Thanks for your comments. Yes I think it does make more sense of the sutra, but should not detract from it's use. There were some controversies in Japan about apocryphal texts which were probably written in China - I think the Suranagama (not the Surangamasamadhi) Sutra was one that was dubious, and I saw a defence of it recently which suggests that the doubt persists.
It is a problem when you take a fundamentalist approach to Buddhavacana. As long as something is not identified as Buddhavacana it will be accepted, chanted and revered even - Sutra of Hui Neng for instance - but try to pass it off as what the Buddha said and it will be rejected outright. I think we modern Buddhists need to reassess our attitudes towards canons of texts, especially in light of our Christian, but especially protestant, models of infallible revelation contained in fixed texts.
I see sutras as starting points for spiritual explorations, not as divine revelation. We cannot know what the Buddha actually said, only what the tradition says he said. And we can see the flaws in the received tradition which means we need to be a bit careful.
Not sure what point you are making. The quote is from Jan Nattier. Are you disagreeing with the use of that word? If so on what basis. Does not the passing off of an original composition as a the words of another fit your definition - (BTW if you're going to cite things on this blog, then please provide details of the source).
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Anonymous said...
Any help as to how to track down or get a copy of the article? Thanks j
As I say - most libraries will do inter-library loans (that's the jargon term).
But I'm thinking about trying to get an electronic copy I can distribute - though that would of course be illegal...
Jayarava
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Anonymous said...
Wow. This is dangerous revisionism. China is already claiming it has a claim to Buddhism, the Dalai Lama, and all related future happenings. Now you want to revise history and say all of it happened in China ? Very scary and very wrong.
I think you are confusing political aims with history; and ideology with facts. The only danger I see is the suppression of facts, the suppression of scholarship.
The fact is that I accept, on the basis of Dr Nattier's work, that this sutra is most likely apocryphal. Such a statement usually lends less rather than more credibility to any given text.
That the text was almost certainly composed in China in the 5th or 6th century says nothing whatsoever about the present Chinese regime.
There is no way that China can "lay claim" to Buddhism as it clearly comes from India, and is practiced almost the world over. Another fact is that the Chinese Tripiṭaka records Sanskrit in an ancient Indian script (although it does this with a great many mistakes and typos).
But it is equally clear that many innovations in Buddhism came from China and some of them were transmitted back to India, or to Tibet (where many sutras were translated only from Chinese because no Sanskrit original could be found - just as we do!). China's contribution to world culture - over millennia is considerable - let us not forget that the oldest extant printed book in the world is a Chinese translation of the Diamond Sutra! (ca 868)
China's contribution to Buddhism is undeniable and just because you don't like the current dynasty is no reason to deny this. If the history of China teaches us anything it is that dynasties come and go! Some dynasties made Buddhism the state religion, others persecuted Buddhists. And so it goes.
The politics of China and Tibet are long and complicated. I don't think this idea has any bearing on those politics. China's current regime are moderately oppressive compared to past dynasties. I don't support their policies regards Tibet or ethnic minorities. I don't support the government's policies towards it's people. But I do enjoy the freedom of speech that living in the UK provides, and that the internet sustains.
I would hate to think that any person (let alone anonymous commenters) would seek to curtail that freedom for ideological reasons because that, as far as I can see, is the same kind of ideology used by the present Chinese regime. And it is hateful.
So thanks for your comment, but you need to think a bit more about the situation. If there is any danger in revisionism then it comes from being closed to the results of higher-criticism.
Due to the service limitations, this comment will be posted in several parts.
Pt. 1.
Thanks for having reminded to everyone this wonderful piece of scholarly work.
Having myself translated the Heart sutra into Polish in 1984 for the purpose of the Polish Sangha of Soen Sa Nim Seung Sahn's Kwan Um School - from both Sanskrit and Chinese - I had already had some doubts concerning the originality of the Sanskrit text (available to me then in the editions of Max Muller, Edward Conze and Hajime Nahamura) - but I have made no research in that direction. Having read Prof. Nattier's exposition several years ago, and pondered upon the text and many other texts, I am now convinced that she is right. My indebtedness to her is enormous.
(NB. A Polish translation of the whole article of hers, in html, pdf, tex or doc, is available on line http://mahajana.net/teksty/sutra_serca/index.php)
As far as I know, the only counter-reaction to the thesis of Mrs. Nattier were Red Pine's (aka. Bill Porter's) comments in his The Heart Sutra: The Womb of Buddhas, Washington, D.C.: Shoemaker and Hoard 2004, pp. 23-27 (see e.g.: http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductDetail.asp?PID=14388). I will present my comments to his remarks below.
If you know about any other reaction to J. Nattier’s article, please let me know.
Sorry, for not having written with the Sanskrit diacritics. I know that you’d prefer to have them, myself I would like it, too. But I don’t know how they would appear if I transfer them through the media of a blog commentary, so I have decided to avoid them. Regards Maciej St. Zieba http://www.kul.pl/maciej.st.zieba/
Red Pine replaces the theory of Chinese origin with a theory of Gandharan origin (mostly following Conze) and of many corrupted versions of the Sanskrit original. He does not seem to understand that he is contradicting himself at least three times. 1) When he claims that “corruption” of the texts should have appeared in India and not in China – he is just repeating some particular old theories concerning some other (known and attested for) facts of other texts - without giving any reason why we should believe they are particularly applicable here (no proof beyond the probability is given; Mrs Nattier also works with probability). Reasoning from analogy is correct but reasoning from precedence – not. In fact corruption of texts transmitted in manuscripts has appeared in both cultures and there ar hundreds examples thereof. What more: He does not seem to understand what “text corruption” means – the irregularities shown by Mrs. Nattier are of that type that they couldn’t have originated in a Sanskrit-speaking Buddhist milieu, as they are contrary to the normal usage of the language in that milieu and to (e.g. anya vs. prthak (although they are not contrary to the lexicographical theory of Sanskrit – so the usage of a foreigner who has learned Sanskrit as a second language might differ form those of a native speaker. She is speaking about “corruption” specific to the process of re-translation without having seen the original, those supposed counter-examples of “corruption” he is talking about are specific to the process of primary translation of the same complicated text by different interpreters – some of them translated directly, some added something out of themselves in order to explain, some omitted difficult portions of the text. Anyhow, the tradition of expanding Prajna-paramita-sutra is something specific in itself, quite else than the “tradition” of summarizing it in a one compound text. We do not have any different editions of Svalpa-akshara-prajnaparamita, but some of the Large Sutras of Prajnaparamita are known to us only by name, never survived.
2) Red Pine is writing “The fact that no early commentaries [prior to the eighth century] are known is cited by Nattier as further proof that the Heart Sutra is of late Chine origin, despite the fact that few commentaries exist in Chinese, Sanskrit, or Tibetan for any sutra prior to this period.” It would be OK, had he not himself quoted the example of the Mahaprajnaparamita-shastra of Nagarjuna (or at least attributed to him), translated by the same Xuanzang.
3) When he claims that Xuanzang could have “corrected” the text he had himself not only considered a powerful dharani, but had also experienced its power throughout his journey to India. Red Pine realizes that Xuanzang might be reluctant to “correct” such a noble (sacred) text – especially that the text itself claims it is beyond understanding, hence small differences with the presumed original should be unimportant if the text works.
4) He leaves aside (without even mentioning it) the argument that no early catalogue of the translations made by Kumarajiva does mention this text, either as sutra or as dharani.
All that in order to claim that J. Nattier has no proof for her theses, but he presents another theory - that of Queen Maya in the form of goddess Santushita at the summit of Mount Sumeru having obtained the teaching of Abhidharma from the Buddha himself, and now [in the Hrdaya-sutra] in the form of Avalokiteshvara is deconstructing the Abhidharma (or lokottara-prajna) of Sarvastivadins with the transcendent-prajna (or prajna-paramita).
Whereas for the first part of the above theory he is calling the Sangiti-sutra from the Chinese translation of Dirgha-Agama; for the second part (beginning above with the words "and now...") he has not a slightest proof, neither in the text of Hrdaya-sutra, nor in any on the numerous Chinese commentaries he is quoting in his own translations, nor in Sangiti-sutra nor any commentary thereupon, nor elsewhere. He claims a prospective future proof from manuscripts yet to be unearthed somewhere in Afghanistan or around. Nobody has heard about such manuscripts to be hidden there somewhere - it's a pure invention of Red Pine. Maybe in line with the Tibetan Buddhist theory and practice of gter-ma's - but he does not call for it.
What more, Red Pine pretends to have translated the Heart Sutra from Sanskrit (at least thats's what stand there printed overleaf of the title page, under Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data; contrary to that one finds at p. 28: "Thanks ... to Andrew Schelling for help with the Sanskrit"), but when one considers his multiple mistakes in:
1) transliteration of Sanskrit words (very frequent replacement of m-dot of anusvara with -n; some missing vowels as in "Samyukt Agama", passim, e.g. p. 187; some spurious vowels as in "vyaavalokati"),
2) lack of knowledge of Sanskrit pronunciation (see the bottom of p. 35 with the word hridaya);
3) related to the above - lack of knowledge that digraphs like dh are not consonant clusters, therefore cannot be separated at the end of the line; same as one cannot separate "sh" in "wis-hes", one cannot separate "bod-hi";
3) (mis)interpretation of the meaning of the words (p. 56: "vya is an emphatic" while in fact he is talking about the verbal prefix "vi-/vy-", with the meaning of separation or penetration; what more: a prefix or particle "vya-" is inexistent in Sanskrit [there is a technical grammatical Paninian word "vya" denoting all indeclinables; giving no sense here] - and it's usage would be grammatically incorrect in the place quoted as it would require long -a-, out of a Sandhi rule, which is not the case; p. 157: verb gam should mean, acording to him: "to go/to understand" - in fact the latter meaning is given in the dictionaries at the last (11th) place, as a highly metaphorical one and rarely used (after such, more obvious meaings as: pass away, die; arrive to (arrive at), reach; move in general; cohabit sexually; set forth, start; change a state or condition, become, udergo, suffer [a change]) as the expansion of the meaning "arrive at [the meaning, understanding]" - and even in such a situation it is listed as used predominantly in Causative (gamayati "he causes [someone] to arrive at [the meaning]");
5) false and fantastic etymologies (p. 51: "avabhasan [sic!] can mean "illumination' or "manifestation" and is probably derived from the same root as avatara, which refers to the "incarnation" of a deity" - he is unable to distinguish the roots (bhas and tr/tar respectively) from the prefix (ava in both cases), an ABC of Sanskrit studies);
6) misinterpretation of grammatical forms (p. 157-8: interpretation of the Locative case as showing the goal, whereas the goal, especially with the verb gam there in question, is expressed in Sanskrit with Accusative; the Locative expresses placement in space or in time; so it could be "in the gone" but not "into the gone");
7) ignoring the fact that the –e ending of gate might just as well be many other options, quite possible:
* the Locative singular might be either masculine or neuter (overlooked by him) - and the Locative means: “in the one [he, it] that is gone” OR “once [when] it/he is gone” – and the whole sentence might * the neuter Nominative or Accusative or Vocative dual (gatam => gate);
* the feminine Vocative singular of both gataa (long final a) quoted by Red Pine “O, you, [the Lady] who are gone!” - and of gati (“going, course; way, road; class of beings, sphere of reincarnation, fate”) “O, you, the course!” – forgotten by Red Pine - meanings differ;
* finally, the masculine Nominative singual: -aH => -e instead of -aH => -o, of the regional dialect of spoken Sanskrit (see: F. Edgerton’s Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar, 3.66) – frequent in North-East Indian or Magadhian variant, in fact is quite often met with in the North-West Indian region, inc. Gandhara (similar to Pali usage); if the probable place of the origination of the mantra is this region, one should also take this regional variant into consideration. “the one that is gone”
* if you analyze various possibilities, why leave aside those? - so one infers that the translator's knowledge of Sanskrit is close to null, and he pretends to have translated from Sanskrit for ideological reasons - only because he rejects the theory that the texts is originally Chinese.
Throughout his translation he leaves aside all the fragments that exist only in Sanskrit and do not exist in the Chinese versions attributed either to Xuanzang or to Kumarajiva - following faithfully the version of Xuanzang, assuming ipso fact that the Chinese text i s the authoritative version.
I do not understand the aim of his reasoning - What difference for a follower of Buddhism should it make whether the text was composed in Gandhara or Kashmir (as he suggests, following E. Conze) or whether it was composed in China? In both cases the text has not originated form the lips of Shakyamuni himself but from one of his followers had so deep insight as to be able to summarize all Buddhist doctrines in the light of Prajna-paramita, and next to give a powerful mantra to it. The whole theory of corrupted Sanskrit texts seems only invented in order to give a background to his own theory of Queen Maya aka. Santushita being Avalokiteshvara (the womb from which all the Buddhas emerge should be understood metaphorically in most cases - as the Prajna itself - but in the case of Shakyamuni it should be understood also physically, as the bodily womb of his mother).
So, I do not want to diminish the merits of the Red Pine’s translations of the Buddhist texts from Chinese, including the Chinese commentaries to the Heart Sutra contained in the above mentioned book (although I do not have these texts under my hand in order to check them, I believe they have to be OK - at least nobody else has translated them from the Chinese by now, so Red Pine had to translate them himself). But his pretence that he has translated the text from Sanskrit is a fake. Which goes very well in line with the argumentation of Jan Nattier how (and why) had Chinese apocrypha emerged.
I decided I have to publish my remarks here as nowehere else have I found a good place for that.
Red Pine is one thing, but I am looking if there is something more serious. Her article has been translated into Polish (by someone else, no me) already 4 years ago, and is therefore known in Poland.
On the 20th of October 2010, when I presented a paper on the Polish translations of the Heart Sutra during a conference of the Polish Oriental Society, refering myself to the findings of J. Nattier (so treating the translations made from Chinese as those made from "the original" and those from Sanskrit as "from a second language source", prof. Marek Mejor (Sanskritist and Buddhologist of Warsaw; himself also an author of a translation from Sanskrit - with many funny mistakes) has criticized me that her theory is "but a hypothesis". If so, I started looking for any scholarly criticism to it - and have found your wonderful blog - with a note that no reaction was known to you (by September 2007). But it might have changed...
Internet search has not shown to me much more so I am still wandering if anybody else reacted to the theory of Prof. Nattier.
If you know now or learn in the future about anything, please let me know. Either on the blog comment or by private e-mail mszieba@kul.lublin.pl (please delete the address before posting the message).
Thanks so much for highlighting this important research by Nattier. I find it fascinating but not that surprising that the Chinese both consumed Indian sutras and composed their own. Nattier's research is clearly not widely known as Karl Potter's Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies Vol. 8 on Buddhist Philosophy from 100-350 AD lists the Prajnaparamitahrdayasutra as an Indian text composed circa mid-4th century, "author unknown." Potter's dates for the many texts listed in his encyclopedia volumes are very approximate, which he admits is what current scholarship affords us. Anyway, thanks again for writing so eloquently about Nattier's work.
It's not unusual for work like this to take some time to make it's way into popular works. Nattier's work is now at least mentioned in most serious work on the Heart Sutra.
All dates for Buddhist texts are approximate - based on the date of first Chinese translation plus guess work most of the time. All Buddhist sutras are "author unknown" as well.
There are some problems with Nattier's original article.
There are a number of translations of the Heart Sutra in Chinese, including one by Kumarajiva, and several others. Kumarajiva's version reads differently. How so? It matches the alternate reading of his translation of the Pancavimsati that Nattier is identifying as the source of the Hsuan-tsang text. What's disappointing is that the variation is in the lines that her argument hinges on.
In the alternate readings in other editions noted by the Taisho text, the line 色不異空，空不異色 reads instead as 非色異空，非空異色. And that's how it reads in Kumarajiva's translation of the Heart Sutra. I have no idea why this is completely overlooked by Nattier, other than it makes her argument weaker.
It tells me that 1) Kumarajiva's Heart Sutra probably reflects how his Pancavimsati original read and 2) Kj's Heart Sutra is likely an earlier translation that HT's. Later copyists who had HT's text ringing in their heads probably amended Kj's Pancavimsati passage when they came upon it. It's at least as likely as this story about Chinese being back translated to Sanskrit. I have no idea why Nattier would call her version less intolerably convoluted than one that has just as much evidence to back it.
I would also point out that the other Chinese translations are in traditional Sutra format, and not abbreviated excerpts like HT and Kj's translations or the modern Sanskrit version. Why didn't those versions all look like HT's version if that is the original text? Why aren't we using one of those versions? Where's the Sanskrit of those versions?
The reality is that there's probably a bunch of versions of the Heart Sutra that have existed over the centuries. Kumarajiva's translation throws a monkey wrench into the theory that HT's is the first of them, in my mind at least.
Friday, June 06, 2014
[Image]In this post I want to call attention to an important article, now over 15 years old, but with hardly any recognition outside academic circles. The article is: Jan Nattier. 1992. The Heart Sūtra : a Chinese apocryphal text? Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies. Vol. 15 (2), p.153-223.The editors of JIABS are in the process of digitising their back issues which will be available for free download. In the meantime they have graciously given me permission to offer the pdf to anyone who would like a copy. Click here. Jan Nattier (left) is Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Indiana University, and a scholar of great merit and interest. The article is a fine example of contemporary scholarship, meticulously reasoned, well structured, and typically for Nattier, well written. This last is a strong feature of Nattier's published work - she can write very well. However the article also offers a startling conclusion with wide implications for Buddhists.
The main argument of the article is that the Heart Sūtra was composed in China, incorporating some verses from the Chinese version of the Large Prajñāpāramita text, and back translated into Sanskrit sometime in the 7th century. Nattier also offers an explanation for the two different versions, one longer and one shorter, of the Heart Sūtra. Page references are to Nattier's article.
Nattier focuses initially on the shorter version of the Heart Sūtra. This has several problematic features which distinguish it from sūtras generally and the other Prajñāpāramita sūtras in particular. Firstly it does not begin with 'thus have I heard'; second there is is no audience reaction at the end of the sūtra; third the Buddha makes no appearance; fourth Avalokiteśvara, the bodhisattva of compassion makes an unexpected appearance, while the usual characters of Prajñāpāramita sūtras (such as Subhuti) do not; and lastly the sūtra contains a mantra, which few other Prajñāpāramita sūtras do, and then only the later tantric sūtras. Any explanation of the origin of the Heart Sūtra should provide some insights into these oddities, and Nattier's article does just this.
It has been known for centuries that the lines beginning with "form is not other than emptiness" and ending with "no knowledge and no attainment" are quoted from the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramita Sūtra, or Perfection of Wisdom in 25,000 Lines (hereafter the Large Sūtra). The first reference to this borrowing is in a Chinese commentary from the 7th century. Nattier spends quite some space looking at the various versions of these verses. They occur in four places: Sanskrit Large Sūtra (using the oldest extant manuscript from Gilgit) Chinese Large Sūtra (trans. by Kumarajiva) Sanskrit Heart Sūtra (Conze's critical edition)Chinese Heart Sūtra (trans. Hsuan-tsung) Nattier makes several comparisons. Firstly the Chinese Heart Sūtra and the Chinese Large Sūtra. These are laid out side by side and even without being able to understand the Chinese characters, it is obvious that they are virtually identical. Next the Sanskrit Heart Sūtra and the Chinese Heart Sūtra are compared and we find a "virtual word for word correspondence" (p.160). However comparing the Sanskrit Large Sūtra and the Sanskrit Heart Sūtra we find many differences of vocabulary and word order, although the meaning is synonymous. An example is:
Sanskrit Large Sūtra : (na)anyad rūpam anyā śunyata / nānya śunyatānyad rūpa Sanskrit Heart Sūtra : rūpān na pṛthak śunyatā / śunyatāyā na pṛthag rūpam
In the list of the nature of dharmas the Sanskrit Large Sūtra uses singular verbal forms, is more repetitious and slightly longer; while the Sanskrit Heart Sūtra uses plural adjectival forms, and is shorter and more succinct. Almost every word, barring some very well known technical terms such as śunyata, are different. Conze explains the differences in repetition as a process of summarising, however Nattier contends that this runs counter to the general Indian tendency to elaboration. In any case the changes in vocabulary are unprecedented and "there is no straight forward way to derive the Sanskrit Heart Sūtra from the Sanskrit Large Sūtra, or vice versa." (p.167)
The best way to understand the progression is that the verses moved from the Sanskrit Large Sūtra to the Chinese Large Sūtra, and thence into the the Chinese Heart Sūtra, and finally into the Sanskrit Heart Sūtra. Which is to say that it is far more plausible on philological grounds that the Sanskrit Heart Sūtra is a translation of the Chinese rather than the other way around.
Nattier proceeds to marshal supporting evidence for this conclusion beginning by considering known examples of back-translation - these are plentiful in Mongolian scriptures apparently. An important sign of back-translation is the choice of "unmatched but synonymous terms" (p.170). Also there may be occurrences of incorrect word order, grammatical errors point to the under lying language. In this case the evidence points to the Chinese Heart Sūtra as being a likely intermediary between the Sanskrit Large Sūtra and the Sanskrit Heart Sūtra: where the former has nirodha (extinction), the latter has kṣayo (destruction) while the Chinese Heart Sūtra has chin which can be a translation of either. This turns out to be true for each synonym in the Sanskrit texts.
Historical evidence also supports the argument. Indian commentaries cannot be dated to before the 8th century, while there is no independent evidence such as quotes in other texts which might place it earlier. By contrast Chinese commentaries are definitely dated in the 7th century, and "..the existence of the Heart Sūtra is attested in China at least a century before its earliest known appearance in India" (p.174)
However there are still some problems. In particular the Chinese were usually very particular when composing apocryphal texts, taking a lot of effort to make them look like Indian sūtras, and yet the Heart Sūtra clearly lacks many important features. Nattier cites a Japanese study (by FUKUI Fumimasa) which she says make a strong case for reconsidering the Chinese title of the Heart Sūtra : hsin ching. Fukui says this should be understood not as saying that the text is the heart, or essence of the Prajñāpāramita tradition, but rather represents a "dhāraṇī scripture", ie simply a text to be chanted. It is clear that this has indeed been the function of the text since its earliest mentions. The missing attributes (such as the 'thus have I heard') are less of a problem if we accept that the text is not even attempting to be a sūtra.
Most of the remaining problems occur in the portion of the text which surrounds the quoted verses - what Nattier calls "the frame". She seeks to show that it is plausible for the frame to have been composed in China. For instance the presence of Avalokiteśvara: this is quite consistent with devotional Buddhism in South West, 7th century China, and his presence is less surprising if the text is a devotional text for chanting rather than the essence of the Prajñāpāramita tradition. The presence of the mantra also marks out the Heart Sūtra as different. Nattier points out that the mantra is present in at least three other Chinese texts, and the epithets of the mantra also exist independently. (p.177). The point being that the presence of a mantra need not rule out a Chinese origin.
I think this is the only place where Nattier misses a trick. Donald Lopez, for instance, has commented on the lack of coherence between the mantra and the text. "The question still remains of the exact function of the mantra within the sutra, because the sutra provides no such explanation and the sadhanas make only perfunctory references to the mantra". - Lopez. The heart sutra explained. p.120.The mantra is not of a piece with the sūtra, but appears to have been tacked on. Further Alex Wayman has noted that commentaries on the text lack coherence: "The [commentators] seemed to be experiencing some difficulty in exposition, as though they were not writing through having inherited a tradition about the scripture going back to its original composition" - Secret of the Heart Sutra p.136This observations only strengthen the impression of a text appearing suddenly without a history of exegesis to be referred to. But, back to Nattier's article...
Another feature which supports the idea that the frame was written in China relates to phrases such as "satyam amithyavāt" which Conze translates as: "[It is] true. For what could go wrong". This is clearly an awkward phrase both in Sanskrit and in English translation. The Chinese - chen shih pu hsü or "genuine, not vain" - however is "entirely natural in Chinese". As Nattier says: "The Heart Sūtra thus diverges from anticipated Sanskrit usage, offering instead a precise replication of the word order of the Chinese" (p.178)The final mystery is the existence of the two versions of the sūtra. The evidence is good that the short version was the one which was most prominent version in China. All of the extant Chinese commentaries are based on the Hsüan-tsang's (or Xuanzang) 'translation' of the short version. If we accept the idea that the sūtra was back-translated into Sanskrit after being composed in China, then the long version makes sense in the face of Indian criteria for authenticity - which include the appropriate opening, the presence of the Buddha, and the audience reaction to the discourse. The long version supplies all these features that are missing from the short version. From the Indian point of view the short version is not a sūtra at all - which fits with the idea that it was not intended to be one.
On purely philological grounds it seems that the Heart Sūtra was composed in China around the verses quoted from the Chinese version of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramita Sūtra. Internal textual evidence supports this conclusion, as do historical considerations. In short everything points in the direction of the 'Heart Sūtra' being a Chinese liturgical text which only became a sūtra on being back translated into Sanskrit, probably in India in the late 7th century. What is more, the most problematic features of the sūtra become comprehensible if we accept this view.
Nattier spends several pages exploring the role of Hsüan-tsang in the popularisation of the text: it was certainly a favourite of the pilgrim/translator, and he did know it before he left on his trip to India. It seems likely, though it is not proven, that it was Hsüan-tsung himself who introduced the text to India and translated it into Sanskrit when he discovered that the Indians lacked it. We know that exactly this happened in the case of another Chinese apocryphal text, the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna, which he translated into Sanskrit during his stay at Nālandā.
To those amused, or perhaps alarmed, by this apparent forgery, Nattier points out that "it is now becoming clear that the Chinese were avid producers as well as consumers of Buddhist sūtras... and indeed evidence is accumulating for an important backwash of Chinese Buddhist influence into Central Asia" (p.181). Though the Heart Sūtra may be an apocryphal text: "...this in no way undermines the value that the text has held for Buddhist practitioners. "Whatever is conducive to liberation" - so the Buddha is said to have told his followers - "that is my teaching"." (p.199) Nattier's article is a fantastic example of the kind of careful and exacting scholarship which marks her out. The conclusions are monumental, and yet eminently accessible. I highly recommend reading the article. Her work deserves a wider audience, and her conclusions should be informing our understanding of Buddhist history, both social and textual. One thing is clear from this, and her other publications, we Buddhists cannot afford to be fundamentalists when it comes to texts!
17 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment formWow, what a fascinating article. I never realized that there was a kind of backwash from China to India. I always assumed a single direction.
It also helps to explain the somewhat clipped nature of the sutra, and why Avalokitesvara delivers the sermon, not the Buddha.
And I too agree, that it's valueable lesson more than outweighs it's hacked origins. :)
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Hi Gerald,
Thanks for your comments. Yes I think it does make more sense of the sutra, but should not detract from it's use. There were some controversies in Japan about apocryphal texts which were probably written in China - I think the Suranagama (not the Surangamasamadhi) Sutra was one that was dubious, and I saw a defence of it recently which suggests that the doubt persists.
It is a problem when you take a fundamentalist approach to Buddhavacana. As long as something is not identified as Buddhavacana it will be accepted, chanted and revered even - Sutra of Hui Neng for instance - but try to pass it off as what the Buddha said and it will be rejected outright. I think we modern Buddhists need to reassess our attitudes towards canons of texts, especially in light of our Christian, but especially protestant, models of infallible revelation contained in fixed texts.
I see sutras as starting points for spiritual explorations, not as divine revelation. We cannot know what the Buddha actually said, only what the tradition says he said. And we can see the flaws in the received tradition which means we need to be a bit careful.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
quote - "...or perhaps alarmed, by this apparent forgery, Nattier points ..."
'Forgery' means - the making or altering of writing, or a picture, etc. with the intention of deceiving.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Hi Weng f,
Not sure what point you are making. The quote is from Jan Nattier. Are you disagreeing with the use of that word? If so on what basis. Does not the passing off of an original composition as a the words of another fit your definition - (BTW if you're going to cite things on this blog, then please provide details of the source).
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Any help as to how to track down or get a copy of the article?
Thanks
j
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
As I say - most libraries will do inter-library loans (that's the jargon term).
But I'm thinking about trying to get an electronic copy I can distribute - though that would of course be illegal...
Jayarava
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Wow. This is dangerous revisionism. China is already claiming it has a claim to Buddhism, the Dalai Lama, and all related future happenings. Now you want to revise history and say all of it happened in China ? Very scary and very wrong.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
@anonymous
I think you are confusing political aims with history; and ideology with facts. The only danger I see is the suppression of facts, the suppression of scholarship.
The fact is that I accept, on the basis of Dr Nattier's work, that this sutra is most likely apocryphal. Such a statement usually lends less rather than more credibility to any given text.
That the text was almost certainly composed in China in the 5th or 6th century says nothing whatsoever about the present Chinese regime.
There is no way that China can "lay claim" to Buddhism as it clearly comes from India, and is practiced almost the world over. Another fact is that the Chinese Tripiṭaka records Sanskrit in an ancient Indian script (although it does this with a great many mistakes and typos).
But it is equally clear that many innovations in Buddhism came from China and some of them were transmitted back to India, or to Tibet (where many sutras were translated only from Chinese because no Sanskrit original could be found - just as we do!). China's contribution to world culture - over millennia is considerable - let us not forget that the oldest extant printed book in the world is a Chinese translation of the Diamond Sutra! (ca 868)
China's contribution to Buddhism is undeniable and just because you don't like the current dynasty is no reason to deny this. If the history of China teaches us anything it is that dynasties come and go! Some dynasties made Buddhism the state religion, others persecuted Buddhists. And so it goes.
The politics of China and Tibet are long and complicated. I don't think this idea has any bearing on those politics. China's current regime are moderately oppressive compared to past dynasties. I don't support their policies regards Tibet or ethnic minorities. I don't support the government's policies towards it's people. But I do enjoy the freedom of speech that living in the UK provides, and that the internet sustains.
I would hate to think that any person (let alone anonymous commenters) would seek to curtail that freedom for ideological reasons because that, as far as I can see, is the same kind of ideology used by the present Chinese regime. And it is hateful.
So thanks for your comment, but you need to think a bit more about the situation. If there is any danger in revisionism then it comes from being closed to the results of higher-criticism.
Jayarava
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Dear Jayarava
Due to the service limitations, this comment will be posted in several parts.
Pt. 1.
Thanks for having reminded to everyone this wonderful piece of scholarly work.
Having myself translated the Heart sutra into Polish in 1984 for the purpose of the Polish Sangha of Soen Sa Nim Seung Sahn's Kwan Um School - from both Sanskrit and Chinese - I had already had some doubts concerning the originality of the Sanskrit text (available to me then in the editions of Max Muller, Edward Conze and Hajime Nahamura) - but I have made no research in that direction. Having read Prof. Nattier's exposition several years ago, and pondered upon the text and many other texts, I am now convinced that she is right. My indebtedness to her is enormous.
(NB. A Polish translation of the whole article of hers, in html, pdf, tex or doc, is available on line http://mahajana.net/teksty/sutra_serca/index.php)
As far as I know, the only counter-reaction to the thesis of Mrs. Nattier were Red Pine's (aka. Bill Porter's) comments in his The Heart Sutra: The Womb of Buddhas, Washington, D.C.: Shoemaker and Hoard 2004, pp. 23-27 (see e.g.: http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductDetail.asp?PID=14388). I will present my comments to his remarks below.
If you know about any other reaction to J. Nattier’s article, please let me know.
Sorry, for not having written with the Sanskrit diacritics. I know that you’d prefer to have them, myself I would like it, too. But I don’t know how they would appear if I transfer them through the media of a blog commentary, so I have decided to avoid them.
Regards
Maciej St. Zieba
http://www.kul.pl/maciej.st.zieba/
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Part 2.
Red Pine replaces the theory of Chinese origin with a theory of Gandharan origin (mostly following Conze) and of many corrupted versions of the Sanskrit original. He does not seem to understand that he is contradicting himself at least three times.
1) When he claims that “corruption” of the texts should have appeared in India and not in China – he is just repeating some particular old theories concerning some other (known and attested for) facts of other texts - without giving any reason why we should believe they are particularly applicable here (no proof beyond the probability is given; Mrs Nattier also works with probability). Reasoning from analogy is correct but reasoning from precedence – not. In fact corruption of texts transmitted in manuscripts has appeared in both cultures and there ar hundreds examples thereof.
What more: He does not seem to understand what “text corruption” means – the irregularities shown by Mrs. Nattier are of that type that they couldn’t have originated in a Sanskrit-speaking Buddhist milieu, as they are contrary to the normal usage of the language in that milieu and to (e.g. anya vs. prthak (although they are not contrary to the lexicographical theory of Sanskrit – so the usage of a foreigner who has learned Sanskrit as a second language might differ form those of a native speaker. She is speaking about “corruption” specific to the process of re-translation without having seen the original, those supposed counter-examples of “corruption” he is talking about are specific to the process of primary translation of the same complicated text by different interpreters – some of them translated directly, some added something out of themselves in order to explain, some omitted difficult portions of the text. Anyhow, the tradition of expanding Prajna-paramita-sutra is something specific in itself, quite else than the “tradition” of summarizing it in a one compound text. We do not have any different editions of Svalpa-akshara-prajnaparamita, but some of the Large Sutras of Prajnaparamita are known to us only by name, never survived.
2) Red Pine is writing “The fact that no early commentaries [prior to the eighth century] are known is cited by Nattier as further proof that the Heart Sutra is of late Chine origin, despite the fact that few commentaries exist in Chinese, Sanskrit, or Tibetan for any sutra prior to this period.” It would be OK, had he not himself quoted the example of the Mahaprajnaparamita-shastra of Nagarjuna (or at least attributed to him), translated by the same Xuanzang.
3) When he claims that Xuanzang could have “corrected” the text he had himself not only considered a powerful dharani, but had also experienced its power throughout his journey to India. Red Pine realizes that Xuanzang might be reluctant to “correct” such a noble (sacred) text – especially that the text itself claims it is beyond understanding, hence small differences with the presumed original should be unimportant if the text works.
4) He leaves aside (without even mentioning it) the argument that no early catalogue of the translations made by Kumarajiva does mention this text, either as sutra or as dharani.
All that in order to claim that J. Nattier has no proof for her theses, but he presents another theory - that of Queen Maya in the form of goddess Santushita at the summit of Mount Sumeru having obtained the teaching of Abhidharma from the Buddha himself, and now [in the Hrdaya-sutra] in the form of Avalokiteshvara is deconstructing the Abhidharma (or lokottara-prajna) of Sarvastivadins with the transcendent-prajna (or prajna-paramita).
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Part 3.
Whereas for the first part of the above theory he is calling the Sangiti-sutra from the Chinese translation of Dirgha-Agama; for the second part (beginning above with the words "and now...") he has not a slightest proof, neither in the text of Hrdaya-sutra, nor in any on the numerous Chinese commentaries he is quoting in his own translations, nor in Sangiti-sutra nor any commentary thereupon, nor elsewhere. He claims a prospective future proof from manuscripts yet to be unearthed somewhere in Afghanistan or around. Nobody has heard about such manuscripts to be hidden there somewhere - it's a pure invention of Red Pine. Maybe in line with the Tibetan Buddhist theory and practice of gter-ma's - but he does not call for it.
What more, Red Pine pretends to have translated the Heart Sutra from Sanskrit (at least thats's what stand there printed overleaf of the title page, under Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data; contrary to that one finds at p. 28: "Thanks ... to Andrew Schelling for help with the Sanskrit"), but when one considers his multiple mistakes in:
1) transliteration of Sanskrit words (very frequent replacement of m-dot of anusvara with -n; some missing vowels as in "Samyukt Agama", passim, e.g. p. 187; some spurious vowels as in "vyaavalokati"),
2) lack of knowledge of Sanskrit pronunciation (see the bottom of p. 35 with the word hridaya);
3) related to the above - lack of knowledge that digraphs like dh are not consonant clusters, therefore cannot be separated at the end of the line; same as one cannot separate "sh" in "wis-hes", one cannot separate "bod-hi";
3) (mis)interpretation of the meaning of the words (p. 56: "vya is an emphatic" while in fact he is talking about the verbal prefix "vi-/vy-", with the meaning of separation or penetration; what more: a prefix or particle "vya-" is inexistent in Sanskrit [there is a technical grammatical Paninian word "vya" denoting all indeclinables; giving no sense here] - and it's usage would be grammatically incorrect in the place quoted as it would require long -a-, out of a Sandhi rule, which is not the case; p. 157: verb gam should mean, acording to him: "to go/to understand" - in fact the latter meaning is given in the dictionaries at the last (11th) place, as a highly metaphorical one and rarely used (after such, more obvious meaings as: pass away, die; arrive to (arrive at), reach; move in general; cohabit sexually; set forth, start; change a state or condition, become, udergo, suffer [a change]) as the expansion of the meaning "arrive at [the meaning, understanding]" - and even in such a situation it is listed as used predominantly in Causative (gamayati "he causes [someone] to arrive at [the meaning]");
5) false and fantastic etymologies (p. 51: "avabhasan [sic!] can mean "illumination' or "manifestation" and is probably derived from the same root as avatara, which refers to the "incarnation" of a deity" - he is unable to distinguish the roots (bhas and tr/tar respectively) from the prefix (ava in both cases), an ABC of Sanskrit studies);
6) misinterpretation of grammatical forms (p. 157-8: interpretation of the Locative case as showing the goal, whereas the goal, especially with the verb gam there in question, is expressed in Sanskrit with Accusative; the Locative expresses placement in space or in time; so it could be "in the gone" but not "into the gone");
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Part 4.
7) ignoring the fact that the –e ending of gate might just as well be many other options, quite possible:
* the Locative singular might be either masculine or neuter (overlooked by him) - and the Locative means: “in the one [he, it] that is gone” OR “once [when] it/he is gone” – and the whole sentence might
* the neuter Nominative or Accusative or Vocative dual (gatam => gate);
* the feminine Vocative singular of both gataa (long final a) quoted by Red Pine “O, you, [the Lady] who are gone!” - and of gati (“going, course; way, road; class of beings, sphere of reincarnation, fate”) “O, you, the course!” – forgotten by Red Pine - meanings differ;
* finally, the masculine Nominative singual: -aH => -e instead of -aH => -o, of the regional dialect of spoken Sanskrit (see: F. Edgerton’s Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar, 3.66) – frequent in North-East Indian or Magadhian variant, in fact is quite often met with in the North-West Indian region, inc. Gandhara (similar to Pali usage); if the probable place of the origination of the mantra is this region, one should also take this regional variant into consideration. “the one that is gone”
* if you analyze various possibilities, why leave aside those?
- so one infers that the translator's knowledge of Sanskrit is close to null, and he pretends to have translated from Sanskrit for ideological reasons - only because he rejects the theory that the texts is originally Chinese.
Throughout his translation he leaves aside all the fragments that exist only in Sanskrit and do not exist in the Chinese versions attributed either to Xuanzang or to Kumarajiva - following faithfully the version of Xuanzang, assuming ipso fact that the Chinese text i s the authoritative version.
I do not understand the aim of his reasoning - What difference for a follower of Buddhism should it make whether the text was composed in Gandhara or Kashmir (as he suggests, following E. Conze) or whether it was composed in China? In both cases the text has not originated form the lips of Shakyamuni himself but from one of his followers had so deep insight as to be able to summarize all Buddhist doctrines in the light of Prajna-paramita, and next to give a powerful mantra to it. The whole theory of corrupted Sanskrit texts seems only invented in order to give a background to his own theory of Queen Maya aka. Santushita being Avalokiteshvara (the womb from which all the Buddhas emerge should be understood metaphorically in most cases - as the Prajna itself - but in the case of Shakyamuni it should be understood also physically, as the bodily womb of his mother).
So, I do not want to diminish the merits of the Red Pine’s translations of the Buddhist texts from Chinese, including the Chinese commentaries to the Heart Sutra contained in the above mentioned book (although I do not have these texts under my hand in order to check them, I believe they have to be OK - at least nobody else has translated them from the Chinese by now, so Red Pine had to translate them himself). But his pretence that he has translated the text from Sanskrit is a fake. Which goes very well in line with the argumentation of Jan Nattier how (and why) had Chinese apocrypha emerged.
That's all for now,
Maciej
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Hi Maciej
Well that's very comprehensive :-) I was aware of Red Pines book on the Heart Sūtra and had my own problems with it.
Best Wishes
Jayarava
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Thanks, Jayarava.
I decided I have to publish my remarks here as nowehere else have I found a good place for that.
Red Pine is one thing, but I am looking if there is something more serious. Her article has been translated into Polish (by someone else, no me) already 4 years ago, and is therefore known in Poland.
On the 20th of October 2010, when I presented a paper on the Polish translations of the Heart Sutra during a conference of the Polish Oriental Society, refering myself to the findings of J. Nattier (so treating the translations made from Chinese as those made from "the original" and those from Sanskrit as "from a second language source", prof. Marek Mejor (Sanskritist and Buddhologist of Warsaw; himself also an author of a translation from Sanskrit - with many funny mistakes) has criticized me that her theory is "but a hypothesis". If so, I started looking for any scholarly criticism to it - and have found your wonderful blog - with a note that no reaction was known to you (by September 2007). But it might have changed...
Internet search has not shown to me much more so I am still wandering if anybody else reacted to the theory of Prof. Nattier.
If you know now or learn in the future about anything, please let me know. Either on the blog comment or by private e-mail mszieba@kul.lublin.pl (please delete the address before posting the message).
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Thanks so much for highlighting this important research by Nattier. I find it fascinating but not that surprising that the Chinese both consumed Indian sutras and composed their own. Nattier's research is clearly not widely known as Karl Potter's Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies Vol. 8 on Buddhist Philosophy from 100-350 AD lists the Prajnaparamitahrdayasutra as an Indian text composed circa mid-4th century, "author unknown." Potter's dates for the many texts listed in his encyclopedia volumes are very approximate, which he admits is what current scholarship affords us. Anyway, thanks again for writing so eloquently about Nattier's work.
Tuesday, October 01, 2013
It's not unusual for work like this to take some time to make it's way into popular works. Nattier's work is now at least mentioned in most serious work on the Heart Sutra.
All dates for Buddhist texts are approximate - based on the date of first Chinese translation plus guess work most of the time. All Buddhist sutras are "author unknown" as well.
Jan Nattier's work is inspirational.
Tuesday, October 01, 2013
There are some problems with Nattier's original article.
There are a number of translations of the Heart Sutra in Chinese, including one by Kumarajiva, and several others. Kumarajiva's version reads differently. How so? It matches the alternate reading of his translation of the Pancavimsati that Nattier is identifying as the source of the Hsuan-tsang text. What's disappointing is that the variation is in the lines that her argument hinges on.
In the alternate readings in other editions noted by the Taisho text, the line 色不異空，空不異色 reads instead as 非色異空，非空異色. And that's how it reads in Kumarajiva's translation of the Heart Sutra. I have no idea why this is completely overlooked by Nattier, other than it makes her argument weaker.
It tells me that 1) Kumarajiva's Heart Sutra probably reflects how his Pancavimsati original read and 2) Kj's Heart Sutra is likely an earlier translation that HT's. Later copyists who had HT's text ringing in their heads probably amended Kj's Pancavimsati passage when they came upon it. It's at least as likely as this story about Chinese being back translated to Sanskrit. I have no idea why Nattier would call her version less intolerably convoluted than one that has just as much evidence to back it.
I would also point out that the other Chinese translations are in traditional Sutra format, and not abbreviated excerpts like HT and Kj's translations or the modern Sanskrit version. Why didn't those versions all look like HT's version if that is the original text? Why aren't we using one of those versions? Where's the Sanskrit of those versions?
The reality is that there's probably a bunch of versions of the Heart Sutra that have existed over the centuries. Kumarajiva's translation throws a monkey wrench into the theory that HT's is the first of them, in my mind at least.
Friday, June 06, 2014