Source: Chen Hong 2004

Chen Hong 陳洪. "Jiu za piyu jing yanjiu"《舊雜譬喻經》研究. Zongjiaoxue yanjiu 宗教學研究 2004, no. 2: 92-99.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Chen argues that T206 is not a translation of Kang Senghui, but should rather be regarded as anonymous. His reasons are as follows:

This work is not mentioned in Kang Senghui’s biography in CSZJJ. In Sengyou's catalogue of anonymous scriptures in CSZJJ, fasc. 4, a Jiu piyu jing 舊譬喻經 in two fascicles is mentioned, but treated as anonymous 失譯. GSZ added a Za piyu jing 雜譬喻經 to the list of texts ascribed to Kang Senghui, thus beginning the problematic attribution. Later catalogues confused the titles 雜譬喻經, 雜譬喻集經, 舊雜譬喻經, and 舊雜譬喻集經, mingled all of these into one, and attributed it to Kang Senghui.

Two stories in T206 also occur in the Liu du ji jing 六度集經 T152, namely, the story of the peacock king "孔雀王與青雀" T152(20) and the rabbit jātaka "兔本生" T152(21) [Chen's labels for the stories, not their original titles]. By comparing these two stories in T206 and T152, Chen Hong notices that the wording differs significantly, that in T206 being simpler and inferior in quality. Therefore, Chen Hong concludes that T206 is not a work of Kang Senghui.

Information about the status of the Taishō version of T206 is also chaotic.The Jing lü yi xiang 經律異相 T2121 (JLYX) quotes 6 stories marked as from the Jiu za piyu jing 舊雜譬喻經 or Jiu piyu jing 舊譬喻經, indicating that a Jiu za piyu jing existed prior to JLYX. But at least one of the stories quoted in JLYX is not included in the present T206, and therefore, [our present] T206 cannot be the original of the Jiu za piyu jing mentioned in JLYX.

Daoxuan’s DTNDL records a Jiu za piyu jing with a length of 二卷三十七紙 “2 fascicles, 37 pages”. The same notice appears in Zhisheng’s KYL. Chen suggests that around 20 stories in the Fa yuan zhu lin 法苑珠林 T2122 (FYZL) are from this version of the Jiu za piyu jing. All of these approx. 20 stories are also preserved in the current T206, in the same wording, with no significant textual variations. Thus he concludes that T206 was copied from the Tang edition of the Jiu za piyu jing.

Chen also notices that stories nos. 16, 17, 18, and 25 are in the same order in the FYZL and the Zhu jing yao ji 諸經要集 T2123 (ZJYJ), as well as in T206. He suggests that this indicates that T206 preserves some of the same sequences of stories as in the Tang Jiu za piyu jing. Similar sequences between the Tang Jiu za piyu jing and T206 can also be confirmed by the sequence of glosses in Xuanying’s 玄應 Yiqie jing yin yi一切藏經音 T2128 (YQJYY). Again this confirms that T206 is based on the Tang version of the Jiu za piyu jing, and preserves some features of the latter.

However, Chen points out that some stories found in T206 also appear in JLYX, but are not marked as from the Jiu za piyu jing. Thus, T206 is not the same as the Tang Jiu za piyu jing. It includes stories from sources such as the 6 fascicle Za piyu jing 雜譬喻經, a 2 fascicle Piyu jing 譬喻經, and the Jashe jie Anan jing 迦葉詰阿難經. He concludes that T206 was compiled in the Tang period, later than the Tang Jiu za piyu jing, but earlier than YQJYY.

Lastly, after comparing the same stories in JLYX, FYZL, and ZJYJ, Chen suggests that stories in T206 have many textual errors and omissions, and that T206 is thus a very poor edition.

Edit

 Chen argues that T206 is not a translation of Kang Senghui, but should rather be regarded as anonymous. His reasons are as follows: This work is not mentioned in Kang Senghui’s biography in CSZJJ. In Sengyou's catalogue of anonymous scriptures in CSZJJ, fasc. 4, a Jiu piyu jing 舊譬喻經 in two fascicles is mentioned, but treated as anonymous 失譯. GSZ added a Za piyu jing 雜譬喻經 to the list of texts ascribed to Kang Senghui, thus beginning the problematic attribution. Later catalogues confused the titles 雜譬喻經, 雜譬喻集經, 舊雜譬喻經, and 舊雜譬喻集經, mingled all of these into one, and attributed it to Kang Senghui. Two stories in T206 also occur in the Liu du ji jing 六度集經 T152, namely, the story of the peacock king "孔雀王與青雀" T152(20) and the rabbit jataka "兔本生" T152(21) [Chen's labels for the stories, not their original titles]. By comparing these two stories in T206 and T152, Chen Hong notices that the wording differs significantly, that in T206 being simpler and inferior in quality. Therefore, Chen Hong concludes that T206 is not a work of Kang Senghui. Information about the status of the Taisho version of T206 is also chaotic.The Jing lu yi xiang 經律異相 T2121 (JLYX) quotes 6 stories marked as from the Jiu za piyu jing 舊雜譬喻經 or Jiu piyu jing 舊譬喻經, indicating that a Jiu za piyu jing existed prior to JLYX. But at least one of the stories quoted in JLYX is not included in the present T206, and therefore, [our present] T206 cannot be the original of the Jiu za piyu jing mentioned in JLYX. Daoxuan’s DTNDL records a Jiu za piyu jing with a length of 二卷三十七紙 “2 fascicles, 37 pages”. The same notice appears in Zhisheng’s KYL. Chen suggests that around 20 stories in the Fa yuan zhu lin 法苑珠林 T2122 (FYZL) are from this version of the Jiu za piyu jing. All of these approx. 20 stories are also preserved in the current T206, in the same wording, with no significant textual variations. Thus he concludes that T206 was copied from the Tang edition of the Jiu za piyu jing. Chen also notices that stories nos. 16, 17, 18, and 25 are in the same order in the FYZL and the Zhu jing yao ji 諸經要集 T2123 (ZJYJ), as well as in T206. He suggests that this indicates that T206 preserves some of the same sequences of stories as in the Tang Jiu za piyu jing. Similar sequences between the Tang Jiu za piyu jing and T206 can also be confirmed by the sequence of glosses in Xuanying’s 玄應 Yiqie jing yin yi一切藏經音 T2128 (YQJYY). Again this confirms that T206 is based on the Tang version of the Jiu za piyu jing, and preserves some features of the latter. However, Chen points out that some stories found in T206 also appear in JLYX, but are not marked as from the Jiu za piyu jing. Thus, T206 is not the same as the Tang Jiu za piyu jing. It includes stories from sources such as the 6 fascicle Za piyu jing 雜譬喻經, a 2 fascicle Piyu jing 譬喻經, and the Jashe jie Anan jing 迦葉詰阿難經. He concludes that T206 was compiled in the Tang period, later than the Tang Jiu za piyu jing, but earlier than YQJYY. Lastly, after comparing the same stories in JLYX, FYZL, and ZJYJ, Chen suggests that stories in T206 have many textual errors and omissions, and that T206 is thus a very poor edition. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0206; 舊雜譬喻經