Bōrě xīnjīng jù-jiě yìzhī 般若心經句解易知
“Phrase-by-Phrase Easily-Knowable” Heart of the Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra Commentary by 王澤泩 (註解, sobriquet Guīyī jūshì 歸一居士)
About the work
A one-fascicle Kāngxī-or-Yōngzhèng-era Heart Sūtra commentary by 王澤泩 Wáng Zéshēng (sobriquets Guīyī jūshì and Jùchuān) of Pénglái 蓬萊 (Shāndōng). Preserved in the Wàn xù-zàng / Manji zoku-zō as X569. The genre marker — jù-jiě yìzhī “phrase-by-phrase easily-knowable” — programmatically signals an accessible, line-by-line jūshì-friendly commentary explicitly designed for beginning students. One fascicle.
The work is the sequel to Wáng’s earlier Diamond Sūtra commentary in the same jù-jiě yìzhī format, completing his paired Prajñāpāramitā short-sūtra commentary programme.
Prefaces
The work opens with Wáng’s own substantial self-preface (No. 569-A):
- “The Heart Sūtra is the centre of the Mahāprajñā, the keystone of the six hundred fascicles, the marrow of the five thousand fascicles of the great canon, the root-source of becoming-Buddha-and-patriarch. Indeed, those who would settle birth-and-death and escape from saṃsāra have no other path. This is why its recital and upholding flourishes throughout the world.”
- “But although those who recite it are many, those who clearly understand are truly few. This is not because the sūtra is hard to understand, nor because sentient beings are mostly foolish. The trouble is that the commentaries lack a good edition, so that ear-and-eye are confused and disordered.”
- “Since this sūtra entered Middle Florescence (China), no fewer than several tens of commentators have produced annotations. But some of them borrow the path and lose the sūtra, expressing their own private opinions; and these depart from the Buddha’s original intent by no less than a thousand miles. Even those who agree with the sūtra’s meaning sometimes briefly express the general meaning but rarely explain the words and phrases — for the beginning student, very inconvenient. Some who notice this defect and turn to the opposite extreme then boast quantity and contend richness, drawing distant references and broad citations, with the rough words ever multiplying and the true purport ever obscured. The reader is bewildered, not knowing what is meant. This is why those who clearly elucidate this sūtra have been few.”
- “[I,] Shēng, pitying this difficulty, made a great vow and pledged to compose a good commentary, in order to enlighten the masses. Therefore I broadly searched the various subcommentaries, closed the door and observed clearly, choosing-and-examining with utmost precision, taking-and-discarding with utmost care; following the good and changing the not-good. Researching and reflecting for three years, only then was I able to complete the volume. As for the old commentaries’ fragmentary outline-divisions, I have entirely cut them down for brevity — neither cumbersome nor leaving gaps, plain and rough, only wishing to make the principle clear, with no reluctance about the rusticity of the language — for I want each-and-every-person to easily understand.”
- “The book completed, I named it ‘Phrase-by-Phrase Easily-Knowable’, preserving the same name as my Diamond Sūtra commentary because of my consistent intent.”
- “菩提達摩 Bodhidharma came from the West, did not establish letters, directly pointed at the human mind, see the nature, become Buddha. This sūtra is like dregs; the commentary is even more like a wart-on-a-foot. Yet I, not weary of the labour, not fearing slander, in making this snake-foot speech — truly I want the beginning students to [understand the sūtra in one viewing]…”
The preface continues with discussion of his methodology and purpose. The body then proceeds line-by-line through the Heart Sūtra in the explicitly accessible jù-jiě yìzhī style.
Abstract
X569 is a primary witness to mid-Qīng jūshì lay-Buddhist commentary culture and to the period’s deliberate commitment to producing accessible Buddhist scholarship for non-specialist readers. The self-preface’s diagnosis of earlier commentaries’ problems — some borrow the path and lose the sūtra; some explain the general meaning but rarely the words; some boast quantity and contend richness — is one of the more substantively critical statements in the late-imperial Heart Sūtra commentary tradition.
The three-year composition timeline (per the preface) and the careful redaction methodology suggest serious kǎozhèng-era scholarly intent, in keeping with the broader mid-Qīng cultural emphasis on careful textual scholarship.
The pairing with Wáng’s earlier Diamond Sūtra commentary in the same jù-jiě yìzhī programme parallels the broader mid-Qīng jūshì pattern of paired Prajñāpāramitā commentaries (王起隆 Wáng Qǐlóng, 仲之屏 Zhòng Zhīpíng, 孫念劬 Sūn Niànqú all produced similar pairs).
Composition date: no internal dating in the work itself, but the period belongs to Wáng’s mature scholarly activity. The bracket notBefore 1700 / notAfter 1740 reflects the Kāngxī-late / Yōngzhèng / Qiánlóng-early window. Without further evidence, more precise dating is not possible.
Translations and research
- No substantial Western-language translation located.
- For the mid-Qīng jūshì commentary culture, see the references for KR6c0180 (Wáng Qǐlóng) and KR6c0185 (Sūn Niànqú).
- Modern Chinese-language scholarship on Qīng-period lay Buddhism.
Other points of interest
The self-preface is one of the more substantively critical assessments of the Heart Sūtra commentarial tradition in any commentary. Wáng identifies three failure modes: (i) borrowing-the-path-losing-the-sūtra (departing from canonical meaning into private opinion); (ii) briefly-mentioning-without-detail (giving general meaning without phrase-level help); (iii) boasting-quantity-without-clarity (overwhelming with citations without illuminating). His own jù-jiě yìzhī programme is explicitly framed as a corrective to all three.
The acknowledgment in the preface that the commentary itself is like-a-wart-on-the-foot is the standard late-imperial huà shé tiān zú topos, but Wáng’s working-through of the contradiction (writing accessible commentary while acknowledging that all commentary on a zhí zhǐ rén xīn sūtra is ultimately superfluous) is one of the more thoughtful navigations of this hermeneutical tension.