Prajnaparamitahrdaya sutra (short version)

Sutra of great liberation in english

The Prajnaparamita-hrdaya-sutra (Heart Sutra), so-called because it is said to distill the essence of the voluminous Prajnaparamita teachings on emptiness, is one of the most highly regarded, oft-recited, and influential Mahayana texts in East Asian Buddhism. This text, the earliest Chinese commentary on the Heart Sutra, was composed in the seventh-century by monk scholar Ku'ei-chi (Kuiji), a disciple of the renowned monk Hsuan-tsang and the founder of the Fa-hsiang school, the Chinese version of the Indian Yogacara ("Consciousness Only") school. Drawing on a variety of textual sources, Ku'ei-chi presents a line by line commentary on the sutra. [Taisho #1710] (Chinese name: Pan-jo-po-lo-mi-to-hsin-ching-yu-tsan).

Radich, Michael, Claudia Wenzel, et al., trans. "The Sūtra in which the Thus-Come One Exposes a Teaching for King Prasenajit." In Buddhist Stone Sutras in China. Shaanxi Province, Volume 2, edited by Michael Radich and Rong Zhao, 363–370. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag/Hangzhou: China Academy of Art Press, 2024.

KUMĀRAJĪVA’s early 5th century translation entitled the Xiaŏpĭn Bānruòbōluómì Jīng (小品般若波羅蜜經), i.e. the Small Section Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, is the fourth of seven Chinese translations of the early Mahāyāna text commonly known by its Sanskrit name the Aṣṭasāhasrikā, or in English the Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines. While this text has generated great interest among scholars of Budhism, many have relied on the Sanskrit recensions, which are considerably later than the Xiaŏpĭn, representing an earlier source. Even within the text as a whole, the first two chapters (of the Sanskrit) have been a focus of numerous philological attempts to ascertain a possible ur-text. As such, the translation here is of the corresponding Chinese content of the Xiaŏpĭn, namely chapters one, two, and the start of chapter three. Before the translation proper, the Introduction discusses the source and its editions, provides an overview of the doctrinal content of these two chapters, and discusses the voice and policy of our translation. The English translation is not an attempt to return to its now unknown Sanskrit original, nor by reading it through later Chinese traditions, but as close as we can understand to KUMĀRAJĪVA’s own understanding and translation technique. The entire English translation is critically annotated, marking significant points of interest both internally within the text, but also externally when compared to the other Chinese translations and later Sanskrit recensions.

This is the Ph.D. dissertation done in 1968 at the University of Wisconsin. It represents work done nearly 50 years ago without the aid of a computer or even an electric typewriter. The work attempts to show the changes in a Buddhist sutra over the centuries from the Sanskrit and Chinese witnesses.

The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 2016

The publication of the online version will be announced on the website of the Bavarian academy project "Buddhist Manuscripts from gandhāra:" http://www.gandhara.indologie. lmu.de.

An explanation of Lotus Sutra, A tribute to when i witnessed to buddhism by official monks in a real buddhist temple in Tokyo Japan, while over 100+ japanese buddhists chanting the lotus sutra (2016)

Encyclopedia of Indian Religions

Digital Dictionary of Buddhism entry. July, 2015. Details of the Mātaṅga-sūtra (Śārdūlakarṇāvadāna) 摩登伽經, a Buddhist text. It is story thirty-three entitled Śārdūlakarṇāvadāna in the Divyāvadāna collection. This early sūtra is significant in its use of mantras, anti-Vedic polemic and encyclopedic detailing of pre-Hellenized Indian astrology (i.e., before horoscopy).

Asian Literature and Translation

KUMĀRAJĪVA's early 5 th century translation entitled the Xiaŏpĭn Bānruòbōluómì Jīng (小品般若 波羅蜜經), i.e. the Small Section Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, is the fourth of seven Chinese translations of the early Mahāyāna text commonly known by its Sanskrit name the Aṣṭasāhasrikā, or in English the Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines. While this text has generated great interest among scholars of Budhism, many have relied on the Sanskrit recensions, which are considerably later than the Xiaŏpĭn, representing an earlier source. Even within the text as a whole, the first two chapters (of the Sanskrit) have been a focus of numerous philological attempts to ascertain a possible ur-text. As such, the translation here is of the corresponding Chinese content of the Xiaŏpĭn, namely chapters one, two, and the start of chapter three. Before the translation proper, the Introduction discusses the source and its editions, provides an overview of the doctrinal content of these two chapters, and discusses the voice and policy of our translation. The English translation is not an attempt to return to its now unknown Sanskrit original, nor by reading it through later Chinese traditions, but as close as we can understand to KUMĀRAJĪVA's own understanding and translation technique. The entire English translation is critically annotated, marking significant points of interest both internally within the text, but also externally when compared to the other Chinese translations and later Sanskrit recensions. The Xiaŏpĭn Bānruòbōluómì Jīng (小品般若波羅蜜經), 1 i.e. the Small Section Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, was translated by the Kuchan (龜茲國) Tripiṭakācaryā (三藏) KUMĀRAJĪVA (鳩摩羅什) and his translation team in 408CE, during the 4 th month of the 10 th year of Hóngshĭ (弘始), in the Later Qín dynasty (後秦), at the Xiaōyaó Garden (逍遙園) near the capital of Cháng'ān (長安). 2 The Xiaŏpĭn is a translation of a text known more commonly in the West by the name of its Sanskrit equivalent, the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā, i.e. the Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines. The Chinese title Xiaŏpĭn, which we translate as Small Section, no doubt reflects the fact that KUMĀRAJĪVA was well aware of at least two versions of the Prajñāpāramitā, this being the smaller of the two. The same basic smaller text has been translated a total of seven times into Chinese, both before and after KUMĀRAJĪVA's efforts: 3 1. The Dàoxíng Bānruò Jīng (道行 般若經), attributed to LOKAKṢEMA (ZHĪ Lóujīachèn 支婁迦讖), in 179CE during the Late Hàn. 2. The Dàmíngdù Jīng (大明度經), translated at some time between 223-229CE. The bulk of this text was translated by ZHĪ Qīan (支謙), though chapter one was most probably made by KĀNG Sēnghùi (NATTIER 2010), and we shall thus refer to the two as Dàmíngdù(A) and Dàmíngdù(B), respectively. 3. The Bānruò Chāo Jīng (般若鈔經), translated in 386CE most probably by ZHÚ Făhù (竺法護), this is only a partial translation of 13 chapters. 4. The Xiaŏpĭn text itself, by KUMĀRAJĪVA. Subsequenty, 5. and 6. the Dàbānruòbōluómìduō Jīng (大般若波羅蜜多 1 A note on the Hànyǚ Pīnyīn for the name of the text: While the two characters 般 and 若 are now individually pronounced as "bān" and "ruò", respectively, it is common in modern Chinese Buddhist idiom to pronounce them as "bō" and "rĕ", which is usually explained as being a uniquely Buddhist form. However, the Chinese is a phoneticization of Sanskrit "prajñā", or more likely actually some form of Gāndhārī in the very early Chinese translation, such as "praña" (FALK & KARASHIMA 2013; KARASHIMA 2013). Thus, while "bānruò" (般若) itself would most likely not exactly correspond to the ancient pronunciation of these characters, it is preferable as a transliteration to "bōrĕ". 2 Referenced from LANCASTER & PARK (2004), according to Kaīyüán Shìjiaò Lǜ, fasc. 4 《開元釋教錄》 卷 4： 「 《小 品般若波羅蜜經》 ：十卷 (題云： 「 《摩訶般若波羅蜜》 ，無「小品」字。」祐云： 「新《小品經》與《道 行》 、 《明度》等同本，第七譯或七[9]卷，弘始十年二月六日出，至四月三十日訖，見二秦錄及僧祐 錄。)」 (CBETA, T55, no. 2154, p. 512, b7-9) [9]卷＋ (或八卷) 【宋】 【元】 【明】 ; and Dàzhoū Kāndìng Zhōngjīng Mùlù, fasc. 2 《大周刊定眾經目錄》卷 2： 「 《小品般若波羅蜜經》 ，一部十卷 (或七卷[3]或八卷，菩提 經同本異出，[4]一百五十四紙。) 右後秦弘始十年，沙門[＊]羅什於長安逍遙園譯。出長房錄。」 (CBETA, T55, no. 2153, p. 382, a10-13) [3]或八卷＝八卷與七卷【宋】 【元】 【明】 。[4]〔一百五十四紙〕-【宋】 【元】 【明】 。[＊1-1] (鳩摩)＋羅【宋】＊【元】＊【明】＊. See ROBINSON (1967: 71ff) and LAMOTTE (1998: 94ff; 2001: 900ff) who provide more details about both KUMĀRAJĪVA and his translation activities. 3 Refer CONZE (1978), and ORSBORN = SHÌ (2012: 60-74) for details on the various versions.

Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 9/2, 337–39., 1999

Journal of the American Academy of Religion 79, no.3 (2011): 759-762