반야심경의 범본은 음역본으로도 존재한다. 따라서 이 음역을 원문으로 환원함으로써 반야심경은 본래의 형태인 범본으로 구현될 수 있다. 이와 아울러 음역의 판본에 따른 원전의 차이도 구명할 수 있다.음역의 형태로 보면, 방산 운거사의 석경본과 돈황 사본(S.5648 또는 S.2464)의 역자는 동일하지 않다. 환원된 범본의 내용으로 보면, S.5648본과 석경본은 가장 밀접하지만 서로 다른 원전을 채택했다. 음역본과 玄역 반야심경의 관계를 보면, 석경본은 S.5648본보다 범본인 법륭사본과 더욱 밀접하고, 법륭사본보다는 현장역과 더욱 밀접하다.음역본의 역자는 현장이 아니라 不空임이 확실하다. 이 경우, 不空이 석경본과 S.5648본을 모두 음역했다면, 석경본은 S.5648본을 반영한 개정판일 것이다. 즉 不空이 S.5648본을 작성한 후, 현장역의 원전에 의거하여 S.5648본을 윤색한 완결판이 석경본으로 남게 되었다.음역본에 대한 심층 연구는 반야심경의 유통 과정을 이해하는 데 유용한 가설을 제공한다.
The Heart Sūtra, that is, Prajñāpāramitā-hṛdaya-sūtra has passed current as a fundamental scripture without distinction of nation and sect in Mahāyāna Buddhism of Northeast Asia using Chinese characters. But comparatively recent days an opinion that the Heart Sūtra was created as a separate scripture in China(a Chinese apocryphal text in the technical sense) was put forth. And its basis of an argument is that existing Sanskrit texts of the Heart Sūtra cannot be regarded as the Indian-made texts. But this opinion seems to reckon without examining transliterated versions of the Heart Sūtra thoroughly, nevertheless the transliterated versions are important materials from which it is possible to deduce its Sanskrit text. The present study is intended to inquire into another original form of Sanskrit version by restoring the transliterated text recorded in Chinese characters into Sanskrit. The transliterated spelling, if it is used in the same text, is applied all the way through in general. By this reason, it is possible to deduce the genealogy of original texts producing each transliterated version through comparing itself with another transliterated versions, a translated version into Chinese, Sanskrit versions and so on. Here the present study arrived at a conclusion as follows. In point of the form of transliteration, the version ⓑ(a stone carving edition kept in Yunjusi of Fangshan) and the version ⓐ(Tun-huang manuscript S.5648 or S.2464) are not transliterated by one person. In point of contents of the restored Sanskrit text, both transliterated versions were derived from the different original each other, even though there is close correlation between them. In point of relation between the transliterated versions and the translated version ⓗ(Hsuan-tsang's Chinese version), the version ⓑ is closer to the version J(a Sanskrit text of Horyuji in Japan) more than the version ⓐ, and closer to the version ⓗ more than the version J. On the other hand, it is certain that the Sanskrit text of Heart Sūtra were transliterated not by Hsuan-tsang but by Amogavajra. In this case, if both versions of ⓑ and ⓐ were works of Amogavajra, the difference of both should be understood as correlation between the so-called the first edition and a revised edition. In other words, what Amogavajra had transliterated at first was the version ⓐ, and later a completely revised edition resulted from embellishing the version ⓐ on the basis of the original which translated into Chinese by Hsuan-tsang was remained as the version ⓑ.
目次
I 머리말. 241 II 음역과 원문의 대조. 245 III 음역에 의한 범본 비평. 261 IV 맺음말. 271
