Jan Nattier's The Heart Sutra, A Chinese Apocryphal Text, published in the Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies in 1992, is the article that argued, against the traditional understanding of the Heart Sutra as translated from an Indian Sanskrit original, that the sutra was actually composed in China, likely by extracting and reworking passages from an earlier Chinese translation of a larger Perfection of Wisdom text, and only later translated back into Sanskrit. Nattier is a specialist in early Buddhist textual history working from close comparative philological analysis of the Chinese and Sanskrit versions against each other. Its strength is that direct textual comparison, tracing specific phrases across versions rather than arguing from general plausibility. Its limit is that Nattier's reverse-translation thesis, though influential, remains actively debated among specialists in the sutra's textual history, so a claim about the Heart Sutra's actual origin should be presented as her argued position within a live scholarly question, not as settled consensus.
Facts
Citation
AuthorJan Nattier
PublisherJournal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies
Publication Year1992
URLhttp://www.silkqin.com/02qnpu/40tyxs/ty28skj/ty28nattier.pdf
Source Typepeer-reviewed article
Assessment
Reliability Tier1
Jan Nattier's The Heart Sutra, A Chinese Apocryphal Text?, published in the Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, is a peer reviewed philological argument by a leading specialist in Buddhist textual history, treated at the top tier as specialist peer reviewed scholarship. NotesThe Chinese-origin argument, given in the entry with its opponents.
Cross-Tradition Connections
Associated With
This source names China directly: "the sutra was actually composed in China, likely by extracting and reworking passages from an earlier Chinese translation of a larger Perfection of Wisdom text, and only later translated back into..."
Claims Backed By This Source (18 claims)
This source backs 18 claims across the atlas. As facts: 13 well-attested. As cited relationships: 1 holds. Plus 4 entities citing it as a general reference with no single fact or relationship attached.
Disposition By Topic
- Sources, 9 claims: 8 well-attested, 1 holds.
- Scriptures & Texts, 6 claims: 4 well-attested, 2 general references.
- Mantras, 3 claims: 1 well-attested, 2 general references.
Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.
View At A Past Year
The atlas records no dated fact of its own for this entry, so there is no other year to choose.