āyuḥ life; -mant a possessive suffix). In Prajñāpāramitā literature generally, we expect someone like Śāriputra will always be referred to as Elder Śāriputra (āyuṣmān śāriputraḥ), although it is sometimes dropped when he is being addressed as an inferior.

Note also that honorifics such as āyuṣmant always precede the name; whereas descriptors indicating rank or status, e.g. bodhisatva, or sthavīra, always follow the name. 

There is no counterpart of hézhǎng gōngjìng 合掌恭敬 "joining hands respectfully" in any Sanskrit manuscript. Though it is a common Chinese expression and a very common Buddhist way of showing respect. This again suggests redaction in Chinese rather than translation from Sanskrit. 

Some notes on anubhāva. A strange word whose etymology is no help. The word is used to indicate that someone is acting from an impetus emanating from the Buddha, i.e. his anubhāva. This could be something as banal as the Buddha's charisma and authority, but it tends to suggest a more supernatural power that could influence his followers to state truths that they might not be able to attest from their own insight.

However, in Aṣṭa the Buddha asks Subhūti to instruct the bodhisatvas and Śāriputra wonders:

kim ayam āyuṣmān subhūtiḥ sthavira ātmīyena svakena prajñāpratibhānabalādhānena svakena prajñāpratibhānabalādhiṣṭhānena bodhisattvānāṃ mahāsattvānāṃ prajñāpāramitām upadekṣyati utāho buddhānubhāveneti?

“Will this Elder Subhūti senior, explain the perfection of insight of the bodhisatva-mahāsatvas by employing the power (bala) his own (ātmīyena) personal (svakena) insight and eloquence, based on the power of his own insight and eloquence, or will he speak by the authority (anubhāva) of the Buddha?”

Subhūti's answer is that a disciple who has practised the Dharma and realised the truth for themselves and carries that realisation with them always speaks with the anubhāva of the Buddha. See also my discussion of this passage: Aṣṭasāhasrikā: Insight and Ongoing Transformation. (01 December 2017).

In Chinese, we see wēilì 威力 (T253) and wēishén 威神 (T254) for anubhāva. Wēi 威 means "power". Since lì 力 also means "strength, power, etc.", T253 could be said to have a double translation. By contrast, shén 神 refers to supernatural beings, powers, and events (giving anubhāva a magical quality). Elsewhere, wēishénlì 威神力 has been used to translate both anubhāva and adhiṣṭhāna.

---

Sentence 5.

T253	「善男子！若有欲學甚深般若波羅蜜多行者，云何修行？」。
T254	聖者！若有欲學甚深般若波羅蜜多行，　云何修行？」
Skt.	yaḥ kaścit kulaputro vā kuladuhitā vā asyāṃ gambhīrāyāṃ prajñāpāramitāyāṃ caryāṃ car[i]tukāmaḥ, kathaṃ śikṣitavyaḥ?

"Kulaputra 善男子 if 若 there is 有 desire [for] 欲 training [in] 學 the extremely 甚 profound 深 prajñāpāramitā 般若波羅蜜多 practice 行，how 云何 cultivate 修 [that] practice 行?"

I've commented in print that it is odd for Śāriputra to address Guanyin as "kulaputra" since it's generally used for social juniors (Attwood 2021: 74-75). It would be unremarkable for Gunyin to refer to Śāriputra as kulaputra. Perhaps Zhìhuì Lún 智慧輪, the redactor of T254, felt this as he changed the vocative to shèngzhě 聖者 "Venerable One", which carries the implication that the one being addressed is awakened. This is a more appropriate form of address in the context.

In fact, it is rare in Prajñāpāramitā for any person to be directly addressed as kulaputra, except for one circumstance, the sadhukāra, which we encounter in Sentence 17. This involves saying "sadhu sadhu" to the person (always twice); and is the Prajñāpāramitā it is very often "sadhu sadhu kulaputra" Sadhu likely derives from √sādh "succeed" and means "good". The sadhukāra reflects approval by, and acknowledgement from, a superior. 

More often in Prajñāpāramitā literature, kulaputra (in the nominative case) is the agent in a hypothetical: "How does a kulaputra cultivate prajñāpāramitā?" This is how the Sanskrit Heart Sutra text uses the term, but it is not how the Chinese texts use it. 

Note that neither Chinese text includes the kuladuhitṛ here in the question, but both include her in the answer (see S7). The extant Sanskrit texts mentions the kuladuhitṛ in both cases. 

If T253 and T254 are translations, and if the extant Sanskrit texts reflect the text translated, then Bānrě 般若, Lìyán 利言, et al have made an error here. It seems that Zhìhuì Lún 智慧輪 attempts to correct this error in T254 so that at least Guānyīn is not being addressed inappropriately as kulaputra, but he has not corrected it so that T254 conforms to the Sanskrit. In this case, even if we postulate a non-extant Sanskrit source, it would be very odd indeed if Avalokiteśvara (or anyone) was addressed in it as kulaputra. This is consistent with T254 being redacted in Chinese with little or no reference to the Sanskrit.

In Attwood (2021: 74-75), I outlined my view that, in this context, kulaputra is a way of referring to a bhikṣu in the abstract; and kuladuhutṛ to a bhikṣunī. Kula is a general term for any group of humans or animals which carries no implication of status (high or low). So kulaputra is literally "group-son" and kuladuhitṛ "group-daughter" (duhitṛ is cognate with daughter). Both terms seem to be tatpuruṣa compounds: a son or daughter of the group. Note that it was not uncommon for bhikṣus to refer to themselves as śakyaputra "a son of the Śakya(s)"; where "the Śakya" is the Buddha and "the Śakyas" refers to the Buddha's tribe. So putra is literally "son", but is used figuratively to mean something like "disciple".

The association with "nobility", "goodness" or "high status" is also implied by the Chinese translation shàn nán zi 善男子 literally "good male child". Shàn 善 "good, kind, virtuous, friendly; apt, adept, expert" is also a character used to translate kuśala "good, adept, etc". However, this appears to be a mistake based on misreading certain early Buddhist texts which appear to conflate kulaputra with sujāta "well born" (notably the Ambaṭṭha Sutta DN 3). In fact, these are two different adjectives in a longer list of distinctive qualities. They are not synonyms. So I think all such translations as "noble son", "son of good family", etc are simply wrong.

This passage is important because it sets things up so that the unattributed statements in the main body of the text appear to be the answer to this question. As in the TV game show Jeopardy, the "translator" had to come up with a suitable question to fit an existing answer. It's artful enough in its own way, but we know that the answer—i.e. the text of T251—came first. 

Common forms of indicating who is speaking—such as idam avocat, evaṃ ukte, or āha (and their Chinese counterparts)—do not occur in the standard Heart Sutra. The inescapable conclusion is that, despite centuries of tradition, the words in the text are not uttered by Guānyīn. These passages come from Pañc where they are spoken by the Buddha (something that Woncheuk is cognizant of in his commentary). See: Guanyin Does Not Speak in the Heart Sutra (9 February 2024).

In The Extended Heart Sutra: Avalokiteśvara Preaches (14 August 2020) I noted that cartukāma (yù 欲) is a variant of caritukāma "one whose desire is to practice"; a bahuvrīhi compound combining the infinitive caritum/cartum "to practice" and kāma "desire".

T254 drops the zhě 者 from xíngzhě 行者, which makes more sense, since if xíng 行 is "practice" then xíngzhě 行者 should be "a practitioner". And this doesn't fit the context.

In this passage, the changes to T254 appear to be corrections of mistakes in T253, though without reference to a Sanskrit text.

---

Sentence 6.

253	如是問已，爾時，觀自在菩薩摩訶薩　　告具壽舍利弗言：
254	如是問已，爾時，觀世音自在菩薩摩訶薩 告具壽舍利子言：
Skt.	Evam ukte āryāvalokiteśvaro bodhisattvo mahāsattvaḥ āyuṣmantaṃ śāriputram etad avocat:

Thus 如是 asked 問 already 已, at that time 爾時, Guānzìzài 觀自在 bodhisatva 菩薩 mahāsatva 摩訶薩 spoke [to] 告 Elder 具壽 Śāriputra 舍利弗 saying 言：

Of the three texts, the easiest to understand is the Sanskrit: "That being said, Noble Avalokiteśvara bodhisatva mahāsatva said this to Elder Śāriputra". This is very much a standard Buddhist locution in Sanskrit and Pāli. We see such sentences on almost every page of every sutra/sutta.

The Chinese text is unnecessarily complicated. The phrase rúshì wèn yǐ 如是問已 "having been asked" appears to correspond to Sanskrit evaṃ ukte "when this was said". As per the Sanskrit, this is one grammatically simple sentence. If 如是問已 is to be included then the following full stop in CBETA is clearly incorrect because this is one sentence. I've changed the full stop to a comma. However, note that the Sanskrit merely says "thus spoken" (evam ukte), while the Chinese explicitly mentions the "question" (wèn 問).

The real problem here is ěr shí 爾時 "at that time" in both Chinese texts. It's not really needed or wanted here and could be omitted with no change to the meaning of the sentence. Nor is it implied by the extant Sanskrit text. So once again the connection between the Sanskrit "source" and the Chinese "target" texts is not a straightforward "translation". 

Note that T253 includes Śāriputra's honorific this time, having previously omitted it. The inclusion is not compulsory but it is included more often than not in Prajñāpāramitā literature.

---

Sentence 7.

253	「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。
254	「舍利子！若有善男子、善女人，行甚深般若波羅蜜多行時，應照見五蘊自性皆空，離諸苦厄。
Skt.	yaḥ kaścicChāriputra kulaputro va kuladuhitā vā [asyāṃ] gambhīrāyāṃ prajñāpāramitāyāṃ caryāṃ cartukāmaḥ, tenaivaṃ vyavalokitavyam-pañca skandhāṃs tāṃś ca svabhāvaśūnyān samanupaśyati sma |

"Śāriputra 「舍利子！if 若 [a] kulaputra 善男子、[or] kuladuhitṛ 善女人 [desires] to practice 行 very profound 甚深 prajñāpāramitā 般若波羅蜜多 practice 行 when 時，[they] should 應 observe 觀 five 五 skandhas 蘊 nature 性 absence 空。

T254 inserts yǒu 有 into ruò shàn nánzǐ 若善男子 "If a kulaputra..." giving ruò yǒu shàn nánzǐ 若有善男子, which seems to say "if that kulaputra...", or "if there is a kulaputra..."; whereas the Sanskrit still seems to discuss kulaputra in the abstract.

Despite asking the question solely in terms of kulaputra, T253 and T254 both answer in terms of both kulaputra and kuladuhitṛ. This inconsistency seems to be the result of poor editing.

While T253 and T254 now omit yù 欲 (cartukāma), it is repeated in the Sanskrit. Perhaps in Chinese, the context makes it clear, but without yù 欲, the sentence doesn't entirely make sense on its own. 

Note the addition of 離諸苦厄 in T254 at the end (it occurs in Sentence 3 of T253). Placed here it doesn't fit the context. In sentence 3, it follows on from the realisation that the skandhas are absent. Here, the sentence is recommending this same practice to the unenlightened kulaputra or kuladuhitṛ. So it makes no sense to say "free from all suffering" at this point. Note the absence of any such statement in Sanskrit. The introduction of T254 appears to have been edited in Chinese and the editor seems not to have been cognizant of the Sanskrit text.

---

2. Middle Section (i.e. T 251)

The middle of T253, sentences 8-14 is identical to T251 except for (14) the dhāraṇī. T254 has a few changes.

In sentence 9:

253	舍利子！是諸法空相，不生不滅、不垢不淨、不增不減。
254	舍利子！是諸法性相空，不生不滅、不垢不淨、不減不增。

Where T251 and T253 have "Here 是 all 諸 dharmas 法 [are] absence 空 marked 相", T254 has an extra character xìng 性, which also means "quality, nature" so really just reinforces xiāng 相 which generally translates lakṣana "characteristic".

Note also that T254 reverses the order of the last pair of phrases: 不減不增. This actually brings it into conformity with the Sanskrit text, i.e. T251/253 have their pairs reversed compared to the Sanskrit.

The original passage from Pañc is: ya Śāradvatīputra śūnyatā na sā utpadyate, no nirudhyate, na saṃkliśyate, na vyavadāyate, na hīyate, no vardhate. This clearly places "not diminishing" (na hīyate) before "not growing" (no vardhate). So this is the order we expect. Still, if we were translating into English, it feels more idiomatic to say "not growing, not diminishing", especially in the light of "not arising, not ceasing". Similarly, in English we'd prefer to say "not pure, not stained", giving the positive quality first and the negative second.

Where T253, sentence 11, has jiùjìng nièpán 究竟涅槃 equating to niṣṭhanirvāṇa, T254 has jiùjìng jìrán 究竟寂然。I cannot explain this change. It seems entirely arbitrary, since nièpán 涅槃 is a very common translation of nirvāṇa, and jìrán 寂然 is more often used to translate such Sanskrit terms as upaśānta, praśānta, śama, śamatha, and śānti, all representing the idea of "peace" or "peacefulness". Presuming that the creator of T254 was translating from a Sanskrit text that said nirvāṇa (which all of the extant documents do) this is a very odd change to make. Again, this redaction appears to have occurred in Chinese without reference to the Sanskrit text.

A similar change occurs in the passage 三世諸佛依般若波羅蜜多故，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。"All the buddhas of the three times relying on this prajñāpāramitā completely attained anuttarāṃ samyaksaṃbodhim." To this, T254 appends xiàn chéng zhèngjué 現成正覺, "manifests perfect awakening" which again corresponds to no known Sanskrit text. This phrase appears to be a translation of anuttarāṃ samyaksaṃbodhim whereas ānòuduōluó sānmiǎosānpútí 阿耨多羅三藐三菩提 is a transcription. Perhaps the addition of the translation was a commentarial gloss?

In the epithets section, sentence 13, T254 changes the ambiguous zhòu 呪 "incantation" to zhēnyán 真言 "true words", a term only used by Tantrikas and which can only mean "mantra". As we will see, T254 also changes the dhāraṇī into a mantra. This is consistent with the attributed author, Zhìhuì Lún 智慧輪 (*Prajñācakra), being a tantrika. And this change is consistent with the Sanskrit text.

---

Sentence 14. The Dhāraṇī

251	即說呪曰　揭帝　揭帝　般羅揭帝　般羅僧揭帝　菩提　薩婆訶。
253	即說呪曰「櫱諦　櫱諦　波羅櫱諦　波羅僧櫱諦　菩提　娑(蘇紇反)婆訶
254	即說真言「唵(引)　誐帝　誐帝　播(引)囉誐帝　播(引)囉散誐帝　冒(引)地　娑縛(二合)賀(引)
Skt.	Tadyathā: gate gate pāragate pārasaṃgate bodhi svāhā |

Neither T253 nor T254 completely follow the dhāraṇī transcription in T251. T254 takes an explicitly tantric approach.

Where we find tadyathā "this way" in Sanskrit, T251 has "now 即 speak 說 the incantation 呪 that says 曰". The word is frequently translated dátā 怛他 or some other variant. T253 preserves the reading in T251. T254 again substitutes 真言 for 呪, emphasising the idea that "mantra" was intended, even though we know that the original word (in Pañc) was in fact vidyā.

T254 inserts 唵(引) /ʔəm/, i.e oṃ. Here, (引) indicates a long vowel. In Sanskrit, e and o are always long; the short e and o were assimilated to short a prior to Vedic (aka Old Indic) emerging as a distinct language. Hence we don't usually mark them as long with the macron: ē and ō as we do with other long vowels, i.e. ā, ī, ū, and ṝ.

In T245, T251 揭 /kæt/ representing Skt ga is changed to 櫱 /ŋi̯ät/ in T253 and 誐 /ngɑ/ in T254. 

The anomalous 般 /pan/ in T251 becomes the expected 波 /pa/ and 播(引) /pā/

In T253 the expression sū hé fǎn 蘇紇反 represents a fǎnqiè 反切 formula, where sū 蘇 provides the initial sound and hé 紇 provides the final sound and tone. However, I don't think this makes sense in context and a Middle Chinese transcription is no help. T253 has a three-character transcription of svāhā, i.e. suō pó hē 娑婆訶, where 娑 and 婆 together represent svā. T254 reflects a more common approach: 娑縛(二合) which tells us to combine the two sounds (MC /sa bɨak/) into one conjunct consonant sound supposed to represent svā in a language that lacks a /v/ sound.

---

3. The Concluding Section

Sentence 15.

253	「如是，舍利弗！諸菩薩摩訶薩，於甚深般若波羅蜜多行，應如是行。」如是說已。
254	「如是，舍利子！諸菩薩摩訶薩，於甚深般若波羅蜜多行，應如是學。」
Skt.	evaṃ śāriputra gambhīrāyāṃ prajñāpāramitāyāṃ caryāyāṃ śikṣitavyaṃ bodhisattvena |

In this way 如是，Śāriputra 舍利弗！all 諸 bodhisatva 菩薩 mahāsatva 摩訶薩，regarding 於 very profound 甚深 prajñāpāramitā 般若波羅蜜多 practice 行，should 應 in this way 如是 practice 行。」

The addition of rúshì shuō yǐ 如是說已 "Thus, having spoken" at the end of the line in T253 should correspond to evaṃ ukte "when this was said" or to etad avocat "that being said". In fact, such expressions are absent from the Sanskrit text and it seems to have been added in error or despite the Sanskrit text. The same phrase occurs in sentence 17 of T254 where it does fit the context and T253 has Shuō shì yǔ yǐ 說是語已 "Having spoken these words.".

At the end, T253 has cíng 行 for both caryā and śikṣitavya. The last character of T254 substitutes xué 學 corresponding to √śikṣ "train", which better reflects the Sanskrit text. 

---

Sentence 16.

253	即時，世尊從 廣大甚深三摩地起，讚觀自在菩薩摩訶薩　言：
254	爾時，世尊從　三摩地安祥而起，讚觀世音自在菩薩摩訶薩言：
Skt.	atha khalu bhagavān tasmāt samādher vyutthāya āryāvalokiteśvarāya bodhisattvāya mahāsattvāya sādhukāram adāt |

At that time 即時，Bhagavan 世尊 from 從 the vast 廣大 and [very 甚] profound 深 samādhi 三摩地 he arose 起，praising 讚 Guānzìzài 觀自在 bodhisatva 菩薩 mahāsatva 摩訶薩 saying 言：

The main difference here is how they refer to the samādhi. T253: Guǎngdà shènshēn sānmódì 大甚深三摩地 (T253 S2 spelled samādhi as sānmèi 三昧).

T254 spells samādhi consistently but here does not refer to the samādhi by name, merely adding that the Buddha... "arose from samādhi, peaceful and composed" (從三摩地安祥而起).

On this occasion, T254 appears to follow the Sanskrit rather than T253. 

---

Sentence 17.

253	「善哉，善哉！善男子！如是，如是！如汝所說。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。」
254	「善哉，善哉！善男子！如是，如是！如汝所說。甚深般若波羅蜜多行，應如是行。如是行時，一切如來悉皆隨喜。」
Skt.	sādhu sādhu kulaputra | evam etat kulaputra, evam etad gambhīrāyāṃ prajñāpāramitāyāṃ caryāṃ cartavyaṃ yathā tvayā nirdiṣṭam anumodyate tathāgatair arhadbhiḥ |

Good! 善哉，Good! 善哉！Kulaputra 善男子！It is so, 如是，it is so 如是 it is as you just said 如汝所說。Very 甚 profound 深 prajñāpāramitā 般若波羅蜜多 practice 行，[you] should 應 this way 如是 practice 行。in this way 如是 practising 行 when 時，all 一切 tathāgatas 如來 all 皆 completely 悉 rejoice. 隨喜。

This phrase sādhu sādhu kulaputra (善哉，善哉！善男子!) occurs several times in the later chapters of Aṣṭa (Vaidya 1960: 195, 238, 240, 247, 252, 255, 256, and 258). In the first occurrence (195), Māra is addressing a hypothetical bodhisatva (this event is absent from Conze's translation). The rest are in Chapters 30 and 31, on Sadāprarudita and Dharmodgata respectively. Thus phrase is absent from what is thought to be the core of the text and is mainly found in chapters widely considered to be later additions.

In the chapter on Sadāprarudita (Vaidya 238 ff.), the Bhagavan tells an avadāna story to Subhūti. In the story, the words sādhu sādhu kulaputra are spoken to Sadāprarudita by "a voice from the sky" (antarīkṣān nirghoṣaḥ). The second time (Vaidya 238) it is "the figure of a tathāgata" (tathāgata-vigrahaḥ) who appears and speaks.* The third time (247) it is Śakra (aka Indra) who addresses Sadāprarudita. A little later (still on 247), a merchant's daughter addresses Sadāprarudita, saying "You should come, Kulaputra" (ehi tvaṃ kulaputra...); at the end of Chp 30 (Vaidya 252), it is Sadāprarudita himself, recounting to Dharmodgata how the tathāgatas appeared to congratulate him.

* Note that Conze (1973: 279) translates tathāgata-vigrahaḥ as "a tathāgata-frame" which is both incomprehensible and wrong.

The pattern is similar in Pañc.

Here T253 and 254 are identical except for the transposition of two characters in the last phrase: 皆悉 "all completely" versus 悉皆 "completely all". The latter seems to be more idiomatic, and better expresses the sense of "completeness".

Again, I think it's unusual to see Guanyin addressed as kulaputra, even by the Buddha.

The latter part of the Sanskrit is a little different from the Chinese: "[it]... should be practised cartavyaṃ just as yathā by you tvayā has been indicated nirdiṣṭam, rejoiced in anumodyate by tathāgatas tathāgatair and arhats arhadbhiḥ."

---

Sentence 18.

253	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。
254	爾時，世尊如是說已，具壽舍利子，　　　觀世音自在菩薩，　　　　及彼眾會一切世間天、人、阿蘇囉、巘䭾嚩，等，聞佛所說，皆大歡喜，信受奉行。
Skt.	Idam avocad bhagavān, āttamanā āyuṣmān śāriputraḥ āryāvalokiteśvaraś bodhisattvo māhasattvas te bhikṣavas te ca bodhisattvā sā ca sarvāvatī pariṣat sadeva-mānuṣāsura-garuḍa-gandharvaś ca loko bhagavato bhāṣitam abhyanandann iti ||

Then indeed 爾時，Bhagavan 世尊 spoke 說 these 是 words 語 after 已，Elder 具壽 Śāriputra 舍利弗，[with] great 大 joy 喜 was entirely filled 充遍，Guānzìzài 觀自在 bodhisatva 菩薩 mahāsatva 摩訶薩 also 亦 great 大 delighted 歡喜。Then 時 that 彼 congregation 眾會 of devas 天、humans 人、asuras 阿修羅、gandarvas 乾闥婆 etc 等，heard 聞 [by] buddha 佛 what was said 所說，all 皆 greatly delighted 大歡喜，believed 信 accepted 受 respectfully 奉 put into practice 行。

The Chinese ending is characteristically Chinese and the structure of the Sanskrit is quite different here:

The Bhagavan said this: [And] overjoyed, Elder Śāriputra, Noble Avalokiteśvara bodhisatva mahāsatva, those bhikṣus and bodhisatvas, the whole gathering, and the world with its devas, humans, demons, garudas and gandharvas rejoiced in the words of the Bhagavan.

T254 omits dàxǐ chōng biàn 大喜充遍 "was entirely filled great joy". However, in T253 this appears to translate āttamanā "enraptured", so the omission from T254 seems to be a mistake.

Conclusion

Any conclusions about T253 and T254 need to be contextualised in terms of what we already know. T251 was assembled from some copied passages, some original composition, and a copied dhāraṇī. This composite text was later translated into Sanskrit. The Hṛd is a poor translation with numerous poor word and syntax choices, and a least one obvious calque of Chinese (Attwood 2021b). There are two main recensions of the extended text: (1) T252 and (2) the rest, i.e. T253, T254, 255, 257, the Sanskrit, and canonical Tibetan.

T252 (translated by Fǎyuè 法月 ca 741 CE) clearly had the same goal of completing the sutra by adding a suitable introduction and conclusion. This not only made the text seem like an Indian sutra, but also helped to clarify the otherwise ambiguous role of Guanyin. Apart from this, and the fact that T252 also incorporates the text of T251, it is in every other respect different from both T253 and T254. T252 is certainly not the same text as T253 but has to be seen as an independent attempt to supply the missing parts of a standard sutra.

From the present study, it seems that T254 is not an independent translation of the Heart Sutra. Rather it is a lightly edited version of T253, with only minor alterations. It's difficult to quantify, but I would guess that T254 is ~90% T253, and most of the variation is merely alternative spellings or synonyms.

The redacting of T253 to produce T254 appears to have occurred in Chinese. It is possible that a Sanskrit text was consulted, more so for the concluding section than the introduction. So for example, when T254 adds jùshòu 具壽 āyuṣman "Elder" to the name Śāriputra, this appears to reflect a Sanskrit practice that is not observed in Chinese translations. That said, T254 also seems to adopt readings that do not reflect the Sanskrit. Such as: adding hézhǎng gōngjìng 合掌恭敬 "joining hands respectfully" in Sentence 4; and omitting dàxǐ chōng biàn 大喜充遍 in Sentence 17.

When we look at T253, we see that it contains the entire text of T251, with a handful of minor alternations, even including a variant of a phrase from T251—lí zhū kǔ è 離諸苦厄—that is not found in any extant Sanskrit text.

T253 has several obvious mistakes that appear to be scribal errors: especially adding words and phrases where they do not belong. At present, I have no access to the witnesses that the editors of the Taishō used to create their edition. As such, I'm not sure whether such errors are found in the manuscripts/inscriptions or are the result of poor editing.

Neither T253 nor T254 really captures the Sanskrit of sentence 2. But then nor does any other version of the Heart Sutra (including the Tibetan). It's not clear how this happened.

The whole of T251 is integrated into T253 and this integration had to have happened in Chinese. This raises the question of whether T253 is a translation from a Sanskrit text at all. Perhaps it was composed in Chinese and the extended Sanskrit Heart Sutra came later? As with T254, T253 does not always follow the Sanskrit text.

At the very least Prajñā and Lìyán, like Fǎyuè 法月, salvaged the entirety of T251 in T253, seemingly without regard for any of the differences between T251 and their Sanskrit source. They all show the same blindness as Woncheuk who also supposedly had a Chinese source text.

It seems that the contribution of the "translators" only included the introduction and conclusion and a few minor changes to the rest of the text. This raises the question of whether T253 is an independent translation. For example, it is odd that T253 contains an expression hézhǎng gōngjìng 合掌恭敬 "joining hands respectfully" that has no counterpart in any known Sanskrit Heart Sutra, though it is a common enough expression.

Takeaways

1. T254 is a lightly redacted version of T253. Although most of the sentences have changes, they are mostly matters of alternate spelling or synonyms. Zhìhuì Lún 智慧輪 may have consulted a Sanskrit text in the process but all of T251 is preserved intact. This suggests that the redaction occurred in Chinese. Ergo, T254 is not a separate translation of the Heart Sutra. And is not really a "translation" at all.

2. T253 retains the entirety of T251 intact. Thus, even if it was initially a translation from Sanskrit, only the introduction and conclusion were translated afresh (if that). Given the integration of T251 within it, even if there was a Sanskrit text, T253 was likely substantially redacted in Chinese.

3. The extended Hṛd mirrors the redaction process of T253 in the sense that Hṛd_ext preserves the Hṛd_std text in its entirety; including all of the odd expressions, Chinese idioms, and calques. Thus it seems likely that Hṛd_ext was produced in much the same (Chinese) milieu as Hṛd_std and in much the same way.

~~oOo~~

Bibliography

Attwood (2021a). "Preliminary Notes on the Extended Heart Sutra in Chinese." Asian Literature and Translation 8(1): 63–85. DOI: http://doi.org/10.18573/alt.53

———. (2021) "The Chinese Origins of the Heart Sutra Revisited: A Comparative Analysis of the Chinese and Sanskrit Texts." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies. 44: 13-52.

A list of all the differences

253 vs 254

Sentence 1

• 佛 vs 薄誐梵 (bhagavan)
• 耆闍崛山 vs 鷲峯山 (Gṛdhrakūṭa)
• 菩薩眾 vs 大菩薩眾 (cf 大比丘眾 in both)

S2

• 佛世尊 vs 世尊 (previously 薄誐梵)
• 時 vs 爾時
• 三昧 vs 三摩地 (cf S16 where both have 三摩地).
• T254 照見 added in error

S3

• 爾時 vs 時
• 觀自在 vs 觀世音自在
• 深 vs 甚深
• 般若波羅蜜多時 vs 般若波羅蜜多行時
• 皆空 vs 自性皆空
• 離諸苦厄 vs 254 omit (added S7)

S4

• 舍利弗 vs 具壽舍利子 (253 adds 具壽 in S18)
• 白觀自在 vs 白觀世音自在

S5

• 善男子 vs 聖者
• 行者 vs 行 (者 added in error)

S6

• 觀自在 vs 觀世音自在

S7

• 若 vs 若有
• 性空 vs 自性皆空
• 254 added 離諸苦厄。(from S3)

S8

• N/A

S9

• 是諸法空相 vs 是諸法性相空
• 不增不減 vs 不減不增

S10

• N/A

S11

• 究竟涅槃 vs 究竟寂然 (nirvāṇa)

S12

• 245 adds 現成正覺 (autocommentary?)

S13

• N/A

S14

• 櫱諦　櫱諦　波羅櫱諦　波羅僧櫱諦　菩提　娑(蘇紇反)婆訶
• 唵(引)　誐帝　誐帝　播(引)囉誐帝　播(引)囉散誐帝　冒(引)地　娑縛(二合)賀(引)

S15

• 舍利弗 vs 舍利子
• 應如是行 vs 應如是學 (improvement based on Sk)
• 253 adds 如是說已。 in error

S16

• 廣大甚深三摩地起 vs 三摩地安祥而起

253: vast 廣大 and profound 甚深 samādhi 三摩地 he arose 起
254: arose from samādhi 三摩地, peaceful 安祥 and composed 而起

• 觀自在 vs 觀世音自在

S17

• N/A

S18

• 語已 vs 說已
• 具壽舍利弗 vs 具壽舍利子 (253 adds 具壽)
• 大喜充遍 vs 254 omitted.
• 亦大歡喜。 vs 254 omitted
• 時彼眾會天 vs 及彼眾會一切世間天
• 阿修羅 vs 阿蘇囉 asura
• 乾闥婆 vs 巘䭾嚩 gandharva
• both have 信受奉行 with no Sk counterpart.

Revised Heart Sutra Editions and Translations.

After twelve years of research and a year-long editorial process, my revised editions of the Heart Sutra in Chinese and Sanskrit have now been published in Asian Literature and Translation along with translations (and copious notes) that reflect how I think it should be understood. I thank people in the article, but I also want to thank the editor, Ian Rapley, for his heroic patience with me.

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. https://alt.cardiffuniversitypress.org/articles/10.18573/alt.63.

Since 2012, when I first noticed errors in Conze's Sanskrit, I have wanted to take this step of publishing revised editions. On the other hand, I have dreaded having to commit to a translation that would then be the subject of criticism from all sides. But the moment to take this step has arrived. So here are the "official" Jayarava texts and translations.

With help from many other scholars, I have at least identified the major issues with the existing editions and shown how I think they should be corrected. To the best of my ability, the Sanskrit text is now fully parseable as Sanskrit and, to the best of my knowledge, this is the first time in history that a Sanskrit Heart Sutra text can stake this claim. All the current Sanskrit editions have numerous grammatical errors and thus all existing translations based on those editions are also full of errors.

The revised Chinese text is less drastically changed and my revisions are mainly concerned with integrating insights from Huifeng (2014) into the structure of the text. Explanations for the changes can be found in the main article.

Please note that despite widespread beliefs to the contrary, the Heart Sutra is entirely in prose. So I avoid the faux-poetic arrangement of the text into disconnected short lines (that often ignore sentence breaks). I have added paragraphs to make reading/studying easier.

The Chinese Heart Sutra

Revised Chinese Text

般若波羅蜜多心經。

觀自在菩薩行深般若波羅蜜多時，照見五蘊皆空，度一切苦厄。

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。

舍利子，是諸法空相不生不滅不垢不淨不增不減。

是故空中無色無受想行識，無眼耳鼻舌身意，無色聲香味觸法，無眼界乃至無意識界，無無明亦無無明盡乃至無老死亦無老死盡，無苦集滅道，無得無現觀，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。三世諸佛依般若波羅蜜多故得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。

故知般若波羅蜜是大明呪無上明呪無等等明呪。能除一切苦真實不虛。

故說般若波羅蜜多咒即說呪曰　揭帝　揭帝　般羅揭帝　般羅僧揭帝　菩提　薩婆訶。

Translation

On the Essence of Perfect Insight.

Practising the deep perfection of insight, Guanyin bodhisattva observed the branches of experience, all were absent and he transcended all suffering.

Śāriputra, appearance is not different from absence and absence is not different from appearance; appearance is only absence and absence is only appearance. Valence, recognition, intention, and objectification are the same.

Śāriputra, all phenomena are characterised by absence that does not arise or cease, is not defiled or pure, and is not declining or growing.

In that state of absence—there is no appearance, valence, recognition, intention, or objectification; no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, or mental sense; no appearance, sound, smell, taste, touch, or percepts; no eye-sphere etc up to no mental cognition sphere; no ignorance or cessation of ignorance etc up to no ageing and death or the cessation of ageing and death; no dissatisfaction, no origin, no cessation, no path; no attainment and no realisation—due to practising nonapprehension.

Since the bodhisatva relies on perfect insight their mind is not attached anywhere; being detached they are not afraid, transcend illusions and delusions, and attain final extinction. Relying on perfect insight, the buddhas of the three times attained full and perfect awakening.

Understand that perfect insight is great know-how, unexcelled know-how, and unequalled know-how. It can remove all suffering; it is true and not false.

Therefore recite the incantation of perfect insight, the incantation that goes: jiēdì jiēdì bānluójiēdì bānluósēngjiēdì pútí sàpóhē.

~o~

The Sanskrit Heart Sutra

Revised Sanskrit Text

āryāvalokiteśvaro bodhisatvo gambhīrāṃ prajñāpāramitācaryāṃ caramāṇo vyavalokayati sma pañcaskandhāṃs tāṃś ca svabhāvaśūnyān paśyati sma ||

iha śāriputra rūpam eva śūnyatā śūnyataiva rūpaṃ rūpān na pṛthak śūnyatā śūnyatāyā na pṛthag rūpaṃ | evam eva vedanā-saṃjñā-saṃskāra-vijñānaṃ ||

iha śāriputra sarvadharmāḥ śūnyatālakṣaṇā anutpannā aniruddhā amalā avimalā anūnā aparipūrṇāḥ ||

tasmāc chāriputra śūnyatāyāṃ na rūpaṃ na vedanā na saṃjñā na saṃskārāḥ na vijñānaṃ, na caksuḥ-śrotra-ghrāṇa-jihvā-kāya-manāṃsi na rūpa-śabda-gandha-rasa-spraṣṭavya-dharmāḥ na cakṣurdhātur yāvan na manovijñānadhātur nāvidyā nāvidyākṣayo yāvan na jarāmaraṇaṃ na jarāmaraṇakṣayo na duḥkha-samudaya-nirodha-mārgā na jñānaṃ na prāptiḥ ||

tasmāc chāriputra aprāptitvād bodhisatvaḥ prajñāpāramitām āśritya viharaty acittāvaraṇaś cittāvaraṇanāstitvād atrasto viparyāsātikrānto niṣṭhanirvāṇaḥ | tryadhvavyavasthitāḥ sarvabuddhāḥ prajñāpāramitām āśritya anuttarāṃ samyaksambodhim abhisambuddhāḥ ||

tasmāj jñātavyaḥ prajñāpāramitā mahāmantro mahāvidyāmantro ‘nuttaramantro ‘samasamamantraḥ sarvaduḥkhapraśamanaḥ satyam amithyātvāt ||

prajñāpāramitāyām ukto mantraḥ tadyathā | gate gate pāragate pārasaṃgate bodhi svāhā ||

iti prajñāpāramitāhṛdayaṃ samāptam ||

Translation

Practising the deep practice of perfect insight, noble Avalokiteshvara bodhisattva, examined the five branches of experience and saw that they lacked self-existence.

Obviously, Śāriputra, appearance only is absence; absence is only appearance. Absence is not different from appearance; appearance is not different from absence. The same applies to valence, recognition, intention, and objectification.

Obviously, Śāriputra all dharmas are characterised by absence that does not arise or cease, is not defiled or pure, and is not deficient or complete.

Therefore, Śāriputra, in that state of absence there is no appearance, valence, recognition, intention, or objectification; no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, or mental sense; no appearance, sound, smell, taste, touch, or percepts; no eye-sphere, and so on up to, no mental-cognition-sphere; no ignorance or destruction of ignorance, and so on up to, no ageing and death or the destruction of ageing and death; no dissatisfaction, no origin, no cessation, no path; no knowledge and no attainment.

Therefore, Śāriputra, in the absence of attainment, the bodhisattva who is without mental obstructions dwells having relied on perfect insight, [and] being free of mental obstructions he is unafraid, has overcome delusions, and his extinction is complete. Having relied on perfect insight, all the buddhas appearing in the three times fully awakened to the unexcelled perfectly complete awakening.

Therefore, know that perfect insight is a great mantra, a great mantra of mastery, an unexcelled mantra, an unequalled mantra that allays all suffering and it is true and without wrongness.

Concerning perfect insight, a mantra goes like this: gate gate pāragate pārasaṃgate bodhi svāhā.

This Epitome of Insight is complete.

~~oOo~~

Notes on Xuanzang's Waning Years

The religious history of Xuanzang sees him going from triumph to triumph, hobnobbing with emperors, and generally being successful and loved by all. Xuanzang is the ideal Chinese Buddhist monk, highly educated, adept at Sanskrit and translation, a shrewd political operative, and so on. A typical Buddhist saint in many respects.

I was, therefore, intrigued by a new article by Liu Shufen 劉淑芬, which paints a very different picture of the later years of Xuanzang's life.

"... the conventional wisdom about Xuanzang's later years has been largely misinformed, and needs to be modified in light of more sensitive readings of data in sources like the [Yancong] Biography. (Liu 2022: 259)

This is the latest in a series of articles by her on this topic. Liu brings out nuances that are easily overlooked, such as Gaozong keeping Xuanzang under virtual house arrest (657-658); or Gaozong appointing no less that seven officials to oversee Xuanzang's translation work. Moreover, after Xuanzang died his translation work was abandoned and his team of experts disbanded.

However, these events have to be seen alongside others such as a pregnant Wu Zhao asking Xuanzang to pray for her and her baby after she experienced difficulties in pregnancy. Not only does this seem to have occurred, but Xuanzang was able to temporarily ordain the new prince as a monk (to gain merit).

Liu points out that most commentators ignore the socio-political ructions during the early decades of the Tang dynasty. Liu's article prompts me to look again, particularly at the Yancong Biography. Her reading of the Biography and use of other contemporary sources is novel and draws out points that have long been overlooked, which makes it valuable.

However, Liu is reading the Biography in a relatively naive way, taking the text more or less at face value. By contrast, Jeffrey Kotyk (2019), who cites one of Liu's early contributions, has argued that we would be on safer ground reading the Biography as fiction based upon a true story (now long obscured and largely unrecoverable). Similarly, Max Deeg has shown that Xuanzang's Travelogue of his journey to the west often seems to serve purposes other than geography or history: Xuanzang was trying to exert a Buddhist influence over (a resistant, non-Buddhist) Taizong.

What I'm going to attempt in this essay is a critical reading of Liu (2022), in the light of Kotyk (2019) and some of Max Deeg's articles (2007, 2012, 2016). This is not simply an exercise, since the authorship of the Heart Sutra is an open question and the main suspect is Xuanzang. He certainly had the means and the opportunity. We can only speculate as to his motives, but a more nuanced picture of his later life might help.

The appeal of Xuanzang in the west has been partly due to the novel Journey to the West (Xī yóu jì; 西遊記), published in the 16th century, via Arthur Waley's 1942 abridged translation, Monkey, and the TV show of the same name, which aired throughout the English-speaking world (including New Zealand, where I grew up). It is also partly because Xuanzang's travelogue provided geographical information on ancient India accurate enough that nineteenth century British explorers used it to rediscover a number of lost Buddhist archaeological sites (this topic is explored in Charles Allen's popular history book, The Buddha and the Sahibs).

However, while Xuanzang himself was relatively popular in his lifetime, his translations were not popular either amongst the literati or the commoners. Nattier (1992) observed that where a translation of a text by Kumārajīva existed, a new translation by Xuanzang never replaced it. Xuanzang insisted on translating into Chinese prose that was considered turgid and ugly by the aesthetics of the day, but which modern commentators refer to as "accurate". Philologers praise Xuanzang because his sources are more visible than for any other Chinese translators. A Sanskrit source was, and still is, the most important criterion for authenticity of Buddhist texts in China. By contrast Kumārajīva's translations are still in use in modern Chinese-speaking places.

It is still common to see references to Kumārajīva as an expert in Chinese. For example, Felbur (2019: 2) refers to his "prodigious mastery of the Chinese language". However, this appears to be a pious fiction. During this period of translating T 223 and T 1509 (ca 400-404 CE), Kumārajīva's Chinese was poor enough for his collaborator, Sēngruì 僧睿 (371–438 AD) to record numerous complaints, notably:

“The Dharma Master [i.e. Kumārajīva] has great difficulty with the Chinese language. In regard to translating, the Sanskrit is beautiful, but his translation can hardly be understood.” (Chou 2004: 293).

Kotyk (2021) has also raised doubts about the level of understanding of Sanskrit in China, at any period. It is one thing to learn to read Sanskrit and translate it into another language. It is another thing entirely to compose in Sanskrit or to translate from Chinese to Sanskrit. The latter is particularly difficult because of the difference in grammatical information the writing system. A single verb in Sanskrit can have hundreds of forms which serve to indicate person, number, tense, and mood. In Middle Chinese, a single character representing a verb is used for all conjugations. Information on the person, number, tense, and mood often has to be implied from the context in Chinese, but is always explicit in the morphology of words in Sanskrit.

Liu broadly accepts accounts of Xuanzang's popularity with Emperor Táng Tàizōng 唐太宗 and dates the beginning of Xuanzang's troubles to the accession of his ninth son to the the Throne. However, Liu paints a considerably less flattering portrait of Xuanzang personally, than we find elsewhere. She notes, for example, that Xuanzang was unpopular because his translation methods were seen as suspect:

“To make matters worse, Xuánzàng is said to have possessed a somewhat abrasive personality, particularly when it came to matters regarding translation, which ended up offending quite a few elite monks.” (Liu 2022: 259)

Daoxuan 道宣 (596-667 CE), who also composed a biography of Xuanzang, "is said to have walked out of one translation session presided over by Xuánzàng in 645, and commented that while Xuánzàng’s translations were not of the finest quality, they did reflect his meritorious efforts.” (Liu 2022: 259). It seems that “Xuánzàng was on poor terms with more than a few of the era’s leading Buddhist monks”. (Liu 2022: 260). Buddhist histories often downplay Buddhist internecine conflicts, so this minority report is important in providing balance.

Life After Tàizōng 太宗.

“Xuánzàng’s stature at court changed dramatically following Taizong’s death .” (Liu 2022: 259)

The Táng 唐 Dynasty was founded on the ruins of the short-lived Sui dynasty by the Duke of Tang, aka Lǐ Yuān 李淵, later Emperor Gāozǔ 高祖. He was succeeded his son, Lǐ Shìmín 李世民 who became Emperor Tàizōng 太宗 (4 September 626 – 10 July 649). On the demise of Tàizōng, and after some of the more obvious candidates were eliminated, his ninth son, Lǐ zhì 李治 became Emperor Gāozōng 高宗 on 15 July 649.

Although the Tang is routinely portrayed as a "golden era" of Chinese culture, the early decades are better characterised as a period of simmering tensions and outbreaks of insurrection as the stronger aristocratic clans continued to flex their muscles. One issue for Han Chinese was that the Lǐ 李 clan had Turkic blood. The Turks north of the Great Wall were a considerable factor in this region. It was only with the help of the Blue Turks, for example, that the first Sui Emperor reunified China after some centuries of disunity. Later, the rebel leader An LuShan would capture the capital Chang'an with the help of Turks.

However, not content to fight outbreaks of insurrection, the early Tang emperors carried on the disastrous campaigns against the Korean peninsula initiated by the Sui Emperors (who lost in the most spectacular fashion). They also extended the boundaries of the Empire west into Central Asia and did battle with marauding Tibetans.

Liu notes that even within the Lǐ 李 clan there were tensions. Gaozong was suspicious of officials appointed by Taizong and many of Xuánzàng’s patrons were amongst them. (Liu 2022: 259). The period 657-658 saw the persecution of noted "Taizong loyalists." I don't understand Liu's use of this term "Taizong loyalists" since at this point Taizong is dead. There was definitely factionalism in the court at the time. There were, for example, pro and anti Wu Zhao factions.

Throughout the early Tang there were plots and attempted coups by factions within the court, even within the ruling Li clan.

Under Gaozong, during the period 657-658, Liu argues that Xuanzang was "kept under surveillance" although it might be better termed "house arrest", since he was confined to his monastery or the palace respectively. Liu (2022: 263) notes that during 657, while living in the Imperial Palace at Luoyang, Xuánzàng was ill but was denied medical attention. He snuck out of the palace to consult a physician but was caught and reprimanded.

After having produced a large number of translations under Taizong, Xuanzang's output plummeted under Gaozong. Liu notes, for example, that Xuánzàng did no translation work in 655 (2022: 260). Early in 657, the court moved to Luoyang and Xuánzàng was compelled to go with them, and had only five assistants of his own. During the period 656-657, he completed only one translation and that only one scroll in extent (Liu 2022: 262).

On returning to Chang’an, Xuánzàng was ordered to reside at Ximing monastery but was not given a position or title. No members of his translation team based at Da Ci’en monastery were allowed to accompany him. Gaozong gave him ten "newly ordained" monks instead, but they could not have had the training necessary to do translation work. "In other words," says Liu (2022: 263), "the Ximing monastery was to serve as a place of confinement, and a non-productive one at that.”

From from 658-659, “Xuánzàng was only able to translate three short scriptures, and only when Gaozong gave permission for a short trip back to the Da Ci’en monastery.” (Liu 2022: 263).

On Xianqing 1.1.27 (1 Feb 656), following the debate with Lǚ cái 吕才 (606-665), which Xuanzang won, Gaozong appointed several court officials to supervise Xuanzang's translation project (Liu 2022: 261; see also Li 1995:263-4). These officials are all known to history (via the Old Tang Records and the New Tang Records).

• Yu Zhining 于志寧 (588–665). Removed from office in 659 for not supporting Wu Zhao becoming Empress Consort.
• Lai Ji 來濟 (610–662). Also opposed Wu Zhao; demoted and exiled in 657.
• Xu Jingzong 許敬宗 (592 – 672). Served in Sui Dynasty as well as Gaozu, Taizong, and Gaozong. He supported Wu Zhao's being made EC and also supported her son (Li Hong) becoming Crown Prince.
• Xue Yuanchao 薛元超 (622–683). A noted literary talent and mid-level official. An ally of Li Yifu. Exiled in 663, forgiven, promoted. Died of natural causes.
• Li Yifu 李義府 (614–666). Noted poet and politician. A highly favoured ally of Wu Zhao who helped to eliminate her rivals. Exiled 658 after conflict with Du Zhenglun, but restored 659. Exiled again in 663 for corruption. Awarded posthumous honours in 692 by Wu Zetian.
• Du Zhenglun 杜正倫 (d. ca 658). Served in military under Taizong but exiled in 643. Restored and promoted by Gaozong. Exiled in 658 after conflict with Li Yifu and died soon afterwards.

The decree as presented in Yancong's Biography suggests that these men would read the translations and "should there be any unfitting or improper expression, they should polish and improve them as required." (Li 1995: 264). That is to say, these men were empowered to change Xuanzang's translations as they saw fit. This may have been a contributing factor in the precipitous fall in translation output during this period.

We might euphemistically refer to this as an "editorial board", but "board of censors" might be more apt. I can see no superficial commonality between there men. Some opposed Wu and some supported her. They were all in favour when appointed, but were not always favoured.

A key moment in the history of the Heart Sutra is the letter from Xuanzang to Gaozong dated 26 Dec 656, which mentions the Heart Sutra for the first time, amongst a raft of other gifts for the new prince and his parents:

"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 50; 2053.272b.12).

During a difficult pregnancy, Wu Zhao asked Xuanzang to pray for the safe delivery of the baby. He agreed and suggested as an extra measure that the baby be given the rite of tonsure (technically making it a Buddhist monk). After the safe birth of Lǐ xiǎn 李顯, the rite was administered.

Liu notes that no court officials attended Xuanzang's funeral and five years later, in 669, Gaozong had Xuánzàng exhumed and reinterred at Shǎolíngyuán 少陵原 “in the hills outside Chang’an”. Some 10 km from the palace.

Li’s translation of the Yancong Biography at this point reads: “This was because the original tomb was too near the capital and was visible from the imperial palace, so the emperor was often grieved at the sight of it.” (339). However, Liu suggests “The ostensible reason for this decision was that the emperor wished to mournfully gaze on Xuánzàng’s small white stupa.” Thus Liu’s reading is the exact opposite of Li’s.

Liu argues that the reinterment was a slight. Reburial did occur, for example, when tombs were damaged or newly acquired clan wealth demanded a higher status monument for ancestors. But these don’t apply to Xuánzàng. This aspect of Liu's argument is the most speculative, it involves speculating about the motives of those involved, and thus the weakest part of it.

For example (264-5) She describes the lack of imperial presence at his funeral in Yuhua. And she implies from this that Xuánzàng was marginalised by both Gaozong and the Buddhist establishment. And yet she also notes “When Xuánzàng’s corpse was laid to rest on the 14th day of the 4th lunar month, the monastic and lay Buddhist worshippers of Chang’an commemorated his passing with a lavish funeral precession” (265). However, she overlooks the fact that Biography reports that these were paid for out of public coffers following an imperial edict to this effect (Li 1995: 337-338).

Note also Biography (Li 1995: 338):

Being a person learned in the Way and highly virtuous, the master was deeply adored by the reigning monarch [i.e. Gaozong], who therefore issued decrees repeatedly in favor of him after his death. None of the ancients could be compared with him in this respect.

Critical Reflections

Liu uses a number of sources but relies heavily on the Biography of Xuanzang attributed to Huili and Yancong and completed in 688: i.e. Dà Táng dà Cí’ēnsì sānzàng fǎshī chuán xù «大唐大慈恩寺三藏法師傳序» (T 2053). She also draws on the Biography by Dàoxuān 道宣 (596–667).

One of the problems that I see with Liu's use of the sources is her uncritical acceptance of the date of translation of the Heart Sutra as 649 CE. This date is tied to the death of Tàizōng 太宗 in the same year and is part of a story that sees Taizong making a death-bed conversion to Buddhism under Xuanzang's guidance. Secular historians agree that this story is apocryphal. Taizong had a life-long antipathy towards Buddhism, even if he liked Xuanzang on a personal level. State support for Buddhism is a separate issue and continued even when emperors like Taizong and Gaozong were antipathetic to the religion.

The source of the 649 date is the Kāiyuán shìjiào lù «開元釋教錄» (T 2154) [hereafter Kaiyuan Catalogue]. This bibliography of Buddhist texts in Chinese translation was compiled 730 CE by Zhìshēng 智昇. No earlier source supports this date. Moreover, in the Yancong Biography Taizong dies on the 26th day of the fifth month of the 23rd year of Zhenguan (ca 10 July 649), but in the ninth month of the previous year (Sept 648) the Biography records the Emperor enquiring about the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā and encouraging Xuanzang to do a new translation. It seems likely that Zhìshēng took that story and replaced the Vajracchedikā with the Heart Sutra.

Keep in mind that the dhāraṇī in the Heart Sutra appears to have been copied from the Tuóluóní jí jīng «陀羅尼集經» (T 901), translated by Atikūṭa in 654 CE. This means that the Heart Sutra was likely composed after 654.

Note that the first literary mention of the Heart Sutra also occurs in the Yancong Biography assigned to the 5th day of the 12th month of the 2nd year of Xianqing (26 Dec 656).
Kotyk argues that the Yancong Biography:

"represents a form of Buddhist propaganda from the year 688—a time when Wu Zetian 武則天 (624–705) was the de facto ruler of the Chinese court—produced by Yancong with the aim of advancing the status of the Yogācārabhūmi and the Chinese monks associated with this text at court, while also rewriting some aspects of Emperor Taizong’s life in order to advance the contemporary rise of Buddhism."

Much of the Yancong Biography describes Xuanzang in superlative or miraculous ways consistent with what Joseph Bulbulia has called “charismatic signalling.” The primary purpose of charismatic signalling is to provide a way to “align prosocial motivations” in large religious movements: “Charismatic culture supports cooperative outcomes by aligning powerful emotions, motivations, and intentions among potentially anonymous partners, toward collective goals.” (Bulbulia 2009: 545.)

The sick man story is inserted into a fairly standard Buddhist miracle tale. As outlined by Robert Campany, these involve “a compassionate, salvific, and clear intervention in human affairs by some powerful being, typically the bodhisattva or buddha on whom the sūtra focuses.” (Campany 1991: 30-1)

Conclusion

I think Liu's observations of apparent hostility by Gaozong towards Xuanzang are important and I plan to begin incorporating them into my spiel on the Heart Sutra. That said, I am not entirely convinced by Liu's methods. I detect a tendency towards naïve acceptance of the Yancong Biography as a reliable historical source. My sense is that Liu is on the right track, but could be more explicit about how she interprets sources and why she thinks these observations are reliable.

I plan to write an academic essay (or perhaps two) in response to Liu. I would like to think more about her observations in the light of many articles by Max Deeg on the use of the Xiyu ji (Record of the Western Regions) which is attributed to Xuanzang. I would also like give some thought to the role of Wu Zhou/Wu Zetian in this story. After all, the Heart Sutra was composed in the same timeframe as the appointment of Wu Zhao to the position of Empress Consort.

I would also like to consider hermeneutic principles, the formal heuristics developed for obtaining reliable historical information from normative religious texts. These are seldom openly discussed in a Buddhist Studies context and I think making them more explicit would enhance Liu's contribution. 

For example, Liu tacitly makes use of the hermeneutic principle of embarrassment. As she says, an event like the appointment of a board of censors to police Xuanzang's translations (which coincided with his house arrest and a precipitous drop in his output of translations) is deeply unflattering to him. Since the Yancong Biography is more of a hagiography, with a relentless positivity about Xuanzang, this imposition by Gaozong on Xuanzang, makes the story more plausible than it otherwise might be.

However, this must be balanced by other hermeneutic principles, such as the principle of corroboration. As Kotyk notes, the crossover between Daoxuan's more prosaic account of Xuanzang, and Yancong's  superlative account, is the region we look to for reliable information. Liu repeatedly notes that details she relies on are only found in the Yancong Biography. She seems to say that this makes the work more important, but the lack of corroboration should have suggested the opposite, i.e. that the unique details in Yancong are less reliable than those which are corroborated by Daoxuan.

And with a more nuanced view of Xuanzang, I believe we will need to revise the history of the Heart Sutra to incorporate Liu's observations.  

~~oOo~~

Jayarava's Raves is one of the longest running Buddhist blogs, having started in Nov 2005. At my peak I published one essay a week for five or six years running. My output has dropped but I haven't given up on blogging. Rather, I am more focused on publishing my observations and discoveries about the Heart Sutra in academic journals. I still enjoy writing essays and still write every day (this is the 604th essay I've written for this blog).

Bibliography

Primary Sources

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). Translated into English by Li (1995).

Secondary Sources

Attwood, J. (2019). "Xuanzang’s Relationship to the Heart Sūtra in Light of the Fangshan Stele." Journal of Chinese Buddhist Studies, 32, 1–30. https://chinesebuddhiststudies.org/article/xuanzangs-relationship-to-the-heart-sutra-in-light-of-the-fangshan-stele/

Bulbulia, J. (2009) “Charismatic Signalling.” Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature, and Culture 3(4) : 518-551.

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.

Chou, P. (2004). ‘The Problem of the Authorship of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa: A Re-examination.’ Historical Inquiry 34: 281-327.

Deeg, M. 2007. "Has Xuanzang really been in Mathura? Interpretation Sinica or Interpretation Occidentalia - How to critically read the records of the Chinese pilgrims." In Essays on East Asian Religion and Culture: Festschrift in Honour of Nishiwaki Tsuneki on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, edited by Christian Wittern and Shi Lishan, 35–73. Kyōto: Editorial Committee.

Deeg, M. 2012. "Show Me the Land Where the Buddha Dwelled... Xuanzang’s Record of the Western Regions (Xiyu Ji 西域記): A Misunderstood Text?" China Report 48 (1-2): 89–113.

Deeg, M. 2016. "The political position of Xuanzang: the didactic creation of an Indian dynasty in the Xiyu ji." In “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, 133: 94–139.

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

Felbur, Rafal. (2019) "Kumarajiva “Great Man” and Cultural Event". In A Companion to World Literature. Edited by Ken Seigneurie, 1-13. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Jorgensen, John. (2002). "Representing Wŏnch'ŭk: Meditations on Medieval East Asian Biographies." In Religion and Biography in China and Tibet, edited by Benjamin Penny. Routledge.

Kotyk, Jeffrey. (2019). ‘Chinese State and Buddhist Historical Sources on Xuanzang: Historicity and the Daci’en si sanzang fashi zhuan 大慈恩寺三藏法師傳’. T’oung Pao 105(5-6): 513–544. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15685322-10556P01

Kotyk, Jeffrey. (2021). “The Study of Sanskrit in Medieval East Asia: China and Japan”. Hualin International Journal of Buddhist Studies 4.2 : 240–273; https://dx.doi.org/10.15239/hijbs.04.02.04

Li, Rongxi. (1995). A Biography of the Tripiṭaka of the Great Ci'en Monastery of the Great Tang Dynasty. Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research.

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

Nattier, Jan. (2003). A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path according to The Inquiry of Ugra (Ugraparipṛcchā). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

Wriggins, Sally Hovey. (2004). The Silk Road Journey with Xuanzang. Cambridge,MA: Westview Press.