[Buddha-l] Lamas and such

[Dan Lusthaus]

Hi James,

> In this context, back in 1993 I remember Jan Nattier referring to the
> term "Nikaya Buddhism" as a possible alternative.  I think she was
> referring to someone else's use of it, but I don't remember who that
> might have been.

Nikaya Buddhism works as an equivalent for early, pre-Buddhaghosa Theravada, 
perhaps, but not for the other "Hinayana" schools, or even later, 
post-Buddhaghosa Theravada. Nikaya indicates the Pali suttas (in distinction 
to vinaya and abhidhamma) if one is being technical. The non-Pali schools, 
who adopted Sanskrit or various other Prakrits referred to their sutra canon 
as Agamas, not Nikayas. At least in a simple sense. Agama Buddhism wouldn't 
work either (e.g., Sarvastivadins are Agamists, but also Abhidharmists; so 
the nomenclature creates as many problems as it pretends to solves, and in 
the end remains a modern invention, not a clear demarcation).

> If not "Early Buddhist Schools," how about "Eighteen-School Buddhism?"

Your suggestions highlight -- probably inadvertently -- precisely why they 
don't work. "Early" indicates archaic, from a long time ago, suggestion they 
have been superceded. But Mahayana never superceded the other schools in 
India or the Indian northwest (Sind, Afghanistan, etc.); they continued to 
thrive. So "early" won't work. And the number 18 was always a fiction, no 
more useful than Sima Qian's calling the pre-Han period in China the Era of 
the 100 Schools (that number has nothing to do with reality at all).

Coming up with a good name isn't as easy as it looks. ;-)

Dan