《心經》的梵本有廣、略之分，二者的差別主要在於前者多了序分及流通分，而後者沒有。自玄奘法師譯出略本《心經》之後，這個本子就成為中國古代大德注釋的對象，而某些注釋的內容則如孔徹（E.Conze）所說的： 「它們表達其固有文化更甚於印度原典所要傳達的內容」。此處的印度原典指的就是現存於西藏大藏經中的七部印度學者所造的《心經》注釋（只有藏譯而全無漢譯）。依孔徹的看法，中國古代的《心經》注釋似乎與印度原典的原意有所出入；這種歧異的產生，除了文化背景的不同之外，筆者認為宗義見解的差異可能也是重要的因素。 本篇論文所要探討的對象就是這七部印度注釋中，年代最早、篇幅也最短的一部 -- 蓮花戒的《般若波羅蜜多心經釋》。從注釋當中，我們可以得知這位印度大乘中後期的瑜伽行中觀自續派學者如何理解《心經》，如何將「五道」的觀念融合於《心經》當中，以及如何以「量」來修學或決定諸佛之母 -- 般若波羅蜜多等等諸問題。

　　　　　There are two Sanskrit versions of the Heart Sutra an extensive and abridged one. Their difference lies in the introductory and concluding sections which are only found in the extensive version. In China, it was the short version which was generally commented upon after it had been translated by Hsuan-tsang. For some of these commentaries Conze's observation holds true that they rather expressed the traditional indigenous culture than the contents of the Indian originals. Originals in this context refers to the seven Indian Heart Sutra commentaries preserved in the Tibetan canon. In Conze's opinion, Chinese annotations tend to differ from Indian exegesis and he sees the influence of traditional Chinese culture at work here. The present writer believes that, in addition, different doctrinal points of view might also have played a role. The present paper is a study on the earliest and shortest of these seven commentaries, the one by Kamalsila. His glosses make clear how he as a late Indian Mahayana scholar of Yogic Autonomy Middle Way School persuasion understood the Heart Sutra, how he integrated the idea of the five paths, how he employed valid cognition to practice and ascertain prajnaparamita, the mother of all Buddhas, and so on.