EMPTINESS

Introduction

THE JAPANESE STORY Miminashi Hōichi tells the tale of Hōichi, a blind boy with the rare ability to recite the epic Tale of Heike in a beautiful voice, accompanying himself on the biwa, a stringed instrument. He lived in the temple of Amidaji near the town of Shimonoseki in southern Honshu, the site of the decisive sea battle in which the Heike clan met its demise. Late one summer night, Hōichi was sitting outside playing the biwa when he heard someone call his name. From the sound of the footsteps, he determined that the visitor was a samurai in full armor, who told Hōichi that his lord was passing through the area and wished to have performed for him the portion of the epic which tells of that final battle. He was led to what seemed an opulent villa where the women spoke in the language of the court. He was given a kneeling cushion and began to sing the mournful song of the battle. His performance was so poignant that the whispered praise he overheard soon changed to sobs and wails from what must have been a large audience. The lord was so moved that he invited Hōichi to return for the next six nights. The soldier then led him back to the temple before dawn.

The next night, the soldier came once again at the appointed hour and led him away. This time, however, some servants of the monastery followed. They lost Hōichi in the evening fog but eventually heard his song, which led them to the cemetery of Amidaji, where Hōichi sat alone. They led him back to the monastery, where one of the monks realized what had happened. Hōichi was in grave danger, for he had not been taken to a villa each night but to a cemetery, where he had performed not for a noble family but for the ghosts of the Heike clan. On the night when he completed the tale, he would be killed.

That night, the abbot devised a plan to protect him. The monks took calligraphy brushes and ink and wrote the words of the Heart Sūtra over Hōichi’s entire body. This would render him invisible. If Hōichi remained silent and did not betray his presence with his voice when the soldier came to fetch him, the ghost would be unable to find him. The next morning the monks discovered Hōichi sitting in the monastery’s garden, alive. But blood was flowing from holes on either side of his head, holes where his ears had been. The monks had forgotten to write the sūtra on his ears, which alone had remained visible to the ghost, who tore them off to present to his lord. From then on, the famous singer of the Heike Monogatari was known as Miminashi Hōichi, Hōichi the Earless.¹

This is perhaps the most graphic of the many uses to which the Heart Sūtra has been put throughout the many centuries of its history across Asia. Here, Hōichi’s salvation (rather than his crime, as in Kafka’s penal colony) is inscribed on his blind body, rendering it invisible to the dead. But this salvation comes with a cost, because the monks failed to write the words of the sūtra that begins, Thus did I hear, on his ears. As a result, the outer organs of hearing, all that remains visible of the blind boy, are left unwritten and are therefore lost.

Although the uses of the Heart Sūtra studied in this volume are less immediately visceral, one finds here nonetheless related themes of speech and writing, of performance and protection. The Indian commentators whose works are considered here found in the Heart Sūtra something that elicited exegesis, an exegesis that attempted to find in this most terse of Sūtras vast elaborations of Indian Buddhist thought and practice. They took it as their task, in a sense, to write the Heart Sūtra over this great corpus of doctrine.

In 1988 I published a book entitled The Heart Sūtra Explained: Indian and Tibetan Commentaries. This book was an extended multilevel explanation of the sūtra that proceeded through the text word by word, quoting at length from the seven extant Indian commentaries, those quotations in turn explained by me. At times I simply defined technical terms, identified allusions, and provided lists; at other times I reported explanations from the dGe lugs pa tradition of Tibetan exegesis. In the years since the publication of the book, I have had occasion to regret the choice of the title, The Heart Sūtra Explained, often at the time of a public lecture, because the person introducing me would inevitably, after announcing the title of my recent book, say wistfully to the audience, "as if the Heart Sūtra could ever be explained." Apart from these moments, however, I have felt that the title was appropriate because the book is very much an explanation, in the sense of a leveling, of the seven Indian commentaries that are its primary focus. Because I decided to follow the words of the sūtra, I was constrained to employ only those parts of the Indian commentaries that spoke directly to the meaning of these words. I therefore omitted from consideration those large portions of the commentaries in which the authors would depart from the text to a tangential concern, despite the fact that these frequent excurses were often more revealing than the more prosaic progression through the sūtra. Furthermore, because seven comments on every word seemed excessive, I often tried to choose one or two passages on a term or phrase that seemed the most interesting or representative. The result was not really a representation of the seven commentaries (less than a third of which ended up being translated in the book) but rather was my own commentary, which homogenized the Indian commentaries into a digest, where discrepancies and idiosyncracies were flattened by generally being ignored, resulting in a commentary that was much more my own than that of any of the seven paṇḍitas.

Since completing that book, I have found an eighth Indian commentary to the sūtra, one that has not been placed along with the seven others in the various Tibetan canons, a work attributed to the tantric master Śrīsiṃha (discussed below). These eight works seemed to deserve full translation for a variety of reasons, including that of the value of allowing readers to appreciate the contours in such a range of commentaries, noting how some points are stressed by one author, ignored by another. One of the purposes of the present volume is to offer full translations of these eight works. Another purpose, evident throughout but discussed explicitly in the final chapter, is to explore the role of commentary, both of the traditional Buddhist exegete and of the modern Western scholar.

Perhaps no other Buddhist text, in either speech or writing, has been more popular than the Heart Sūtra. The Lotus and the Sukhāvatīvyūha have been more influential in East Asia in the inspiration of doctrine and art. But the presence of the Heart Sūtra has been more pervasive. It is recited daily in Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean temples and monasteries, and we have evidence of its recitation in India (see below). Its form is emptiness, emptiness is form is among the most famous lines in Buddhist literature.² In the Tibetan cultural region, it forms the center of a widely practiced exorcism ritual (discussed in chapter 9). In Japan, as we have seen, it was once written on bodies, and today can be found in many temple shops inscribed on fans, coffee mugs, and neckties. It has elicited more commentaries than any other sūtra. In China, there is no other single text—nor any single group of scriptures—that has been interpreted by such a long and virtually unbroken list of illustrious authorities.³ A similar claim could be made about Japan. Among the Indian works preserved in the various Tibetan canons, we find not only that the Heart Sūtra figures in two tantric sādhanas (discussed in chapter 5), but that it has been the subject of more commentaries (eight) than any other sūtra.⁴ No Buddhist text has been so widely deployed for such a diverse range of uses. This volume considers some of the remarkable uses to which the Heart Sūtra has been put, within a much more circumscribed time and place, the time of the Pāla Dynasty (the eighth through the twelfth centuries of the Common Era) and the place of India, moving in the ninth chapter to Tibet.

The work of the Western scholar of Buddhism almost always begins with translation, the attempt to render the chosen text(s) as accurately as possible. That was also the case with this project. Especially in works such as these commentaries, one of the tasks of the translator is to identify the many allusions that the authors employ, allusions to often unidentified Sūtras, and, more often, to a particular scholastic category or organizing list. These identifications are usually relegated to endnotes, where they are often supplemented by the translator’s comments on how another author of another text understood a passage differently or used another scholastic category to make his point. When, as in the case of this volume, we are dealing with eight commentaries to a single sūtra, the points of contact and contrast are greatly multiplied, and, when the translator is moved, rightly or wrongly, to relate these various points to larger issues, the endnotes swell to overwhelm the translation. The translator is then confronted with the question of priority, that is, which should come first? The translation began as the body of the text, the notes as its appendage. Now the appendage has grown larger than the body; the parasite has overwhelmed the host. If it is necessary to remedy this imbalance, the endnotes must be brought to the foreground and recast from disconnected references into a narrative—in effect, into yet another commentary. The translations are now pushed into the background, into an appendix at the back of the book, their purpose now to provide instantiations and testimonies to points made in the narrative, now divided into chapters and raised to the status of essays.

I have followed a different strategy here, alternating essays and translations. The translations are meant to provide a point of entry into a number of problems of broader theoretical interest, considered in the essays. At the same time, the translations serve as vehicles for bringing the reader back after each essay into the problematics and styles of the Pāla Dynasty commentators, before moving ahead to confront another of the larger issues in the next essay.

The translation of the commentaries was often a difficult task, because these are Indian commentaries originally composed (with the possible exception of that by Śrīsiṃha) in Sanskrit, and then translated into Tibetan, sometimes with the collaboration of the author, sometimes not. The original Sanskrit commentaries have been lost. What I am providing, then, is a translation of a translation. This is a particular problem with these texts, because they belong to a genre of Indian scholastic literature that makes extensive use of various forms of wordplay, drawing elaborate meanings from a very laconic text through paronomasia, exploiting the homonymy of Sanskrit roots, as discussed in the final chapter. Puns do not translate easily. Furthermore, some of the commentaries assume a fairly sophisticated knowledge of Buddhist doctrine; the commentaries are generally scholastic works written for other scholastics. I have not attempted to explain every technical term and phrase. I also do not pretend that the commentaries somehow stand alone outside of a rich and variegated scholastic setting (about which we know something) and a political and social setting (about which we know very little). To draw out the thread of a single term in the sūtra draws out not only every other term in the sūtra but also the weave of the vast intertextual web that is late Indian Buddhist scholasticism. My own lassitude prevents me from undertaking so daunting a task, although I provide some guidance to the perplexed in notes and bracketed glosses. Otherwise, I have tried simply to provide accurate translations, in full cognizance that the storied precision of the Tibetan rendering of Sanskrit works is best regarded as a story. The translations of the eight Indian commentaries have been interspersed with and embedded among my own essays, essays inspired by the commentaries.

The first of those essays forms the first chapter, and is motivated by the Indian commentators’ concern with the identity of the compiler or rapporteur (saṃgītikartṛ) of the sūtra: when the sūtra begins, Thus did I hear (evaṃ mayā śrutam), who is speaking, who is the I? Most of the commentators seem compelled to answer this question, suggesting that the issue of the legitimacy of the Mahāyāna sūtras as the authentic word of the Buddha (buddhavacana) remained a contested one, even a millennium after the rise of the Mahāyāna and until the end of Buddhism in India. To address the question of who heard the Heart Sūtra is to seek to rebut the apparently persistent charges that the Mahāyāna sūtras are spurious, and each answer implies a different point. To say that the saṃgītikartṛ is one of the great bodhisattvas, such as Mañjuśrī or Vajrapāṇi, is to imply that the Mahāyāna sūtras are exclusive teachings not intended for the Hīnayāna disciples of the Budddha, the srāvakas, and thus purposefully delivered in their absence. From this perspective, the Buddha’s attendant, the śrāvaka Ānanda, is not and cannot be the saṃgītikartṛ because he was not permitted to be present to hear the Heart Sūtra. To say, as other Mahāyāna commentators do, that the saṃgītikartṛ was Ānanda is to attempt incorporation, that just as the earlier and commonly accepted discourses, the Nikāyas, were heard and reported by Śākyamuni’s attendant, so also were the Mahāyāna sūtras. An important variant of this position is to say that the saṃgītikartṛ was Ānanda, but that he was magically empowered by the Buddha to perform the task and that, even then, he merely heard but did not understand what he would later report. Such a position attempts to have it both ways: preserving the Mahāyāna as the highest teaching, beyond the capacity of srāvakas, but still to be counted among the discourses heard in the physical presence of Śākyamuni. Finally, to leave the saṃgītikartṛ unnamed is to allow sūtras to be heard by anyone with the qualifications of faith, an important concession in a movement with an ever-growing canon of sacred texts. These questions of authority are related intimately to questions of hearing. Why did works that were composed in writing seek to maintain the pretense of speech, as records of something heard? The opening chapter moves to address this question by examining recent theories of the role of orality in the formation of Indian religious texts, both Vedic and Buddhist.

The first chapter is followed by two commentaries, those of Vimalamitra and Atiśa. These two commentaries, the second composed more than two centuries after the first, are placed first for several reasons. First, Vimalamitra and Atiśa are the two commentators among the eight who address the question of the saṃgītikartṛ and his qualifications most fully; it is an analysis of their positions that comprises the opening section of the first chapter. Second, Atiśa’s commentary (the second shortest of the eight) is clearly a subcommentary on Vimalamitra, elaborating on only a few selected points while deferring to Vimalamitra’s extensive commentary on the greater part of the sūtra.

Vimalamitra’s commentary is the longest and most thorough of the eight. Its author is a somewhat shadowy figure about whom very little can be said with certainty. He is revered in Tibet as one of the chief Indian figures in the transmission of the rDzogs chen (great completeness) teachings of the rNying ma sect, especially of the heart drop (snying thig) tradition. He is said to have been invited (when he was already two hundred years old) to come to Tibet by King Khri srong lde btsan, arriving either before or after the king’s death in 797.⁵ Vimalamitra remained in Tibet for thirteen years, before leaving for China.⁶ While in Tibet, he collaborated in the translation of a number of texts from Sanskrit into Tibetan, including the Heart Sūtra. The works attributed to him preserved in the Tibetan canons are all tantric in subject matter, with two exceptions: a commentary on the Perfection of Wisdom in 700 Stanzas (Saptaśatikāprajñāpāramitā) and a commentary on the Heart Sūtra. Both are quite straightforward exegetical works, causing the Tibetan historian ‘Gos lo tsa ba to report in his Blue Annals that they were not the product of the tantric master revered in rNying ma, that there had been, in fact, two Vimalamitras.⁷ Regardless, his commentary, apparently composed in Tibet, is clearly the work of a scholastic virtuoso, an expansive yet rather close word-by-word exegesis, ranging widely over the great expanse of Indian philosophical discourse, both Buddhist and non-Buddhist, and replete with citations from numerous sūtras, tantras, and sastras (Madhyamaka, Yogācāra, and Prāmāṇika) in support of his points. He moves methodically through the sūtra, but at a level of detail greater than that of the other commentators. He goes to especial lengths, for example, to argue that the litany of negations in the sūtra should not be understood to obviate the practice of the bodhisattva path in all of its elaborate detail.

The commentary of Atiśa is among the briefest. Atiśa is well known for his role in the revival of Buddhism in Tibet in the middle of the eleventh century, known as the latter dissemination (spyi dar). While in Tibet (where he arrived in 1042) he composed his most famous work, the Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment (Bodhipathapradīpa), as well as his commentary on the Heart Sūtra. If we can accept the following story, however, Atiśa’s interest in the sūtra antedated his arrival in Tibet. The Tibetan translator Nag tsho Tshul khrims rgyal ba of Gung thang had been sent on a royal mission to India and the great monastery of Vikramaśīla, expressly to invite Atiśa to Tibet. In his account of his journey, he tells of his first meeting with the monk he would later identify as Atiśa:

I was reciting the Heart Sūtra at one of the gates of the monastery. At the point [in the sūtra] where I said, "Form ha, feeling ha, other paṇḍitas did not say anything. But once the Lord [Atiśa] was walking by. He smiled and stopped, Thank you, venerable one. But that is the vulgar pronunciation. Say, ‘form a, feeling a.’ I [not realizing that he was Atiśa] thought, This kind paṇḍita seems special. He is gentle, humble, clear, and whatever he says is spoken with the wish to be helpful. If I cannot invite the Lord [Atiśa], I must invite him [to come to Tibet]. In the morning, I was saying, "form a, feeling a when the Lord smiled and said, Venerable one, even that comes out sounding harsh. This is the speech of the protector Avalokita, there’s nothing wrong with it. It is fine to say, ‘no form, no feeling.’"⁸

This same Tshul khrims rgyal ba would eventually collaborate with Atiśa in the translation of Atiśa’s commentary on the Heart Sūtra into Tibetan. As mentioned above, Atiśa assumes a knowledge of Vimalamitra’s commentary as he concentrates on only a few points. Almost a third of his work is devoted to the question of the rapporteur and his qualifications, where he contrasts the positions of Dignāga and Vimalamitra. He also glosses the term viewing at length (as in Avalokiteśvara was viewing the five aggregates), explaining this in terms of four levels of increasingly nonconceptual vision derived from the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra. Like a number of other commentators, he is determined to find in the sūtra the standard fivefold path to buddhahood.⁹ Atiśa also offers an interesting reading of the presence of the mantra in the sūtra, explaining that the teaching of the sūtra up to the point where the mantra occurs is intended for bodhisattvas of less acute intelligence, while the syllables of the mantra set forth the entire path for bodhisattvas who have the capacity to understand it.

Following the commentaries of Vimalamitra and Atiśa, there is a second essay, which serves as a prologemenon to a consideration of the question of whether the Heart Sūtra should be regarded as a sūtra or a tantra; it is classed as one, or the other, or both in the various Tibetan canons. In order to address this question, it is of course important to have a working definition of the term tantra. Yet tantra seems to bear a certain resemblance to time, of which Augustine remarked in his Confessions (Book 11.14 [17]), What then is time? Provided that no one asks me, I know. If I want to explain it to an inquirer, I do not know. Chapter 3 considers some of the vicissitudes encountered in delineating the term tantra by both traditional Indian and Tibetan exegetes and by modern scholars from India and the West. Can tantra be defined straightforwardly or should it instead be approached through polythetic classification? Is it a late development or does it form the substratum of Indian religion? Should tantra be understood to be subsequent or prior to sūtra? For whatever reason, tantra seems to suffer more than the usual arbitrariness of the sign.

This essay is followed in chapter 4 by another pair of commentaries. Unlike those of Vimalamitra and Atiśa, these two short commentaries were probably composed within a few decades of one another, but the second is not a subcommentary on the first. Indeed, among the eight commentaries there are no two more different than the commentaries of Kamalaśīla and Śrīsiṃha. Kamalaśīla (c. 740–795) was the famed disciple of Śāntarakṣita and commentator on his teacher’s compendium of Buddhist and non-Buddhist doctrine, the Tattvasaṃgraha (Compendium of Principles). Kamalaśīla was also the author of the compendium of Mahāyāna philosophy and practice, the Madhyamakāloka (Illumination of the Middle Way). Śāntarakṣita had traveled to Tibet, where he joined Padmasambhava in founding the first Buddhist monastery at bSam yas (c. 779) shortly before his death. According to Tibetan histories, when the morality of Tibet was threatened by the teachings of the Chinese Chan master Mo-ho-yen, the king of Tibet (following instructions in Śāntarakṣita’s will) invited Kamalaśīla to come to Tibet to counter the Chinese threat. The precise sequence and content of the resulting confrontation (known as the Council of Tibet, the Council of Lhasa, or the Council of bSam yas) are difficult to determine. According to most Tibetan histories, however, Kamalaśīla and his party were declared by the king to have prevailed and the teachings of the Chan master were proscribed.¹⁰ Kamalaśīla set forth the Mahāyāna path in three works, all entitled Bhāvanākrama (Stages of Meditation); the last of them may represent his argument against Mo-ho-yen. Kamalaśīla was apparently assassinated shortly thereafter.

Kamalaśīla’s commentary on the Heart Sūtra is the shortest of the eight and is concerned exclusively with demonstrating how the myriad categories and subdivisions of the bodhisattva path can be derived from the words of the sūtra. For the Indian Mahāyāna scholastics, the most important śāstra for the exposition of the path was the Abhisamayālaṃkāra (Ornament of Realization) of Maitreyanātha. Traditionally considered as a commentary on the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra (Perfection of Wisdom in 25,000 Stanzas), it is little more than a series of terms drawn from the sūtra, from which commentators sought to construct the components of the bodhisattva’s path, the hidden teaching of the Perfection of Wisdom sūtras. Apart from emphasizing the necessity of an inferential understanding of emptiness before direct realization can be gained, Kamalaśīla’s commentary is largely a matching of terms in the sūtra with categories from the Abhisamayālaṃkāra. Indeed, one might suggest that Kamalaśīla attempts to undo the sūtra by reinsinuating the kinds of categories that the sūtra, with its litany of negations, appears to overthrow.

The commentary that follows Kamalaśīla’s is that of Śrīsiṃha, a tantric master about whom we know very little. According to Tibetan accounts, he was born in China and studied tantra on Mount Wutai before traveling to India. There he unearthed tantric texts that had been sealed inside the Buddha’s seat in Bodhgāyā.¹¹ Śrīsiṃha is remembered in Tibet as the teacher of Vairocana, one of the most important figures in the earlier dissemination of Buddhism to Tibet. Vairocana was one of the first seven Tibetans ordained as Buddhist monks by Śāntarakṣita at the monastery of bSam yas and soon became an illustrious translator. He is said to have been a disciple of Padmasambhava and a participant on the Indian side in the dispute with Mo-ho-yen. After Padmasambhava’s departure from Tibet, the king required a fuller exposition of tantra and sent Vairocana to India to obtain further tantric instructions. After many trials, he arrived in India, where he was instructed by Śrīsiṃha. Fearing that the Indian masters would object to his imparting the precious esoteric teachings to a foreigner, Śrīsiṃha insisted that he study sūtras and less esoteric tantric texts with other teachers during the day, receiving the most secret teachings from him under the cover of darkness. It is for the transmission of these secret teachings that Vairocana is best remembered; he is credited with bringing the Great Completeness (rdzogs chen) teachings from India to Tibet. When he returned to Tibet, Vairocana is said to have instructed King Khri srong lde btsan. Following the example of his teacher, he taught the king ordinary doctrines, such as the law of karma, during the day and the secret teachings of the Great Completeness at night.¹²

Among the esoteric teachings given by Śrīsiṃha to Vairocana, which he in turn gave to the king (the colophon may suggest that it was during the night), is Śrīsiṃha’s tantric commentary on the Heart Sūtra, further testimony to its wide appeal in Pāla India, even among tantric yogins. The commentary moves methodically through the sūtra, employing the device of trilevel explication; it gives the outer, inner, and secret meanings of the words of the sūtra. The commentary, which says at the outset that it is not intended for logicians (tārkika, rtog ge ba), is filled with terms familiar from the Great Completeness, speaking of the great wisdom of self-awareness (rang rig pa’i ye shes), the state of nonexertion (rtsol ba dang bral ba), the self-arisen state (rang chas su gnas pa), and natural liberation (rang bzhin gyis grol).

The question of whether the Heart Sūtra should be considered a sūtra or a tantra, implicitly contested by Kamalaśīla and Vairocana, is further complicated by the presence in the Tibetan canon of two sādhanas (means of achievement) based on the Heart Sūtra. In Indian Buddhist tantric literature, a sādhana is a ritual text that provides detailed instructions for putting into (usually daily) practice the often unsystematic or cryptic teachings of a specific tantra so as to acquire both mundane and supramundane powers (siddhi). Sādhanas generally prescribe a set sequence of procedures to be followed by the meditator, carried out via visualization, such as making offerings to buddhas, bodhisattvas, and various deities, and then inviting them to inhabit a visualized maṇḍala, wherein various identifications are established, often sanctified by the recitation of mantras. In some sādhanas, the meditator will imagine himself or herself as one of the deities inhabiting the maṇḍala (usually as the central figure); in other cases the meditator imagines himself or herself as a spectator.

As far as I have been able to determine, the Heart Sūtra may be the only sūtra (if it be a sūtra) to have a sādhana associated with it. The longer of those two sādhanas is translated in full in chapter 5, with many of the allusions generated by the text noted. Next, there is a general discussion of the various uses to which visualization has been put in Buddhist meditation. I then return to the sādhana, the centerpiece of which is a maṇḍala inhabited by the principal figures of the sūtra. In the center is the embodiment of the perfection of wisdom, the goddess Prajñāpāramitā. She is surrounded by the four speakers of the sūtra: Śākyamuni Buddha, Avalokiteśvara, Śāriputra, and Ānanda (the narrator of the sūtra who says, Thus did I hear). Once the maṇḍala has been set in visualization, a series of displacements occurs, which I read from a variety of perspectives.

The next two commentaries, forming chapter 6, are those of Jñānamitra and Praśāstrasena. The colophon of Jñānamitra’s commentary reveals nothing about the circumstances of its authorship. He is listed in the catalogues of the Peking and Derge editions of the Tibetan canon as the author of only one other work (a commentary on the Prajñāpāramitānayaśatapañcāśatikā). Jñānamitra’s is the most straightforward and prosaic of the commentaries. He remains dutifully close to the words of the sūtra, devoting one or two sentences to each word or phrase, explaining, for example, that the title of the sūtra is given at the beginning of the text so that one might know which sūtra it is. His interest in the sūtra does not seem merely scholastic, however. In glossing the epithet of the mantra, the mantra that thoroughly pacifies all suffering, he writes, "It should be known as the mantra that completely pacifies all suffering: upholding the perfection of wisdom, reading about it, reciting it, keeping it properly in mind, and explaining it to others destroys all diseases, such as diseases of the eye, and brings protection because one is protected by the buddhas of the ten directions, by gods, nāgas, and so forth. This would suggest that the cult of the book" that appears to have been so important in the early stages of what is called the Mahāyāna remained strong in the Pāla Dynasty.

Praśāstrasena’s commentary is also quite straightforward and a good deal more expansive. We have no other works by him and know nothing about his life. The commentary is the work of an erudite scholar, fully conversant with the philosophical categories of the late Indian Yogācāra-Mādhyamika synthesis, and with a certain penchant for tripartite categorizations: the author sets forth the three types of wisdom, the three types of perfection, the three types of views. He moves through the sūtra in a systematic but not mechanical fashion, pausing at length over a number of statements, notably the form is empty, emptiness is form line, where he is able to provide a soteriological reading. He argues that were the sūtra to say simply form is empty it would succeed in dissuading sentient beings from being attached to form. However, they might conclude that form is utterly negated by emptiness, that only emptiness is in any way real, disposing them to the quietism of the Hīnayāna. It would be like telling a blind person walking down a road with thorns on one side and a ravine on the other only that there are thorns on the right but not revealing the presence of the ravine on the left. To counter this danger, the sūtra says that emptiness is form, indicating that emptiness is not to be found apart from form, thereby moving the blind person to the middle way.

The most famous and most widely recited Buddhist mantra is the mantra that occurs at the end of the Heart Sūtra, gate gate pāragate pārasaṃgate bodhi svāhā. Both Jñānamitra and Praśāstrasena gloss the epithets of the mantra but neither explains the mantra itself; Praśāstrasena provides it without commentary, Jñānamitra does not even reproduce it. Their treatment of the mantra suggests a certain dis-ease among the commentators as to how precisely to deal with the mantra. The problematics of the mantra are considered at length in chapter 7. The mantra seems to mean "Gone, gone, gone beyond, gone completely beyond, enlightenment, svāhā." But mantras are very rarely translated. On the most practical level, a mantra is often untranslated simply because, measured against the model of classical Sanskrit as the perfected language, the mantra has suffered sufficient deformation as to render it grammatically illegible. Further, as an element of ritual discourse, a mantra is as much an event as a denotative statement and as such resists translation or transference from its structural moment. And from the Indian perspective, a mantra can only be in Sanskrit and must remain so in order to retain its potency as speech (vac), with its traditional originary primacy over the derivations of script. Indeed, not only should a mantra not be translated from Sanskrit into another language; it should also not be transferred from its natural medium to some other, from sound to writing.

Yet the mantra of the Heart Sūtra seems to confound these issues of writing and translation in that it is a mantra that is written, but written as the representation of sound. Buddhism, which spread far beyond the confines of the Indian subcontinent, was faced with the task of translating its scriptures. Yet the Tibetan, Chinese, and Japanese translators of the Heart Sūtra, did not translate the mantra but transliterated it, in an effort to duplicate and thereby preserve the sound of the speaker’s (in this case not the Buddha’s, but Avalokiteśvara’s) voice. They translated the rest of the sūtra but left the mantra, in sound if not form, in Sanskrit. We must recognize, then, that the experience of reciting the Heart Sūtra would be very different for a Tibetan monk than it would be for an Indian monk. The Indian monk, reciting the sūtra in Sanskrit, would intone a Sanskrit mantra. The Tibetan monk, reciting along in Tibetan, would come to a phrase marked by its incomprehensibility, reading a transliteration to produce sounds that were clearly not Tibetan. This, apparently, was the intention of the Indian paṇḍitas who collaborated in the translation of the Heart Sūtra and its commentaries into Tibetan, all of whom render the mantra in transliteration.

The mantra is not translated but rather transferred, representing neither the meaning of the words (the semantic content) nor their Sanskrit orthography, but their sound. The transliteration of the mantra marks the transportation of the original to another time and another place, offering an image of the timeless, bringing the past into the present, valuing that presence for its form rather than its content, allowing the original to persist through repetition. The translators of the Heart Sūtra thus opt for transference rather than translation, leaving the mantra untouched by translation and the apparent limitation that that would entail, leaving the mantra unreconciled with the tongue of the reader but protected as event, an event that communicates nothing.

The final two Indian commentaries, found in chapter 8, are those of Mahājana (or Śrimahājana) and Vajrapāṇi, whose approaches to the sūtra are as dissimilar to each other as those of Kamalaśīla and Śrīsiṃha. Mahājana’s commentary is the only work ascribed to him in the Tibetan canons; he is listed as the translator of nine works, suggesting that he visited Tibet, probably in the late eleventh or early twelfth century.¹³ His commentary reflects an author of a decidely Yogācāra persuasion, beginning from its paean to Asaṅga at the beginning to its reading of the form is empty line in terms of the doctrine of the three natures (trisvabhāva). Like Kamalaśīla, Mahājana takes great pains to extract the elaborate structure of the bodhisattva path (as derived from the Abhisamayālaṃkāra and its commentaries) from the taciturn Sūtra, but unlike Kamalaśīla, he provides much greater detail. For example, he finds the sixteen moments of forbearance (ksānti) and knowledge (jñāna) of the path of vision in the words of the sūtra (empty, without characteristic, unproduced, unceased, stainless, not stainless, undiminished, unfilled) and he finds the progression through the five paths in the five words of the mantra (minus svāhā).

In sharp contrast to what some might consider the obsessive scholasticism of Mahājana is the commentary of Vajrapāṇi (born 1019), a tantric master of mahāmudrā and disciple of Maitrīpa who was instrumental in the transmission of the lineage of tantric songs (dohā) of Saraha to Tibet.¹⁴ The Blue Annals reports in some detail seven of his miracles, such as producing fruit from the dung of a red cow.¹⁵ Among the seven works ascribed to his authorship in the Tibetan canons (he was involved in the translation of some twenty-nine works), only his commentary on the Heart Sūtra is devoted to a text that is not explicitly tantric, perhaps suggesting that for Vajrapāṇi the Heart Sūtra was also a tantric text. The commentary seems to have been delivered orally and extemporaneously under circumstances that might be described as serendipitous. According to the colophon:

In the past, some Tibetan virtuous friends asked for teachings from the excellent venerable guru Vajrapāṇi at Lalitapattana in Nepal. One day before the time for the excellent guru to teach the doctrine had arrived, the Tibetan virtuous friends recited a sūtra. The excellent guru asked the translator, What was that they recited? The translator said, "The Heart of the Perfection of Wisdom. [Vajrapāṇi said], Oh, if the