Source: Silk 1997

Silk agrees with parts of Yamada's analysis (Yamada 1976), but argues further, on the basis of convincing but complex textual evidence, that the frame narrative about Ajātaśatru and Vaidehī is most likely to derive from India. Silk argues that a narrative "seam" falls at a similar juncture in many versions of the story, not just this one. Summary from Radich (2011): 46.

Silk examines various versions of this frame narrative, how they line up against one another, what they include and what they omit. He discovers that T365 and Jain versions agree structurally, and contain content that does not appear in other Chinese versions of the story. The likenesses between T365 and Jaina texts from north-western India are significant enough to lead Silk to conclude that “the materials which inspired the authors of the Guan-jing in their composition of the narrative frame were, or at least could have been, presently unknown, and perhaps no longer extant, Indian materials, even if the sūtra as a whole were composed in a non-Indian environment.” That is, the first portion of the prologue narrative frame was borrowed verbatim, or nearly so, from Indian materials.

Silk notes, however, that the same cannot be said for the Guan-jing as a whole. The first section of Silk’s article summarises some significant arguments for the non-Indian origin of the Guan-jing (including Yamada 1976; Fujita Kōtatsu 1990; Shikii Shūjō 1965). The most convincing, according to Silk, are those which suggest a Central Asian origin for the text as a whole, “but probably some area of Central Asia under strong Chinese cultural influence.” On the basis of Yamada's work Silk concludes that T365 was most likely first composed in the Chinese language.

Silk adds that the vocabulary, structure, object, goal, method, and character of T365 owes much to T360 and T643 (Fujita Kōtatsu 1990; Shikii Shūjō 1965). However, according to Mark Blum (1985) these likenesses “may reflect the attitude and abilities of the translator as much as the language or authorship of the original text" since other translations also assigned to Kalayaśas reveal the same type of borrowing.

Catalogues agree in attributing T365 to Kalayaśas. However, Silk advises caution in accepting the attribution of traditional catalogues. He claims they should be interpreted as “records of political decisions”. Silk argues (following Forte 1984) that for a text to be admitted to the canon, it was necessary that it be associated with a geographic source outside China that conferred upon it the authority of orthodoxy, such as India or Indian Central Asia. For these reasons, the “translators” to whom many traditional texts are ascribed “may be better termed a guarantor or certifier of orthodoxy.” “If we are dealing with non-Chinese ‘translators’ [such as Kalayaśas], then we must imagine that these individuals probably had little to do with the actual mechanics of the translation of a text.”

Edit

187, 190