Recently, I made a post:[quote=“Coemgenu, post:6, topic:5659”]
Futhering the likelihood that Ven Fǎxiǎn retrieved these from Abhayagirivihāra (where Sanskrit Mahāyāna and Pāli scriptures were studied)
[/quote]Framing EBT vs non-EBT classifications is a more complex issue than “Mahāyāna vs Pāli” (since, we we likely know, Sanskrit, Chinese, & Gāndhārī (and a host of unknown ones!) accompany/have accompanied Pāli amongst the “Dharma languages” of the EBTs), so I should have said differently (and will correct this shortly).
But that leaves a question: how do we refer to sectarian literature that is “early” (relatively speaking) but is not an “EBT” in the sense of having parallels, etc., and is decidedly not Mahāyāna literature?
Our only extant EBTs are from “sectarian Buddhism” (for the simple reason that the sectarian period preserves recensions of texts older than the sectarian period itself), if one will, and as such, how do we refer to these texts (for example the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma & the Theravāda Abhidhamma) which are themselves very old (older than Mahāyānasūtrāṇi, for instance), but not “oldest”, per se.
I suggest “Early Sectarian Texts” (ESTs) or “Early Buddhist Sectarian Texts” (EBST or EBsT), but is there a handy preëxisting term?