Introduction

In his writings, D. T. Suzuki seems obsessed by the unwelcome presence of a magical spell in his beloved Heart Sutra. From a long diatribe, this sentence stood out when I read his works some years ago:

Another thing which makes this presence of a Mantram in the H?idaya more mystifying is that the concluding Mantram is always recited untranslated as if the very sound of the Sanskrit-Chinese were a miracle working agency. (Suzuki 1971: 229)

He also says the mantra “taken in itself has no meaning, and its vital relation to the Prajñ?p?ramit? is unintelligible” (1971: 236). Donald Lopez (1988: 120) was more neutral in his assessment:

The question still remains of the exact function of the mantra within the s?tra, because the sutra provides no such explanation and the s?dhanas make only perfunctory references to the mantra.

As I noted in Attwood (2017), the spell in the Heart Sutra is not a mantra, it is a dh?ra??, though the Chinese term zhòu ? (or zhòu ?) is ambiguous. In T 227, for example, Kum?raj?va translated the Prajñ?p?ramit? "epithets" mah?vidy?, anuttar? vidy?, and asamasam? vidy? as dàmíng zhòu ???, shàng míng zhòu ???, and d?ng d?ng míng zhòu ????. When Xuanzang copied these into the Heart Sutra (T 251) the three epithets became four and míng zhòu ?? was read as two words or simply reduced to ?/?, i.e. dà shén zhòu ???, dà míng zhòu ???, shàng míng zhòu ???, d?ng d?ng zhòu ????.

Note that both shén zhòu ?? and míng zhòu ?? appear to translate vidy? and it's not clear what Xuanzang was thinking here.

Now, zhòu ?/? on its own is ambiguous. It means "incantation, spell" and could correspond to vidy? as was intended here, or it could be read as dh?ra?? or mantra. Later in the Heart Sutra when it says: jí shu? zhòu yu? ???? "the incantation that says:", zhòu ?/? probably does not mean vidy?, it probably means dh?ra??. Only knowing the original context of the passage in the Pañcavi??atis?hasrik? Prajñ?p?ramit? makes this clear. (We always knew about this source: it is mentioned in the four earliest Heart Sutra commentaries).

While I have written about mantra and dh?ra?? many times, including my book Visible Mantra, I was aware that there was a gap in my knowledge with respect to Xuanzang's view of dh?ra??. Since it is my contention that Xuanzang composed the Heart Sutra and selected the dh?ra?? to include in it, it was with considerable interest that I read the recent publication by Richard D. McBride II:

(2020) "How Did Xuanzang Understand Dh?ra???: A View from his translations." Hualin International Journal of Buddhist Studies 3(1): 318-347.

McBride has written about dh?ra?? many times before (e.g. 2005, 2011, 2018) and this new paper is welcome extension of his work in this area. What emerges from this study is a basic idea of how Xuanzang understood dh?ra??, and thus I can finally make some comments on the function of the dh?ra?? in the Heart Sutra from his point of view. Partly, I'm pleased because McBride's description could hardly be more perfect for my revisionist history. In cases like this one has to be wary of confirmation bias. However, I think the view that Xuanzang composed the Heart Sutra is now the only possible conclusion. No other person is so closely associated with the Heart Sutra and, especially after Watanabe (1990), no one else is even in the frame as a suspect. So while we cannot yet prove it, the only viable conjecture is that Xuanzang composed the Heart Sutra and other evidence shows that this happened around 655 ± 1 year. Where this conjecture contradicts the historically dominant narrative, we can also show that the narrative is at best implausible and at worst simply false. I know of no reliable fact that contradicts this conjecture. I will take it as read, but leave open the possibility that new evidence may emerge implicating someone else.*

* Note that I am aware of recent attempts by Charles Willemen to implicate Zhú Dàosh?ng ??? (ca. 360–434), but his repeated publication of the same speculations doesn't amount to anything. He has not made any plausible link to Zhú, just noted a rather vague connection between Zhú and Kum?raj?va. His method does not eliminate all the other people who vaguely knew Kum?raj?va. Watanabe (1990) thoroughly disproved the idea of early translations now lost and made it clear that T 250 is based on T 251 and therefore composed later. T 250 is not mentioned in the catalogues until 730 CE.

In the work we are considering, McBride (2020) translated and studied seven of Xuanzang's translations of dh?ra?? texts. From these he identified three main purposes for dh?ra??. However, McBride also discusses the rituals accompanying the use of dh?ra??, noting that they are generally simple and lack the expected features of Tantric mantras.

A close reading of these seven spell s?tras translated by Xuanzang suggests that the famous translator recognized three interrelated purposes of dh?ra??: (1) providing benefits and bliss to living beings; (2) furnishing a proficient means of dealing with demonic, illness-causing entities; and (3) producing conditions conducive to advancement on the bodhisattva path. (2020: 320).

The article then explains each of these three purposes or "themes" in more detail. While this essay is partly a review, I will also expand on how I see this fitting into the history of the Heart Sutra.

Before getting into McBride's themes, there two important issues to briefly discuss (here I will expand on McBride's discussion a little, adding my own observations). These are the idea of dh?ra?? as a mnemonic and a traditional four-fold analysis of dh?ra??

McBride (2020: 320) notes:

In Xuanzang’s translations, dh?ra?? did not function as codes that encapsulate the doctrine of a s?tra, they were powerful and efficacious spells and incantations.

It is well known that the term dh?ra?? has been used in the sense of "mnemonic". This was related to the term dh?ra?? applied to the acrostics based on the G?ndh?r? alphabet: a ra pa ca na etc. These first appeared in G?ndh?r? (Melzer 2014) and were transmitted in all kinds of Mah?y?na texts. However, sense was rapidly lost as G?ndh?r? was translated into Sanskrit and knowledge of the G?ndh?r? alphabet was lost by around the second century. This knowledge was not recovered until Richard Salomon (1990, 1995) published his seminal articles on the topic.

Melzer (2014: 63) describes the first arapacana acrostic "The surviving fragments of the poem praise the achievements and qualities of the Buddha in simple and often repetitive vocabulary." By contrast, the arapacana acrostic in the Pañcavi??atis?hasrik? Prajñ?p?ramit? is intended to be a meditation practice (see Conze's 1975 lammentable translation, p. 160-2 and 589). Each ak?ara (roughly syllable) stands for a word reflecting some aspect of emptiness. For example, the ak?ara a expands into the word anutpanna "unarisen" and this in turn expands to the line: ak?ro mukha? sarvadharm???? ?dyanutpannav?t "The syllable a is the face of all dharmas because they are originally unarisen".

As I noted in a previous blog post A??as?hasrik?: Insight and Ongoing Transformation (2017), there seem to be two aspects to prajñ?: the actual insight and the preservation or retention of it:

And as a result of having been taught and putting it into practice two things happen. They gain personal insight (s?k??tkurvanti) into (the) nature (dharmat?) and carry it on (dh?rayanti).

The root ?dh?—from which we derive the present indicative form dh?rayati—means "carry, maintain, preserve, practice, undergo." With respect to the mind it can mean "remember". Here we are using the causative form, so the sense is "causing to remember (i.e., memorising)" or "maintenance".

The term dh?ra?? is, at the very least, etymologically related, though we must be wary because Buddhists often used terms in ways not indicated by the etymology. The dh?ra?? then, in some form, reflects the change that is preserved after an insight. And to some extent, this involve remembering the insight. We see a similar contrast between sam?dhi and dh?ra?? in Prajñ?p?ramit?.

This mnemonic function is the basis of a Tantric hermeneutic, prominent in the Mah?vairocana Abhisa?bodhi S?tra and in K?kai's exegesis of the Heart Sutra. The idea is to analyse mantras not as a string of words but as a string of syllables. Translation is not merely irrelevant here, but changes the syllables and renders the spell useless. Hence we see attempts to preserve the sound using Chinese characters purely for their phonetic value, as in the Heart Sutra dh?ra??.

Another caveat here is that, while P?li and Sanskrit contain a number of verbs used to mean "remembering" (e.g. smarati, dharayati, etc), they have no noun meaning "a memory". At least since of Freud, Europeans have understood a memory to be a quasi-independent entity with its own will. Hence the idea that a repressed memory can change our behaviour. All this is absent from Buddhist texts.

All of this is to say, that this mnemonic function of dh?ra?? is not what is going on in the Heart Sutra or the dh?ra?? texts studied by McBride. Although it is very popular, especially with Tantric exegetes, the idea that the dh?ra?? somehow "encodes the message of the text", or has a mnemonic function, is not applicable here.

When Tantric Buddhists adopted the Heart Sutra, they complete recontextualised it. In a sense, this was only possible because the Heart Sutra had no Indian roots and there was no strongly established Prajñ?p?ramit? interpretation. All exegetes seem to treat the Heart Sutra as a tabula rasa on which they can impose their preferred religious interpretation. In this vein, there is at least one "Christian" interpretation of the Heart Sutra. Anyone can say more or less anything about the Heart Sutra.

The Four Types of Dh?ra??

A commonly invoked traditional explanation of dh?ra?? is the fourfold analysis found, for example, the Dharmak?ema’s (385–433) translation of the Bodhisattvabh?mi (Pusa dichi jing ?????, T no. 1581) and Bodhiruci’s (fl. 508–527) translation of *Da?abh?mika-s?tra-??stra (Shidijing lun ????, T no. 1522). There are:

dharma dh?ra?? (fa tuoluoni ????) meaning dh?ra?? (yi tuoluoni ????) spell dh?ra?? (zhou tuoluoni ????) acquiescence dh?ra?? (ren tuoluoni ????) (McBride 2020: 321)

While Xuanzang makes use of this classification elsewhere, and Kuiji (T 1710; 33.542.a13 ff)* references it in his commentary, the dh?ra?? texts being considered here all fall into the third category. As noted, the meaning of zhòu ?/? is ambiguous. It may include vidy?, dh?ra??, and mantra; as well as any other term for a magical spell. Though as we will see the dh?ra?? texts under consideration are not Tantric in character.

* Note that in the translation of Ku?j?'s commentary by Shih and Lusthaus (2001) they routinely translate zhòu ? as "mantra". In the discussion of the epithets (2001: 122-123), where Ku?j? discusses the four kinds of dh?ra?? they temporarily change to translating zhòu ? as "dh?ra??" then they switch back to translating it as "mantra".

Having put these ideas to one side, we can now focus on the attitudes we find in the dh?ra?? texts translated by Xuanzang. However, it becomes apparent that, McBride's three themes substantially overlap:

The Three Themes

(1) Benefits and Bliss

McBride's first theme is the benefits and bliss (lìlè ??) of reciting the dh?ra??:

The most prominent recurring theme in Xuanzang’s translations of dh?ra?? is the idea that dh?ra?? are preached and their associated procedures are explained for the benefit of and to invoke or cause peace and bliss for all living beings. ( McBride 2020: 321)

There are many examples of this. However, we also find McBride (2020: 324) saying of the benefits:

Xuanzang’s translation emphasizes that the possession and preservation of the spell renders the one who chants it or carried it on his body invincible and unassailable to natural calamities, demonic infestations, weapons, poisons, curses, and unsolicited spells used against someone.

That is to say, protection from demons, which he treats as a separate theme, is included as a benefit and could be cogently discussed under this heading also. In the S?tra on the Dh?ra?? for Bearing Banners and Seals (Sheng chuangbeiyin tuoluoni jing ????????, T no. 1363), we find this passage:

O World-Honored One, because we desire [to give] benefits and bliss to all sentient beings, we seek to realize unsurpassed, perfect bodhi, to have compassionate vows pervade our thoughts, and accomplish equal enlightenment (dengzhengjue ???). (McBride 2020: 322)

Again, this appears to invoke the third theme of the dh?ra?? assisting one on the bodhisatva path. We have to think of the themes as closely related and overlapping. Another representative passage cited by McBride (325) also shows the cross over:

If good sons and good daughters preserve [this dh?ra??] and preach it for others with an utmost mind (sincere mind), all unwholesome ghosts, gods, dragons, yak?as, humans-yet-not-humans, and so forth, will not be able to harm [them]. All manner of beneficial and blissful matters will increase day and night.

So some of the principal "benefits" (lì ?) of dh?ra?? practice are precisely the second and third themes, protection from demons, and making progress on the bodhisatva path.

(2) Demons and Disease

This theme reflects an ancient worldview. As McBride (326) says

In India and Central Asia, as well as China and East Asia, illness and disease were generally believed to be caused by all manner of spirits, demons, and creatures.

This use of dh?ra?? is not limited to monks. Even lay people can employ dh?ra?? texts for this purpose (McBride 2020: 328). This particular use also incorporates fire rituals, though these appear to be distinct from the Tantric homa ritual. Xuanzang describes several such rituals in his translations, for example (331):

Furthermore, if one is ill for a long time and does not seem to be getting better, or if unwholesome ghosts come into his house, he should select a hundred and eight grains of kunduruka incense, and before this image enchant each grain one time and casts them into the fire until they are all consumed. And again, one selects a white thread and makes twenty-one spell-knots, [chanting] one spell per one knot, binds it on the crown of the compassionate face just as before, and after one night loosen it. If it is bound to the neck of an afflicted person, he will be cured of his affliction and the evil spirits (unwholesome ghosts) will be dispersed.

Chinese Double Coin Knot

McBride includes several rituals involving the intriguing practice of making a spell-knot (zhòu jié ??). The Chinese practice of making decorative knots goes back at least to the Warring States Period (ca 403-221 BCE) when such knots were depicted on bronze vessels. There is a huge variety of such knots and each one has its own symbolism (As a starting point, see the Wikipedia entry on Chinese knotting).

Although his analysis never seems to have gained much traction, I am still drawn to Ariel Glucklich's (1997) account of such magical procedures which I wrote about in 2008 (Mantra, Magic, and Interconnectedness). Glucklich (1997: 12) says:

Magic is based on a unique type of consciousness: the awareness of the interrelatedness of all things in the world by means of simple but refined sense perception... magical actions... constitute a direct, ritual way of restoring the experience of relatedness in cases where that experience has been broken by disease, drought, war, or any number of other events.

It is, of course, a well established aspect of the tradition of the Heart Sutra that Xuanzang chanted the text as a spell to repel demons. The story is recounted in the hagiography of Xuanzang attributed to Yàncóng ?? (fl. 688), i.e. Dà Táng dà Cí’?nsì s?nzàng f?sh? chuán xù «????????????» "A Biography of the Tripi?aka Master of the Great Ci’en Monastery of the Great Tang Dynasty" (T 2053). There are several translations of the Biography, but the recent one by Li Rongxi (1995) is the most reliable. It's also mentioned in the preface of T 256, though this version has many different details.

Jeffrey Kotyk (2019) and I (Attwood 2020) have both critiqued the story of Xuanzang acquiring the Heart Sutra from a sick man (or monk) before he went to India. We both think that the Heart Sutra was composed only after Xuanzang returned from India—ca 654-656 CE to be precise. The story about acquiring the Heart Sutra before this time was part of a deliberate campaign to create an India backstory for the text to make it seem authentic; a campaign that included forging a Sanskrit text.

The Biography also records a letter from Xuanzang to Gaozong (dated 26 December 656 CE) which was a response to the successful live birth of a son to Wu Zhao after a difficult pregnancy (this was Li Xian ?? 26 November 656 – 3 July 710, later Emperor Zhongzong ??). During the pregnancy, Wu Zhao seems to have consulted Xuanzang who recommended various methods for assuring that prince Li Xian ?? survived. For example, Xuanzang recommended that the infant was ordained as a Buddhist monk.

Thus the Biography shows Xuanzang using the Heart Sutra twice: once in response to malign spirits, and once in response to Wu Zhao's difficult pregnancy.

(3) The Bodhisatva Path

Finally, McBride (2020: 335-336) notes that some of the dh?ra??'s promise help on the path to liberation for anyone who takes up the dh?ra??, memorises it, repeats it, etc:

All the spiritual benefits of preserving (and chanting) this dh?ra?? are the conventional promises found in many mainstream Mah?y?na s?tras: always receive a male body, always be able to find spiritual mentors, not regress on the bodhisattva path, practice for the benefit of self and others, not regress in the practice of the ten perfections, and so forth.

In other words, these texts see themselves in the context of Mah?y?na rather than Vajray?na Buddhism. As McBride notes

The ‘procedure’ or ‘method’ (fa ?) one must receive (shou ?) to draw on the power of this dh?ra?? is to make six vows that resonate with standard bodhisattva vows.

This is particularly prominent in the S?tra on the Six Approach Dh?ra?? in Six Approaches (Liumen tuoluoni jing ??????, T 1360). Which says that the dh?ra?? works with vows that are similar to the well known bodhisatva vows. The fifth vow, for example is:

Regarding p?ramit?s I possess [that] which I have embraced, extensive wholesome roots in all mundane and transmundane [realms], I vow that all living beings will speedily realize the fruit [fruition reward] of unsurpassed knowledge. (McBride 2020: 337)

To be honest, I'm not entirely convinced by this translation because the first part is not a well formed English sentence. However, I agree that the vocabulary resembles other versions of bodhisatva vows.

These, then, are the main themes that McBride identifies. I want to expand on one more issue addressed by McBride, which I have just mentioned: Xuanzang does not see dh?ra?? as tantric.

Ritual Context

One extremely useful contribution in this paper is that McBride (2020: 320) makes clear that Xuanzang does see or use dh?ra?? in a Tantric context.

All of Xuanzang’s translations of dh?ra?? texts function like simple ritual manuals that emphasize the efficacy of the dh?ra?? introduced in the text... His translations are primarily straight-forward and simple ritual texts that encourage the preservation and recitation of a particular dh?ra??.

Later McBride (2020: 339) expands on this:

Xuanzang’s translations of dh?ra?? clearly demonstrate that ritual activity, or the mere existence of dh?ra??, cannot be used to define, differentiate, or postulate the existence of ‘esoteric Buddhism’, without severe qualifications.

Here is where I would normally cite The Weaving of Mantra by Ryuichi Abe. Abe argues that to be considered tantric a magic spell has to exist in a tantric context. For example, it must be conferred in the elaborate abhi?eka ritual and repeated only in the context of a visualization practice (s?dhana). Moreover, mantra corresponds to the voice of the ?dibuddha and cannot be meaningfully separated from the mudr? and ma??ala representing the body and mind of the ?dibuddha. The message of liberation always involves coordinated actions of body, speech, and mind.

Instead of Abe, McBride cites a similar argument from Gregory Schopen (1982):

‘...if by “Tantric” we mean that phase of Buddhist doctrinal development which is characterized by an emphasis on the central function of the guru as religious preceptor; by sets—usually graded—of specific initiations; by esotericism of doctrine, language and organization; and by a strong emphasis on the realization of the goal through highly structured ritual and meditative techniques. If “Tantric” is to be used to refer to something other than this, then the term must be clearly defined and its boundaries must be clearly drawn. Otherwise the term is meaningless and quite certainly misleading’.

This is to say—notwithstanding the later assimilation of it by Tantric Buddhists—the Heart Sutra is not naturally a Vajray?na text. Ritual and magic were very much part of mainstream Buddhism. An old friend who studied Chinese Buddhism once said to me that Buddhism succeeded in China because Buddhism had better magic. While this oversimplifies to some extent, it is still aposite. And while it is interesting that Tantric Buddhists took to the Heart Sutra and even composed s?dhanas around it, the Tantric commentaries of, say, K?kai and Vimalamitra are very different indeed. And coming, as they do, at least a century after the first evidence of the text in China, they don't really shed any light on the origins of the text or Xuanzang as the author of it.

Conclusion

The information that McBride has gleaned from the dh?ra?? texts that Xuanzang chose to translate suggest something about his motivations for including a dh?ra?? in the Heart Sutra along with excerpts from the Large Sutra. Or at least, it gives us insight into how he thought the dh?ra?? would be used. It's rare for me to read a paper that is so directly relevant and which has few, if any, methodological problems. It's an elegant, straightforward, readable paper with no obvious religious or interpretive agenda. And this is refreshing.

In this view, the ritual use of dh?ra?? promises "benefits and bliss"; the two principle benefits being (1) the ability to ward of malign supernatural entities (including those that cause disease) and (2) making progress on the bodhisatva path.

That the Heart Sutra might be a dh?ra?? text is not a new idea. It was proposed by Fukui Fumimasa in 1987 (cited in Nattier 1992: 175). Of course this is not the whole story. Perhaps it is best to say that the Heart Sutra resembles a dh?ra??, in the same way that it also resembles a digest text (ch?o j?ng ??). At this point, I think we can say that the Heart Sutra is completely unique in Buddhist or Chinese history.

Xuanzang may have composed the Heart Sutra for multiple purposes. The Biography suggests that it was composed to protect W? Zhào ?? and her infant son. Unlike some other aspects of the story, this seems entirely plausible. The Heart Sutra might also have been a kind of promotional literature for his proposal to retranslate all the Prajñ?p?ramit? texts. To do this he needed both Gaozong's (reluctant?) permission but also imperial funding for the enterprise. The Heart Sutra shows off how Xuanzang intends his translation to be a refinement of Kum?raj?va's. Four years later (ca 599 CE), Xuanzang was granted use of a lesser palace away from the capital and a staff and he set to work on the translation for which he is most famous: the Dà b?r? j?ng???? *Mah?prajñ?p?ramit?, which spans three whole volumes of the Taish? edition of the Chinese Tripi?aka (for reference, all of the other Prajñ?p?ramit? translations preserved in the Taish? fit a single volume).

~~oOo~~