반야심경은 대승불교, 특히 반야사상의 핵심을 담고 있는 경전이다. 그리고 반야사상은 반야심경의 주제인 반야바라밀이라는 개념을 통해서 구현된다. 이러한 반야바라밀의 이해에 있어서 하나의 관건이 되는 문제가 반야바라밀과 반야바라밀다呪의 관계이다.이 글에서는 반야바라밀자주를 다루는 인도주석가들의 관점을 살펴봄으로써 하나의 시사를 얻고자 하였다. 현재 그들의 梵本 주석서는 전하지 않고 있으나, 티벳 역본이 전하고 있는 주석가는 모두 8인이다. Donald S. Lopez Jr.에 의한 영역을 저본으로 하여, 8인의 주석가들의 관점을 반야심경 전체에 대한 평가가 반영된 科目의 관점을 살펴 본 뒤에, 다시 본문해석(隨文釋)에 나타난 관점을 살펴보는 방법을 취하였다.그 결과 만트라 부분이 갖는 독자적 의의를 인정하지 않는 顯敎적 이해방식과 독자적 의의를 인정하는 ‘밀교’적 이해방식의 두 가지로 나눌 수 있었다. ‘密敎’적 이해 방식 안에는 밀교뿐만 아니라 명상 내지 禪的 차원에서 이해하는 것까지를 함께 포괄하여 묶어 보았다. 그것은 공히 언어 밖의 차원을 인정함으로써 顯敎적 이해방식과는 다른 것으로 평가되었기 때문이다.
The Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya Sūtra which is read commonly at present is the smaller version(小本) translated by Hsüan-tsang(玄奘). There the mantra, “gate gate pāragate pārasaṃgate bodhi svāhā" is attached at the end. And the powerful effect of the mantra is described in the previous sentence as if intentionally to bring the mantra right after it. This can be the reason for the expression ; “mahāmantro mahāvidyāmantro ’nuttaramantro ’samasamamantraḥ”. However, these are also predicates of the subject ‘prajñāpāramitā' which is explained beforehand. Therefore, a question may arise in the version translated by Hsüan-tsang ; exactly where the mahāmantro etc. should be connected for the right interpretation. If we say they modify the previous sentence, then the mantra exists not independently, but prajñāpāramitā itself becomes the mantra. If they modify the following sentence, then “mahāmantro mahāvidyāmantro ’nuttaramantro ’samasamamantraḥ” becomes the mantra. The Sanskrit version seems to have a slightly different tone from the Hsüan-tsang’s ‘translation’, so in order to resolve this issue in the point of philology, including the recent theory by Jan Nattier on the fabrication of the Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya Sūtra in China, the chronological fact also may need to be clarified. So an extremely difficult task remains. Therefore, I decided to go round a little bit in this thesis, instead of a philological or chronological approach. I looked into how commentators had been valuing the significance of the mantra part in the text. From olden days to nowadays the commentaries on the Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya Sūtra are numberless, but at first the Indian commentators’ view will be discussed. There are altogether eight commentators whose works were translated in Tibetan, and then were translated into English by Donald S. Lopez Jr. Having examined the revealed views of their commentaries on the larger version(大本) of the Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya Sūtra, I assumed it would be possible to synthesize into a diagram analyses as follows. Having evaluated the views of Indian commentators, I concentrated on two main aspects : (1) What were their viewpoints expressed in the subjects by which they analyzed and evaluated the Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya Sūtra on the whole. (2) How the viewpoints were in interpretation of the detailed body text. In conclusion, I regard their viewpoints can be divided into two aspects in general. At first, it is an exoteric understanding. This view doesn’t recognize the significance of mantra section as an independent part. Jñānamitra and Praśāstrasena belong to this group in terms of categorization into subjects, and Kamalaśīla and Mahājana also may be included in it, who excluded the mantra section from their Diagram Analyses. In respect of the interpretation depending on the sentences, Jñānamitra, Praśāstrasena and Śrīsiṁha applied exoteric interpretation on their commentary. Praśāstrasena’s interpretation depending on the sentences included ‘early esoteric Buddhism and mixed Buddhism’s way of understanding by recognizing both material benefits and transcendental merits of the mantra. Considering that a commentator’s view turns out clearly in the detailed description of Interpretation depending on the sentences rather than in the general description of Diagram Analyses, it can be said that Praśāstrasena showed an esoteric understanding on the whole. Secondly, it is esoteric understanding. In terms of the Diagram Analyses, Atīśa demonstrated the most distinct way of esoteric understanding. As he said mantra is rather a message for the qualified(上根機), it is outstanding because of presenting a hermeneutic insight different from the aspect of formation of the Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya Sūtra as the key sūtra and the beginning of the Prajñā-related sūtras. Vimalamitra and Vajrapāṇi hold esoteric understanding in the interpretation depending on sentences except Praśāstrasena who is mentioned earlier on. Vajrapāṇi acknowledges the benefits of samādhi and meditation in mantra. It is considered as an evaluation by Sön/Zen, and I tried to synthesize Sön/Zen and the esoteric Buddhism into 'the esoteric Buddhism' because there is a common ground on accepting the world beyond words. And Vimalamitra's understanding on the Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya Sūtra recognizes equally the exoteric and esoteric values. Perhaps, it would be better evaluation to say that his point is in the position of ‘reconciliation’, however I put it in the ‘esoteric’ interpretation as he recognizes the value of mantra. As above, commentators in India understood the Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya Sūtra in an exoteric way or an esoteric way. How did east Asian commentators acting in China, Korea and Japan understand it? This could be another task for the precious research work on this valuable subject matter to be continued.
The Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya Sūtra which is read commonly at present is the smaller version(小本) translated by Hsüan-tsang(玄奘). There the mantra, “gate gate pāragate pārasaṃgate bodhi svāhā" is attached at the end. And the powerful effect of the mantra is described in the previous sentence as if intentionally to bring the mantra right after it. This can be the reason for the expression ; “mahāmantro mahāvidyāmantro ’nuttaramantro ’samasamamantraḥ”. However, these are also predicates of the subject ‘prajñāpāramitā' which is explained beforehand. Therefore, a question may arise in the version translated by Hsüan-tsang ; exactly where the mahāmantro etc. should be connected for the right interpretation. If we say they modify the previous sentence, then the mantra exists not independently, but prajñāpāramitā itself becomes the mantra. If they modify the following sentence, then “mahāmantro mahāvidyāmantro ’nuttaramantro ’samasamamantraḥ” becomes the mantra. The Sanskrit version seems to have a slightly different tone from the Hsüan-tsang’s ‘translation’, so in order to resolve this issue in the point of philology, including the recent theory by Jan Nattier on the fabrication of the Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya Sūtra in China, the chronological fact also may need to be clarified. So an extremely difficult task remains. Therefore, I decided to go round a little bit in this thesis, instead of a philological or chronological approach. I looked into how commentators had been valuing the significance of the mantra part in the text. From olden days to nowadays the commentaries on the Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya Sūtra are numberless, but at first the Indian commentators’ view will be discussed. There are altogether eight commentators whose works were translated in Tibetan, and then were translated into English by Donald S. Lopez Jr. Having examined the revealed views of their commentaries on the larger version(大本) of the Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya Sūtra, I assumed it would be possible to synthesize into a diagram analyses as follows. Having evaluated the views of Indian commentators, I concentrated on two main aspects : (1) What were their viewpoints expressed in the subjects by which they analyzed and evaluated the Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya Sūtra on the whole. (2) How the viewpoints were in interpretation of the detailed body text. In conclusion, I regard their viewpoints can be divided into two aspects in general. At first, it is an exoteric understanding. This view doesn’t recognize the significance of mantra section as an independent part. Jñānamitra and Praśāstrasena belong to this group in terms of categorization into subjects, and Kamalaśīla and Mahājana also may be included in it, who excluded the mantra section from their Diagram Analyses. In respect of the interpretation depending on the sentences, Jñānamitra, Praśāstrasena and Śrīsiṁha applied exoteric interpretation on their commentary. Praśāstrasena’s interpretation depending on the sentences included ‘early esoteric Buddhism and mixed Buddhism’s way of understanding by recognizing both material benefits and transcendental merits of the mantra. Considering that a commentator’s view turns out clearly in the detailed description of Interpretation depending on the sentences rather than in the general description of Diagram Analyses, it can be said that Praśāstrasena showed an esoteric understanding on the whole. Secondly, it is esoteric understanding. In terms of the Diagram Analyses, Atīśa demonstrated the most distinct way of esoteric understanding. As he said mantra is rather a message for the qualified(上根機), it is outstanding because of presenting a hermeneutic insight different from the aspect of formation of the Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya Sūtra as the key sūtra and the beginning of the Prajñā-related sūtras. Vimalamitra and Vajrapāṇi hold esoteric understanding in the interpretation depending on sentences except Praśāstrasena who is mentioned earlier on. Vajrapāṇi acknowledges the benefits of samādhi and meditation in mantra. It is considered as an evaluation by Sön/Zen, and I tried to synthesize Sön/Zen and the esoteric Buddhism into 'the esoteric Buddhism' because there is a common ground on accepting the world beyond words. And Vimalamitra's understanding on the Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya Sūtra recognizes equally the exoteric and esoteric values. Perhaps, it would be better evaluation to say that his point is in the position of ‘reconciliation’, however I put it in the ‘esoteric’ interpretation as he recognizes the value of mantra. As above, commentators in India understood the Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya Sūtra in an exoteric way or an esoteric way. How did east Asian commentators acting in China, Korea and Japan understand it? This could be another task for the precious research work on this valuable subject matter to be continued.