Notes

n.1The title given in Stok (our representative of Recension B, as explained below) is The Noble Heart of the Perfection of Wisdom (’phags pa shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i snying po, Ārya­prajñā­pāramitā­hṛdaya). However, the title that is included at the end of the text in Stok is The Noble Heart of the Perfection of Wisdom, the Blessed Mother (’phags pa bcom ldan ’das ma shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i snying po, Ārya­bhagavatī­prajñā­pāramitā­hṛdaya).

n.2“Heart Sūtra” is a translation of the last two words of the Chinese title (心經).

n.3In Prajñāpāramitā literature in general, the presence of Avalokiteśvara as an interlocutor is unique to The Heart Sūtra. Usually, this role is performed by other disciples of the Buddha, such as the elder Subhūti.

n.4The Heart Sūtra’s Chinese origins were first pointed out in English by Jan Nattier (1992), who argued that the short version of The Heart Sūtra was originally compiled in China rather than India. Nattier further suggested that The Heart Sūtra was transmitted to the famous Chinese translator Xuanzang (600/602–64), who edited the Chinese text and subsequently translated it into Sanskrit. Some elements in Nattier’s study, such as the role of Xuanzang in producing the Sanskrit translation and subsequently transmitting the sūtra within China, have since been challenged by other scholars, such as Dan Lusthaus (2003, pp. 81–87) and Kōsei Ishii (2015). For a critique of Lusthaus’s arguments, see Attwood 2020. Jeffrey Kotyk (2019, pp. 538–40) also argues that Xuanzang is unlikely to have received The Heart Sūtra prior to his journey to India but suggests that he may have compiled it in Chinese after his return to China. Nevertheless, Nattier’s main thesis‍—that the short version of The Heart Sūtra was originally compiled in China based on existing sources in Chinese‍—still appears the most compelling account of events. Notably, Shi (2014) was the first scholar to apply Nattier’s methods to other parts of the text. Over the last decade, Jayarava Attwood has written extensively on this topic (e.g., 2015, 2017a, 2017b, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021) and provided many new insights in favor of the Chinese origin of The Heart Sūtra. Besides adding weight to the argument that the sūtra was compiled in China, Attwood’s writings have also contributed much to our general knowledge of The Heart Sūtra, in particular the history and linguistic nature of the Chinese and Sanskrit sources. Besides the articles by Attwood included in this bibliography, links to his other published articles on The Heart Sūtra can be found at his blog: http://jayarava.blogspot.com.

n.5This mantra was most likely extracted from the Chinese translation of the Dhāraṇī­samuccaya (Taishō 901), which was translated into Chinese in 654 ᴄᴇ. This possibility was already mentioned by Nattier, but without providing any details (1992, p. 177). The Dhāraṇī­samuccaya does indeed contain the mantra that is included in The Heart Sūtra and the passage in question reads: “16. The Great Heart Dhāraṇī of Prajñāpāramitā The incantation goes: Duozhita (1). Jiedi jiedi (2). Boluo jiedi (3). Boluoseng jiedi (4). Puti (5). Shahe (6). For this great heart incantation, use the Great Heart Seal. It can be used comprehensively with all the various altars [i.e., for all different ritual applications]. The Lesser Heart Dhāraṇī of Prajñāpāramitā goes: Duozhita (1). Jiedi jiedi (2). Boluomin jiedi (3). Boluoreta (4). Shahe (5). Use the Lesser Heart Seal for all applications.” The Chinese reads: 《陀羅尼集經》卷〈佛說跋折囉功能法相品〉般若大心陀羅尼第十六 呪曰。 跢姪他(一)揭帝揭帝(二)波羅揭帝(三)波囉僧揭 帝(四)菩提(五)莎訶(六) 是大心呪。用大心印。作諸壇處一切通用。 般若小心陀羅尼呪曰。 跢姪他(一)揭帝揭帝(二)波囉民(彌忍反)揭帝(三)波 囉若(若冶反)他(四)莎訶(五) 用小心印通一切用。 (CBETA, T18, no. 901, p. 807, b19–26. The incantation itself is found at 18: 807b20–21.) Interestingly, Taishō 901 includes tadyathā (duozhita) at the beginning of the incantation, as do the Sanskrit and Tibetan versions, whereas this is not found in the Chinese versions of The Heart Sūtra. There are a few additional incantations in this section of Taishō 901 that are also labeled “heart dhāraṇī” or “lesser heart dhāraṇī.” We are grateful to Josh Capitanio for locating this passage in Taishō 901 and for providing the above translation.

n.6Attwood 2020, pp. 161–64. See also Attwood 2019, pp. 19–23.

n.7The actual term used in this sūtra is pratibhāna (spobs pa), which can also be translated as “inspired speech”.

n.8See Blazing Wisdom Translation Group, trans., Inspiring Determination , Toh 69 (84000:Translating the Words of the Buddha, 2021), 1.80.

n.9For arguments in favor of and against an early dating of this text, see Lusthaus 2003 (pp. 86–87) and Attwood 2020.

n.10In spite of the colophon’s claim, we now know that Xuanzang could not have translated the sūtra into Chinese, since it was rather translated from Chinese into Sanskrit subsequent to its appearance in China. See Attwood 2019 and Kotyk 2019 (pp. 538–40).

n.11Besides Taishō 250 and Taishō 251, there is one additional version of the short sūtra: Taishō 256. However, this version is a transliteration into Chinese of the Sanskrit.

n.12Silk 2021, p. 103.

n.13On the Sanskrit manuscripts, see Conze 1967. Many edited versions of the Sanskrit text have also been published over the last century. For a listing of these, see Attwood 2015, pp. 45–46.

n.14Previously, scholars had dated this manuscript to 609 ᴄᴇ, but this dating was not accurate. See Silk 2021, pp. 102–4. See also Attwood 2015, p. 30 (and n.­6).

n.15On the Tibetan translations of the shorter version, see Attwood 2015, pp. 38–40. Interestingly, in addition to the Tibetan translations found at Dunhuang, one manuscript (Pelliot tibétain 448) consists of a transliteration into Tibetan of the Chinese text (a scan of this manuscript can be viewed at: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b83061587). This manuscript appears to have been produced for recitation of the Chinese text by those Tibetans in the region who could not read the Chinese characters. This could perhaps indicate that the Chinese version enjoyed a privileged status compared to the Tibetan translation, even by those who could only read Tibetan. For a scan of a Dunhuang manuscript with Tibetan translation of the short version, currently held at the British Library (Or. 8212/77), see: http://idp.bl.uk/database/large.a4d?recnum=7852&imageRecnum=122101.

n.16Attwood 2019, pp. 25–26.

n.17See n.­5.

n.18This time of compilation has been suggested by Jeffrey Kotyk (2019, p. 538–40).

n.19For a detailed comparison of the five Chinese versions of the longer sūtra (Taishō 252, 253, 254, 255, and 257), see Attwood 2021. See also Nattier 1992, p. 200, note 1.

n.20Of these, Taishō 253, 254, and 257 were translated from Sanskrit, and Taishō 255 from Tibetan.

n.21Taishō 253 was translated in 788 ᴄᴇ, Taishō 254 in 861 ᴄᴇ, and Taishō 257 in 1005 ᴄᴇ. Taishō 255 was translated from Tibetan in 856. On these dates see Attwood 2015, p. 38. Note, however, that these dates still require further research.

n.22See Denkarma, folio 295.a.6. See also Herrmann-Pfandt 2008, pp. 9–10, number 14.

n.23Seven of the commentaries are included in the Degé Tengyur (Toh 3818–3823, all in the Perfection of Wisdom section, and Toh 4353, in the Miscellaneous section). The eighth commentary is only included in the Peking (P 5221) and Narthang (3994) Tengyurs. All eight commentaries have been translated into English and commented upon by Donald Lopez (1996).

n.24We know that Kamalaśīla, Vimalamitra, Atīśa, Vajrapāṇi (eleventh century), and Mahājana (eleventh century) all visited Tibet. Moreover, according to Toshio Horiuchi (2021), at least the two commentaries by Śrīsiṃha (dates uncertain) and Jñānamitra (dates uncertain) were composed directly in Tibetan. As for Praśāstrasena (dates uncertain), we do not have any biographical details, so it is not clear whether he ever visited Tibet or where his commentary was composed.

n.25Attwood 2021, p. 63.

n.26See Silk 1994 for editions of these two recensions.

n.27Recension A, which we have translated here, contains a translators’ colophon specifying that the translation was produced by the Indian scholar Vimalamitra and the Tibetan translator Rinchen Dé. Recension B lacks a translators’ colophon.

n.28Within the Perfection of Wisdom section, The Heart Sūtra is placed in a final volume of miscellaneous Perfection of Wisdom scriptures (sher phyin sna tshogs). On The Heart Sūtra being classified (and practiced) as dhāraṇī, see Silk 2021.

n.29Besides the Thempangma Kangyurs, Narthang (from the “mixed” group of Kangyurs) also includes both recensions.

n.30This is the case with the Berlin, Choné, Lithang, Peking, Dragon, and Urga Kangyurs.

n.31Besides the Degé Kangyur, Recension A is also included twice in the Ragya Kangyur. In the “mixed” group of Kangyurs, Lhasa and Phukdrak also include Recension A twice.

n.32In our notes, “Stok” refers exclusively to this text of the Perfection of Wisdom section, since the other version of the text in the Stok Palace Kangyur belongs to Recension A. Besides the differences that we have noted here, there are numerous minor differences between the two recensions, even within the individual versions of the two recensions. For details, see Silk 1994.

n.33In the Toh 531 version of the text there is a slight discrepancy in the folio numbering between the 1737 par phud printings and the late (post par phud) printings of the Degé Kangyur. Although the discrepancy is irrelevant here, further details concerning this may be found in n.­33 of the Toh 531 version of this text.

n.34Stok: “Homage to all buddhas and bodhisattvas!”

n.35This sentence could also be translated: “At that time the Blessed One rested in a Dharma-discourse-absorption called illumination of the profound.” The Tengyur commentaries are all vague on this point but are united in glossing the term dharmaparyāya (chos kyi rnam grangs), which is often translated “Dharma discourse,” as a categorization of phenomena, rather than a Dharma teaching. We have therefore opted to follow this in our translation. In recension B, the sentence is quite different. Thus, Stok reads: “At that time the Blessed One rested in the absorption called illumination of the profound Dharma discourse.”

n.36At this point the short version of The Heart Sūtra begins. In the long version, the first sentence of the short version is extended into a paragraph that incorporates the original in a new, expanded context. The texts converge at the second sentence of the standard text (beginning with “Form is empty. Emptiness is form”).

n.37According to Vimalamitra’s commentary, the word “also” indicates that Avalokiteśvara also saw that the sense sources and the elements likewise are empty of an intrinsic nature. (Toh 3818, F.271.a)

n.38Stok: “and he saw that the five aggregates are empty of an essence.” On the variations of this sentence across the Sanskrit, Chinese, and Tibetan sources, see Attwood 2015. Our translation of the Tibetan agrees with Attwood’s proposed reading of the Sanskrit. However, unlike Attwood, we also believe that the same reading can be applied to the Tibetan text in both Recension A and Recension B. Besides simply making better sense overall, this reading is also supported by Vimalamitra’s commentary on this passage (Toh 3818, F.270.a–F.271.b), and, moreover, it agrees semantically with the shorter version of The Heart Sūtra in Chinese, Sanskrit, and Tibetan. Attwood’s analysis of the Tibetan (2015, p. 40) therefore misreads the Tibetan, we would argue, as does Jonathan Silk’s translation of the same passage (1994, pp. 174–75) on which Attwood’s arguments are based. Several other translators, e.g., Donald Lopez (1996, p. vii) and Thupten Jinpa (Dalai Lama 2015, pp. 59–62), translate using the same reading as Silk, though not all (e.g., Nālandā Translation Committee 1980).

n.39Stok: “Śāradvatīputra.”

n.40Stok omits “or daughters of noble family.”

n.41The names Śāradvatīputra and Śāriputra are used interchangeably in the sūtras to refer to the same person.

n.42Stok: “the five aggregates to be empty of an essence.”

n.43Both recensions A and B in Tibetan read “empty” (stong pa) rather than “emptiness” (stong pa nyid). Conze’s edition of the Sanskrit reads śūnyatā (“emptiness”), although several sources read śūnyam (“empty”) (1967, p. 150, note 10). Taishō 250 and 251 both read “emptiness” (Attwood 2017b, p. 56).

n.44On these four sentences, see Attwood 2017b where their origins in earlier Prajñāpāramitā literature are traced. This way of articulating the relationship between emptiness and the phenomena of the five aggregates echoes sets of passages in all three of the long Prajñāpāramitā sūtras. In two passages in The Perfection of Wisdom in Eighteen Thousand Lines (Toh 10, 3.­23 and 8.­14), two in The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines (Toh 9, 2.­112–2.­117 and 6.­11), and three in The Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand Lines (Toh 8, 2.­191–2.­196, 2.­238–2.­245, and 5.­191-5.­212) there are similarly statements to the effect that emptiness is not other than form, that form itself is emptiness, and emptiness itself is form. Those passages go on to characterize the relationship between emptiness and the other aggregates, and all other phenomena, in the same way. See also n.­49.

n.45Stok: “formations.”

n.46Stok: “free from stains, without stains.”

n.47Stok: “There is no element of the eye and no element of the eye consciousness, up to no element of the mind and no element of the mind consciousness.”

n.48Stok: “no cognition.”

n.49This series of negations echoes the more extensive series found in passages in The Perfection of Wisdom in Eighteen Thousand Lines (Toh 10, 3.­24–3.­28), in The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines (Toh 9, 2.­113–2.­117), and in The Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand Lines (Toh 8, 2.­191–2.­193), which also begin by negating each of the five aggregates. The series of negations there is immediately preceded by a passage declaring that each of the aggregates “is not one thing and emptiness another,” since each of the aggregates “is itself emptiness,” and emptiness is each of the aggregates. See also n.­44. See also Shi 2014 who analyzes earlier Chinese translations of Prajñāpāramitā literature to argue for a new translation of the terms “no nonattainment” in this sentence and “no attainment” in the following sentence.

n.50Stok: “they rely upon the perfection of wisdom.”

n.51Stok omits “utterly.”

n.52Stok: “Śāriputra, therefore.”

n.53Attwood (2017a) has argued that the term mantra in The Heart Sūtra most likely is a mistranslation of the Chinese rendering of the term vidyā, because this is what appears in Sanskrit manuscripts of the The Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-Five Thousand Lines and because of how Kumārajīva phrases it in his translation of that text.

n.54Instead of these last two sentences, Stok reads: “The perfection of wisdom, which is without error, should be known as a true mantra and as knowledge.”

n.55Most witnesses of Recension A (though not the versions in the Degé Kangyur, nor the versions in Choné, Lhasa, Lithang, or Urga) include the syllable oṁ after tadyathā. See Silk 1994, p. 138. None of the Chinese sources include oṁ whereas some Sanskrit manuscripts do.

n.56This mantra can be rendered in English as “Like this: gone, gone, gone beyond, utterly gone beyond. Awakening. Svāhā.” At this point the short version of The Heart Sūtra ends.

n.57Before “Excellent,” Stok inserts “Son of noble family.”

n.58Stok: “Śāriputra.”

n.59The “writing on the wall of the Gegye Jema Ling Temple” is a reference to a Sanskrit version of The Heart Sūtra written on one of the walls in the Gegye Jema Ling (dge rgyas bye ma gling) Temple at Samye Monastery. That the writing was in Sanskrit, and that the comparison of the translation to that Sanskrit text took place “at a later time,” is mentioned in the catalogs (dkar chag) of the Narthang, Degé, Urga, and Lhasa Kangyurs. The earliest of these is the Narthang catalog, written by the Lelung Jedrung Lobzang Trinlé (1690–1740), which specifies that the version on the wall was the one “with introduction” (gleng gzhi’i bkod pa dang bcas bris pa; see Narthang dkar chag F.85.b). For the mention in the Degé catalog, see Degé Kangyur vol. 103 (lakṣmī), F.118.b. See also Silk 1994, pp. 48–49.

n.60This colophon is missing in Stok.