Among the texts rediscovered at Dunhuang, there are five manuscripts which are phonetic transcriptions of the Heart Sūtra. Of these, Stein No. 2464 was the version used as the basis for T. 256 (Tang Fan fandui ziyin bore boluomiduo xin jing 唐梵飜 對字音般若波羅蜜多心經; T8.851a-852a). Although Nagata Tetsusumi doubts the traditional claim that Xuan Zang is the translator (see Mikkyō bunka 密教文化 56, Showa 10 (1935), pp. 44-45), most scholars accept the description in the colophon of Stein No. 2464 that the work was translated by Xuan Zang. However, in Chinese academic circles, Chen Yinke appears to be the one to have initiated the claim questioning the validitity of this colophon. He suspected that this Dunhuang version was not translated by Xuan Zang, but rather by Amoghavajra (see his Jin Ming cong gao er pian 金明館叢稿二編, Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1980, p. 175). Subsequently, Prof. Fang Guangchang proposed a similar idea, that the text may have been “originally translated by Xuan Zang,” but “edited and embellished by Amoghavajra” (see Fang Guangchang, ed., Bore xin jing yizhu jicheng 般若心經譯 注集成, Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1994, p. 12). However, neither Chen nor Fang have set forth solid, valid evidence proving their theories. Prof. Fumimasa Fukui’s article of 1985, “Shinde ‘Fukū’ Bonbon shabon honnya shingyō” 新出「不空譯」梵本写本般若心經, addresses this issue more fully, attempting to prove this theory using philological comparisons and information from numerous catalogs (see 仏教學論集──中村瑞隆博士古稀記念論集, pp. 229-246). After this, Prof. Fukui worked on Yunju si’s excavation andpublication of the Fangshan stone tablet sūtras. He also wrote a series of articles on the phonetic transcription manuscripts of the Heart Sūtra. Prof. Fukui maintains that Amoghavajra is the translator of two of these manuscripts: one from Dunhuang and one from Fangshan. In the current article, although I do not propose any new conclusions regarding the identity of the translator, I avoid arguing on the basis of purely external evidence in the manner of Prof. Fukui. Rather, I will attempt to allow these manuscripts to tell their own stories through the process of their annotation and explication.
Specifically, using “oral source” and “dictation thereof” as reference points, I will describe the phonetic features implicit within the text, and analyze the choice of characters used in the phonetic transcription process. This uncovers direct and powerful evidence proving, with a higher degree of reliability, that our conclusions about the identity of the translator are correct. Additionally, I believe that this type of segment phonetic analysis, combined with a stylistic analysis of word choice can provide evidence that is more direct and more powerful than the external evidenc
