Talk:Heart Sutra/Archive 1

Archive 1

Complete text

Someone recently added the complete text of the sutra to this entry. I'm not sure -- should it be removed to Wikisource? Are there copyright issues? The Sanskrit version is probably okay, but the translation might belong to somebody. - Nat Krause 10:48, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your caution to copyright infringement is correct. In this case, there is no need to worry because this is a new translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.90.242 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 18 December 2004 (UTC)

Possible IPA version

I've doubtless got this wrong, given the vagueness of the current pronunciation guide, hence my posing it here for integration by someone who can check it --bjh21 12:46, 4 May 2005 (UTC):

guh-tay guh-tay	gəteɪ gəteɪ
pah-rah-guh-tay	pɑɹɑ gəteɪ
pah-rah-sahm-gah-tay	pɑɹɑsɑm gəteɪ
boh-dee swah-hah	bəʊdiː swɑhɑ

That looks right to me, or at least close enough to get started with. I'll replace the article text. Thanks. - Nat Krause 14:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Modified section on The Text

Changed the section The Text to read as follows:

Briefly, the sutra describes the insight of the bodhisattva of compassion, Avalokiteśvara, while engaged in deep meditation, representing the faculty of prajña (wisdom). The insight refers to the fundamental emptiness of all phenomena

Emphasis is on the sutra's depiction on the experience of insight, prajna, and emptiness and consequently liberation, missing in the original description —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.248.81 (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The rap group the wu-tang clan uses this heart sutra apparently at the end of the song Life Changes a tribute to one of their fellow groupmates who passed away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.202.142 (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Musical setting

There is a popular chorus of the Heart Sutra sung in Sanskrit and available in mp3 format on the net. Below is one of the web site hosting the above mentioned mp3

http://www.mp3tube.net/es/musics/Sutram-Bhagavati-Prajnaparamita-Hridaya-Sutram/61194/

Does anyone know the origin and other details of this version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamleong (talk • contribs) 05:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC) That should be from Imee Ooi's "Mantras of the Sanskrit".

The musical setting section has now become a trivia list, I think we should either remove it or convert it into a paragraph in the article about how it has been incorporated in modern music because of WP:TRIVIA. Just having a list of songs that incorporate it without any citations doesn't seem to me to add anything to the discussion of what the heart sutra is. Any objections? Any thoughts? - Owlmonkey (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there's real value in providing a list of recordings and musical interpretations. How easy is it to find this information, otherwise? Google doesn't have an "audio" search. Converting into a paragraph is good; it encourages editors to think of it as something that gets textual treatment with citations, etc. Bertport (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sutras Not Spoken by the Buddha

It's doubtful that any of the Mahayana Sutras were "spoken by the Buddha". The Prajnaparamita Sutras did not appear until about the 1st Century CE. The earliest text known was the Pefect Wisdom in 8,000 lines. From 100-300 CE it was expanded to 100,000 lines. From 300-500 CE condensed scriptures (including the Heart Sutra) appeared. From 600-1200 CE, Tantric sutras appeared. Therefore, the first of these sutras appeared approximately 500 years after the paranirvana of the Buddha and were central to the development of the Mahayana, "which was developed in conscious opposition to the conceptual realism, distinctionism and dualism of the Abhidharma schools". (all above comes from Kajiyama Yuichi in Buddhist Spirituality: Indian Southeast Asian, Tibetan, Early Chinese, Motilal Banarsidass, 1994, ISBN 81-208-1255-1) Hope this clarifies somewhat this difficult issue. Thinman10

You are right. The Prajnaparamita Sutras begin with evam maya shrutam, and many of them (this includes the Heart Sutra), are not believed to be spoken by the Buddha. In all probablities, they are not even spoken by Avalokisteshwara to Sariptura. However, does it matter, as long as it is believed to be true? deeptrivia (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No-one can ever "prove" that the Buddha actually said the words recorded and attributed to him in the Pali Canon, written down some 444 years after his Parinirvana. This happened in Sri Lanka at about the same time as the Mahayana scriptures started to be written down elsewhere. Even though a sutta might be considered by some to be the word of the Buddha, I think that when it comes to Mahayana and Vajrayana, a discourse is not judged by strict lineage, but whatever is well-spoken is the word of the Buddha. In fact, the impression I get from most Mahayana sutras is that they try to evoke an emotion rather than providing material for analytical study. --- Andkaha^(talk) 02:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we are definitely talking about which scriptures describe themselves as spoken by the Buddha, and which do not.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Then there's the Platform Sutra of the Fifth Patriarch...Not that the Platform Sutra has ever been ascribed to the historical Buddha, but it does indicate a certain flexibility in the label 'sutra'. Ultimately, of course, whether a particular writing was ever literally said by the historical Buddha is less important than the soteriological function of the work. The goal of Buddhism is liberation from suffering, not adhering to doctrine. Hence, the Chan (Zen)school was quite willing to go "outside" the sutras in its search for freedom (although it must be remembered that much of Chan was grounded in traditional Buddhist practices, including studying the sutras). Thinman10

Can this section form a content to be directed to the section of Authentication? I'm wondering if there is anyone having done the comparason on the accuracy of the text evolved from Sanskrit and Pali which are the two major sources of the text origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.14.152.15 (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Two Quibbles

Hi everybody. There are two little things in the introduction that bother me. Number one is : "The Heart Sutra is usually considered a member of the Perfection of Wisdom (Prajñāpāramitā) class of Mahāyāna Buddhist literature." Usually? Is there some doubt as to whether or not the Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya Sūtra is an example of Prajñāpāramitā literaature? I think we should take a bold stand here and get rid of the "ususally considered!" (Less words is almost always better, anyway.)

Number two: "The use of the Heart Sutra is particularly emphasized in Buddhist traditions of East Asia." Tibet and Mongolia are in Central Asia. Is that the comparison you are making? Who else is there? As far as I can see it is pretty much emphasized everywere. I don't think that sentence makes much sense, frankly.OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you're making good points here, and I've made edits accordingly. Bertport (talk) 05:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Undid Revision

• [1]

Why.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.197.253 (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Here we have an anonymous user adding an editorial leading with the problematic "Scholars say ...." Which scholars? That's called weasel wording. Then, the point is unduly belabored. Yes, Avalokitesvara, who represents compassion, is chosen to speak on wisdom. The point can be made in one or two sentences, and the source attributed. Bertport (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do it yourself.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.28.91 (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you don't want to? Oh, you can't? Bertport (talk).

Austerlitz -- 88.75.215.104 (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this is already covered in the article. It's already noted that Avalokitesvara is the bodhisattva of compassion. Bertport (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

More Tibet

A bigger thing from the intro: "In some Chinese versions of the text, starting with that of Fayue dating to about 735[4], the Buddha confirms and praises the words of Avalokiteśvara, although this is not included in either the extant Sanskrit version nor the preeminent Chinese version translated by Xuanzang."

But what is being descibe here is the official, canonical Tibetan version of the Heart Sutra. Here is a link to the Tibetan versian.

This isn't obscure of controvesial. It wouldn't in and of itself need a footnote. And we must not make the Dalai Lama angry. You wouldn't like him when he's angry.

Great article, by the way, to whoever is responsible. OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm also familiar with a translation from Tibetan that includes the extra framing text. Certainly, we should not limit it to "some Chinese versions", so I removed "Chinese". I don't follow what you're trying to say, though, abut controversy and the DL. But the point stands that Fayue's edition is the first known one to include the extra text. Is there, in fact, a single, authoritative text for all of Tibetan Buddhism? If so, and if we can reference a reliable source that clearly states as much, then that would be a good note to add to the article. It would be great also to write up the known history of the Tibetan version(s), if possible. Bertport (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bertport. There is an official Tibetan canon. It's called the Kanjur. It's sort of like the Pali Canon in that it is in fact the official canon for all of Tibetan (and Mongolian) Buddhism, but it's said to be incredibly huge but a bit fuzzy around the edges (i.e. there are alot of iffy cases and so on) like the Mahayana "Canon," which isn't official at all, as far as I can see.

It was adding the word Tibetan that was important. All Tibetan versions of Mahayan suttras were tanslated from Chinese or Sanskrit, so that' not at all an issue. I will look for some good sources about this, but, believe it or not, I once heard His Holiness in a talk say that he had just heard that there was a shorter version of the Heart Sutra, and he found this difficult to believe! Anyway, back in a jiff. OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The jiff is over. Here it is from a book by his holiness That whole chapter is about the subject. OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

i don't know of any serious argument against the Heart Sutra being included in the Kangyur, but it's still not clear whether the Heart Sutra has been translated into Tibetan more than once, whether different lineages use different translations, etc. so I'm wary of assertions about "the official, canonical Tibetan version of the Heart Sutra". It may well be that all Tibetan translations include the framing text, which would be interesting to note. Your memory of an HHDL quip suggests as much, but is not definitive. As for the source you linked, that's a basis for saying that at least one Tibetan version includes the framing text. Bertport (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It never occured to me to question the idea that it is "the Tibetan version." The whole thing, including the beginning and the end, have all kinds of esoteric signifigance I imagine it is different in different places. But who knows? OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it the HS exists in just two versions: long and short. All Chinese commentaries are on the short version, and all Tibetan commentaries are on the long version. Which suggests that Tibetans never had the short version - they imported sūtras from Indian very much later than the Chinese did (almost 1000 years). This fits with Nattier's suggests life span of the text. I summarise Nattiers article here: The Heart Sūtra. Both versions are Canonical in their respective milieus - and though the Chinese tended to translate things multiple times and retain the different versions, the Tibetan translators were more organised and efficient and tended to standardise - meaning they only have the one translation. Any esoteric significance is read back into the text since it was not composed as an esoteric text. But this is fine - we all see the world from our own pov. mahaabaala (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sutras not spoken by Buddha

Are there any other examples of sutras that are not the direct word of the Buddha? I'd like to have said that the Heart Sutra is unique in this regard, but I don't know. --MrDemeanour 09:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure, there are certainly some Pali suttas spoken by a high-level disciple, such as Sariputra. Perhaps the Heart Sutra is the only Mahayana sutra not spoken by the Buddha? I have no idea off the top of my head.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is no way to be sure that any text purporting to be the word of the Buddha actually is. mahaabaala (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course. The idea is, other texts called Sutra DO purport to quote the Buddha. This text quotes Avalokitesvara, not the Buddha. Bertport (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Mantra

The article states that the -e ending is grammatically the feminine vocative, but this is limited in two senses. If the mantra is in Classical Sanskrit then there is an equal likelihood that the ending indicates masculine or neuter 'locative' as any Sanskrit grammar will tell you. Although Conze dismisses these options there is no solid reason to do so.

However the assumption that the mantra follows the rules of Classical Sanskrit is probably wrong. Certainly most tantras are written in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit which evolved from various regional prakrits and shows a great deal of variability of case endings compared to Classical Sanskrit. More specifically in Magadhi (and BHS) the -e can be a masculine nominative - other possibilities suggest themselves as well.

Even though the sūtra itself is in Classical Sanskrit there is ample evidence in the Chinese Canon (according to Nattier's article on the sūtra) to suggest that the mantra was once a free-floating entity that was not originally attached solely to this sūtra. The practice of adding dhāraṇī's to Mahāyāna sūtras seems to begun in about the 4th century. The mantra and the text were probably not composed at the same time.

In any case the suggestion that the mantra is comprehensible from the point of view Classical Sanskrit Grammar is unlikely to be true. The phrase is not a grammatical sentence, and none of the bits of it form a grammatical sentence. The best conclusion is that it's not really Sanskrit, just some Sanskrit words strung together, perhaps with BHS case endings, perhaps not.

As other authors have pointed out (Gomez and Wayman) there is no consensus on what the Heart Sūtra represents or means - everyone understands it from the the point of view of the tradition they are in. It is a cipher. Trying to come to definite conclusions about this text and particularly the mantra has lead to some of the most confused and confusing things ever written about Buddhism, even when the person such as Dr's Conze and Suzuki are intelligent and learned.

The level of certainty expressed in the article is much higher than warranted, and some of what it says about the mantra is just wrong.

mahaabaala (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I think some of the material was added by enthusiastic students of a particular teacher, and they placed his teachings here as if his interpretations were facts. Please revise the section if you are so inclined. Bertport (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've had a go at making it more informative and less sectarian. Arguably the Sanskrit analysis is original research I suppose. My Wiki-fu is a bit rusty, and my spelling in Both English and Sanskrit untrust-worthy, so feel free to tidy and amend as necessary. mahaabaala (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Many Hong Kong pop singers, such as the Four Heavenly Kings rarely choral sang that song in a 1999 Chichi earthquake fund raising program (香港演藝界921傳心傳意大行動) as in buddhist religious practise to transter good merit to the people." -- the phrase 'rarely choral sang' is clunky but I don't know the original intent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.85.154 (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, but I made it comprehensible as well as I could and moved it to better spot.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Italicizing

There seems to be inconsistency as to use of The Heart Sutra as though this were the title of the written work or the usage without italics. Which is the usual? --LilHelpa (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

External links section

To respond to the banner in external links section, I have looked at all of them. This is a collection of websites and blogs with translations of Heart Sutra and does not contribute anything new to the subject of page. To me it looks as advertisement of centers or blogs. Almost every Zen Center or Tibetan Center will have some version of sutra on their site, but this does not justify for them to be linked to Wiki. I would exclude entire section. Spt51 (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that an article for a sutra should not link to actual translations of the sutra? Isn't that exactly what external links are supposed to be used for on such a page? Tengu800 (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Mixed feelings. One one hand, Tengu, you're right. From the WP:EL guideline: "...acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic [or] information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail...". It seems thoroughly appropriate to include a link to a translation, and since such complexity is involved in the source and translation of some of these texts, multiple translations are warranted.

On the other hand, from the same guideline: "Links in the 'External links' section should be kept to a minimum." And a few of them (the blogspot blog of sutra translations, for instance), run close to some of the guidelines about what to avoid. There is potential for a "promotional" interpretation of a number of these sites, as Spt51 suggests.

I definitely think the article should link to a few definitive/representative translations, especially if they are hosted by established and respected organizations (similar to WP:RS guidelines). To a degree, we should consider reflecting the variety of translation, giving due weight. If a reader desires more or different translations, a search engine will easily provide more than the article could ever list. Exactly which translations and sources are appropriate to include, I'm not yet sure. /ninly_(talk) 15:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a translation on Wikisource. Can someone decide which sites are respectable and carry different versions and are clearly not promotional? I would definitely get rid of links to posting of sutra on blogs and sites which look as advertisement of organizations. Same is with commentaries. All Zen teachers do comment on this sutra and many centers publish it on their sites. I do not think links to Zen Centers and other Buddhist groups should be attached here in excess. Printed materials can be included in bibliography section. It is easy to search internet for commentaries, if one needs to find them. Spt51 (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Another way to include different translations could be to find printed materials with translation from Sanskrit, Chinese and Japanese and include them under heading "translations". You may also find the versions chanted in all Mahayana schools if they are different, and try to upload to Wikimedia, to avoid dealing with external sites. The point here is not to abuse this section and prevent promotions or advertisements of particular places, or teachers.Spt51 (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the job! Looks great now. Spt51 (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Matter is empty

I've never come across 'form' being glossed as 'matter' before. I think this is either POV or OR, and I think it needs a cite if it is to be restored. MrDemeanour (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Also: unless every other translation of this text in common circulation is incorrect, then the speaker *does indeed* enumerate the other skhandas as being empty, and *does not* emphatically refer to the skandhas (sp?) 'themselves'. I see now that Lhundrup, the editor behind these changes, has been permablocked for being a bit bonkers. He's made some decent minor edits to this article, but these two were vandalism. MrDemeanour (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources

This is the list of mss. used by Conze to produce his critical edition: Conze, Edward. (1967) ‘The Prajñāpāramitā-Hṛdaya Sūtra’ in Thirty Years of Buddhist Studies: Selected Essays, Bruno Cassirer. p. 147-167. (Originally published in: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1948, pp. 33-51.) on p.154

Nepalese manuscripts=N.

• Na; LT. India Office no. 7712 (1). Eighteenth century?
• Nb: LT. Cambridge Add 1485. f. I6~I8. A.D. 1677.
• Nc: LT. MS Bodl. 1449 (59) fol. 74V-75V. A.D. 1819
• Nd: LT. RAS, no. 79 V. f. 15-16b. c. 1820.
• Ne: LT. Cambridge Add. 1553. f. 4~7b. Eighteenth century.
• Nf: Calcutta As. Soc. Bengal B 5 (35).
• Ng; Calcutta ASB B 65 (10).
• Nh: fragment, only first 6 lines: Cambridge Add 1164 2 II.
• Ni: LT. Société Asiatique no. 14, fol. 18b, -19b. No. 21.
• Nk: LT. Cambridge Add 1680 ix. Begins at no. 8. ca 1200.
• Nl: Cambr. Add. 1164.2.
• Nm: Bibliothèque Nationale 62, no. 139. ca 1800. = Cf

Chinese=C.

• Ca: From a Chinese blockprint, in MM pp. 30-32. Seventeenth century.
• Cb: T 256, transcribed into Chinese characters. Stein Collection no. S 2464. ST. ca 600? ed. T. Matsumoto, Die Prajnapdramita Literatur, 1932* PP* 44-5O
• Cc; ST. From stone in Mongolia. Before 1,000. ed. Journal of Urusvati, 1932, pp. 73-8. Online: http://emrism.agni-age.net/english/Urusvati/Urusvati_3_73-78.pdf
• Cd; LT. Bell in Peking, now Dairen. Incomplete. Ibid. p. 78. Online: http://emrism.agni-age.net/english/Urusvati/Urusvati_3_73-78.pdf
• Ce: Feer's polyglot edition. Seventeenth century?
• Cf: Stein collection Ch 00330. ca 850.
• Cf: Bibliotheque Nationale 62 no. 139. Plliot Sogdien. ca 950? In: E. Benveniste, Textes Sogdiens, 1940, pp. 142-3. (Is this the shown here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prajnyaapaaramitaa_Hridaya_Pel.sogd.jpg) = Nm

Japanese=J.

• Ja: MS in Horyuji Temple. ST. A.D. 609. [facsimile shown on the page - very corrupt ms.]
• Jb; MS brought in ninth century by Yeun, disciple of Kukai. In MM pp. -.51-4.

Chinese Translations=ChT

Short text:

• ChT1: Kumarajīva ca 400. [date and authorship are apocryphal]. Taishō 8.250
• ChT2: Yiian-tsang, 649. [earliest extant Chinese of the Heart Sutra]. Taishō 8.251

Long Text:

• ChT5: Dharmacandra, 741.
• ChT6: Prajfia 790.
• ChT7: Prajnacakra 861.
• ChT8: Fa-cheng 856.
• ChT9: Danapala c. 1000.

Tibetan=TL

• Long text: Kanjur. ca 750.

Jayarava (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"Lede" or lead should not throw so much weight onto the one writer "Red Pine".

The following is not appropriate in the first paragraph of the artice: "Buddhist writer and translator Red Pine calls the Heart Sūtra the best known[1] and most popular of all Buddhist scriptures." Conze would be more appropriate as the first of the third parties to be cited. The way this is written, one gets the impression that Red Pine is something on the order of a Robert Thurman level expert, the definitive English language commentator on the sutras. I don't know that Red Pine is that, or that he or anyone else contends that he is. IMO an article on a centuries old sutra should have a tone of objectivity. Quoting a contemporary writer, and one who is not as far as I know the world's leading expert on the topic, in the beginning of the article seems to be reflective of perhaps the enthusiasm of the editor rather than an NPOV perspective. Is the right view on my part? Is not right action to delete the line or move it further down? Geofferybard (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, Conze's views are quite antiquated, and anything he wrote about matter decades ago isn't optimal for quoting anyhow. Red Pine has written the most comprehensive book, which includes a set of translations and commentaries of the Heart Sutra, so I think his views deserve some respect on the matter. He certainly has gone further than Conze on the matter. His works also show a greater depth of understanding, which is essential for such a topic. In contrast, scholars like Conze, Nattier, and Thurman tend to be a bit "thick" in some of their views, and far from actual Buddhist traditions and interpretations. Tengu800 (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Red Pine is not a reliable guide to the Sanskrit text. And it is wholly a matter of opinion to say that he has greater depth of understanding. Not an opinion I share. His dismissal of Nattier for example is based on a trivial misunderstanding of what constitutes evidence. Nattier's 90 page exploration of the composition is the very epitome of excellent textual scholarship. Red Pine's views are derivative and over-represented on this page. People like Donald Lopez deserve much greater prominence - particularly for his translation and study of the traditional commentaries on this text. Conze was the pioneer in this field and cannot be ignored just because further study has been done. But certainly where Red Pine regurgitates Conze's research as though making an original contribution it should be attributed to the proper source, such as the idea that the text might represent a response to the Sarvāstivadins (Conze 1948: 39) Jayarava (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

These are good thoughtful points; I only mentioned Conze exactly because he is historically prior to, say, Red Pine, but admittedly antiquity is not a basis for highlighting in the "lede" or lead paragraph. But it is no disrespect to Red Pine to recognize that, in the vast swath of Buddhism, or even of Orientalist and post-Orientalist Buddhology, he is still relatively new. In my remarks on the Talk page of the Rigpa article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rigpa#Lede_.28lead_section.29_needs_tweaking I pretty much lay out a view which probably warrants expansion, to wit that "ancient venerable texts, and words, with ancient lineage, need to be discussed, in their opening paragraphs, in an objective manner which does not in any manner highlight any one particular school of thought or, especially, any one particular contemporary writer."

This issue could become particularly thorny if different schools of thought vie for position in the articles and the best way to avoid such disputes is to have a fair across the board policy in which anything even remotely interpretable as promoting one contemporary school or writer is discouraged when it is equally possible to write a four square NPOV article which does not rely upon contemporaries. And if you view, for instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajnaparamita_Sutras you will see that no contemproraries are mentioned and that only Conze is mentioned, and he, far down in the article. I think that article sets a much better style and one which is much more resilient to any sort of edit conflicts, going forward. Geof Bard  गीता Discussion ^{May Buddha-Nature fill the whole universe now}   19:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... the general style of this article leaves much to be desired. It seems like on a lot of these Wikipedia Buddhism articles, too much of the article text is basically like a tug of war between scholars, and it doesn't form a cohesive and informative article as a whole (especially not for curious beginners to the subject). Worse yet is that Buddhology tends to be like all academic fields, in that there is competition including fierce egos and in-fighting. For this reason, I don't see scholars as being a neutral or NPOV resource in general. Like any resource, "sectarian" or "non-sectarian", any intro material should be reasonably simple and to-the-point. With that in mind, I've made an edit which may help some things and clean it up. Best regards. Tengu800 (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Published Editions of the Sanskrit Text.

• Conze, Edward (1948) ‘Text, Sources, and Bibliography of the Prajñāpāramitā-hṛdaya.’ Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, April 80(1-2): 33-51.
• Conze, Edward. (1967) ‘The Prajñāpāramitā-Hṛdaya Sūtra’ in Thirty Years of Buddhist Studies: Selected Essays, Bruno Cassirer, pp. 147-167. Modified version of Conze (1948).
• Milloué, L de (1883) ‘Quelques mots sur les anciens textes sanskrits du Japon, à propos d'une traduction inédite du Prajñāpāramitā-hṛdaya-sūtra par MM. Paul Regnand et Y. Ymaizoumi d'après un vieux texte sanskrit-japonais. Actes du Sixième Congrès international des orientalistes tenu en 1883 à Leide, 3e partie, section 2: Aryenne (Leide, E. J. Brill, 1885), p. 181-197. [Sanskrit text based on Freer’s polyglot edition] Online: http://archive.org/stream/actesdusiximeco01unkngoog#page/n200/mode/1up
• Mironov, N.D. (1933) The Prajñāpāramitāhṛdayasūtra as an inscription.’ Urusvati Journal. Vol 3: 73-78. Online: http://emrism.agni-age.net/english/Urusvati/Urusvati_3_73-78.pdf
• Müller, Max. (1881) ‘The Ancient Palm Leaves containing the Prajñāpāramitā-Hṛidaya Sūtra and Uṣniṣa-vijaya-Dhāraṇi.’ in Buddhist Texts from Japan (Vol 1.iii). Oxford University Press. Online: http://archive.org/details/buddhisttextsfr00bhgoog [Horiuzi Palm-leaf Manuscript]
• Shaku Hannya (1923) ‘The Prajna-Paramita-Hridaya Sutra,’ The Eastern Buddhist. 2: 163-175.
• Vaidya, P.L. (1961) Mahāyāna-sūtra-saṁgrahaḥ (part 1). Buddhist Sanskrit Texts No. 17. Darbhanga: The Mithila Institute. Online: http://dsbc.uwest.edu/ [Devanāgarī text based on Müller 1881]

Of these Conze's (1948, 1967) edition has become the standard in the West. I think the two Japanese mss., which form the basis of Müller (1881) and Shaku (1923), are still influential in Japan. Vaidya's (1961) Devanāgarī edition is based on Müller (1881). It's worth noting that there is a huge amount of variation in the sources.

The image on the page of a Sogdian manuscript (highly corrupt) may well be the Bibliothèque Nationale ms. mentioned by Conze (1967: 154. Sources Nm and Cg). I'm still looking for conformation.

I've left this in 'talk' because it's still original research. A publication may follow. Jayarava (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Translation Bibliography

Translations from Chinese:

• Fox, Douglas A. Heart of Buddhist Wisdom: A Translation of the Heart Sutra With Historical Introduction and Commentary. Lewiston : Edwin Mell en Press, 1985.
• Hsüan Hua. The Heart of Prajna Paramita Sutra, With Verses Without a Stand and Prose Commentary. San Francisco : The Budd hist Text Translation Soci ety, 1980.
• Hurvit z, Leon . “Hsüan -tsang (602-664) and the Heart Scripture.” in Prajñāpāramitā and Related Systems: Studies in Honor of Edward Conze, ed. Lewis Lancaster, Berkeley Buddhist Studies Series No. 1, 103-21. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977.
• Luk, Charles. Bilingual Buddhist Series: Sutras & Scriptures; Vol. I. Kaohsiung, Taiwan: Fu Kuang Publis her,r, 1962.
• McRae, John. “Ch’an Commentaries on the Heart Sūtra: Preliminary Inferences on the Permutation of Chinese Buddhism,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 11, No. 2. (1988): 87-155.
• Nhat Hanh, Thich. The Heart of Understanding: Commentaries on the Prajñaparamita Heart Sutra. Berkeley: Parallax Press, 1988.
• Shih, Heng-Ching. A Comprehensive Commentary on the Heart Sutra (Prajñāpāramitā-Hrdaya-Sūtra). In collaboration with Dan Lusthaus. Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 2001.
• Teiser, Stephen F. “Heart Sūtra.” In Ways With Words: Writing About Reading Texts From Early China, ed. Yu, Paulin e, Peter Bol, Stephen Owen, and Willard Peterson, 113-116. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000.
• West, Stephen H. “Heart Sūtra.” In Ways With Words: Writing About Reading Texts From Early China, ed. Yu, Paulin e, Peter Bol, Stephen Owen, and Willard Peterson, 116-118. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000.

Translations from Sanskrit:

• Conze, Edward . Buddhist Wisdom: The Diamond Sutra and the Heart Sutra. New York: Vintage Books, 2001.
• Dalai Lama and Thuptpten Jinpa. The Essence of the Heart Sutra: The Dalai Lama’s Heart of Wisdom Teachings. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2002.
• Hixon, Lex. Mother of the Buddhas: Meditation on the Prajnaparamita Sutra. Wheaton: Quest Books, 1993.
• Nattier, Jan. “The Heart Sūtra: A Chinese ApocryphalText?”, Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, vol. 15, no. 2 (1992), 153-223.

Translations from both Chinese and Sanskrit:

• Red Pine. The Heart Sutra: The Womb of Buddhas. Washington, DC: Shoemaker & Hoard, 2004.

Translations from both Sanskrit and Tibetan:

• Lopez, Donald S., Jr. Elaborations on Emptiness: Uses of the Heart Sūtra. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1996.
• Lopez, Donald S., Jr. The Heart Sūtra Explained: Indian and Tibetan Commentaries. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988.

Jayarava (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Possible Error

tasmat sariputra sunyatayam na rupam na vedana na samjna na samskara na vijnanam

Therefore, Shariputra, in emptiness there is no form, no sensation, no volition, no consciousness,

In above, "na vedana" is not translated and omitted, I think. Anyone who can translate Sanskrit, would you correct this? --JustinPark 09:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually it's "na samjna" which was omitted. Which means "no perception". JungleJoe (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Heart Sutra/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Relating to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_sutra#Musical_interpretations With five artists Notable enough to have their own pages having done performances of this work in at least two albums (one of which is at least sufficiently Notable on it's own) should it still be categorized as lacking its own Notability? Perhaps the article is lacking citations that sufficiently link it to that which is already notable. If such is the case a better researcher than I might do well to begin his search there. I was going to just remove the Notability marker since additional artists performances were added, but I realized I don't know enough about the project to make such a call and don't know enough about to subject to find the appropriate citations. Thornbrier (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 08:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 17:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Heart Suttra more like Essence Suttra?

I read a very convincing story that Heart is actually Essence lost in translation.

An apparently learned chap argued as follows;

There is a common belief that shin should be translated as heart, as it is an interpretation of the chinese xin, which means heart, essence or spirit.

However; the original is in Sanskrit. And sanskrit has a huge amount of words for consciousnes. There are 8 layers of it. And there is a very concrete direct way of saying heart, as in the organ. The word xin is also used for essence and spirit. The word it was translated from was essence. Because xin also means heart confusion arose.

In fact he argues; the suttra is a summary of the maka hannya haramita. Hence essence (or summarizing) suttra.

I can't retrieve the article right now, but it appears very very important and the dude made a good plea.

Maybe an expert can take a better look?

Or maybe someone will find the article while looking for several translations of the "heart" suttra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.231.232 (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's no conflict, because "heart" in English means both the heart organ and also the "core" or "essence" of something. So, "Heart Sutra" covers both possible meanings (as I believe the Chinese does, as well).—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 05:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an old comment, but it is worth saying that that the "original" Heart Sutra was in 'Chinese', not Sanskrit (this is now beyond reasonable doubt). It was created, some time between the 5th and 7th centuries, by taking a couple of extracts from Kumārajīva's 《摩訶般若波羅蜜經》, a translation of the 'Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra'. The text is not in "layers", though some have imposed layers on it. It's a single work of prose, possibly in several paragraphs, although that term has not parallel in Indian or Chinese texts of the early Medieval period. The Chinese word 心 can be interpreted in different ways in this context. It is used here to translation Sanskrit 'citta', which many Western Romantics translate as "heart", though it means something more like "mental activity". In Chinese is may also be used to translate 'dhāraṇī' and there is a good case for saying that 心經 should be translated by 'Dhāraṇī Sūtra' - many inscriptions and manuscripts combine the 'Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya' with the 'Uṣnīṣāvijāya Dhāraṇī'. This is just an isolated extract of a very long sutra, chosen for reasons that are unclear, but later interpreted as an "essence". However, the first ever commentaries on the text, by Xuanzang's disciples Kuiji and Woncheuk, understand it to epitomise the Yogācāra teachings. It is only much later that Buddhists start to see it as epitomising the Prajñāpāramitā Sutras. It is most likely that it was designed as a short text for chanting and writing/engraving - with the emphasis being on 'short'. Jayarava (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

New Translation of Thich Naht Hanh 2014

Hi :) Could someone more skilled than me add the 2014 new translation of the heart sutra of Thich Naht Hanh?

http://plumvillage.org/news/thich-nhat-hanh-new-heart-sutra-translation/

He made quite some changes to the original so I think its worth mentioning. It could be even worth explaining the difference he made between "empty" and "no separate self entity". Also the chanting version could be included: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vNbEjdfJCI (the tutorial might not belong here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxLf6z4E2OI)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.96.89.155 (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Some of these changes are in fact rather suspect, as I have pointed out in my essay: [| Thich Nhat Hanh's Changes to The Heart Sutra.] Also I'm not sure that the new translation has been published anywhere except on the web. I think we have to wait until it is formally published before including it. Web "translations" of the sūtra are too numerous to count. Jayarava (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I added a link to the amended translation with TNH's entry under translations. Jayarava (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Red Pine

A huge number of references on this page are to the rather idiosyncratic and frequently erroneous translation of, and commentary on, the Heart Sutra by Red Pine. People ought to be warned that though Mr Pine is popular, he is a less than reliable guide to the Sanskrit text. Jayarava (talk) 07:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

a huge range of translations are available. A selected bibliography below taken from Prajnaparamita Heart Sutra: Translated from the the Chinese Version of Xuanzang. Buddha's Light Publishing (2006). Let's have a more representative page. Jayarava (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

In particular Mr Pine peddles the idea that a copy of the Heart Sutra in Chinese existed before the 7th century. There is no extant text for this. Thus the earliest copy of the sutra is from the 7th century - 609 CE in fact. Stories of earlier copies may be motivated by an attempt to give an apocryphal text authority. Jayarava (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Where it says that Red Pine "argued that the Heart Sūtra is specifically a response to Sarvastivada teachings" what it should really say is that Red Pine rehearses the arguments put forward by Edward Conze regarding the text being a response to Sarvāstivada teachings. And it should add that this contradicts Conze's idea that it was composed late so is not very plausible. Jayarava (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just edited the section on Nattier's hypothesis which suggested that the thesis was "far from universally accepted" on the basis of red Pine's rejection in favour of his own made up theory of a lost Pañcavimśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra manuscript which has the same wording as the extant Sanskrit Hṛdaya mss. A single dissenter, and that on rather spurious grounds by someone who cannot even read the Sanskrit text properly, is not really grounds for suggesting that the scholarly consensus is widely disputed. Red Pine is a lone voice and his argument is illogical and largely irrelevant to serious scholarship of this text. Red Pine and his opinions are still vastly over represented (and over rated!) on this page. Jayarava (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm still weeding out references to Red Pine. No complaints so far. Jayarava (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Translations of mantra

Why are there so many translations of the mantra, especially into languages that have not traditionally practiced Mahayana Buddhism? For example, the Polish translation appears here. Why? If we are including modern translations of the mantra, then that could potentially involve every language on Earth. Also, the Telugu and Tamil translations seem out of place, as there have not been classical translations of the Heart Sutra into either language. As far as I am aware, the only relevant translations would be: Sanskrit, Chinese, Tibetan, Vietnamese, and Korean. Translation into Japanese kana seems out of place as well, as the Japanese use the Chinese Buddhist canon, which is basically all Kanji. Tengu800 16:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I have tidied this up now. Jayarava (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Chinese Mantra Transcription

• The article has: 揭谛揭谛，波罗揭谛，波罗僧揭谛，菩提萨婆诃
• cf. CBETA T 251: 揭帝　揭帝　般羅揭帝　般羅僧揭帝　菩提　僧莎訶

In particular the 2nd and 3rd to last characters are different. So where does the version used in the article come from if not from the Tripiṭaka? Jayarava (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

： 揭谛揭谛，波罗揭谛，波罗僧揭谛，菩提萨婆诃 firstly is in simplified Chinese. In traditional Chinese it would be 揭諦揭諦，波羅揭諦，波羅僧揭諦，菩提薩婆訶 . So it is different not only in the 2nd and 3rd to last characters but also in the 2nd and 4th character of the 1st phrase, 1st and 4th character of the 2nd phrase, 1st and 5th character of the 3rd phrase as well as the 3rd and 4th character of the 4th phrase. Nevertheless it is one of the transliterated forms used in the Chinese Buddhist Recitation Book used by hundreds of millions of Buddhist followers. As such, I think it is better to leave it alone. You can find this precise transliteration in the Chinese Tripitaka also. If you read Chinese, it would be easy for you to find it. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Third quibble

The text part mentions "statements about reality are not applicable to the ultimate truth that is by definition beyond our comprehending. " But it would make more sense if you change "beyond our comprehending" to "beyond our ability to express. " JungleJoe (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it would make more sense. In fact I think this statement is 'just plain nonsense' and ought to be deleted. Jayarava (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

But I think it's more consistent to compare statements and expressions rather than statements and comprehending. It may be more readable that way. JungleJoe (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Rejection of the Chinese Origins of the Heart Sutra by Asian Scholars

I've just finished reviewing an article on the Heart Sutra by Ji Yun (in English translation) for my blog. Late last year I also reviewed an article by Ishii Kōsei on the same subject. It does seem that there is a concerted refusal to accept the Chinese origins of the Heart Sutra amongst scholars in East Asia (Ji is from Singapore, Ishii from Japan). The criteria for authenticity in medieval Asia was very much lower than in classical and medieval India. All that was required in Tang China, for example, was that the text had come from India. Since so much is invested in the authenticity of the sutra and that authenticity rests on a single criteria, the debate (such as it is) is intensely centred on this single issue. Now, Nattier has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the sutra is Chinese ("in every sense of the word"). It is either extracted directly from or written in the style of Kumārajīva's translation of the Large Sutra (T223), with minor modifications in T251 to suggest Xuanzang's involvement. My next article will put this beyond any doubt, since there is a Chinese idiom rudely translated into unidiomatic Sanskrit outside the extracted portion of the text - it can only have been composed in Chinese and then by someone unfamiliar with Sanskrit Prajñāpāramitā idiom. However, I think this phenomenon of increasingly desperate apologetics for the authenticity of the text being produced by monks and other establishment figures in Asia, not to mention the overtly hostile reception of Nattier (and me) amongst Asian lay people, has become such a feature of studying the Heart Sutra that it ought to be acknowledged in the main article. Unfortunately, to date I am not aware of any independent treatment of this issue that could be cited as a source. I do plan to publish an article on the scholarly reception of Nattier's article which will include observations on the Asian side of things, but this is still some way off (third in my que of articles to complete on the Heart Sutra). In the meantime, if anyone knows of some objective (English language) overview of recent publications I'd be most grateful to hear about it. BTW from the Western side of things, the thesis was also originally greeted without enthusiasm, but it has now (after 25 years) gained broad acceptance. Jayarava (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Harada

Please use this space to provide English summaries of Harada Waso's works as they have not been translated into English yet. There is another section for comments.Hanbud (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC) If anyone has problems with this section, please read my talk page for why this section should remain unchanged (unless one has corrections to be made to Pat457's translation of Professor Harada Waso.Hanbud (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I have a major problem with this section and you know exactly why. This is not a legitimate use of the talk page. If you want to create a proper translation of the text and then cite it as a proper source then go ahead and do it. This is not that place. You don't own Wikipedia so please stop acting like a dictator. Jayarava (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Pat457's English Summary of Harada Waso's An Annotated Translation of the Prajnaparamitahrdaya from the Association of Esoteric Buddhist Studies (2002)

Japanese speaker here. I'm just perusing through Harada's paper, and while I cannot give a full translation of it here (my translation skills aren't great, and it's very long and I'm lazy), I can give out at least the general gist of his arguments against Jan Nattier.

• Nattier doesn't give an answer as to why the shorter Sanskrit version does not contain the phrase 度一切苦厄 ("crossed over all suffering and affliction"). Harada cites Fumimasa Fukui's thesis (Hannya shingyō no kakushin (般若心経の核心 'The Core of the Heart Sūtra') in Toyo no Shisō to Shūkyō (東洋の思想と宗教 'Thought and Religion in the East') 4, Waseda Univ., 1987) that the core - the 'heart', if you will - of the Heart Sūtra is not so much the first half that speaks about emptiness, but the latter half that extols the merits of the Gate gate paragate... mantra. Fukui argues, and Harada apparently concurs, that the phrase 能除一切苦 ("able to remove all affliction") is actually the most important part of the sūtra - in fact, the very reason why the sūtra came to be so popular in China. The phrase 度一切苦厄 in the opening section - found in Kumarajiva (T. 0250) and Xuanzang (T. 0251), with equivalents in the longer versions of Prajñā and Li Yan (T. 0253: 離諸苦厄) and Prajñācakra (T. 0254: 離諸苦厄), but absent from other versions - is proposed to have been inserted by Kumarajiva in his version of the sūtra to prefigure 能除一切苦, which Xuanzang preserved in his own version. If, as Nattier said, the Sanskrit Heart Sūtra was a back-translation from Xuanzang's Chinese 'translation' (which in turn was based on Kumarajiva's Large Prajñāpāramita text) made in China, Harada argued that the omission of 度一切苦厄 would be an unthinkable move. (pp. 108-107/33-34)
• Harada answers Nattier's observation that the Heart Sūtra uses kṣaya for the Large Sūtra's nirodha by pointing out that the Sanskrit version of the Perfection of Wisdom in 8,000 Lines (Aṣṭasāhasrikā-Prajñāpāramitā) already uses the word akṣayatva (... avidyākṣayatvena subhūte bodhisattvena mahāsattvena prajñāpāramitā abhinirhartavyā / evaṃ saṃskārākṣayatvena vijñānākṣayatvena nāmarūpākṣayatvena ṣaḍāyatanākṣayatvena sparśākṣayatvena vedanākṣayatvena tṛṣṇākṣayatvena upādānākṣayatvena bhavākṣayatvena jātyakṣayatvena jarāmaraṇākṣayatvena śokaparidevaduḥkhadaurmanasyopāyāsākṣayatvena subhūte bodhisattvena mahāsattvena prajñāpāramitā abhinirhartavyā). Ergo, the Heart Sūtra's use of kṣaya is not unusual/without precedent. (pp. 96-95/45-46)
• Regarding Nattier's observation that while the general meaning of the Large Sūtra and the Heart Sūtra are the same but their vocabulary is not (the Large Sūtra employs singular verbal forms while the Heart Sūtra uses plural adjectival forms), Harada points out that such grammatical differences are natural, since the subject in the Large Sutra is śūnyatā (singular feminine), while in the Heart Sutra, the subject is sarva-dharmāḥ (plural masculine). Note that such grammatical differences do not exist in Chinese, so where the Sanskrit differs (na ... utpadyate na nirudhyate / anutpannā aniruddhā), the Chinese text of both the Large Sūtra and the Heart Sūtra simply just say 不生、不滅.
  Harada also makes the same observation as Nattier (p. 203) that while the Chinese versions say 不增不減 ("(they) do not increase, (they) do not decrease"), the Sanskrit formulates it in reverse: anūnā aparipūrṇāḥ "they do not decrease, they do not increase." While Nattier says that "it is difficult to explain this reversal no matter what direction of textual transmission is postulated," Harada points out how the Chinese title of the Anūnatva-Apūrṇatva-Nirdeśa shows the same quirk as the phrase in the Chinese Heart Sūtra: 不增不減經 - i.e. putting 'non-increase' (apūrṇatva 不增) before 'non-decrease' (anūnatva 不減). All in all, he proposes that the Heart Sūtra was indeed compiled in India and sees it very likely that its vocabulary was taken from a source/s different from that of the Large Sūtra (he proposes the Tathāgatagarbha sūtras (如来蔵経典)), thereby explaining the different word choices. (pp. 100-99/41-42)
• Regarding the differences in expression used between the Large Sūtra (na anya X anya Y "X is not other than Y") and the Heart Sūtra (X na pṛthak Y "Y is not distinct from X") despite their word-for-word similarity in Chinese (X不異Y), Harada pretty much argues that the similarity in the Chinese version could have been caused by Xuanzang being a conservative translator, citing how in his own translation of the Large Sūtra (T. 0220) Xuanzang retained Kumarajiva's 色不異空、空不異色. Harada adds, if the Sanskrit Heart Sutra was really back-translated from Xuanzang's text, why did the translator not render 空 as śūnyaṃ/śūnyān, but as śūnyatā/śūnyatā(ḥ), which would have been 空性 in Chinese? (pp. 106-105/35-36)
• Regarding the following excerpt: (clause Ia/b) rūpān na pṛthak śūnyatā śūnyatāyā na pṛthag rūpam; (clause IIa/b) evam eva vedanā saṃjñā saṃskāro vijñānaṃ; (clause IIIa/b) yad rūpaṃ sā śūnyatā yā śūnyatā tad rūpam, Harada makes the following points:
  

(1) He refutes Nattier's claim that (Ia/b) rūpaṃ śūnyatā śūnyataiva rūpaṃ "is absent from all the Chinese versions of the text" (p. 203) by citing the translations of Amoghavajra (From a manuscript from Dunhuang: (Ia/b) 色空、色性是空。 (IIa) 色不異空。(IIb) 空亦不異色。(IIIa) 是色彼空、(IIIb) 是空彼色。), Dharmacandra (法月 Fayue, 738 - T. 0252: (Ia/b) 色性是空、空性是色 (IIa) 色不意空。(IIb) 空不意色。(IIIa) 色即是空、(IIIb) 空即是色。) and Prajñācakra (智慧輪, after 855 CE - T. 0254: (Ia/b) 色空、空性見(?)色。(IIa) 色不意空。(IIb) 空不意色。(IIIa) 即色是空、(IIIb) 即空是色。)

(2) Harada agrees that many Nepalese manuscripts lack (IIIa/b) yad rūpaṃ sā śūnyatā yā śūnyatā tad rūpam. Among the Chinese translations, those of Facheng (法成, 8th c. - T. 0255: (Ia) 色即是空、(Ib) 空即是色。(IIa) 色不異空、(IIb) 空不異色。) and Dānapāla (施護, after 982 CE - T. 0257: (Ia) 即色是空、(Ib) 即空是色。(IIa) 色無異於空。(IIb) 空無異於色。) reflect this omission. Out of the Indian commentators on the Heart Sūtra, only Praśāstrasena has this third sentence; all others omit it.

(3) Versions that include this third sentence (aside from Praśāstrasena's text) are the Hōryūji manuscript and the transliterations by Amoghavajra and Maitrībhadra (慈賢: 10th c.), the Chinese translations mentioned in (1), and a Tibetan manuscript of the short version found in Dunhuang.

(4) The versions of Xuanzang and Prajñā+Li Yan, meanwhile, apparently omit the third sentence and switch the first two sentences around: (IIa) 色不異空、(IIb) 空不異色。(Ia) 色即是空、(Ib) 空即是色。

(5) In both Kumarajiva's version of the Heart Sūtra and the Large Sūtra, however, the sentence structure is completely in reverse:

(-IIIb') 色空故無惱壞相。受空故無受相。想空故無知相。行空故無作相。識空故無覺相。何以故。(IIa) 舍利弗非色異空。(IIb) 非空異色。(Ia) 色即是空。(Ib) 空即是色。

Harada then proposes the following scenario: the original sentence order as found in the 25,000-verse Prajñāpāramitā and in the 'primitive Heart Sutra' (原初的な 『心経』) in which this section was incorporated was (-IIIb')-(IIa/b)-(Ia/b). (cf. Kumarajiva) At some point, (-IIIb') was excised, leaving only (IIa/b)-(Ia/b). (cf. Xuanzang, Prajna and Li Yan) Afterwards, a new sentence (IIIa/b) was inserted and the first two sentences were switched around, giving the structure (Ia/b)-(IIa/b)-(IIIa/b). (cf. Hōryūji and Dunhuang MSS, Amoghavajra, Maitrībhadra, Dharmacandra, Prajñācakra, Praśāstrasena) However, (IIIa/b) was finally dropped, leaving only (Ia/b)-(IIa/b). (cf. Facheng, Dānapāla, Nepalese and Indian MSS.)
Harada thus argues that the shorter Sanskrit version cannot then have been a back-translation from Xuanzang's text as Nattier proposes: if that was the case, one should expect the text to reflect the (IIa/b)-(Ia/b) structure found in Xuanzang, whereas texts such as the Hōryūji MS or Amoghavajra's transliteration have the (Ia/b)-(IIa/b)-(IIIa/b) structure. (pp. 105-103/36-38)

• At the part "Because there is no attainment, the bodhisattva(s), relying on perfection of wisdom..." the Horyuji MS, Amoghavajra and Maitrībhadra all have bodhisatvānāṃ (genitive plural). The plural is also reflected in the Tibetan version (byaṅ-chub-sems-dpaḥ rnams), even if the word there is rendered in the nominative as the subject of thob-pa med-paḥi phyir ("because there is no attainment"). Harada asks, since Xuanzang's version reads 菩提薩埵 at this point, shouldn't have one expected the putative creator of the Sanskrit text to render it in the nominative singular (bodhisattvaḥ) instead of the plural bodhisattvānāṃ attested in the different versions? (p. 94/47)

(Harada (pp. 49-50/92-91) answers the question about how to square the plural 'bodhisattvas' with āśritya viharati, which requires a singular nominative by saying that the subject of this portion is actually Avalokiteśvara mentioned in the prologue: in other words, Avalokiteśvara examined the five skandhas, the twelve ayatanas, the eighteen dhatus, the twelve nidanas, and the four noble truths, saw their 'emptiness', and as a result, he dwells (in saṃsāra to save sentient beings?) in a state of nirvāṇa, with an unobstructed mind. Harada declares that Avalokiteśvara must be the one referred to in this portion; otherwise it will appear that he just had a one-time cameo in the beginning and then inexplicably disappeared. "I cannot imagine the author of the Heart Sutra seriously thinking of such an incomprehensible and unsightly scenario." (『心経 』制作者がそんな不可解で無様なドラマのシナリオを本気で考えたとは想像できない。)
His rendering of this portion (p. 119/22) therefore pretty much runs like (note: not a word for word translation of his translation): "Because there is no attainment (of the arhathood held to be the ideal in Śrāvakayāna) for bodhisattvas, he (Avalokiteśvara), relying on the perfection of wisdom, (continues to) dwell (in saṃsāra) with an unobstructed mind. Because his mind is unobstructed, he is unafraid [of saṃsāra], having overcome perverse thoughts/views; (while still being in the saṃsāra world) he is in nirvāṇa. It is (after all) due to relying on the perfection of wisdom that all the buddhas of the three times have attained supreme, perfect awakening."

Speaking of which, Harada also addresses another Japanese scholar (Shōgo Watanabe) who proposed back in 1991 - a year before Nattier! - that Kumarajiva's T. 0250 version was not a translation from the Sanskrit as is commonly thought, but a later work based on Kumarajiva's Large Prajñāpāramita Sūtra using Xuanzang's text as a model.

That's pretty much what I can gather from the paper. Errors in representing his views are entirely my own.Pat457 (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Unrelated

I find it very interesting that since my attempt to prevent Hanbud from promoting the work of his chosen scholar, that there have been multiple failed attempts to log into my Wikipedia account. This has never happened before. Jayarava (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

These attempts to log-in are probably part of recent mass attacks. I don´t think you were targeted because of your recent wp activities. JimRenge (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead tag

A dispute tag such as "the neutrality of this article is disputed" needs to be explained and collaboratively addressed. It can't just stay there forever. Let us discuss it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I started this article in 2003 (under an older username) and have been a contributor since then, though most of my efforts have been effaced. At present I am the most active scholar in the world on this text, having published five peer-reviewed articles on it since 2015. I added the neutrality tag in frustration as I was being stymied in my efforts to improve the article. There are two problems. 1. Religious people using the article to promote their religion and 2. The article has become badly skewed towards a racist and sectarian point of view. There are concerted efforts to prevent editing which is not in line with this bias. The article is now littered with citations to Chinese language publications with amateurish, unpublished English translations supplied by User Hanbud (i.e. "Chinese Buddhist") who now uncompromisingly dominates the content. What this article needs is an active and impartial arbiter who has no vested interest. I'm happy to work with such a person, but otherwise experience shows that putting effort in is completely pointless. I would rewrite the whole article for a non-Buddhist English-speaking audience and, being a leading expert on the text in question, I'm well placed to do so. Note that I am also an Ordained member of a Buddhist Order, so I'm not against the religion, just the overt sectarianism and racism. That is where things currently stand from my pov. Jayarava (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Your credentials as a scholar may be impeccable; they do not however mean that your view carries more weight. Wikipedia depends on reliable secondary sources, that readers can check for themselves, and not on topic experts. Please find secondary sources that cite your scholarly work. It is wrong to claim that you are 'well-placed' to rewrite the article; you need consensus to do something like that.

Yes, I know, the article is the subject of ethnic conflict. That is sad. But you are evidently heavily invested in the subject of this article. Perhaps you should consider editing in a subject area where you are less strongly committed. MrDemeanour (talk) 03:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

OK fine. Will you say this to the other editors who are heavily invested also please. And can you identify and encourage editors who are not? Jayarava (talk) 10:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Jayarava, "The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies." ([2]) Please quote specific issues from the article which are violations of our WP:NPOV policies. JimRenge (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll make a list. Jayarava (talk) 10:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've made a start critiquing the current page in a new section. I'll add to it over the next few days, but this is very time consuming and I am time poor. Jayarava (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments of Pat457's English summary of Harada Waso's An Annotated Translation of the Prajnaparamitahrdaya from the Association of Esoteric Buddhists Studies (2002)

I've removed this part [of a sentence] of the article: "Harada has disproved Nattier's theory", which referenced, Harada Waso (2010), 'An Annotated Translation of The Prajñaparamitahrdaya', Association of Esoteric Buddhist Studies, Vol.2002 (2002) No.209 [3]. This is because the reference is to an article in Japanese and thus cannot be verified by non Japanese speakers. And as it says "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Until there is an English translation available I don't think we can consider this verifiable. On the other hand I would be more than happy to see a translation of this article and to see Harada's reasoning. Jayarava (talk) 10:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Note I edited my own comment because the inline reference was showing up at the bottom of the talk page, completely disconnected from the following discussion of it. I have now reworded the comment so that the reference is identified in context. Jayarava (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you should leave the reference to Mr. Harada's work as a footnote to "This hypothesis, however, is rejected by some Japanese scholars and practitioners." Many users of English language Wikipedia are multilingual. Since Mr. Harada's article is very long and involved - a translation into English would take some time. In the meantime, other people can benefit from his study. Hanbud (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see Verifiability Non-English sources. "This hypothesis, however, is rejected by some Japanese scholars and practitioners." I would prefer a sentence that specifies the scholars who reject Nattiers hypothesis. A one sentence quote from Harada might be helpful. JimRenge (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Jayarava (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Japanese speaker here [Pat457]. I'm just perusing through Harada's paper, and while I cannot give a full translation of it here (my translation skills aren't great, and it's very long and I'm lazy), I can give out at least the general gist of his arguments against Jan Nattier.

• [Pat457] Nattier doesn't give an answer as to why the shorter Sanskrit version does not contain the phrase 度一切苦厄 ("crossed over all suffering and affliction"). Harada cites Fumimasa Fukui's thesis (Hannya shingyō no kakushin (般若心経の核心 'The Core of the Heart Sūtra') in Toyo no Shisō to Shūkyō (東洋の思想と宗教 'Thought and Religion in the East') 4, Waseda Univ., 1987) that the core - the 'heart', if you will - of the Heart Sūtra is not so much the first half that speaks about emptiness, but the latter half that extols the merits of the Gate gate paragate... mantra. Fukui argues, and Harada apparently concurs, that the phrase 能除一切苦 ("able to remove all affliction") is actually the most important part of the sūtra - in fact, the very reason why the sūtra came to be so popular in China. The phrase 度一切苦厄 in the opening section - found in Kumarajiva (T. 0250) and Xuanzang (T. 0251), with equivalents in the longer versions of Prajñā and Li Yan (T. 0253: 離諸苦厄) and Prajñācakra (T. 0254: 離諸苦厄), but absent from other versions - is proposed to have been inserted by Kumarajiva in his version of the sūtra to prefigure 能除一切苦, which Xuanzang preserved in his own version. If, as Nattier said, the Sanskrit Heart Sūtra was a back-translation from Xuanzang's Chinese 'translation' (which in turn was based on Kumarajiva's Large Prajñāpāramita text) made in China, Harada argued that the omission of 度一切苦厄 would be an unthinkable move. (pp. 108-107/33-34)

The phrase 度一切苦厄 is problematic. But Fukui is wrong to say that "latter half that extols the merits of the Gate gate paragate... mantra" as I show in my 2017 article, the word "mantra" is actually a mistranslation. "Harada argued that the omission of 度一切苦厄 would be an unthinkable move". This is not a rational argument. All that is required is that the Sanskrit text was composed after the Chinese phrase was added. This is not unthinkable. A comparison of T250 and T251 shows that the latter is an edited version of the former in any case. Jayarava (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

But the whole point of Nattier's article was the Sanskrit text was composed by a non-Indic personage. If "度一切苦厄" is an important element of the Heart Sutra and it is, why would a non-Indic personage (most likely Chinese) omitted this when back-translating it into Sanskrit? Therefore it is irrational to NOT TRANSLATE "cross over all suffering and affliction" from Chinese into Sanskrit. Therefore it counts as one strike against the back-translation theory.Hanbud (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• [Pat457] Harada answers Nattier's observation that the Heart Sūtra uses kṣaya for the Large Sūtra's nirodha by pointing out that the Sanskrit version of the Perfection of Wisdom in 8,000 Lines (Aṣṭasāhasrikā-Prajñāpāramitā) already uses the word akṣayatva (... avidyākṣayatvena subhūte bodhisattvena mahāsattvena prajñāpāramitā abhinirhartavyā / evaṃ saṃskārākṣayatvena vijñānākṣayatvena nāmarūpākṣayatvena ṣaḍāyatanākṣayatvena sparśākṣayatvena vedanākṣayatvena tṛṣṇākṣayatvena upādānākṣayatvena bhavākṣayatvena jātyakṣayatvena jarāmaraṇākṣayatvena śokaparidevaduḥkhadaurmanasyopāyāsākṣayatvena subhūte bodhisattvena mahāsattvena prajñāpāramitā abhinirhartavyā). Ergo, the Heart Sūtra's use of kṣaya is not unusual/without precedent. (pp. 96-95/45-46)

In the case of nirodha/kṣaya it is important to note that this is part of the text that is quoted directly from the Large Sutra. The extant Sanskrit Large sutra manuscripts all have nirodha, and nirodha is the standard Buddhist vocabulary for referring to the nidāna sequence in reverse. Since the Heart Sutra does not quote from Aṣṭa the occurrence of this phrase is not noteworthy. But note that the phrase does not occur in the Large Sutra. Jayarava (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• [Pat457]Regarding Nattier's observation that while the general meaning of the Large Sūtra and the Heart Sūtra are the same but their vocabulary is not (the Large Sūtra employs singular verbal forms while the Heart Sūtra uses plural adjectival forms), Harada points out that such grammatical differences are natural, since the subject in the Large Sutra is śūnyatā (singular feminine), while in the Heart Sutra, the subject is sarva-dharmāḥ (plural masculine). Note that such grammatical differences do not exist in Chinese, so where the Sanskrit differs (na ... utpadyate na nirudhyate / anutpannā aniruddhā), the Chinese text of both the Large Sūtra and the Heart Sūtra simply just say 不生、不滅.
  Harada also makes the same observation as Nattier (p. 203) that while the Chinese versions say 不增不減 ("(they) do not increase, (they) do not decrease"), the Sanskrit formulates it in reverse: anūnā aparipūrṇāḥ "they do not decrease, they do not increase." While Nattier says that "it is difficult to explain this reversal no matter what direction of textual transmission is postulated," Harada points out how the Chinese title of the Anūnatva-Apūrṇatva-Nirdeśa shows the same quirk as the phrase in the Chinese Heart Sūtra: 不增不減經 - i.e. putting 'non-increase' (apūrṇatva 不增) before 'non-decrease' (anūnatva 不減). All in all, he proposes that the Heart Sūtra was indeed compiled in India and sees it very likely that its vocabulary was taken from a source/s different from that of the Large Sūtra (he proposes the Tathāgatagarbha sūtras (如来蔵経典)), thereby explaining the different word choices. (pp. 100-99/41-42)

"Harada points out that such grammatical differences are natural" This is simply not true. The passage is a direct quote. If it was quoted in Sanskrit, then the Sanskrit texts ought to be identical. In fact they are not - grammar and vocabulary are substantially different. A change of subject, grammatical form, and vocabulary in Sanskrit, while T223 and T250 are completely identical is a very substantial argument in favour of Chinese origins. The list of terms found in the Heart Sutra is never found in any other Sanskrit Prajñāpāramitā text. Yes, one can find some partial parallels elsewhere, but again, T250 is identical to T223. Completely character for character identical. So why would employ a weaker, more elaborate explanation than that T250 quotes directly from T223? Jayarava (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The earliest extant copy of T250 or the version of the Heart Sutra attributed to Kumarajiva dates to the Jin Dynasty (1115-1234). There is one substantive reference to T. 250 and that is Kukai's 818 CE commentary of the Heart Sutra but if one actually reads the commentary - it seems to be quoting from Xuanzang's version.Hanbud (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• [Pat457] Regarding the differences in expression used between the Large Sūtra (na anya X anya Y "X is not other than Y") and the Heart Sūtra (X na pṛthak Y "Y is not distinct from X") despite their word-for-word similarity in Chinese (X不異Y), Harada pretty much argues that the similarity in the Chinese version could have been caused by Xuanzang being a conservative translator, citing how in his own translation of the Large Sūtra (T. 0220) Xuanzang retained Kumarajiva's 色不異空、空不異色. Harada adds, if the Sanskrit Heart Sutra was really back-translated from Xuanzang's text, why did the translator not render 空 as śūnyaṃ/śūnyān, but as śūnyatā/śūnyatā(ḥ), which would have been 空性 in Chinese? (pp. 106-105/35-36)

The trouble here is that na anya X anya Y is a Buddhist Sanskrit idiom whereas X na pṛthak Y is not. No other Prajñāpāramitā text uses na pṛthak in this context. So we are not simply trying to explain a difference, we are trying to explain why one version is idiomatic and the other is not. There are any number of these non-idiomatic phrases in the Sanskrit Heart Sutra. And the best answer is that thy not only went through Chinese, but that the Chinese-Sanskrit translator was not familiar with the idioms of Sanskrit Prajñāpāramitā texts. This explanation is simply and comprehensive. Jayarava (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• [Pat457] Regarding the following excerpt: (clause Ia/b) rūpān na pṛthak śūnyatā śūnyatāyā na pṛthag rūpam; (clause IIa/b) evam eva vedanā saṃjñā saṃskāro vijñānaṃ; (clause IIIa/b) yad rūpaṃ sā śūnyatā yā śūnyatā tad rūpam, Harada makes the following points:
  

(1)[Pat457] He refutes Nattier's claim that (Ia/b) rūpaṃ śūnyatā śūnyataiva rūpaṃ "is absent from all the Chinese versions of the text" (p. 203) by citing the translations of Amoghavajra (From a manuscript from Dunhuang: (Ia/b) 色空、色性是空。 (IIa) 色不異空。(IIb) 空亦不異色。(IIIa) 是色彼空、(IIIb) 是空彼色。), Dharmacandra (法月 Fayue, 738 - T. 0252: (Ia/b) 色性是空、空性是色 (IIa) 色不意空。(IIb) 空不意色。(IIIa) 色即是空、(IIIb) 空即是色。) and Prajñācakra (智慧輪, after 855 CE - T. 0254: (Ia/b) 色空、空性見(?)色。(IIa) 色不意空。(IIb) 空不意色。(IIIa) 即色是空、(IIIb) 即空是色。)

Nattier does not make that claim at all. She claims that yad rūpaṃ sā śūnyatā yā śūnyatā tad rūpam is absent from the Chinese. And this is perfectly true. T256 (attributed to Amoghavajra is obviously influenced by the Sanskrit translation in a number of places. Which is hardly surprising since T256 also contains a transliteration of a Sanskrit Heart Sutra. Jayarava (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Nattier certainly does make this claim. cf. footnote 12 (Nattier 1992, pp 203).

12. This line, which is absent from all the Chinese versions of the text, appears in the form cited here (that is, Skt. rupam Sunyam Sunyataiva rupam) in the majority of extant Sanskrit copies (for details see Conze's critical edition [cited in n. 1 above], p. 150, n. 10) as well as in the Tibetan translation of the longer recension of the sutra (which reads gzugs stong-pa'o). Conze, however, preferred the reading "form is emptiness" (rupam §unyatS) and accordingly chose this version (which constitutes a distinct minority of readings in the manuscript copies) as standard.

Hanbud (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

With regard to your response 'Nattier does not make that claim at all. She claims that yad rūpaṃ sā śūnyatā yā śūnyatā tad rūpam is absent from the Chinese...' Here is Nattier's actual quote cf footnote 19 (Nattier 1992, pp 204) :

19. The sentences yad rūpaṃ sā śūnyatā yā śūnyatā tad rūpam ("that which is form is emptiness, that which is emptiness is form") are absent from a substantial majority of the Sanskrit manuscripts reviewed by Conze in his critical edition, as well as from the canonical (LT) Tibetan translation, though they do appear in the Tun-huang manuscript copies (ST), where they are rendered into Tibetan as gag gzugs-pa de stong-pa-nyidIIgag stong-pa- nyid-pa degzug-te [sic]. Accordingly, I have omitted these lines from the English translation of the Sanskrit given above (p. 155).

Hanbud (talk) 04:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

With regards to your statement 'Which is hardly surprising since T256 also contains a transliteration of a Sanskrit Heart Sutra.' Harada also mention the presence of the above phrase in Dharmacandra's translation (T.252) and Prajñācakra's translation (T.254)? Hanbud (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

(2)[Pat457] Harada agrees that many Nepalese manuscripts lack (IIIa/b) yad rūpaṃ sā śūnyatā yā śūnyatā tad rūpam. Among the Chinese translations, those of Facheng (法成, 8th c. - T. 0255: (Ia) 色即是空、(Ib) 空即是色。(IIa) 色不異空、(IIb) 空不異色。) and Dānapāla (施護, after 982 CE - T. 0257: (Ia) 即色是空、(Ib) 即空是色。(IIa) 色無異於空。(IIb) 空無異於色。) reflect this omission. Out of the Indian commentators on the Heart Sūtra, only Praśāstrasena has this third sentence; all others omit it.

The late versions of the Heart Sutra (all those except T250 and T251) are translations from Sanskrit, so they are not relevant to argument at all.

(3)[Pat457] Versions that include this third sentence (aside from Praśāstrasena's text) are the Hōryūji manuscript and the transliterations by Amoghavajra and Mai:trībhadra (慈賢: 10th c.), the Chinese translations mentioned in (1), and a Tibetan manuscript of the short version found in Dunhuang.

The Hōryūji manuscript is obvious corrupt in many places. See my transcription of it: https://prajnaparamitahrdaya.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/horiuzi-palm-leaf-mss-ja/

But it may very well be the oldest extant Sanskrit text of the Heart Sutra.Hanbud (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(4)[Pat457] The versions of Xuanzang and Prajñā+Li Yan, meanwhile, apparently omit the third sentence and switch the first two sentences around: (IIa) 色不異空、(IIb) 空不異色。(Ia) 色即是空、(Ib) 空即是色。

(5)[Pat457] In both Kumarajiva's version of the Heart Sūtra and the Large Sūtra, however, the sentence structure is completely in reverse:

(-IIIb') 色空故無惱壞相。受空故無受相。想空故無知相。行空故無作相。識空故無覺相。何以故。(IIa) 舍利弗非色異空。(IIb) 非空異色。(Ia) 色即是空。(Ib) 空即是色。

[Pat457] Harada then proposes the following scenario: the original sentence order as found in the 25,000-verse Prajñāpāramitā and in the 'primitive Heart Sutra' (原初的な 『心

経』) in which this section was incorporated was (-IIIb')-(IIa/b)-(Ia/b). (cf. Kumarajiva) At some point, (-IIIb') was excised, leaving only (IIa/b)-(Ia/b). (cf. Xuanzang, Prajna and Li Yan) Afterwards, a new sentence (IIIa/b) was inserted and the first two sentences were switched around, giving the structure (Ia/b)-(IIa/b)-(IIIa/b). (cf. Hōryūji and Dunhuang MSS, Amoghavajra, Maitrībhadra, Dharmacandra, Prajñācakra, Praśāstrasena) However, (IIIa/b) was finally dropped, leaving only (Ia/b)-(IIa/b). (cf. Facheng, Dānapāla, Nepalese and Indian MSS.)
Harada thus argues that the shorter Sanskrit version cannot then have been a back-translation from Xuanzang's text as Nattier proposes: if that was the case, one should expect the text to reflect the (IIa/b)-(Ia/b) structure found in Xuanzang, whereas texts such as the Hōryūji MS or Amoghavajra's transliteration have the (Ia/b)-(IIa/b)-(IIIa/b) structure. (pp. 105-103/36-38)

I cannot follow the argument here. The passage is identical in T223 and T250. T250 clearly quotes from T223 (trs. 404 CE). T251 has been edited to be more like a Xuanzang translation, but is actually significant different from Xuanzang's translation of the Large Sutra in T220. Jayarava (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

T. 251 was translated in 649 CE but T. 220 was translated near Xuanzang's death starting in 659 CE and finished 663 CE. The Heart Sutra was translated ten years before Xuanzang started work on the Prajnaparamita Sutra and 14 years before it was completed. Why are you ignoring this?Hanbud (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• [Pat457] At the part "Because there is no attainment, the bodhisattva(s), relying on perfection of wisdom..." the Horyuji MS, Amoghavajra and Maitrībhadra all have bodhisatvānāṃ (genitive plural). The plural is also reflected in the Tibetan version (byaṅ-chub-sems-dpaḥ rnams), even if the word there is rendered in the nominative as the subject of thob-pa med-paḥi phyir ("because there is no attainment"). Harada asks, since Xuanzang's version reads 菩提薩埵 at this point, shouldn't have one expected the putative creator of the Sanskrit text to render it in the nominative singular (bodhisattvaḥ) instead of the plural bodhisattvānāṃ attested in the different versions? (p. 94/47)

It is vital to look at the article by Orsborn on this subject (2014). Actually what we expect, based on the Sanskrit Large Sutra and both Mokṣala's and Xuanzang's Large Sutra Chinese translations is na prāptir na abhisamayaṃ. It is Kumārajīva who confuses the situation with his translation 無智亦無得. Xuanzang's translation in fact reads 無得無現觀 which exactly corresponds to what we expect. While na jñānaṃ na prāptiḥ is a natural translation of Kumārajīva's text, we also know that the Chinese Heart Sutra uses 得 to translate other Sanskrit words. Since T223 is the odd one out of the Large Sutras, and T251 follows T223 then it can only be quoting from T223 rather than any other version of the text. This is one of the stronger bits of evidence for the Chinese origins. Jayarava (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

[Pat457] (Harada (pp. 49-50/92-91) answers the question about how to square the plural 'bodhisattvas' with āśritya viharati, which requires a singular nominative by saying that the subject of this portion is actually Avalokiteśvara mentioned in the prologue: in other words, Avalokiteśvara examined the five skandhas, the twelve ayatanas, the eighteen dhatus, the twelve nidanas, and the four noble truths, saw their 'emptiness', and as a result, he dwells (in saṃsāra to save sentient beings?) in a state of nirvāṇa, with an unobstructed mind. Harada declares that Avalokiteśvara must be the one referred to in this portion; otherwise it will appear that he just had a one-time cameo in the beginning and then inexplicably disappeared. "I cannot imagine the author of the Heart Sutra seriously thinking of such an incomprehensible and unsightly scenario." (『心経 』制作者がそんな不可解で無様なドラマのシナリオを本気で考えたとは想像できない。)
His rendering of this portion (p. 119/22) therefore pretty much runs like (note: not a word for word translation of his translation): "Because there is no attainment (of the arhathood held to be the ideal in Śrāvakayāna) for bodhisattvas, he (Avalokiteśvara), relying on the perfection of wisdom, (continues to) dwell (in saṃsāra) with an unobstructed mind. Because his mind is unobstructed, he is unafraid [of saṃsāra], having overcome perverse thoughts/views; (while still being in the saṃsāra world) he is in nirvāṇa. It is (after all) due to relying on the perfection of wisdom that all the buddhas of the three times have attained supreme, perfect awakening."

"'bodhisattvas' with āśritya viharati" I'm not sure what this is referring to since in all texts the word is in the singular. Conze gives it in the genitive singular in 1948, but corrects this to nominative singular in his 1967 revision. Again I think one has to refer to Orsborn's 2014 article on this, as he shows that the Sanskrit translation of this passage is garbled. But even if we don't go that deep one has to see that Conze has fluffed the grammar of this passage by wrongly inserting a full stop after acittāvaraṇa. The second sentence that has caused so much trouble is not a sentence at all - it has no subject, no nouns at all, and no verb (Pine's attempt to justify his approach is hilarious because he is effectively translating the Chinese, despite arguing against the Chinese origins thesis). My article explaining this will appear in the Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, May 2018. The full stop has to be removed. And the fact that here the Sanskrit has three compound adjectives, while the Chinese text in T250 and T251 has verb, direct object, and indirect object is again strong evidence for Chinese as the source language. The whole of Section VI is simply bad and unidomatic Sanskrit. The term -nāstitvād "because of the non-existence of" is perhaps the most egregious example of this. It occurs in no other Sanskrit text that I can discover and although one can decipher it, it is so grossly unidiomatic that it is difficult to imagine any Indian using it. It is far more elegant and idiomatic to simply say acittāvaraṇāt after viharaty acittāvaraṇaḥ. Note also that no Chinese text has any verb that corresponds to viharati. I've outline these problems in two blog posts, and I'm working on peer-reviewed articles now: http://jayarava.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/further-problems-with-heart-sutra.html and http://jayarava.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/further-problems-with-heart-sutra_14.html But till I get mine into print Orsborn's 2014 article outlines the problems. http://www.ocbs.org/ojs/index.php/jocbs/article/view/75 Jayarava (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

[Pat457] Speaking of which, Harada also addresses another Japanese scholar (Shōgo Watanabe) who proposed back in 1991 - a year before Nattier! - that Kumarajiva's T. 0250 version was not a translation from the Sanskrit as is commonly thought, but a later work based on Kumarajiva's Large Prajñāpāramita Sūtra using Xuanzang's text as a model.

T250 is clearly based on T223 or the Upadeśa T1509, as Nattier said. It doesn't use Xuanzang's text as a model. T251 is quite obviously a modified version of T250 - the quoted section has had a line removed from the beginning, a line from the middle, and the character for skandha has been changed to the one Xuanzang preferred, but otherwise it is still identical to T223 and very different from T220! If one actually looks at these texts there is only one simply explanation. Jayarava (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

[Pat457] That's pretty much what I can gather from the paper. Errors in representing his views are entirely my own.Pat457 (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, thanks for attempting to explain the gist. However, it may have been a thankless task as the arguments are so wrongheaded that I can scarcely credit them to a senior academic. These are theological arguments which are bending over backward to avoid a very obvious truth. The argument put forward by Nattier is very sound, and having gone over every detail of it, and expanded on it in my own published work, I can assure you that it stands up extremely well. There are a number of Chinese idioms translated into Sanskrit and I hope to shortly publish another paper on one of these that was not dealt with by Nattier, namely 三世諸佛. This is always atītānāgatapratyutpannā buddhāḥ in Buddhist Sanskrit, but the Heart Sutra has tryadhva-vyavasthītāḥ sarvabuddhāḥ. This is a Chinese idiom translated mechanically into Sanskrit with no awareness of Buddhist idiom. Case closed. Jayarava (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Sadhu, sadhu! So you are a Sanskrit expert par excellence. You've read all the remaining Sanskrit fragments of Buddhist sutras surviving today? Harada's book was published by the same publishing company that publishes the Taisho Tripitaka. I bet he has read a few more Sanskrit texts than you have. As to the contents of his works, with your linguistic skills, picking up Japanese should not be problematic. Why don't you read his book? After all much cutting-edge Buddhist Studies are done in Japanese fluent in Sanskrit and the various Prakrit languages as well as Pali, Tibetan, Classical Chinese. Hanbud (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

As I understand what you are saying, you do not disagree with anything I have said per se. You present no rational counter-argument. It is simply that you wish to deny me the opportunity to have and/or express an opinion on the matter, because I do not speak Japanese. And you see this anti-democratic, racist, suppression of free speech as a rational and reasonable position, do you? Feel free to debate with me on the subject of the Sanskrit text of the Heart Sutra, we will soon see who is knows what they are talking about and who does not. Jayarava (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Many of your questions or assertions re: idiomatic Sanskrit phrases are addressed in Harada's 2010 work. He gives examples of other Sanskrit texts that use these so-called unidiomatic phrases. This is not the forum to discuss this matter. You can ask a local professor to help you translate the relevant portions.Hanbud (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hanbud: You have just finished haranguing me about promotion of personal agendas and changing the talk page so that it doesn't reflect the history. I abided by your rude and aggressive demands in order to keep the peace. Now you have the affront to do exactly the same thing. You made the rules. Now you have to live with them! No personal agendas. You're never going to get a Japanese language source incorporated into the article. However personally you take it, it is simply against the Wikipedia policy and other editors supported removing your references to it. Spitting the dummy because someone changed your text is not a viable attitude here. However, I think we do need to acknowledge that Japanese scholars are unique in the world of Buddhism Studies in having rejected Nattier's thesis and having produced a number of apologetics for the authenticity of it (as weak as these arguments are, I'm happy to admit they exist). Some good sources for such a section are available. As far as English language sources go, there is a broad and growing consensus amongst scholars that the Heart Sutra is a Chinese text. Jayarava (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Criticism of Nattier

This section refers to Lopez Jr. (1988); yet, Nattier's publication is from 1992. This looks like WP:OR... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The original topic heading was modern scholarship. Conze's remarks re: Heart Sutra is also pre-Nattier and therefore does not belong under Nattier's hypothesis.

(Lopez 1988) and (Siu 2017) made similar comments to explain the lack of surviving Indic commentaries from an earlier timeframe; in fact one can also say this for the lack of surviving extant Sanskrit text from earlier times.

(Lopez 1988)'s statements have relevance to the Source of the Heart Sutra. The question is where to place his comment. I think maybe I'll include (Siu 2017) as it is post-Nattier and touches on this topic with indirect reference to Nattier. But this would involve another translation. Comments? Hanbud (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I've moved Lopez into a note; I think it's okay there. The main topic of this "Modern scholarship" section is/was Nattier, so it's better to be clear about that, I think. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Problems with the Page

Problems according to Jayarava

In my view the text of this article is part of an ongoing legitimisation strategy that has been a feature of the Heart Sutra since the Tang Dynasty. Superlatives are ladelled on to give the reader a particular impression with no regard for what a naive reader would need to know about the text to understand it's place in Buddhism. Terms like "highly respected" are repeated without ever being justified or explained.

• Why is the text "highly respected"? (and what does this respect look like?)
• Why is it important?
• Why do Buddhists recite texts at all?
• What sorts of things do Buddhists believe that they are achieving by reciting the Heart Sutra?

These basic questions are never addressed in the article, not even as links to other articles. Instead we have discussions of how long the text is, how to write the mantra in a dozen different scripts, etc.

Header

• 1. "highly respected by Tibetan Buddhism" - What does this mean? The citation is to a Chinese Language source with no English translation. There are many books on the Tibetan Heart Sutra in English. Why not cite one of them?
• 2. "The standard version of the Heart Sutra in East Asia is Taisho 251 translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang.[6]" Again Chinese citation. Why no English source. There is a scholarly consensus that the text was not translated by Xuanzang. Nattier discusses this at length, but these days it is widely acknowledged outside of Japan.

Introduction

• 3. Para 1. Very long sentences with confusing syntax.
• 4 (3. There is no such thing as a "Mahāyāna Buddhist Canon" and it is not called the "mother of all Buddhas" though Prajñāpāramitā is. The Canons produced in Tibet and China were the only ones to include Mahāyāna texts.
• 5 (4. Giving the Sanskrit title is satisfying for Buddhists, but it does not help a non-Buddhist reader. We can of course give the other languages, but the article needs to use the English title and not encumber the reader with obscure foreign languages.
• 6 (5. "most prominent representative of the genre" - requires a citation. I don't think it is true.
• 7 (6. "the Chinese language Tripitakas, Tibetan and Mongolian language Kangyurs" - How is a non-Buddhist supposed to make sense of this?
• 8. "The Chinese version of the short text translated by Xuanzang (T251) has 260 Chinese characters;[16] the equivalent Sanskrit version has 14 lines.[17]"
• 9. "shortest texts" - Why is there a whole paragraph on how long the text is?
• 10. Ekākṣarīprajñāpāramitā" - This text doesn't exist in Sanskrit, only in a Tibetan version. Is there any evidence that it ever existed in Sanskrit? What is the point of mentioning it here?
• 11. "This sutra is classified by Edward Conze as belonging to the third of four periods in the development of the Prajñāpāramitā canon, although because it contains a mantra (sometimes called a dhāraṇī), it does overlap with the final, tantric phase of development according to this scheme, and is included in the tantra section of at least some editions of the Kangyur.[19] Conze estimates the sutra's date of origin to be 350 CE; some others consider it to be two centuries older than that.[20]"

• 11A. And yet we know that Conze's scheme is wrong. The Diamond Sutra is widely considered (in Asia and the West) to be earlier. Nattier proved that the Heart Sutra was composed after 404 CE at the earliest, since it quotes Kumārajīva's Large Sutra translation (something known for centuries).
• 11B How does referencing Conze's scheme help the non-Buddhist non-specialist reader at this point? There is no context for this.

• 12. "It is chanted (with minor modification)[21]" The accompanying citation is an essay, not a reference to a published work. One of many.
• 13. "Tripitaka Master Xuanzang" - Why are we using traditional titles? This is a religious affectation. No scholar I've ever read refers to Xuanzang this way.
• 14. Why is the longest paragraph in the introduction a list of who recites what version of the text? Of what possible interest is this?
• 15. In particular of what conceivable significance is the fact that Newar Buddhists recited this text in the Pala Dynasty? What is the significance of the Pala Dynasty anyway? It is mentioned twice.
• 16. Citation [25] is from a Japanese source, which is "summarised" rather than translated. Apart from the irrelevance of the content, surely something has been written in English about the single most popular Buddhist Sect in America?
• 17. The entire "Introduction" section is full of useless knowledge that can only leave people scratching their heads. It tells us almost nothing of interest. It does tell us that it is a Prajñāpāramitā text, but nothing about what this means or why it is significant. An overall bias for non-English language sources has been introduced when there are plentiful English sources - after all this is the most popular Buddhist text and dozens of books have been written about it.
• 18. If I were introducing this text, I would want to tick off all the notable features at the outset - and think in terms of what would be significant to a non-Buddhist reader.
• 19. Firstly this text has gone by a number of different names, and although "Heart Sutra" is the standard, none of the Nepalese manuscripts which were principle sources of Conze's Sanskrit edition refer to the text this way! Fukui has made a big deal out of the alternative names in Chinese (see Ji Yun's recent article).
• 20. We have to mention that it is a Buddhist sutra, a Mahāyāna text, and a Prajñāpāramitā text. The latter means that it is concerned with śūnyatā and in particular what the experience of śūyatā is about. But what does this mean? The text is famous for its apparent negations of major Buddhist doctrinal categories and have been presented as paradoxical by modern exegetes. It is famous for the anomalous presence of Avalokiteśvara. And it has mantra (or actually a dhāraṇī) which means that it is sometimes included under the heading of Tantric Texts, even though nothing else about it says "Tantra"
• 21. The text comes in many versions. This is surely introductory? We need to say what that major differences are and why they are significant: one looks like a sutra, the other does not.
• 22. And of course we know that the text is a composite of quotations from other texts, mostly the Large Sutra, though the dhāraṇī appears in several other texts especially the dhāraṇīsammucaya which predates the Heart Sutra (references to this are in McRae and Nattier, but also discussed by Ji Yun in his recent article). There is a Chinese name for this kind of text, i.e. chao jing.

More to follow... Jayarava (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I have asked you "Please quote specific issues from the article which are violations of our WP:NPOV policies." General improvements of the article would be step II. Feel free to improve the article. Just remember to leave your personal opinions aside while you are editing. Chinese sources can/should be substituted by English sources [4], because this is the English version of wikipedia and most of our readers are not able to verify the content. JimRenge (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Jim. To read the article closely and not note all the problems I see would be a waste of my time. Once I have surveyed the whole article we can highlight the NPOV violations, if you like. I'm clearly not free to improve the article at all, yes? And please don't patronise me, I know how to distinguish opinion from fact and cite my sources in the latter case. I think you know this. If in doubt, there are ample examples of me doing this in my recent editing activity if you'd like to check my many contributions. Jayarava (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Origins

• 23. "According to Huili's biography," - This account probably circulated from around 688. But it's naive to treat it as history. For example, Xuanzang apparently crosses the Gobi desert on his own with no water. He has a horse, but these are not adapted to desert conditions and need a man's body weight of water every day in hot conditions. Ancient hagiographies are not reliable sources and probably don't even meet the Wikipedia standards as such. Therefore more caution is required when citing this one.
• 24. "Xuanzang learned the sutra from an inhabitant of Sichuan, and subsequently chanted it during times of danger on his journey to the West (i.e. India).[23]" - The problem here is that another source, the Kaiyuan Catalog dated 730 CE, says that Xuanzang translated the text only in 649 CE, after his return from India, i.e. after he learned Sanskrit. So which text was he supposed to be reciting in 625 on his way to India? If it was in Chinese then he wasn't the translator, if it was in Sanskrit how did he know about it?
• 25. The point being that the traditional sources provide conflicting information.
• 26. "The earliest extant dated text... " - The translator of the source has made an error here. The donor of the stele was from 櫟陽縣 Yueyang county in 雍州 Yōng Zhōu or Yong Province. However, he was a military officer stationed at 淥城府 or Lùchéng Garrison which seems to correspond to modern day 涿州为 [涿州為] or Zhuōzhōu Province which is about 30km south-east of Fángshān. This information is available from at least one English language source (and it will be two early next year with any luck).
• 27. It is true that this was before Xuanzang died, but the significance of this fact is lost unless we realise that the author is arguing for a point of view that makes Xuanzang the translator against all the evidence.
• 28. We don't need to know the second or third oldest texts.
• 29. "Xuanzang was commanded by Emperor Tang Taizong" - The Chinese character 詔 means: "An imperial edict. To decree. Appearing in the colophons of translated scriptures, it indicates official authorization at the highest level, indicating the high level of the translatorʼs reputation." (Digital Dictionary of Buddhism). It does not mean "commanded". This is probably a mistake based on a Mandarin understanding of the character. In other words the translation of the source is unreliable. And thus all of the translations from that user have to be treated as unreliable. We need to have sources that English readers can check for themselves. But that user refuses to negotiate.
• 30. "A palm-leaf manuscript found at the Horyuji Temple is traditionally dated to 609 CE and may be the earliest extant but undated Sanskrit manuscript of the Heart Sutra; it was brought to Japan in 609 CE, the actual text may date from even earlier." - Nattier does not "doubt" the date she point out that the 609 date is first mentioned in 1836 (!) by a Japanese publication Ikaruga Koji benran, which is "entirely unreliable on matters of ancient chronology". As an example, the source links the text to items which only attained their present significance in ca. 730 CE. The claim of this source is "patently false". G Bühler dated the ms. to the 8th Century on palaeographic grounds (i.e. the script used is 8th Century).
• 31. The link to the Tokyo Museum is wrong. It ought to take us to the page which displays the ms. i.e. http://www.emuseum.jp/detail/100625/001/004?word=&d_lang=en&s_lang=&class=&title=&c_e=&region=&era=&cptype=&owner=&pos=1&num=1&mode=&century=t
• 32. Why is the next heading "scholarship"? We still don't know why the text is important to Buddhists or anything more than it "is recited". Surely some kind of statement about what is in the text should take priority. Again this sub-heading gets priority because it is the location of an ideological battleground between mainly Japanese scholars and the rest of us. Between us, Jan Nattier, Matthew Orsborn, and I have proved beyond any doubt that the Sanskrit is a translation of the Chinese. This is now widely acknowledged by English speaking authors (yes, I do have a list), and it is only Japanese scholars who also happen to be senior members of the Buddhist clergy who resist. Had Nattier not published her article proving that the text was Chinese, this article would look very different - more like other sutra pages.
• 33. Compare, for example, the page for the Diamond Sutra! At present there is no ideological battleground, so the article is just: Title; History; Contents; translations. With a section on the oldest dated printed book. It's all very straight forward. The trouble with the Heart Sutra is that there is a rational scholarly side and an irrational religious side to the conflict. No one is "debating" as such, because neither side believes that the other's has any merit. And the religious side is presently dominant in editing the article. Jayarava (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply by Hanbud

• 1. "Minghua(Upasaka) （明華居士) (2015-05-20). "Xīn jīng jiǎn jiè" 心經簡介. 學佛網 (tr to English: Learning Buddhism Web). 在藏傳的經論中經常提到：“佛說八萬四千法門中，般若法門最為殊勝。” (tr. into English : It is often mentioned in the Tibetan Kangyur and Tengyur "Among the eighty four thousand Dharma Teachings taught by the Buddha, the Prajñāpāramitā Dharma Teaching is the most excellent." This is the English translation - it has the Chinese with the English translation." I have removed the sentence - but I think you are nitpicking. Please read the footnotes with the translation as it took me a lot of time to do it. Also the quotation from Chinese shows the Prajnaparamita teaching is the best teaching among all of the Buddha's teachings according to Tibetan sources. If you can find an equivalent in an English source, please let me know. Thanks.
• 2. Actually this is a modification of your footnote. I merely translated it to indicate that your source indicated it was translated by Xuanzang and modified your statement accordingly. Did you not notice you used a Chinese-language source or what the Chinese source actually said?
• 4. Actually one of the Chinese translations of the Heart Sutra is entitled in English translation 'The Buddha Speaks the Holy Mother of [all] Buddhas Prajnaparamita Sutra'. It was translated around 1000 CE - the translation came from Pala India.Hanbud
• 5. It does help non-Buddhists too as many Sanskrit readers are apparently non-Buddhist.
• 7. I have modified it with links for those who are interested in what is the Chinese Buddhist Canon and Kangyur.
• 10. Many texts are no longer extant in Sanskrit. And the earliest extant versions of many Pali Suttas only date to the 18th century if lucky. Should we not call it by its Pali name?
• 14. The Heart Sutra is used on a daily basis by most Mahayana Buddhists. It is one of the sutras that even the common person on the street will have a good chance of being able to recite it from memory. As English is an international language, this is relevant. English wikipedia's readers do not only come from the English-speaking world.
• 16. actually I looked everywhere for this information in English language sources and I could not find it; hence the Japanese source and its summary - its basically a list of each major Japanese Mahayana Buddhist school and the texts they recite -I only translated the parts necessary for this article.
• 19. Maybe you can make redirect pages for all the different names for the Heart Sutra in Chinese and Sanskrit? BTW one of the Chinese translations' title in English is Holy Mother Prajnaparamita (guess what it is refering to? apparently in Pala India, the Heart Sutra was seen as the mother of all Buddhas)
• 24. Because Xuanzang already was fluent in Sanskrit on a basic level. Xuanzang did not use Chinese to communicate as he passed thru various countries - the lingua franca was Sanskrit.
• 26. Really? "而房山石经中唐高宗显庆六年 （661年） 镌刻的 《心经》 是现存最早的版本， 镌刻时玄奘尚在世， 三年以后才圆寂。 这部石经明确题署： “三藏法师玄奘奉诏译”，而且造经功德主来自邻近长安的栎阳县， 距离玄奘当时所在的大慈恩寺不远。同时， 唐高宗总章二年（669 年）镌刻的《心经》， 同样题署“三藏法师玄奘奉诏译”。 此外， 西安碑林收藏的咸亨三年（672 年）弘福寺沙门怀仁集王羲之书《大唐三藏圣教序》 后面的 《心经》， 也题署“玄奘奉诏译”。 由此可以确证： 玄奘翻译了 《心经》， 而且是“奉”唐太宗的“诏”命翻译的。" Read the passage slowly. esp. 而且造经功德主来自邻近长安的栎阳县， 距离玄奘当时所在的大慈恩寺不远。how would you translate that? It seems you added something not found in this article or maybe just imagining things?

See my comments below re: "詔

• 28. See my comments below re: "詔
• 29. "而房山石经中唐高宗显庆六年 （661年） 镌刻的 《心经》 是现存最早的版本， 镌刻时玄奘尚在世， 三年以后才圆寂。 这部石经明确题署： “三藏法师玄奘奉诏译”，而且造经功德主来自邻近长安的栎阳县， 距离玄奘当时所在的大慈恩寺不远。同时， 唐高宗总章二年（669 年）镌刻的《心经》， 同样题署“三藏法师玄奘奉诏译”。 此外， 西安碑林收藏的咸亨三年（672 年）弘福寺沙门怀仁集王羲之书《大唐三藏圣教序》 后面的 《心经》， 也题署“玄奘奉诏译”。 由此可以确证： 玄奘翻译了 《心经》， 而且是“奉”唐太宗的“诏”命翻译的。" This is the text from the article - how would you translate it? please note well 玄奘翻譯了《心經》，而且是‘奉’唐太宗的“詔”命翻譯的。 --- what could this possibly be translated as?

I will use the same digital dictionary of Buddhism which is not the same as a real dictionary -- this is a contributor-based dictionary. what you should have looked up is:

奉詔譯 Basic Meaning: translated by imperial decree// senses: Canonical text translated into Chinese by imperial order. 〔 T 2.1.150a6〕 [Charles Muller; source(s): Nakamura].

I can give you additional definitions from published dictionaries with the same meaning. But the above is available from the internet.

The reason I listed these 3 texts is because they are the earliest extant text of the Heart Sutra - each of them proceeded Huili's biography and each one of them indicated the Heart Sutra was translated. Huili's biography shouldn't be discounted - without some of the information in it, certain archaeological sites in India and Nepal would never have been discovered today as all detailed Indic sources for these sites disappeared with Buddhism's disappearance from India. Furthermore Huili's biography was sold to various buyers and repurchased. The parts were then edited and reassembled with possible elaborations. Is Huili's account of the Heart Sutra's transmission to Xuanzang in Sichuan historical, fiction or hagiography? We really can't say for sure. But we do know Xuanzang knew Sanskrit and used it to communicate as he travelled on his way to India - even giving teachings in foreign countries; Chinese was not lingua-franca in those countries - if it were, Buddhist missionaries entering China wouldn't need the assistance of Chinese monks. The fact these 3 texts state that Xuanzang translated the Heart Sutra is evidence in support of the traditional accounts. The 'newspaper type' article just reaffirmed this conclusion in light of recent events. As an aside, there may even be an older extant stele text of the Heart Sutra. But no studies have been made of it that I am aware of and so I have not mentioned it which would confirm that Xuanzang's translated the Heart Sutra before 661 CE and these two steles were carved while Xuanzang was still alive.

• 31. You mean to tell me there is another Gupta era manuscript of the Heart Sutra? - this page has English text. I originally pointed to a Japanese page with additional information. Hanbud (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the Tokyo Museum used carbon-dating to arrive at their dating. If so, it's dating would be above reproach.

Originally I wanted a few sentences to describe that Jan Nattier's theory was not universally accepted. But the Heart Sutra article was dominated by quotations from that one work(Nattier 1992). There are actually even more Japanese and other scholars who do not support the Nattier theory. The religious populace from the Mahayana Buddhist world conservatively estimated at 300 million but maybe even close to 1 billion (if one includes the nominal Buddhist), don't know about Nattier's theory and if they do, the vast majority do not accept it. I am amazed how cautious and careful the Dead Sea Scrolls were studied (maybe 40 years??) as the concluding results would affect two major religions of the world - Judaism and Christianity. I suggest a conservative approach is appropriate for an encyclopedia article for the Heart Sutra because it is not only a "Zen" sutra but studied and recited by almost all schools of Mahayana Buddhism with the exception of Nichiren and some Pure Land schools. But a conservative approach is also warranted especially since new archaeological discoveries may upturn theories at any time. Just having this type of conversation here, is creating controversy for the Heart Sutra which is regrettable. Such controversies do not exist in other language Wikipedias for the Heart Sutra. Even Baidu's article of the Heart Sutra in "Communist" China refrains from the approach here - they just present the uncontroversial facts. Since Nattier is controversial, her theories should be balanced otherwise there is no NPOV. NPOV exists in Chinese wikipedia, Japanese wikipedia and Vietnamese wikipedia and even Baidu's article for the Heart Sutra. But not here. Now whether a line or two about Nattier balanced with a few lines from scholars disagreeing with Nattier is sufficient is a question we should decide. But the disagreeing parties write in non-English languages and to present their views would involve translation - there is no one line zinger statement from these scholars - as they take a methodical evidence-based detailed approach. Some of the views of the "anti-Nattier" camp are also controversial. So I was hoping to add traditional accounts of the origin of the Prajnaparmita sutras (i.e. 2nd turning of the Wheel). But some may think this is proselytization. I do not think it is - just as mentioning the virgin birth of Jesus in wikipedia'a article on Jesus is not "proselytization". Past attempts to explain the significance of the Heart Sutra have been bogged down with accusations of proselytization and have been deleted. Maybe that's why no one bothers anymore to present the significance of the Heart Sutra in this article.

Hanbud (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC) / 05:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Additional comments

Just a note that I am following the discussion from the shadows. Please go on. I will watch and reflect. I see JimRenge is watching it too. Good. If need be, I may intervene in December or January. @Joshua Jonathan: you have any interest / time / comments? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hanbud: I've re-ordered your replies; putting your replies in-between the original post, with so many points involved, makes it very cluttered. I hope this helps. Otherwise, revert to the previous version, and add subheaders for each topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is too technical for me; but I did take a look at the article, and found it to be almost unreadable. So, I have done some copy-editing, with a more average Wiki-reader in mind, and moved the technical aspects downwards, and added a convenient summary. I've also copy-edited the Nattier-hypothesis, to make it more readable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

+1. We must never forget the reader and the wikipedia community goals to build an encyclopedic article for the reader based on our content policies and guidelines. @Hanbud: Thank you for your contributions. Can you start including a peer-reviewed English-language source for each substantial view/claim/comment you make on this talk page? For example, you write, "I think the Tokyo Museum used carbon-dating to arrive at their dating." Do you have a peer-reviewed or such scholarly source for this carbon-dating claim? @Jayarava: Thank you, as well, for your contributions. Any WP:COI and WP:EXTERNALREL issues here with you editing the article (you haven't recently, but in a preemptive sense)? You are, of course, welcome to contribute through this talk page regardless. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I remember reading something to that effect in a peer-reviewed Japanese article. Have to find it and provide translation. Hanbud (talk) 11:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

We cannot rely on your testimony. You must provide a peer-reviewed scholarly source! There are many English language papers on this manuscript's history, as you may or may not know. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It takes time to find a photocopy of the article. I don't have all day to do wikipedia work. Besides this is a talk-page. You can always delete it - or note its not from a peer-review source. But the dates are supported by the National Musuem in Japan. I think they are a reputable organization. Also it has been noted in the Japanese wikipedia article for the Heart Sutra.Hanbud (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Harada-summary

@Hanbud: you copied part of the thread on the Harada-summary back to the talkpage; yet you omitted the comments of Jayarava. Kind of refactoring... I've moved the thread, without Jayarava's comment, to User:Hanbud/Harada; and I will move back the whole thread to the talkpage, untill it is archived again (the thread before had to be archived). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

At second thought: it's just there, in the archive. Messing around with the archive-bot won't hlp in keeping this a tidy talkpage. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes I did. And yes I omitted Jayarava's comments on the section. I was hoping readers could read Pat457's partial translation/summary without the back and forth argumentation. That's why I made another section for that for Pat457's translation for the explicit purpose of critiques, comments, etc., Is it not possible to do this on Wikipedia? It's presence would give readers an idea of what Harada's viewpoints are. As the Heart Sutra is an encyclopedia article, I was hoping not to bogged down the article text with even more detail translated footnotes. It does make the talk page a bit unwielding. But it's a convenient way to present information. What do you think should be done? I think wikipedia's policy does allow this to be done on a talk page. Hanbud (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

User-subpage, talk-subpage? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a talk-subpage for Summary of Harada on the Heart Sutra talk-page? - I don't mind as long as the information is accessible by link from the main article page. Don't know how to do it though. Or are you refering to something else? Hanbud (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

If the only way to get this information into the main article is through some kind of long quote, let me know. I will translate some philological examples of why Prof. Harada believes the Heart Sutra is not a back-translation from Chinese.Hanbud (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Sabotage by Hanbud

I see that my attempt to list problems with the page has been hijacked and sabotaged by user Hanbud once again. There is really no point in me doing any more work on this page. Jayarava (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

You have falsely accused me of attempting to break into your account in the past and here you are again falsely accusing me of hijacking / sabotaging ??? Any user can edit wikipedia but you have a definite POV bias in support of Nattier's theory supporters. There is another side to the coin but it is unfortunately written mostly in other languages. I agree the article should be downsized and be made more readable. I will try to do that but other editors have (and will) also done it such as Joshua Jonathan. I know you are trying to implicate something unsavory with your accusation but that's fine. You're welcome to continue adding comments on how the article can be improved. Hanbud (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources in articles about history

@Hanbud: blogs, similar websites and media reports such as Baidu are WP:Questionable sources for this article. Here is a cut-and-paste note from an admin on the care we must observe before relying on a newspaper as sources for history (of manuscripts, religion, etc):

Newspapers can be RS for news, but not RS for history / anthropology / etc

Journalists virtually never have scholarly training in history/anthropology/ethnography/etc. — they're generalists as far as this kind of thing goes, not knowing more than what's needed for background purposes, and as such we mustn't consider them reliable sources for such fields. Exceptions can exist, of course, and we can't discount a journalist merely because of his job (e.g. he could be an avocational anthropologist so dedicated to the field that he's a member of a learned society), but even then we should only trust his writings if they've gotten reviewed by other experts; the most scholarly journalist will have his newspaper writeups reviewed by nobody except the newspaper's editors, whom again we can trust to know a lot about news reporting but we can't trust to know much of anything about "olds" reporting. We can take newspaper reports as authoritative if we're writing a middle school report for our teachers, but encyclopedia writing demands better sources: whether they're written by professional academics, journalists with a lot of experience in scholarly work, or anyone else, they need to have gone through a scholarly review process. - Nyttend

We must find and replace these with scholarly peer-reviewed publications. If we can't find such sources, it must be deleted or shifted to a personal sandbox.

(Heart Sutra) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

(Prajnaparamita) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

There are numerous scholarly journals and books that discuss the Heart Sutra such as above. We must summarize them guided by the matrix of community-agreed content policies to the best of our abilities. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Ms Sarah Welch, articles about history/archaeology should be based on peer-reviewed sources from historical/archaeological scholarship. Websites, blogs and newspapers are generally not appropriate. JimRenge (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes I generally agree with the premise. But many books are not peer-reviewed. Are they also not qualified as sources? The announcement is from a governmental agency from PRC which is in charge of historical and cultural artifacts. The entire announcement besides the beginning portion is a quote of the Fangshan Stone Sutra Director/researcher. I can translate the entire announcement if you wish to understand its contents. The fact that there is a 661 stone sutra is also available from one English language source - Religion and Chinese Society Volume I - Lothar Ledderose pp 395 "The earliest dated colophon was engraved in 661, next to the text of the Heart Sutra (Xinjing 心經). The colophon takes up four vertical columns. It gives a date, the name and the titles of the donor, list his family members and voices the wish that the meritorious deed of having the sutra carved may help them in attaining Buddhahood...." Unfortunately Mr. Ledderose did not mention the entire stele, especially the part which this announcement mentions. I can actually read this in the photograph of the stone stele; but my eyes are not peer-reviewed. Mr. Luo, the researcher/expert in this field has written a Chinese book which may have this information but I have not seen it and I will have to purchase it and have it mailed from China then translate the relevant section. In all, I think the announcement is accurate as it quotes an authority in the field. Hanbud (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't find this on an official Wikipedia page :

"We must find and replace these with scholarly peer-reviewed publications. If we can't find such sources, it must be deleted or shifted to a personal sandbox. Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL (Heart Sutra) Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL (Prajnaparamita) " But I did find this in a talk-page for an Indian topic talk-page of English wikipedia:

Newspapers can be RS for news, but not RS for history / anthropology / etc Journalists virtually never have scholarly training in history/anthropology/ethnography/etc. — they're generalists as far as this kind of thing goes, not knowing more than what's needed for background purposes, and as such we mustn't consider them reliable sources for such fields. Exceptions can exist, of course, and we can't discount a journalist merely because of his job (e.g. he could be an avocational anthropologist so dedicated to the field that he's a member of a learned society), but even then we should only trust his writings if they've gotten reviewed by other experts; the most scholarly journalist will have his newspaper writeups reviewed by nobody except the newspaper's editors, whom again we can trust to know a lot about news reporting but we can't trust to know much of anything about "olds" reporting. We can take newspaper reports as authoritative if we're writing a middle school report for our teachers, but encyclopedia writing demands better sources: whether they're written by professional academics, journalists with a lot of experience in scholarly work, or anyone else, they need to have gone through a scholarly review process. - Nyttend

-- where is this policy stated in wikipedia policy - some official page please? Many thanks. Hanbud (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Hanbud (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I think these interpretations of wikipedia policy are based on:

WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

(...) Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process."

WP:BESTSOURCES: "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements."

WP:SOURCETYPES:"When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources."

WP:SPS: "... self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (...), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources."

WP:ONUS: "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

JimRenge (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

On what basis is the announcement not acceptable? Just list them and tell me why? It may not be the best source. But it is still reliable. The scholar being quoted wrote books on this topic. Just let me know. If necessary I will place my order for the book and put back the information.Hanbud (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I will translate the whole announcement on my user page when I have some free time. That way you can determine what it says. Is the source the problem? I could always find another website which says similar things but it would be a newspaper. This information is extremely important to the Nattier Controversy as Nattier practically fingers Xuanzang as the back-translator. There is another stele that I have read from photos that also was engraved before Xuanzang's death; it is pre 661 CE. Hanbud (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is a translation of the announcement:

Fangshan Rock Sutra “Heart Sutra” Announcing the Results of Research into Its Engraving - Regarded as the earliest extant edition and translated by Xuanzang

    September 24th, in front of Fangshan Mountain Yunju Temple’s Rock Sutra Underground Depository, the committee for the announcement of the results of research into the Engraving of the Fangshan Rock Sutra “Heart Sutra” gathered.  Chinese Institute of Sociology and Researcher at the Institute for World Religions, Fangshan Mountain Yunju Temple and Stone Sutra Research Center Director Mr. Luo Zhao, announced the results of research into the engraving of the Heart Sutra located in the Fangshan Rock Sutra.  He regards what is now kept at Yunju temple Rock Sutra’s eighth cave as the oldest extant edition of the Heart Sutra and certified as translated by imperial decree by Xuanzang. The co-chairperson of the Fangshan District government Tang Shurong, etc., affirmed the results of this research, (followed by promises to protect and preserve the precious cultural treasures located there).

    Mr. Luo Zhao explained in detail the results of this research.  He said, the Prajnaparamitahrdaya Sutra, commonly called the Heart Sutra, has numerous Chinese translations, the most popular one was the translation by the great translator Xuanzang. The earliest record of Xuanzang’s translation of the Heart Sutra is within the Da tang neidian lu, this record was coincidentally completed the same year Xuanzang passed away (664 CE),  However there are two records in the Da tang neidian lu.  One clearly records “Xuanzang   translated it by imperial decree.  The other did not mention the translator.  Furthermore there exists in the Heart Sutra’s Chinese and Sanskrit texts special features not found in other Buddhist sutras which led to long-standing competing theories in the international scholastic world on  whether Xuanzang actually translated the Heart Sutra.   

   Amongst the Fangshan Stone Sutra Steles, the engraved stone stele of the Heart Sutra dated to 661 CE is the earliest extant copy of [Xuanzang’s 649 translation of] the Heart Sutra, made while Xuanzang was still alive, as he passed away three years after the engraving. This stone sutra stele explicitly states in its colophon : “Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by imperial decree translated”;moreover the merits for engraving the stele came mainly from Yueyang County adjacent from Chang’an (today’s Xian), which is not far from Daci’en Monastery [where Xuanzang was translating sutras at the time]. Also there is another engraved stone stele of the Heart Sutra [located at Fangshan] dated to 669 CE which also has the same colophon inscription i.e. “Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by imperial decree  translated”. In addition to these, we have the Xian's Stele Forest [stone stele] dated to 672 CE, Hongfu Temple’s [another temple where Tripitaka Master Xuanzang translated sutras] Ven. Master Huairen’s [commission of the (re)engraving of] “Foreword of the Holy Teaching of the Tripitaka of the Great Tang” [written by Emperor Tang Taizong] [reign 626 CE - 649 CE] and on the reverse the “Heart Sutra” [both] in the collected calligraphic style of Wang Xizhi, also is inscribed with “Xuanzang by imperial decree translated”. Therefore these examples certified that Xuanzang did indeed translate the Heart Sutra and furthermore was ordered to do so by Emperor Taizong of the Tang Dynasty.

    The engravings of the Fangshan Rock Sutra started in Sui Daye era (605-618), the high priest Jingwan ...(followed by why Jingwan engraved the sutras, brief history of Fangshan, how many stone steles still survive today and how Fangshan stone Sutra is the largest collection of stone steles in the world - a rare treasure in this world.)

[This is the gist of the announcement --- Mr. Luo Zhao is searchable on Google Scholar and has been in the field from at least the 1980s and is fluent in Chinese, Tibetan and Sanskrit.]

Hanbud (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC) Hanbud (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:Mr. Luo Zhao is also quoted in western sources. E.g. Religion and Chinese Society Volume I - ed. John Lagerwey , Lothar Ledderose's article entitled 'Changing the Audience - A Pivotal Period in the Great Sutra Carving Project' there are two bibliographical references to Mr. Luo Zhao,

Luo Zhao 羅炤.1987. "Leiyindong sheli yu 'Fangshan shijing" '雷音洞舍利與房山石經' (The relics in Thunder Sound Cave and the 'Stone Sutras at Fangshan'). Shijie zongjiao yanjiu 世界宗教研究 (4):139-141.

_____. 1988. "Zai tan 'Qidanzang' de diaoyin niandai" '再談「契丹藏」的雕印年代' (Again discussing the date of the carving of the Qidan canon). Wenwu 文物 (6):73-81.

You can find this in the above book on pp 407. So he is definitely an expert of Fangshan Stone Sutra from the 1980s to present as he is the director now.Hanbud (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hanbud: Thank you for providing a translation of an announcement, but this article or any particular section cannot be predominantly or largely based on non-peer reviewed non-ENG personal translations. We can mention a line or few, in a note or something, to acknowledge such a source, if there is a consensus on the talk page. Nothing more. The Heart Sutra is an important Buddhist text that has attracted numerous peer-reviewed scholarly publications, and that is what we need to largely base this article from. If you cannot find peer-reviewed scholarly publications stating or citing an announcement yet, then we must wait. We follow the scholarship curve, we do not lead it, and we do not right great wrongs in wikipedia. This is per our content guidelines, what the community and our admins suggest per WP:RS, WP:WWIN and other guidelines. You can read admin Nyttend's note I paraphrased above here. I suggest you try one of the dispute noticeboards such as WP:RSN etc to get a clarification, if you are not satisfied with JimRenge and my comments, soon. You can also try WP:AN, but I would recommend not at this stage. I will join you, whichever noticeboard you wish to take this to. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I have a incomplete non-personal English translation of the article here [5]. If I combine Mr. Ledderose's quotation above with the English translated article and my personal translation of portions of the article - is this sufficient? I am looking for scholarly journal articles (seems he is mostly mentioned in Chinese sources) which mention the information in the quote, but it will take time or will a quote from his Chinese language book be sufficient in combination with the above? In the meantime will the 3 combined sources be sufficient for your (wikipedia) concerns?Hanbud (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Please do look for peer-reviewed scholarly publications. Personal and non-personal translations, web or non-web, that lack evidence of a peer-review process, would be WP:Questionable sources. Much scholarship has been published on the Heart Sutra, and we must predominantly focus on carefully reading and summarizing them to the best of our abilities. I will give you a week or so. Thereafter remove all newspaper/ blogs/ translations/ announcements and such sources, along with the related content that exclusively relies on such sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I take your reply as an affirmative for the combination of Prof. Ledderose combined with the English language translation and personal translation as sufficient for a summary of their contents with appropriate footnotes? (i.e personal translation summarized)Hanbud (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:A simple yes or no please. And what is the deadline for? to do what? BTW there is a Chinese language publication which mentions the entire stele in question - is that good enough as peer-reviewed? (Its from Taiwan)? Also it is listed in Ledderose's bibliography as a source for his study listed above. Hanbud (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Hanbud (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Also to quote Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) What this essay does not mean to imply

This essay doesn't mean to imply that reliable non-scholarly sources are inappropriate or insufficient just because scholarly sources are available or potentially available. Finding and using scholarly sources is a best practice, not a requirement. Hanbud (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Here's the thing, Hanbud: the sources we cite need to be sources that can in principle be checked by other editors. In general, in the English Wikipedia, that means that they're in English. Translations are fine, but they have to be published translations. Documents in Chinese that you have personally imported from China, that do not exist in public libraries in the USA or the UK, cannot even in principle be checked by other editors, and are inadmissible.

Inscriptions on stone monuments of which you possess photos, that you personally have translated from Chinese into English, are not WP:RS; they are in fact WP:OR, and are wholly inadmissible. Wikipedia is not a platform for the publication of your original research. Please publish your research through normal scholarly channels. Once it is published, another editor can cite it - it is not appropriate to cite your own research, even if it is published.

Thanks, MrDemeanour (talk) 07:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. There is a source published in Taiwan written by Chen Yanzhu with the information that the article discloses. It is in Chinese and is available in some University libraries and Large public libraries as a reference book. Chen's work is referenced by Ledderose and Sonya Lee. Is this acceptable? It should not have issues re: WP:OR nor WP:RS. With regards to personal translation, if I am able to get another Chinese fluent English Wikipedian to corroborate this info, will that satisfy WP requirements? Furthermore for footnoting the statement re: 661 CE translated by Xuanzang Heart Sutra, I can footnote Ledderose and Sonya Lee's articles which contain the 661 CE date but lack the translated by Xuanzang part and add Chen Yanzhu's book which contains everything including translated by Xuanzang. Again many thanks. Hanbud (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

If the source you refer to by Chen Yangzhu has been published in English translation, it is acceptable. If the only way we can know what the source says is through your own translation, that is not acceptable, because it is WP:OR. How are we supposed to check that your translation is correct? The word of another Wikipedian who is fluent in Chinese is not OK - we need reliable sources that we can check ourselves, not purported experts who are quite likely to be pseudonymous.

We (WP editors) are mostly not scholars of Chinese. Instead we rely on translations into English by reputable publishers.

Please stop trying to wedge your agenda into this article; I think your behaviour is verging on disruptive. As Ms Sarah Welch has noted, there is a large amount of scholarship on the Heart Sutra that has been published in English. We should rely on those sources, not on private translations of obscure texts. MrDemeanour (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@MrDemeanour and MrDemeanour:Thanks MrDemeanour. May I ask what you think my agenda is? There are tons of articles in English wikipedia with private translations. Also tons of them with untranslated foreign language footnotes. Does anyone in English Wikipedia intend to do something re: these? I have translated English language sources into Chinese wikipedia. I assume they may be deleted due to violation of Wikipedia policy. Where in official wikipedia does it state private translations are not RS? Please give me a link. I don't mean to be disruptive but I currently TRUST the quality of wikipedia. Many English language references refer to articles in scholarly journals only accessible through a hefty fee. Are they verifiable then? What if I note this : "The earliest extant T. 251's Heart Sutra is the Fangshan Stone Sutra stele dated 661 CE;created while Xuanzang was still alive." with a reference to Ledderose and Sonya Lee. Would that be acceptable? Just trying to get an idea of what's allowable and what's not. Not being a troublemaker really. If its extremely eggregious, some other user can always delete it. I have no problems with that. But please answer whether what I have said above is allowable. BTW, those obscure text you were referring to were used by Lothar Ledderose and Sonya Lee western scholars on the topic of Fangshan Stone Sutra and probably many others unknown to us. Not everything is available on the Internet unfortunately. BTW, Lothar Ledderose's work is available on Google Books but page 394 where the relevant information is located is not available from Google Books. Similar issues with Sonya Lee's article. Hanbud (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I quote form WP:OR [[6]]

WP:TRANSCRIPTION

See also: WP:Translation

Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research. For information on how to handle sources that require translation, see WP:Verifiability § Non-English sources. I will use one of these English Wikipedians in the future. Thanks.Hanbud (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Hanbud. There is only one of me, no need to mention me twice!

• "There are tons of articles in English wikipedia with private translations." OK, list a few (on my talk page I guess, that doesn't belong here). You asked why original translations by Wikipedians are not considered RS, and demanded a link. somewhere near this Please note that translations by Wikipedians of reliable sources is considered OK; it doesn't say that translations by Wikipedians of primary sources is OK.
• "Not everything is available on the Internet unfortunately." Indeed, that is unfortunate. However nothing I have said is related to whether or not material is accessible on the internet.
• "What if I note this : "The earliest extant T. 251's Heart Sutra is the Fangshan Stone Sutra stele dated 661 CE;created while Xuanzang was still alive." with a reference to Ledderose and Sonya Lee." That seems fine to me (but I know nothing about those authors).
• "I have translated English language sources into Chinese wikipedia. I assume they may be deleted due to violation of Wikipedia policy." I am not concerned with the policies of Chinese Wikipedia, with which I am not familiar.

• "May I ask what you think my agenda is?" You may; and in doing so, you draw me onto soft ground, because in all honesty I don't know. And it doesn't really matter; the points I am raising are unrelated to any agenda you might have. But since you ask, it appears to me that you may be pushing a ethno-centric POV. You seem very determined to get this material into the article; you rely on sources that others have little access to, on a topic on which there are many readily-accessible sources. And you appear to be an expert. Wikipedia has a long history of difficulties with expert editors; it is very hard for an ordinary Wikipedian to review the work of an expert (say, a translator with access to imported Taiwanese texts).

I hope this helps. MrDemeanour (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear Ms Sarah Welch, JimRenge, Hanbud, and MrDemeanour I have now published a complete transcription, translation (of the colophon), and historical analysis of the Fangshan Heart Sutra inscription in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal in English. Access to the article is open. This is a reputable English language source so there is no longer any need to keep relying on Chinese language sources and ad hoc amateur translations. See: 'Xuanzang’s Relationship to the Heart Sūtra in Light of the Fangshan Stele.' Journal of Chinese Buddhist Studies (2019, 32: 1–30). http://chinesebuddhiststudies.org/previous_issues/jcbs3201_Attwood(1-30).pdf Jayarava (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Jayarava: Thank you for the link. Sorry, I have not been able to find time to intervene in this article so far. I hope others will join in. I will try to, and consider the additional source you have provided. @Joshua Jonathan: FYI, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete the section now entitled Dating and Origins?

Hi JimRenge, I was wondering whether I needed a consensus to delete the section now entitled Dating and Origins (used to be called Scholarship). And if so, how should that be done? Also the critical edition section seems to be of interest to only Buddhist scholars. Can that section also be deleted? I just finished reading the Britannica.com article and newworldencyclopedia.org article and although they are much briefer articles - no mention of origins and dating. I look forward to hearing your response.Hanbud (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Copied from my talk page to keep the discussion in one place. JimRenge (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

No, the section "Dating and Origins" should not be deleted; it adds useful information to this article. The Nattier hypothesis is notable, it is mentioned in Buswell´s Encyclopedia of Buddhism and other sources. JimRenge (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I have cited Nattier's thesis many times in my peer-reviewed articles, but I have also extended her work and shown it holds for other sections of the text in my published work (see above), especially the "epithets section". Last year I also showed that the Sanskrit text contains a phrase that is only used by Chinese Buddhists, which is the final proof that it was composed in Chinese. All of my peer-reviewed scholarly articles are now freely available on the internet in various places. Jayarava (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Your peer-reviewed work is no doubt notable; but I'm afraid it's not permitted to use these articles to support claims in this article. Instead, claims must be cited to reliable, secondary sources. This is quite standard Wikipedia policy; editors must cite their claims to secondary sources, not to their own research (even if that research is peer-reviewed). If those peers have published their review work, then those publications *may* be reliable sources. That can be debated; but it's definitely not allowed to use the original research itself to cite a claim.

The subject of this article is a revered text, and naturally people care a lot about what the original text really was, and what it meant. It seems that enthusiastic editors (who are no doubt experts on the Sutra) like to insert claims that are not supported by reliable secondary sources. I wish this would stop. It's a hassle for less-involved editors, who have to go around cleaning-up. Please, can we all comply with the Wikipedia citing rules. If we don't, then trust in Wikipedia's reliability is damaged.

Let's be clear: only reliable, secondary sources are permitted. Please? MrDemeanour (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi MrDemeanour, This is why I no longer actively edit this article and have not for some time now. Though I'm no longer an editor, as demonstrably the world's leading researcher on the subject, I am still a stakeholder. This article cites many primary sources via ad hoc, unpublished, amateur translations, e.g. the articles by Fukui and Harada who were/are senior Japanese clerics (whose work would never have passed peer-review in an English-language journal!). There are also Chinese language sources that cannot be verified by other editors. And a few outright falsehoods (such as comments about Kuījī and Woncheuk supporting Fukui and Harada when they actually contradict them). See what happens if you try to change any of it. Good luck. Jayarava (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Recent Research

A bibliography of articles published on the Heart Sutra in scholarly journals since 2000. In alphabetical order by author. Feel free to update this list.

• Attwood, Jayarava. (2015). 'Heart Murmurs: Some Problems with Conze’s Prajñāpāramitā-hṛdaya.' Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, 8, 28-48.
• Attwood, Jayarava. (2017). 'Epithets of the Mantra’ in the Heart Sutra.' Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, 12, 26–57.
• Attwood, Jayarava. (2017). 'Form is (Not) Emptiness: The Enigma at the Heart of the Heart Sutra.' Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, 13, 52–80.
• Attwood, Jayarava. (2018). 'A Note on Niṣṭhānirvāṇa in the Heart Sutra.' Journal of the Oxford Centre For Buddhist Studies, 14, 2018.
• Attwood, Jayarava. (2018). ‘The Buddhas of the Three Times and the Chinese Origins of the Heart Sutra.’ Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies. 15, 2018: 9-27.
• Attwood Jayarava. (2019). 'Xuanzang’s Relationship to the Heart Sūtra in Light of the Fangshan Stele.' Journal of Chinese Buddhist Studies, 32: 1–30. http://chinesebuddhiststudies.org/previous_issues/jcbs3201_Attwood(1-30).pdf
• Attwood, Jayarava. (2020). 'Ungarbling Section VI of the Sanskrit Heart Sutra.' Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, 18: 11-41.
• Attwood, Jayarava. (2020). "Edward Conze: A Re-evaluation of the Man and his Contribution to Prajñāpāramitā Studies." Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies 19: 22-51. http://jocbs.org/index.php/jocbs/article/view/223
• Attwood, Jayarava. (2020). "The History of the Heart Sutra as a Palimpsest." Pacific World. Series 4, no.1: 155-182.
• Attwood, Jayarava. (2020). "Studying the Heart Sutra: Basic Sources and Methods (A Response to Ng and Ānando)". Buddhist Studies Review, 37(2), 199–217.
• Attwood, Jayarava. (2021). "Losing Ourselves in the Heart Sutra: A new reading of the ancient scripture surfaces a forgotten Buddhist practice." Tricycle Magazine. Spring, 2021: 83-4, 104-6. https://tricycle.org/magazine/heart-sutra-history/
• Hyun Choo, B. (2006) An English Translation of the Banya paramilda simgyeong chan: Wonch'uk's Commentary on the Heart Sūtra (Prajñāpāramitā-hṛdaya-sūtra). International Journal of Buddhist Thought & Culture. 6: 121-205.
• Huifeng, Shi. (2014). Apocryphal Treatment for Conze's Heart Problems: "Non-attainment", "Apprehension", and "Mental Hanging" in the Prajñāpāramitā. Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies. 6: 72-105.
• Ishii, Kōsei. (2015) 『般若心経』をめぐる諸問題 ―ジャン・ナティエ氏の玄奘創作説を疑う = ‘Issues Surrounding the Heart Sutra: Doubts Concerning Jan Nattier's Theory of a Composition by Xuánzàng.’ Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies (Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu), 2015, 64(1), 499-492. [Translated by Jeffrey Kotyk].
• Ji Yun (2012) Is the Heart Sūtra an Apocryphal Text? – A Re-examination. 纪赟 —《心经》疑伪问题再研究. Fuyan Buddhist Studies, 7: 115-182 (2012), Fuyan Buddhist Institute. [Trans. Chin Shih-Foong (2017). Singapore Journal of Buddhist Studies, 4: 9-113.
• Lusthaus, Dan. (2003) 'The Heart Sūtra in Chinese Yogācāra: Some Comparative Comments on the Heart Sūtra Commentaries of Wŏnch’ŭk and K’uei-chi.' International Journal of Buddhist Thought & Culture. September, Vol. 3: 59-103.
• Sai Yau Siu. (2017) 略本《般若波羅蜜多心經》重探：漢譯、譯史及文本類型 (Reinvestigation into the Shorter Heart Sūtra: Chinese Translation, History, and Text Type). Department of Translation, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
• Shih, Heng-Ching & Lusthaus, Dan. (2006) A Comprehensive Commentary on the Heart Sutra (Prajnaparamita-hyrdaya-sutra). Numata Center for Buddhist Translation & Research.
• Watanabe, Shōgo. 1991. 「般若心経成立論序説」 『仏教学』= “An Introduction to the Theory on the Formation of the Prajñā-hridaya-sūtra.” Journal of Buddhist Studies 31 (July 1991): 41-86. [Japanese].
• Watanabe, Shōgo. 2016. "Some Questions Concerning the Title of the Prajñāpāramitā-hṛdaya[-sūtra],” 『智山学報』65（小峰・小山教授退任記念号）: 21-33.
• Yu, Pauline et al (eds.) (2000) Ways With Words: Writing About Reading texts From Early China. University of California Press. [Chapter 4. contains discussions of the Heart Sutra by various scholars].

Jayarava (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The Definition of Emptiness

I have deleted a highly sectarian definition of emptiness in this article because there are many interepretations of emptiness across Buddhist schools.

The following is the definition of śūnyatā I deleted: "empty of an unchanging essence. This emptiness is a 'characteristic' of all phenomena, and not a transcendent reality, but also "empty" of an essence of its own. Specifically, it is a response to Sarvastivada teachings that "phenomena" or its constituents are real.

This is not a universally-accepted interpretation of "śūnyatā". To uncategorically treat this definition of emptiness as authoritative is by default sectarian and not reflective of a huge segment of mainstream Mahayana Buddhist doctrine. There are many Mahayana interpretations which indicate a so-called "transcendent reality," that is indeed "unchanging." For example, Wikipedia's article on śūnyatā states: "In Mahāyāna Buddhism, śūnyatā refers to the tenet that "all things are empty of intrinsic existence and nature (svabhava)", but may also refer to the Buddha-nature teachings and primordial or empty awareness..."

To finish out, the Buddha himself in the Pali Canon states: "There is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, this Unoriginated, this Uncreated, this Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible." —The Buddha, Udana 8.3

Thus the intro in its current uncategorical interpretation is untenable in the context of the whole Mahayana. In addition, why is “Red Pine” an acceptable source?

--Ben.Gowar (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

We're talking here about what the Heart Sutra says about sunyata, not about what all kinds of Buddhism state about sunyata. What's your objection to Red Pine? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The Heart Sutra itself is a Mahayana Sutra. There are multiple ways of interpreting what The Heart Sutra says about emptiness.

The line that you wish to include is: "This emptiness is a 'characteristic' of all phenomena, and not a transcendent reality, but also "empty" of an essence of its own.""

This line is again a very specific, single interpretation of "what the Heart Sutra says about sunyata" and again, a very sectarian one at that. Which is to say, it is commenting upon and interpreting the text in a very narrow way that is inappropriate for a broader auidence, and definitely inapppropriate for an audience that understands that there are indeed multiple interpretations of what the Heart Sutra says about śūnyatā. Because there are multiple interpretations of "what the Heart Sutra says about sunyata," it is disingenuous and simply incorrect to present this one interpretation of the Heart Sutra as the single way in which śūnyatā can be understood in the context of the Sutra. To just select one interpretation by Red Pine and to present it as the universal view of "what the Heart Sutra says about sunyata" is scholastically unteneble. There are literally hundreds of commentaries on the Heart Sutra. Every single Mahayana School talks about the Heart Sutra.

Come on, bro.

Ben.Gowar (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have rescued the reference that was deleted as part of this, as it is used elsewhere in the article and so was causing a cite error. I pass no opinion on this issue or the source. Thanks ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)