In Harrison (2002) and Ven. Shih Tzu-jwo (2001), both of them suggest strongly that T101(Za-A-Han-Jing, single fascicle) was translated by An Shi-gao. According to them, the Chinese term “Cong-Hou-Shuo-Jue” is the distinctive feature of An Shigao’s translation. Even the term “Cong-Hou-Shuo-Jue” did imply the phrases in question were gāthās, the translator still rendered them in prose. In fact, Yin-Shun (1989) had recommended it based on the term “Cong-Hou-Shuo-Jue” shown in T101. He also raised examples from suttas other than T101 and T150a. However, both Harrison (2002) and Ven. Shih Tzu-jwo (2001) did not mention opinions of Yin-Shun. In this article, I examine six suttas carrying the passage “Cong-Hou-Shuo-Jue” in T101 against its parallels respectively. Then I examine those suttas with passage of gāthā(s) but without the use of “Cong-Hou-Shuo-Jue”. I find it probable that some translations of gāthās was not in ‘prose’. Through detailed comparative studies among suttas picked by me, it showed some chances that the original translation was confused by transcribing errors. These errors might introduce ideas such as gāthās had been rendered in prose in T101. On the issue of the translator of T101, Yin-Shun (1989), Ven. Shih Tzu-jwo (2001) and Harrison (2002) suggested it to be An Shi-gao, while Nattier(2008) was quite hesitated to agree upon it. I enumerate ideas of them first, then I describe the reasons why I oppose to this suggestion.
