Source: Demoto 1995

Demoto Mitsuyo 出本充代. "Senshū hyaku innen kyō no yakushutsu nendai ni tsuite 撰集百因縁経の訳出年代について." Pārigaku Bukkyōgaku bunkagaku パーリ学仏教文化学 8 (1995): 99-108(L).

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

The Zhuan ji bai yuan jing 撰集百緣經 T200 is not mentioned in the Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 (T2145), and the earliest catalogue that contains information about this title is Fajing’s catalogue, completed in 594. Demoto does not think the attribution to Zhi Qian is credible. She points out that many stories in T200 partially overlap with the stories in the Xianyu jing 賢愚經 (T202), and, in particular, story no. 79 and story no. 98 in T200 are clearly based on story no. 8 and story no. 6 in T202. Therefore, the terminus post quem of T200 is 445, when T202 was translated, and the terminus ante quem is 594.

Edit

 The Zhuan ji bai yuan jing 撰集百緣經 T200 is not mentioned in the Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 (T2145), and the earliest catalogue that contains information about this title is Fajing’s catalogue, completed in 594. Demoto does not think the attribution to Zhi Qian is credible. She points out that many stories in T200 partially overlap with the stories in the Xianyu jing 賢愚經 (T202), and, in particular, story no. 79 and story no. 98 in T200 are clearly based on story no. 8 and story no. 6 in T202. Therefore, the terminus post quem of T200 is 445, when T202 was translated, and the terminus ante quem is 594. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0200; 撰集百緣經

Demoto notes close similarities between T200(79) and T202(8). She uses this evidence as part of a larger argument that T200 cannot be earlier than 445 CE, and therefore, that the ascription of T200 to Zhi Qian is suspect. [This means that she treats T200(79) as borrowed from T202(8), rather than the other way around.]

Edit

 Demoto notes close similarities between T200(79) and T202(8). She uses this evidence as part of a larger argument that T200 cannot be earlier than 445 CE, and therefore, that the ascription of T200 to Zhi Qian is suspect. [This means that she treats T200(79) as borrowed from T202(8), rather than the other way around.] T0200; 撰集百緣經 T0202; 賢愚經 T200(79); Bosini wang chou nu yuan 波斯匿王醜女緣 T202(8); Bosini wang nu jingang pin 波斯匿王女金剛品

Demoto notes close similarities between T200(98) and T202(6). She uses this evidence as part of a larger argument that T200 cannot be earlier than 445 CE, and therefore, that the ascription of T200 to Zhi Qian is suspect. [This means that she treats T200(98) as borrowed from T202(6), rather than the other way around.]

Edit

 Demoto notes close similarities between T200(98) and T202(6). She uses this evidence as part of a larger argument that T200 cannot be earlier than 445 CE, and therefore, that the ascription of T200 to Zhi Qian is suspect. [This means that she treats T200(98) as borrowed from T202(6), rather than the other way around.] T0200; 撰集百緣經 T0202; 賢愚經 T200(98); Hengqieda yuan 恒伽達緣 T202(6); Hengqieda pin 恒伽達品