Early Buddhist Oral Tradition: Textual Formation and Transmission

A fascinating investigation into the formation and transmission of the early Buddhist oral tradition.

FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS after his death, the Buddha’s teachings were transmitted orally, from person to person. In this volume, acclaimed scholar-monk Bhikkhu Anālayo examines the impact of such oral transmission on early Buddhist texts, be these monastic rules, verses, or prose portions of the early discourses. He scrutinizes various oral aspects of these texts, surveying evidence for memory errors, the impact of attempts at systematization, and instances of additions and innovations. Finally, he explores the implications of the nature of these texts as the final product of centuries of oral transmission and evaluates the type of conclusions that can — and cannot — be drawn based on them. In-depth but still accessible, Early Buddhist Oral Tradition is an engrossing and enlightening inquiry into the oral dimensions of the early Buddhist texts.

What is well transmitted orally

can still be empty, vain, and false,

and, too, what is not well transmitted orally

can still be factual, true, and not otherwise. (MN 95)

Contents

Introduction

I.The Recital of the Monastic Rules

1. After the Buddha’s Demise

2. The Growth and Recitation of the Code of Rules

3. Concatenation and Waxing Syllables

4. Different Monastic Lineages

5. Communal Recitation

6. The Group of Six

7. The Ruling on a Breach of Celibacy

8. The Ruling Against Killing a Human Being

9. Vinaya and Discourse Literature

10. Memorization and Improvisation

11. Summary

II.Discourse and Verse Collections

1. The Four Discourse Collections (Āgama)

2. The Long Discourse Collections

3. The Collections of Discourses of Medium Length

4. Topic-wise Collections

5. Numerical Discourse Collections

6. Discourses Without Parallels

7. The Textual Limbs

8. Verse Collections

9. Two Early Verse Collections

10. The Chapter on Eights

11. Inspired Utterances

12. Textual Memory

13. Summary

III.Memory Errors

1. The Explanatory Model of Intentionality

2. Innocent Variations

3. Sequence Errors

4. Meaningless Additions

5. Conflations

6. Loss of Text

7. Lack of Homogenization

8. Oral Recitation and Memory

9. The Limitations of Memory

10. Summary

IV.Systematization

1. Repetition

2. Abbreviation

3. Concatenation

4. The Structure of the Pāli Medium-Length Collection

5. The Sequence of Long Discourses

6. Structural Aspects of the Collections of Short Discourses

7. Delimiting the Four Discourse Collections

8. Variations of Formulas

9. Summary and Exposition

10. Repetition Series

11. Systematization and Orality

12. Summary

V.Additions and Innovations

1. Creative Dimensions of Abbreviation

2. Remembering Lists

3. Substantial Additions

4. The Providing of a Commentary

5. Evidence for the Incorporation of a Commentary

6. The Implications of Parallelism

7. A Key Element for the Bodhisattva Path

8. An Abhidharma Treatment

9. The Problem of Accurate Source Monitoring

10. Summary

VI.Implications of Orality

1. In Quest of the Original

2. Pre-canonical Buddhism

3. The Word of the Buddha

4. Comprehensive Coverage

5. Intentional Change

6. A Shift of Perspective

7. Dynamics of Orality

8. Summary

Conclusion

Abbreviations

Notes

References

Index

About the Author

Introduction

In the following pages I examine the early Buddhist oral tradition from the viewpoint of its formation and transmission. The central question I intend to explore is how best to understand its dynamics: What is the most appropriate model for interpreting the existence of numerous variations between versions of a discourse preserved by different reciter lineages, given that these same parallels also show a remarkable degree of similarity and correspondence (together with exhibiting features of memorization that point to a concern with accurate transmission)? The present book is meant to express my current understanding of this topic in a way accessible to the general reader.

The presentation in what follows is the outcome of some twenty years of studying the relevant textual records, leading to about four hundred publications mainly based on comparative studies of parallel versions of these texts as transmitted by different oral recitation lineages. Central among these publications is my habilitation research, a comparative study of some one hundred fifty Pāli discourses of medium length in the light of a broad range of parallels extant in Chinese, Gāndhārī, Sanskrit, Tibetan, and at times even other languages.¹ Taking up such a range of texts in a single study had the obvious disadvantage that the sheer amount of material prevents the precision regarding details that is possible when doing a comparative study of a single text, ideally based on translating the different parallels. In this respect, my habilitation research can only offer a humble starting point for those wishing to do a closer study of a single discourse.

The advantage, however, is that surveying a broad range of parallels evidences general patterns of orality. This does not happen in a comparable way when doing only a few selected and more detailed comparative studies, where quite naturally the at times erratic nature of variations between parallels can leave a puzzling impression. It is only through an examination of many such cases that patterns behind the apparent muddle become clearer.

My exploration in the following pages begins with the key text recited regularly at fortnightly monastic observances, the code of rules (Pāli pātimokkha, Sanskrit prātimokṣa), and its relation to the narratives purporting to record the circumstances under which a particular rule was promulgated.

Patterns that emerge when studying the code of rules and the respective narratives recur in relation to verses embedded in prose narrations that similarly relate the circumstances believed to have led to the proclamation of the verse(s) in question. I explore these in the second chapter, after providing a brief overview over the different discourse collections. The third to fifth chapters are dedicated to various oral aspects of the early discourses, surveying evidence for memory errors, the impact of attempts at systematization, and instances of additions and innovations. Based on the material examined in this way, in the sixth chapter I explore the implications of the nature of these texts as the final product of centuries of oral transmission and evaluate the type of conclusions that can (and cannot) be drawn based on them, followed by presenting a sketch of the dynamics of early Buddhist orality.

A chief problem in studying the evidence provided by the early texts is the almost inevitable tendency to think in terms of modern modes of producing written texts. Yet, textual production in an oral setting differs substantially and needs to be considered on its own terms. My attempts to do justice to this requirement have benefitted from my experience of living many years in Sri Lanka, where the oral dimension of communication is still considerably more important than in the West, as well as from staying for some time on another occasion with tribal people living in the traditional way of hunting and gathering, a way of life in which communications were still entirely oral. Such personal experiences have helped me in my struggle to step out of the framework of thinking exclusively in terms of the written medium.

My presentation here is meant to provide an introduction to the relevant themes rather than an exhaustive survey, which within the limitations of a single monograph is not possible. Based on excerpts from my own more detailed studies of the respective points, I present a few selected examples to illustrate patterns of more general relevance. My aim throughout is to render academic research by myself and others more widely accessible, for which reason I try my best to explain ideas and concepts that are not necessarily familiar to the general reader. I have also endeavored to keep the main text as accessible as possible by relegating the more academic type of information to annotation. In addition, each chapter concludes with a brief summary of the main points of my discussion. In this way I trust it will be possible for the general reader to ignore the annotation and just read the main text, whereas my academic colleagues will hopefully still find in the annotations the information required to substantiate my presentation.

Whatever worth there may be in the following pages, none of it would have come into existence without the help of innumerable friends and colleagues over the past twenty years. Adequately naming each is no longer possible, hence I here express my deep gratitude in general to all and everyone who has, directly or indirectly, contributed to the growth of my understanding and the continuity of my research leading up to the present publication.

I The Recital of the Monastic Rules

In what follows I begin by surveying the role and significance of the regular fortnightly recitation of the code of rules (Pāli pātimokkha, Sanskrit prātimokṣa) for the functioning of a monastic community. I also relate the coming into existence of different versions of this code of rules to the arising of distinct monastic ordination traditions and hence distinct oral transmission lineages. Then I explore the development of narratives that report the circumstances believed to have led to the promulgation of the rules against breaches of celibacy and against homicide (including assisted suicide). The material surveyed in this way affords me an occasion to take up the topic of memorization and improvisation, which are of continuous relevance for subsequent chapters.

1.AFTER THE BUDDHA’S DEMISE

The role of the regular recitation of the code of rules as a crucial element in the functioning of the Buddhist monastic community (saṅgha) is aptly reflected in a Pāli discourse titled Discourse to Gopaka Moggallāna (Gopakamoggallānasutta) and narratively situated at a time shortly after the Buddha’s demise. The relevant passage explains how the early Buddhist monastic community was able to remain in harmony despite the circumstance that the Buddha had not appointed a successor, none of his disciples was regarded by others as similar to the Buddha, and no one had been appointed by them as their leader. The explanation provided by Ānanda, a chief disciple who according to tradition served for a long time as the Buddha’s attendant, takes the following form:²

Brahmin, there are the guidelines of training laid down and the code of rules set forth for the monastics by the Blessed One who knows and sees, the arahant, the fully and rightly awakened one. As many of us as live in reliance on a certain village district all gather in the same place on an observance day; having gathered, we request one who has maintained [the code of rules to recite it]. When it is being recited, if there is an offence or a transgression, we make the monastic act in accordance with the teaching, in accordance with the instruction.

The Discourse to Gopaka Moggallāna has a parallel extant in Chinese translation, which presents a comparable explanation:³

Suppose we dwell in reliance on a village or town. On the fifteenth day, when it is the time to recite the code of rules, we come together to sit in one place. If a monastic knows the teaching [of the code of rules], we invite that monastic to recite the teaching to us. If that assembly is pure, we all delight in and respectfully receive the recitation of that monastic. If that assembly is not pure, we instruct and deal with it according to the teaching that has been recited.

The differences that can be observed between these two passages are typical of what emerges on comparative study of parallel versions of an early Buddhist text. In the present case, alongside some variations the two parallels agree in highlighting the role of the teaching encapsulated in the code of rules as a central reference point to ensure harmony in the absence of anyone serving as a successor to the Buddha. Commenting on this passage, Eltschinger (2020, 138) notes that "the genuine successor of the Buddha is not one of his monks, not even a person, but the law, equated here with the prātimokṣa." Regarding the continuous role of this type of successor to the Buddha, Gombrich (1988, 110) observes that

the pātimokkha ritual’s communal function . . . was the one thing which held the Sangha together . . . since monks moved between communities, these regular compulsory meetings bound the Sangha together as a whole. We must remember that there was nothing else to do so, both because of the difficulty of communications and because there was no hierarchy, no structure of command, after the Buddha’s death.

The importance of participation in the regular recitation of the code of rules finds illustration in a story reported in the different Vinayas, the texts on discipline for monastics. According to the story in question, a monastic reflected on whether his presence was actually needed, given that he was pure. The narrative continues with the Buddha, who had become aware of the monastic’s reflection, approaching him to clarify that his presence was indeed needed.⁴ The story enshrines the basic principle that participation in the group recital of the code of rules was not negotiable, reflecting its importance in holding the monastic community together.

In order to serve this role in fostering communal harmony, there needs to be agreement among the gathered monastics on the contents of the code of rules. In an oral setting and in the absence of written records, the code of rules must have been regarded as a fixed text to be memorized with accuracy. In the words of McGovern (2019, 463), who otherwise argues in favor of viewing improvisation as a central element influencing the early texts, no one would seriously doubt that this list of rules was memorized.⁵ As pointed out by Allon (2018, 234),

group recitation requires that the wording of the text and the arrangement of the textual units within a collection be fixed . . . a text — a sūtra, verse or textual unit or a collection of them — is fixed as long as it is memorized, repeated and communally recited without being intentionally changed, which of course allows for unintentional change.

2.THE GROWTH AND RECITATION OF THE CODE OF RULES

Judging from the textual records, the code of rules in its present form appears to be the result of a gradual accretion of regulations promulgated on various occasions. Such a process may be reflected in a reference in a Pāli discourse to over one hundred and fifty rules,⁶ thereby giving a number that falls short of the full count of the Theravāda code of rules for monks.⁷ A gradual growth of the number of rules also appears to stand in the background of a regulation found similarly in the different Vinayas. The regulation concerns the case of monastics pretending to be surprised on hearing a particular rule being mentioned. In the narrative setting, such a pretense serves to avoid being considered guilty of a breach.

The regulation in question makes best sense in a situation where the code of rules had not yet reached its final form. In such a setting, it could indeed happen that one suddenly comes to hear a rule being recited, which presumably has just been included in the code of rules, due to having only recently been promulgated. In other words, the attempt to pretend ignorance of a particular rule would only really work in a situation where this could in principle have occurred. The report of the Buddha’s censure of this type of pretense comes with the indication that, once someone has participated in (the latest version of) the recital at least two or three times, such a person is expected to know its contents and any pretense of ignorance should not be accepted.⁸ With a continuously expanding set of rules, one could indeed only be sure these are known once a particular monastic has at least a few times participated in their recital, after this has been updated to include the latest promulgation. In this way, the early stages in the recitation of the code of rules exemplify the inherent fluidity of the early Buddhist oral material in general, depicted by Davidson (1990/1992, 293) in this way:

During the more than forty years of the Buddha’s teaching career, there were many monks acting as authoritative teachers of the doctrine throughout the kingdom of Magadha and its border areas. They would cross paths with the master from time to time and receive new information as his doctrine and teaching style developed. They would also receive new information from one another during the fortnightly congregations, the summer rains retreats, and whenever they met as their mendicant paths crossed.

Visualizing the situation in this way, there would have been a continuous need for updating the body of texts a particular reciter had memorized, including the rules themselves.

Another development can be discerned regarding the carrying out of such recital. During an early period, the actual recitation of this continuously expanding code of rules apparently served as the occasion for admitting an offense.⁹ This is evident in an injunction found in the motion that introduces a recital of the different codes of rules, which enjoins that all assembled monastics should pay careful attention to what is being recited. Offenders should reveal their transgressions, whereas those who are pure should remain silent.¹⁰ In support of keeping in mind this function, the actual recital includes recurrent inquiries as to whether the assembled monastics are pure in regard to the particular set of rules just recited. Such questioning would have afforded a natural occasion for admitting a transgression. Kieffer-Pülz (2021, 48) explains that

even though the question of the reciter is posed in the assembly in a general manner, each of the participating monks needs to understand it as if they had been personally asked, and, therefore, each has to respond to this question — if they have committed an offence — before the question has been asked for a third time.

In the course of time, this procedure appears to have been modified such that the revelation of transgressions instead took place before the recital of the code of rules began. As Gombrich (1991, 35) notes, the procedure was changed: monks paired off and confessed to each other before the public recitation.¹¹ The net result was a shift of the nature of the fortnightly observance toward becoming more formalized and avoiding any disruption in the continuity of the recitation. I will return below to this shift, which is of relevance to an appreciation of the impact of memorization errors on the transmission of the code of rules in different reciter lineages.

A recital of the code of rules can be considered to involve a group recitation. In principle, such a group recitation can take different forms: everyone recites together, one person recites and the others repeat, or one person recites and the others just follow mentally, possibly intervening to correct if a mistake should occur. The last of these models is the one particularly relevant to the fortnightly observance. From a normative perspective, as explained by Ñāṇatusita (2014, xlviii):

While the Pātimokkha [code of rules] is recited, meticulous attention is paid to the recitation by the reciter as well as the other bhikkhus who are present so that no word is omitted and that the pronunciation of every word and syllable is correct.

In addition to the fortnightly observance, another occasion for recital is when teaching the code of rules to others. In such a setting, other modalities of group recitation would be relevant. At first, a senior monastic knowledgeable in the code of rules would teach newly ordained monks by reciting it for them portion by portion, with the others repeating until they have well memorized the relevant part. Lacking a written reference point, such a step-by-step procedure can enable students of differing memorization capacities to byheart the code of rules. Once this has been achieved at least to some degree, they could all recite together, the teacher leading by reciting louder and the others reciting at the same time, thereby gaining a chance to correct what they may have wrongly memorized or to be reminded of the proper sequence. Eventually, the teacher may invite individuals to do their own recitation, stepping in to correct should an error occur.

Although in principle the pattern of potential intervention to correct errors would be relevant to the fortnightly observance as well, the situation changes if the reciting monastic is the most senior one or the one who usually teaches the code of rules to others. Given the pervasive emphasis on respect for seniority in monastic protocol and the high regard for teachers in the ancient Indian setting, it is considerably less likely that others would have the courage to interrupt and correct if a mistake occurred. Moreover, the actual carrying out of the fortnightly observance need not conform to the normative expectation of meticulous attention paid by all those who are present, as boredom can easily set in and lead to participants no longer attending carefully to the details of what is being recited. In other words, correction of a mistake requires first of all that its occurrence is clearly noticed and in addition that the one who notices it feels entitled to point it out. A preference for keeping quiet must have become further strengthened once the nature of the fortnightly observance changed in the manner described above, whereby the actual recitation no longer served as an occasion for revealing transgressions. In such a setting of uninterrupted recitation, chances increase that errors remain uncorrected because speaking up to note a mistake will be more embarrassing as it interrupts the smooth performance of the ritual observance.

A problem here is in particular the lack of an external reference point to decide disagreements on what should be recited. In an entirely oral setting, perceptions of correctness depend very much on the authority exerted by a particular monastic. If a monastic of considerable seniority and good repute should have a slip of memory, which in view of the nature of human memory can easily happen, chances that this will not be corrected are fairly high. After all, someone who may have noticed this error would have no way to double-check, as there is no written testimony to what had up to then been the correct version.¹² If the reciting monastic should be the one who teaches the code of rules to newly ordained monastics, what until then would have been considered an error will morph into becoming part of what from now on will be considered the correct version among the disciples in the lineage of this teacher.

3.CONCATENATION AND WAXING SYLLABLES

The group recital of the code of rules can rely on a feature called concatenation to facilitate recall of the rules in order. Such concatenation, which is a feature of ancient Indo-Iranian orality,¹³ is one of two patterns that I would like to introduce briefly at this point. In the present case, concatenation involves an arrangement of the sequence of the rules, whenever this is possible, in such a way that an item mentioned in one rule recurs in the next rule. Such arranging could be the result of a conscious application of the principle of concatenation. Alternatively, it could also be that rules just happened to be ordered in a way that results in their being more easily memorized, which would in turn strengthen the tendency for this particular sequence to become the standard one in a particular reciter tradition. In fact, since the basic working mechanism of memory is by way of association, the occurrence of concatenation could at times simply result from the way human memory stores information. Besides the code of rules, the same principle of concatenation can be seen at work in other early Buddhist texts, a topic to which I will return in the next chapter.¹⁴

The way concatenation functions can be exemplified with a few rules from the Theravāda Vinaya,¹⁵ taken from the class of rules whose transgression requires being disclosed to a fellow monastic (pācittiya).¹⁶ In the translation below, the terms that serve to link rules are alternatively in italics or in capital letters. In each case, a breach of the rule occurs if the following happens:

If any monk should make someone not fully ordained recite the teaching word-by-word (4)

If any monk should for more than two or three nights LIE DOWN TO SLEEP TOGETHER with someone not fully ordained (5)

If any monk should LIE DOWN TO SLEEP TOGETHER with a woman (6)

If any monk should impart a teaching to a woman in more than six or five sentences, except when a knowledgeable male [is also present] (7)

In this way, the reference to someone who is not fully ordained connects rules 4 and 5, the action of lying down to sleep together connects rules 5 and 6, and the mention of a woman connects rules 6 and 7 (in the corresponding rules for nuns, the corresponding reference is instead to a man). The same pattern continues beyond the rules presented above, as the term teaching in rule 7 recurs in a compound in rule 8, which shares with rule 9 a reference to someone not fully ordained (a reference thus shared by rules 4, 5, 8, and 9).

The application of such concatenation can considerably facilitate the challenging task of remembering the rules in order, once their sequence has been established. At the same time, such application is naturally limited by the formulation of the rules. If rules do not share terminological similarities of the type mentioned above, they need to be remembered without recourse to such aids to memorization. Moreover, the ordering of rules that do share some terminology can be done in different ways. In the example above, since rules 4, 5, 8, and 9 share the same term, they could in principle have been connected to each other in various ways.

Another pattern of considerable impact on the formation of early Buddhist oral texts is the principle of waxing syllables. Application of this principle takes the form of ordering a list of synonyms or otherwise related items in such a way that words with fewer syllables are followed by words with the same number or more syllables.

Such listings of synonyms are a recurrent feature of the early Buddhist texts, related to the pervasive use of repetition in various forms (a topic to which I will turn in a subsequent chapter). Simply said, the tendency is to state a particular quality or item not just once but several times by giving similar terms, somewhat comparable to a thesaurus that lists words in groups of synonyms. The main point appears to be simply to make sure that the meaning shared by these alternative expressions sufficiently impresses itself on the listeners. In particular in the case of listings of near-synonyms, appreciating the underlying message need not be taken to require identifying minor differences of meaning between individual terms in such a series of words. Instead, it would probably do more justice to the oral nature of the texts to focus on what the listed expressions share in common, in the understanding that their purpose is to ensure that this common meaning will not be missed by the listener.

The crescendo effect that results from the application of the principle of waxing syllables to such lists of synonyms facilitates memorization. If a particular list is rather long, the same principle can be applied to subunits, usually grouping together items that have some relationship to each other. An example would be the first part of a rather long Pāli list used to describe irrelevant types of conversations undertaken by not particularly well-behaved monastics.¹⁷ Based on discerning somewhat distinct themes, this description can be divided into six subunits. The sequence of individual words in each subunit in turn follows the principle of waxing syllables:¹⁸

First subunit, talk related to government: kings, robbers, ministers;

rājakathaṃ, corakathaṃ, mahāmattakathaṃ,

syllable count: 4+4+6.

Second subunit, talk related to war: armies, dangers, battles;

senākathaṃ, bhayakathaṃ, yuddhakathaṃ,

syllable count: 4+4+4.

Third subunit, talk related to monastic requisites: food, drink, clothing, beds;

annakathaṃ, pānakathaṃ, vatthakathaṃ, sayanakathaṃ,

syllable count: 4+4+4+5.

Fourth subunit, talk on lay life: garlands, perfumes, relatives, vehicles;

mālākathaṃ, gandhakathaṃ, ñātikathaṃ, yānakathaṃ,

syllable count: 4+4+4+4.

Fifth subunit, talk on localities: villages, towns, cities, counties;

gāmakathaṃ, nigamakathaṃ, nagarakathaṃ, janapadakathaṃ,

syllable count: 4+5+5+6.

Sixth subunit, talk on gossip: women, heroes, streets, wells, the departed;

itthikathaṃ, sūrakathaṃ, visikhākathaṃ, kumbaṭṭhānakathaṃ, pubbapetakathaṃ,

syllable count: 4+4+5+6+6.

Recitation of such a list has an almost musical quality, with the ending of each subunit allowing for a brief pause to catch one’s breath before rhythmically reciting the next. This makes it easier and also to some extent more pleasant to memorize and rehearse a rather long list of different types of conversations.

The application of this principle is not confined to series of synonyms. This can be seen in the wording of the seventh rule taken up above, which concerned teaching in more than six or five sentences. The corresponding Pāli phrase is uttarichappañcavācāhi, where the term for six, cha, occurs before the term for five, pañca. My literal translation as six or five sentences, rather than five or six sentences, is on purpose to reflect this peculiarity. In this way, the sequence of Pāli numerals follows the principle of waxing syllables even though this goes against the natural tendency to adopt an ascending order by listing five first and only then six.¹⁹ I will come back to the two patterns of concatenation and waxing syllables in the next chapter.

4.DIFFERENT MONASTIC LINEAGES

The different Vinayas regulate in much detail the fortnightly recital of the code of rules, whose correct recall can be aided by the two patterns surveyed above. The undertaking of such fortnightly recital is a requirement when more than three monastics live in the same designated area. Alternative modes of recital are recognized, where a fairly simple version requires just reciting the introductory motion and the most important rules (Pāli and Sanskrit pārājika),²⁰ whose intentional breaking results in an irreversible loss of the status of being a fully ordained monastic.²¹ The next alternative adds rules whose breach requires a formal process of rehabilitation on the part of the offender (Pāli saṅghādisesa, Sanskrit saṃghāvaśeṣa or saṃghātiśeṣa).²² Another alternative adds two rules known as undetermined (Pāli and Sanskrit aniyata), and the last alternative recognized is a full recitation of the entire code of rules.²³

After the Buddha’s demise, with the gradual spread of monastic communities over different parts of India, various memorization errors would have naturally led to the emergence of different versions of this code of rules. The occurrence of variations as such is an integral feature of orality. As pointed out by Vansina (1985, 161) in the context of a study of oral tradition in general, at any moment in time the corpus of any community is in fact not totally homogeneous.

In the case of the oral transmission of the Buddhist code of rules, at times differences are merely a matter of minor variations in wording, at other times they affect the sequence of rules, and occasionally they can even result in a particular rule not appearing in all traditions.²⁴ Notably, as evident in a comparative survey of the code of rules for male monastics provided in the groundbreaking work by Waldschmidt (1926, 3) and in an excellent survey of Vinaya literature by Clarke (2015, 62), differences in the actual number of rules for monks between various Vinaya traditions affect in particular those rules that only come up for recitation when the entire code of rules is recited. In the case of the rules for nuns, however, variations in count also affect the rules involving a temporary loss of one’s monastic status.

The adherence to distinct codes of rules is characteristic of the different monastic traditions that came into existence in the course of the history of Indian Buddhism. One of the three monastic lineages still alive today is the Dharmaguptaka tradition, found in China, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, etc. Another monastic lineage is the Mūlasarvāstivāda tradition, found in Tibet and Mongolia.²⁵ Yet another such monastic lineage, extant in South and Southeast Asian countries like Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand, etc., is usually referred to as Theravāda.²⁶

Each of these three traditions follows different codes of rules embedded in different Vinayas; they employ different languages to carry out monastic procedures and wear different monastic robes. Several other such monastic lineages came into existence in India but died out at some point. A convenient referent to such diversity takes the form of speaking of eighteen such lineages, where the number eighteen is best taken in a figurative sense, rather than as accurately reflecting the situation on the ground in ancient India.²⁷

The emergence of these different monastic traditions is often conceptualized as the result of schisms. The