Hiraoka argues that there are narrative materials in the prose portions of this text that align with materials unique to more than one sectarian transmission lineage in India, and therefore that it is unlikely that the text was composed in its present form in an Indic context; rather, that it also features editorial expansion and intervention effected at the point of Chinese translation. Therefore, it is not entirely a translation text, but in Funayama's terms, "somewhere between translation and composition". Nonetheless, Hiraoka raises no reasons to suspect the attribution to Zhu Fonian. Hiraoka also mentions that Watanabe Kazuko 渡辺和子. 法句譬喩経. 本縁部 5. 新国訳大蔵経. 大蔵出版 2000: 8-9, says that T212 borrows from T211.
Hiraoka argues that there are narrative materials in the prose portions of this text that align with materials unique to more than one sectarian transmission lineage in India, and therefore that it is unlikely that the text was composed in its present form in an Indic context; rather, that it also features editorial expansion and intervention effected at the point of Chinese translation. Therefore, it is not entirely a translation text, but in Funayama's terms, "somewhere between translation and composition". Nonetheless, Hiraoka raises no reasons to suspect the attribution to Zhu Fonian. Hiraoka also mentions that Watanabe Kazuko 渡辺和子. 法句譬喩経. 本縁部 5. 新国訳大蔵経. 大蔵出版 2000: 8-9, says that T212 borrows from T211. T0212; 出曜經