More than fifteen years ago, Schopen (2004, 492) revealed his concern about a certain understanding widespread among scholars of the history of Indian Buddhism, writing, “[t]he historical development of Indian Buddhism used to be presented as simple, straightforward, and suspiciously linear. It started with the historical Buddha whose teaching was organized, transmitted, and more or less developed into what was referred to as early Buddhism. This Early Buddhism was identified as Hīnayāna ... , Theravāda ... , or simply ‘monastic Buddhism.’ ... A little before or a little after the beginning of the common era this early Buddhism was, according to the model, followed by the Mahāyāna ... ” A similar apprehension has recently been expressed in slightly different terms by Harrison (2018, 8–9). It is certainly surprising that scholars’ basic frame of reference for the history of Indian Buddhism is more or less what it was in the late 19th century, despite all of the progress recently made in this field. Developments in the particulars of the subfields of Indian Buddhist history have not entailed comparable developments in the broader frame of reference, despite the fact that such a frame is what allows us to identify and synthesize the details of our field. This paper attempts to address this problem by focusing on three points: first, it reexamines the current state of affairs of materials for the reconstruction of the history of ancient India; second, it reevaluates the status of Pāli materials as historical sources; and third, it reconsiders the concept of ‘canon’ in Buddhist studies.
