Buddhist Education in Pali and Sanskrit Schools

The article by E. J. Thomas surveys the nature and sources of Buddhist education in both Pali and Sanskrit traditions. It begins by noting that the subject of Buddhist education is still riddled with unresolved problems and scholarly debates, particularly concerning the localities where early Buddhist schools formed and how they transmitted the teachings. Thomas points out that the most accessible evidence comes from the Pali Canon and various Sanskrit works that include Mahayana and Hinayana materials. A major challenge in reconstructing Buddhist educational practices is that earlier scholarship relied heavily on Chinese pilgrim records and neglected the thousand-year period after the Buddha’s death when the canon was codified and educational institutions developed. The article emphasizes that Buddhist education cannot be understood simply as an oral transmission of the Buddha’s exact words. It notes that commentarial traditions acknowledge that many suttas were composed by disciples rather than directly by the Buddha and that different councils added material to the canon. Thomas discusses the structure of the Pali Canon and points out that its arrangement into collections such as the Digha, Majjhima, Samyutta and Anguttara Nikayas reflects an early stage of systematization designed to aid memory and teaching. He also draws attention to parallel Sanskrit literature preserved in China and Tibet and stresses the need for comparative study to understand the diversity of early Buddhist scholastic traditions. In examining pedagogical methods, Thomas highlights the importance of mnemonic devices, lists and classifications within the canon, noting that these features were developed to facilitate memorization in a context where texts were initially transmitted orally. He discusses debates over whether the Pali Canon represents a complete record of early teachings or if Sanskrit and Prakrit sources preserve independent traditions. He calls for a cautious approach that recognizes sectarian differences while acknowledging shared doctrinal foundations. By analyzing commentarial discussions on what was recited at the first council, the article underscores that Buddhist education involved ongoing interpretation and adaptation rather than a static curriculum. Thomas concludes by emphasizing the need for further research into the broader cultural and linguistic environment in which Buddhist education evolved. He suggests that scholars should not assume that the canon reflects a homogenous educational system; rather, Buddhist pedagogy developed through interaction with Brahmanical scholarship and regional literary practices. His study thus provides a foundation for understanding how Buddhist institutions preserved, classified and taught their scriptures, while also highlighting gaps in our knowledge and the importance of comparative textual study.

Summary reviewed by a volunteer editor.