Chapter 4: The History of Sūtra Translation and Xuanzang¶

The preceding three chapters centered on particular figures: An Shigao and Lokakṣema, representing the early transmissions; Dao’an, who first organized them; and Kumārajīva and Sengzhao, who ended the matched-concept era and laid the foundation of the Three Treatise school. This chapter broadens the view to outline the entire history of Chinese Buddhist translation, then focuses on the last of the great translators: Xuanzang (602–664).

I. The Overall Course of Chinese Buddhist Translation¶

From the arrival of An Shigao and Lokakṣema in Luoyang in the second century until Yijing’s return to Chang’an at the end of the seventh, the translation of Buddhist texts into Chinese extended across roughly 560 years. The period can be divided approximately into three phases.

First phase: exploration, approximately 148–401

From An Shigao’s arrival in 148 until Kumārajīva’s, Chinese Buddhist translation remained exploratory. Translators varied widely in ability, used different source manuscripts, possessed varying levels of Sanskrit or Central Asian language proficiency, and followed no uniform method. The phase was characterized by accumulation in quantity, uneven quality, and the prevalence of matched-concept misreadings. Dharmarakṣa (239–316) was an important translator during this period. Before Kumārajīva, he produced the first Chinese translation of the Lotus Sūtra as well as numerous Prajñāpāramitā and Pure Land texts.

Second phase: the age of Kumārajīva, 401–413

This was a qualitative leap. Kumārajīva’s command of both Sanskrit and Chinese gave China its first genuinely bilingual great translator. Accurate translations of Madhyamaka treatises, the establishment of the Three Treatise school’s textual foundation, and the beginning of genuinely Madhyamaka modes of thought among Sengzhao and others all occurred within these twelve years. Their influence exceeded that of the decades immediately before and after them.

Third phase: the age of Xuanzang and Yijing, 645–713

This phase brought precision and systematization. Xuanzang and Yijing translated directly from Sanskrit sources without passing through Central Asian languages, and their methodology was more systematic. The systematic translation of Consciousness-Only treatises was its most important content. No later period produced large-scale original translation activity comparable to these three phases. Chinese Buddhism entered an age centered on indigenous creation.

I.2. Comparative Table of the Principal Translators¶

The most influential translators in the history of Chinese Buddhist translation are listed chronologically below:

Several clarifications are necessary. Most scholars regard Paramārtha’s attributed translation of the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna as a Chinese apocryphon; see Chapter 10.7. Yijing’s later translation activity extended to 713. “Active in translation” indicates the period of translation work in China, not lifespan.

II. Dharmarakṣa: An Important Translator of the First Phase¶

Dharmarakṣa (239–316), descended from the Yuezhi and learned in several Central Asian languages, occupied a pivotal position in Chinese Buddhist translation before Kumārajīva.

His most important contribution was his translation in 286 of the Lotus Sūtra of the True Dharma, the first Chinese version of the Lotus Sūtra. It gave Chinese readers their first encounter with the “one vehicle” and skillful means. He also translated numerous Prajñāpāramitā texts, including the Radiant Praise Sūtra, an early version of the larger Prajñāpāramitā.

Dharmarakṣa’s importance lies in the sheer body of texts he brought into China. Before Kumārajīva’s arrival, Chinese readers had already encountered the basic content of the Lotus, Pure Land, Huayan, and other Mahāyāna corpora. This provided a quantitative foundation, though it did not yet constitute a qualitative leap.¹

III. Paramārtha: A Consciousness-Only Forerunner in the Northern and Southern Dynasties¶

Between Kumārajīva and Xuanzang, Paramārtha (499–569) was one of the most important figures in the history of Chinese Buddhist translation. Chapter 6.1 introduced him from the perspective of Consciousness-Only philosophy; here we supplement that account from the history of translation.

Life

Paramārtha came from western India and arrived in China in 546 at the invitation of Emperor Wu of Liang. He spent more than two unsettled decades in the Southern Dynasties, amid such political disturbances as the Hou Jing Rebellion at the end of the Liang, moving among Guangzhou, Hengzhou, and other places. His life almost perfectly followed the period’s political turbulence, and his translation work was interrupted repeatedly.¹

Principal translations and interpretive features

Paramārtha’s most important translations were a corpus of Consciousness-Only texts, including Asaṅga’s Mahāyānasaṃgraha, Vasubandhu’s Twenty Verses on Consciousness-Only, and portions of the Abhidharmakośa, for a total of approximately sixty-four works.

His interpretation of Consciousness-Only carried an evident tathāgatagarbha coloring. He tended to identify the purified dimension of storehouse consciousness—immaculate consciousness—with tathāgatagarbha, and creatively introduced a “ninth consciousness,” amala-vijñāna, the immaculate consciousness. Xuanzang later considered this interpretation “unfaithful to the sources.” He returned with the more rigorous Consciousness-Only position of Dharmapāla’s lineage and explicitly rejected Paramārtha’s synthesis of tathāgatagarbha and Consciousness-Only, precipitating one of China’s most important doctrinal disputes.

IV. Xuanzang: From Chang’an to Nālandā¶

Early life and ordination

Xuanzang (602–664), whose lay surname was Chen, came from Goushi in Henan and was born into a Confucian family. As a child he displayed extraordinary memory and learning. After becoming a monk, he traveled widely in search of instruction and became deeply dissatisfied with the uneven quality of teaching in different regions. Increasingly, he recognized that these differences arose from the disparate origins and poor quality of Chinese Buddhist translations. The authentic Dharma had to be sought in its Indian sources.⁸

An unauthorized journey west

In 629—some sources say 628—not long after the Tang dynasty’s establishment, border controls were strict and unauthorized departure was forbidden. Xuanzang left Chang’an alone for the West despite the court’s refusal to approve his application. His journey lasted roughly sixteen years. He crossed the Pamirs and Central Asia, reached northern India, and traveled throughout the region. He ultimately studied Consciousness-Only systematically at Nālandā, approximately 631–643, under its abbot Śīlabhadra (529–645), becoming a direct disciple within Dharmapāla’s lineage.

Chapter 8.5 described Xuanzang’s visit from Nālandā’s perspective. He traveled to India with clear objectives: correcting Chinese misunderstandings, obtaining reliable Sanskrit manuscripts, and directly inheriting what was then India’s most authoritative philosophical tradition, the Consciousness-Only lineage of Dharmapāla and Śīlabhadra. When he returned to China, he carried 657 Sanskrit texts and more than a decade of firsthand immersion in Indian philosophy.

Return and translation career

Xuanzang returned to Chang’an in 645 and received a magnificent welcome from Emperor Taizong. At the emperor’s request, Xuanzang dictated the Great Tang Records on the Western Regions to his disciple Bianji. The travelogue later became an invaluable historical source for the geography and history of seventh-century Central Asia and India. Before archaeological excavation in India, many vanished Buddhist sacred sites could be relocated only through Xuanzang’s records. The work also supplied the historical basis for the later Journey to the West, though its literary “Tang monk” differs immensely from the historical Xuanzang.

Taizong provided Da Ci’en Monastery in Chang’an as Xuanzang’s translation base and built the Great Wild Goose Pagoda to store the Sanskrit manuscripts he had brought back. Xuanzang devoted virtually the whole remainder of his life, from 645 to 664, to translation.

The political dimension: intelligence on the Western Regions and repeated refusals

Taizong’s esteem for Xuanzang had an often overlooked political background. In addition to scriptures, Xuanzang brought back detailed firsthand intelligence on the kingdoms of the Western Regions. The Great Tang Records was composed under the emperor’s explicit commission, with Bianji recording Xuanzang’s dictation. It describes 138 countries and regions through which he passed, including their geography, products, military strength, political structure, and popular loyalties. Any military strategist would have prized such an intelligence document. The early Tang was conducting a series of campaigns against the Eastern Turks and the kingdoms of the Western Regions, and knowledge of terrain, garrisons, and political conditions there was directly valuable to the court’s decisions.⁴

This background explains why, beyond showing religious respect, Taizong repeatedly made political demands of Xuanzang. According to the Biography of the Tripiṭaka Master of the Great Ci’en Monastery of the Great Tang, the emperor invited Xuanzang to accompany a military expedition to Liaodong. Xuanzang declined tactfully, saying that warfare was “not the work to which he was accustomed, and he feared he would be of no benefit to the army.” Taizong also repeatedly urged him to leave the monastic order and take office, but Xuanzang refused each time, declaring his wish to “serve the Dharma to the end and steadfastly preserve the precepts.” Emperor Gaozong made similar overtures after taking the throne and was likewise declined. Xuanzang’s resolve was genuine. His sense of urgency about translation prevented him from diverting attention toward political affairs. This dimension shows that religion was only one part of Xuanzang’s importance in Taizong’s eyes.

A historical assessment of his Indian exploits: demythologizing the accounts

Several stories of Xuanzang’s experiences in India, as recounted in later biography, require caution. The principal source is the Biography of the Tripiṭaka Master of the Great Ci’en Monastery of the Great Tang, completed by his disciples Huili and Yancong around 688, roughly twenty-five years after his death. It is clearly a monastic biography intended to authorize a religious figure, not a neutral historical record.

The debates at Nālandā and the Treatise on the Harmony of the Schools. The biography says that while at Nālandā, Xuanzang wrote the Treatise on the Harmony of the Schools, reconciling Madhyamaka and Consciousness-Only, and the Treatise Refuting Wrong Views, responding to a Brahmin author of a Treatise Refuting the Mahāyāna. Neither work survives, so their content cannot be verified. The biography’s description of the debates—his opponents unable to answer and the assembly wholly persuaded—follows a standard hagiographic narrative and cannot itself serve as historical evidence.

The Great Unrestricted Assembly and the title “Deity of the Mahāyāna.” The biography says that King Harṣa convened a “Great Unrestricted Assembly” for Xuanzang at Kanyākubja, lasting eighteen days and attended by thousands of monks and non-Buddhists. No one could challenge the thesis Xuanzang set forth. Mahāyāna followers consequently called him “Deity of the Mahāyāna” (Mahāyāna-deva), while Theravāda followers called him “Deity of Liberation” (Mokṣa-deva).

This book treats the account as a biographical narrative that helped construct Xuanzang’s authority, rather than as an event already corroborated by independent evidence. There are several reasons. First, among the extant contemporary non-Chinese materials examined for this book, I have found no record that independently confirms the assembly and the two titles. Second, “eighteen days without anyone able to debate him” has the structure of a victory story familiar from monastic biography. Third, the narrative in practice furnished the highest Indian authorization for Xuanzang’s translations after his return: the Dharmapāla Consciousness-Only system he represented was presented as having been brought directly by “the victor of Indian debate,” a claim highly useful in his doctrinal dispute with Paramārtha’s lineage. This is a judgment about the evidence and the narrative’s function, not a denial that some historical gathering may underlie the account.⁵

This does not deny that Xuanzang was highly respected at Nālandā or that he possessed great scholarly ability. His more than ten years of intensive study in India, the texts he brought home, and his systematic mastery of Consciousness-Only philosophy are historical facts. What must be suspended are the “victory narratives” constructed for particular political and doctrinal purposes.

Xuanzang’s death

Xuanzang died at Yuhua Palace, near present-day Tongchuan in Shaanxi, in March 664—traditionally at midnight on the fifth day of the second lunar month in the first year of the Linde era. According to the Biography of the Tripiṭaka Master, he had just completed the six hundred fascicles of the Great Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra. When someone suggested continuing with the Mahāratnakūṭa Sūtra, he translated several lines by his own hand, set down his brush, and said, “My strength is no longer sufficient to sustain this,” ending his work. Near death, a disciple reportedly asked whether he was certain of rebirth in Maitreya’s inner court in Tuṣita Heaven. He answered: “I will certainly be reborn there.” Upon receiving the news, Gaozong is said to have wept bitterly and declared, “We have lost a national treasure.” He permitted public mourning within Chang’an, and the biography claims that more than a million spectators assembled for the funeral procession. These numbers and circumstances likewise come from religious biography and should not be accepted literally, though multiple sources corroborate Gaozong’s profound regard for Xuanzang’s death.⁶

V. Xuanzang’s Translation Theory: Five Categories Not to Translate¶

Xuanzang’s methodological contribution is concentrated in the principle known as the “five categories not to translate”—a systematic rule specifying which terms must be transliterated rather than translated for meaning. It was the second major reflection in Chinese translation theory after Dao’an’s “five losses from the source and three difficulties.”⁸

The five categories are:

The principle systematically answered a question left unresolved since Dao’an: when to transliterate and when to translate semantically. It went beyond case-by-case decisions to furnish category-based rules.

Xuanzang’s general orientation

In contrast to Kumārajīva’s “beautiful free translation,” Xuanzang favored precise literal translation. He preferred Chinese that read somewhat stiffly to the sacrifice of philosophical precision for literary effect. Critics said his versions seemed to transfer Sanskrit word by word and lacked literary fluency. Supporters regarded precisely this as their merit: accuracy matters more than fluency in a philosophical text.

The dispute resembles the contrast in the history of biblical translation between “formal equivalence,” or literal translation, and “dynamic equivalence,” or translation of meaning. Each has reasons and costs.

VI. Xuanzang’s Principal Translations¶

Xuanzang translated seventy-five Buddhist works, approximately 1,335 fascicles, across scriptures, Vinaya, and treatises. The most important included the following.

Consciousness-Only treatises, the central body of work

Prajñāpāramitā literature

The six-hundred-fascicle Great Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra was the largest of Xuanzang’s translations, collecting different versions of Prajñāpāramitā scripture into a single work. It occupied his final years and was completed shortly before his death.

The Heart Sūtra. According to the conventional attribution, the most familiar version—beginning, “When the Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara was practicing the profound perfection of wisdom, he clearly saw that the five aggregates were all empty…”—was translated by Xuanzang. The scripture contains only 260 Chinese characters and is among the texts most frequently recited in Chinese Buddhist life.

Svātantrika Madhyamaka

The ** Jewel in the Hand Treatise , Bhāviveka’s Karatalaratna, gave China direct textual access to Bhāviveka’s Svātantrika Madhyamaka lineage.

VII. Xuanzang’s Philosophical Position¶

Xuanzang was not merely a translator, but a thinker with a definite philosophical position. His choices in India—whom to study under, what to study, and which texts to bring back—expressed that position. The Faxiang school he established was a Chinese transplantation of Dharmapāla’s Consciousness-Only, not a neutral “synthesis of Indian Buddhism.”

Transmission of Dharmapāla’s line of Consciousness-Only

Xuanzang’s principal teacher at Nālandā was Śīlabhadra (529–645), a disciple in the second generation after Dharmapāla (530–561). Within Consciousness-Only, Dharmapāla represented one interpretive line, distinct from another represented by Sthiramati. Their central disagreement concerned the ontological status of the “perceiving aspect” and “perceived aspect.” Sthiramati regarded both as delusive, while Dharmapāla attributed a measure of epistemic reality to the perceiving aspect. Xuanzang returned with Dharmapāla’s position and systematically corrected existing Chinese translations accordingly, especially those of Paramārtha.

The Cheng Weishi Lun: a philosophical choice, not merely a translation

Xuanzang’s central philosophical contribution was the compilation of the Cheng Weishi Lun, the Treatise Establishing Consciousness-Only. No Sanskrit original of this work exists. Xuanzang combined ten commentaries—by Dharmapāla, Sthiramati, Guṇamati, and others—on Vasubandhu’s Thirty Verses on Consciousness-Only into a single Chinese treatise, taking Dharmapāla’s interpretation as its main line.⁷

The procedure was an act of philosophical editing. Xuanzang used his own judgment to decide which commentary was closest to the truth and made Dharmapāla govern the other nine, rather than preserving them side by side for readers to judge. Thus, the Cheng Weishi Lun upon which the Chinese Faxiang school rests presents Xuanzang’s philosophical position; it cannot be treated as a neutral presentation of Vasubandhu’s Thirty Verses.

Systematic rejection of Paramārtha

Paramārtha had introduced into China an interpretation synthesizing Consciousness-Only and tathāgatagarbha. Specifically, he identified the purified dimension of storehouse consciousness with tathāgatagarbha and created a “ninth consciousness,” the immaculate consciousness (amala-vijñāna), to carry that pure dimension. Xuanzang brought back Dharmapāla’s explicit opposition to the synthesis. Within Dharmapāla’s framework, storehouse consciousness contains both defiled and purified elements and can be transformed, but is not identical with tathāgatagarbha. The “ninth consciousness” has no textual basis in mainstream Indian Consciousness-Only.

This went beyond a dispute over translation and touched a fundamental disagreement about what Consciousness-Only actually says. Paramārtha tended to direct its final destination toward an originally pure “suchness as it has always been,” close to tathāgatagarbha. Xuanzang insisted that Consciousness-Only is an analysis of cognitive activity and presupposes no ultimate entity that is “originally pure.” The latter stands closer to the sources of Dharmapāla’s lineage.

Xuanzang in the dispute between Madhyamaka and Consciousness-Only

Xuanzang’s practical philosophical orientation took Dharmapāla’s Consciousness-Only as orthodox and Madhyamaka as a supplementary methodology. His lost Treatise on the Harmony of the Schools, reportedly written at Nālandā, was said to reconcile the two. His direction of translation after returning and the writings of his disciple Kuiji, however, show that any reconciliation possessed a hierarchy. Chapter 10.7, “Why Xuanzang Chose Consciousness-Only,” gives a dedicated philosophical analysis of why he chose Consciousness-Only rather than Madhyamaka, and Dharmapāla’s rather than Sthiramati’s lineage; it need not be repeated here.

The “five natures”: philosophical consequences

The theory of five natures (pañcagotrā) defended by Xuanzang and the Faxiang school is the claim in Dharmapāla’s Consciousness-Only with the most far-reaching philosophical consequences. Sentient beings of the icchantika type lack the “undefiled seeds” (anāsrava-bīja), the pure potential for Buddhahood, and in theory can therefore never become buddhas. This directly conflicted with the Chinese Buddhist acceptance of “all sentient beings possess buddha-nature,” derived from the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra and tathāgatagarbha tradition.

Philosophically, the conflict between the “five natures” and universal buddha-nature is a conflict between two accounts of “human essence.” One holds that people differ structurally in spiritual potential, something like a theory of spiritual aptitude. The other holds that at the deepest level, all sentient beings share the same possibility of becoming buddhas. Xuanzang defended the former. The Faxiang school’s difficulty in taking root in China thus had deep philosophical causes and was not merely a question of cultural preference.

Overall assessment

Xuanzang had one of the clearest and most uncompromising philosophical positions among all translators in Chinese Buddhist history. His contribution lay in precision rather than synthesis: he transplanted a particular Indian position, Dharmapāla’s Consciousness-Only, into China at the highest level of textual quality. The cost of that precision was a fundamental conflict with the tathāgatagarbha tradition already present in China through Paramārtha and the Awakening of Faith. The rise and decline of the Faxiang school resulted from this conflict.

VIII. The Faxiang School: Xuanzang’s Philosophical Legacy and Its Fate¶

Establishment of the Faxiang school

Xuanzang’s transmission of Dharmapāla’s Consciousness-Only was systematically organized by his disciple Kuiji (632–682), forming the Faxiang school, also called the Consciousness-Only school. Chapter 6.1 examined the school’s philosophy and fate in detail; here a brief summary is offered from the perspective of Chinese Buddhist history.

Conflict with “all sentient beings possess buddha-nature”

The Faxiang school defended the five-natures theory: icchantikas can never attain Buddhahood, and people of different capacities can reach different highest states. This directly conflicted with the already deeply rooted declaration “all sentient beings possess buddha-nature,” found in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra and long championed by Daosheng.

In China’s cultural soil, the universal declaration of buddha-nature resonated more deeply than Faxiang’s claim that “capacities differ and attainments are limited.” It better fit the egalitarian spirit that “everyone can become a Yao or Shun,” and the Mahāyāna aspiration to save all beings.

Decline of the Faxiang school

After Xuanzang and Kuiji, the Faxiang school suffered from a thin succession of major scholars. Together with its doctrinal difficulty in taking root, this meant that it had largely declined by the end of the Tang. After the Huichang Persecution of 845, Faxiang almost never reappeared as an independent school. A serious Faxiang scholarly lineage remained quite active later in Japan, however, where the Nara Hossō school still possesses specialist transmission.

Reassessing Xuanzang’s historical significance

A popular claim holds that Xuanzang’s overall influence on Chinese Buddhism was actually smaller than Kumārajīva’s. Kumārajīva’s translations are still recited, whereas Xuanzang’s—with the exception of the Heart Sūtra—became objects of scholarly study rather than bases of ordinary practice. The claim has some merit, but is incomplete.

Xuanzang’s most important contributions to Chinese Buddhism go beyond establishing a school. First, he introduced a large body of Indian Buddhist source texts into China with precision, giving later Chinese Buddhist scholars a more reliable textual foundation. Second, his Great Tang Records on the Western Regions is an irreplaceable source for the geography and culture of seventh-century Central Asia and India. Before archaeological excavation in India, Xuanzang’s records enabled the relocation of many vanished Buddhist sacred sites.

IX. Yijing: Another Route in Search of the Dharma¶

Yijing (635–713), from Yangzhou in present-day Jiangsu, was the most important Tang monk after Xuanzang to travel in search of the Dharma and translate scriptures. He chose a different route: traveling south by sea. He departed Guangzhou in 671, learned Sanskrit in Śrīvijaya in present-day Sumatra, reached Nālandā around 681, studied at Nālandā and other Indian monasteries for roughly ten years, and returned to China in 695.

Yijing’s translational focus

Yijing’s translations differed markedly in emphasis from Xuanzang’s. Xuanzang concentrated on Consciousness-Only treatises and large synthetic scriptures; Yijing focused on Vinaya literature. His most important contribution was the translation of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, the disciplinary collection practiced in India’s last great monasteries, including Nālandā, for which no complete Chinese translation had previously existed.

Two important works

Yijing also wrote two exceptionally valuable works. A Record of Buddhist Practices Sent Home from the Southern Sea records the actual forms of monastic life he observed in maritime Southeast Asia and India and is an important historical source for Buddhism in those regions at the end of the seventh century. Biographies of Eminent Monks Who Sought the Dharma in the Western Regions during the Great Tang records the stories of approximately fifty-six Tang monks who traveled to India in search of the Dharma. Many died on the road and few returned successfully. Yijing preserved a great body of historical information that would otherwise likely have disappeared.

X. The Overall Significance of Chinese Buddhist Translation¶

Scale and historical standing

From An Shigao in 148 to Yijing in 713, the Chinese Buddhist translation movement lasted roughly 560 years and produced the majority of texts later included in the Taishō Revised Tripiṭaka, compiled from 1924 to 1934. In scale, it was one of the largest movements for translating religious literature in human history.

How translation shaped Chinese Buddhism

Translation is itself a philosophical creation. Every translation negotiates between two intellectual frameworks, deciding which concepts retain their original sounds, which can be translated semantically, and which require new words. These negotiations belong not only to linguistics but philosophy. They determined where Chinese readers interpreted Buddhism through Chinese frameworks and where they accepted Indian ones.

Translations in the matched-concept era forced Buddhism into a Daoist framework. This was a misreading, but also the beginning of dialogue. Kumārajīva advanced understanding of Madhyamaka while preserving the beauty of Chinese language. Xuanzang made precision the highest goal; he was precise, but did not become popular.

Chinese Buddhism ultimately followed neither the matched-concept era’s excessive Sinicization nor Xuanzang’s supremacy of Indian sources. It moved toward a creative synthesis. Tiantai, Huayan, and Chan were genuinely original Chinese philosophical systems developed after digesting Indian texts. Their achievements are the subject of the following chapters.

Appendix: Discerning the Origins of the Heart Sūtra¶

The Prajñāpāramitā Heart Sūtra is the scripture most frequently recited in everyday Chinese Buddhism. At only 260 Chinese characters, its opening lines are known by heart to nearly everyone who has encountered Chinese Buddhism. It is attributed to Xuanzang, surrounded by a widely circulated legend, and implicated in a serious recent scholarly dispute about its origins. Both belong within this history of translation.

The traditional legend: receiving the scripture before Xuanzang’s journey

The Biography of the Tripiṭaka Master of the Great Ci’en Monastery of the Great Tang says that before leaving for the West, Xuanzang met an ill monk at a monastery in Sichuan. He carefully nursed the man, who after recovering taught him the Prajñāpāramitā Heart Sūtra and then vanished in a transformation. The ending implies that the monk was an incarnation of Avalokiteśvara. During his subsequent dangerous journey west, Xuanzang recited the scripture whenever peril arose and repeatedly escaped disaster.

The story contains an internal contradiction never directly addressed by the biography. Xuanzang departed around 628 or 629 and “received the scripture” beforehand, yet the Chinese Buddhist canon formally records the translation of the Heart Sūtra in 649, four years after his return. If Xuanzang already possessed it before departing, what was “translated” in 649? Was an orally transmitted text already known to him formally written down? Was an existing Chinese text rearranged? The biography is silent. The contradiction itself is already a clue.

Nattier’s argument: the Heart Sūtra may have been composed in China

In 1992, Jan Nattier published a widely discussed article, “The Heart Sūtra: A Chinese Apocryphal Text?”, advancing a hypothesis opposite to tradition: the received “Xuanzang translation” of the Heart Sūtra was perhaps not translated from a Sanskrit original into Chinese. It may have been excerpted in China from Xuanzang’s translation of the Great Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra and subsequently back-translated into Sanskrit. On this account, the Sanskrit Heart Sūtra derives from the Chinese text rather than serving as its source.²

Nattier offered three principal forms of evidence.

First, the wording corresponds too precisely. The central body of the Heart Sūtra agrees almost word for word with a passage in the second assembly of Xuanzang’s Great Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, corresponding to the Perfection of Wisdom in Twenty-five Thousand Lines. The degree of agreement exceeds normal variation when two translators independently render the same Sanskrit source. If the Heart Sūtra translated a different Sanskrit original, it should differ to some degree from Xuanzang’s other translation. Instead, its Chinese appears cut directly from that passage of the Great Prajñāpāramitā.

Second, the Sanskrit version bears traces of Chinese influence. Several expressions in the surviving Sanskrit Heart Sūtra are unnatural in Sanskrit grammar, but become explicable if understood as products of back-translation from Chinese syntax. The Sanskrit exhibits features common when translating backward from Chinese and lacks the character expected of an independently composed Sanskrit text.

Third, the problem of the opening section. Sanskrit Heart Sūtra manuscripts exist in “long” and “short” forms. The long form begins with a narrative introduction—“Thus have I heard … at that time the Blessed One…”—while the short form does not. Scholars generally regard the short form as earlier and the long form as a later expansion. Yet an opening such as “Thus have I heard” is precisely the conventional format of Chinese Buddhist scripture. If a Sanskrit original were primary, the narrative introduction should not be a later addition made in a conventional Chinese format. A more plausible inference is that it was added in the Chinese environment according to convention and then entered the long Sanskrit version through back-translation.

Scholarly responses

Nattier’s article prompted sustained discussion. Huifeng, Jonathan Silk, and other researchers have continued to test the hypothesis through the interpretation of key phrases, textual form, dhāraṇī contexts, and the history of East Asian transmission. The proposal that the short text formed in China and subsequently entered Sanskrit transmission remains influential, but Xuanzang’s role and the formation of the text’s several layers are materially disputed and cannot be presented as settled. The Hōryūji palm-leaf manuscript, usually dated around the turn of the eighth century, also differs from the later received Sanskrit text and further complicates the problem.³

This book’s position

Nattier’s evidence, especially the word-for-word correspondence, is difficult to explain by saying that “two people independently translated the same original and happened to choose precisely the same words.” It is equally difficult to explain by saying “Xuanzang consulted his own translation of the Great Prajñāpāramitā,” because that would mean the “translation” was actually “an excerpt from another of his own works.” This book holds that, on present evidence, the probability that the Heart Sūtra was composed in China is greater than the probability that it was translated directly from a Sanskrit original. The Sanskrit version was a later back-translation giving this Chinese text the authoritative mantle of an “Indian original.”

If this judgment is correct, the legend that Xuanzang “received the scripture” before departing acquires another layer of meaning. It retrospectively recognized a scripture born in China, using Xuanzang’s name and legendary journey to confer the highest possible authority upon it. As for the older version attributed to Kumārajīva, approximately 270 characters and containing an introduction, scholars nearly unanimously regard that attribution as pseudonymous. It too was probably composed in China and simply attributed to an earlier, more authoritative translator.

Significance for the history of translation as a whole

The Heart Sūtra problem is an extreme and unusually clear example of a process that more often occurred obscurely behind the scenes throughout the history of Chinese Buddhist translation: Chinese Buddhists did not merely receive Indian sources passively. They actively participated in creating scriptures and used narrative frames such as “translation” and “receiving a scripture” to legitimate their creations as Indian in origin. The process occurred not only with the Heart Sūtra, but also with many works judged by scholars to have been composed in China, including the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna, the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, and the Brahmā’s Net Sūtra. In one sense, a substantial part of Chinese Buddhism’s creativity lies concealed within these “translations that were not translations.” This is indispensable to understanding its history.

References¶