An acute terminological problem in the current scholarship concerns the way of referring to the ancient Buddhist texts: “canonical”, “mainstream”, “Śrāvakayāna”, “conservative” and other terms have been in use as well as have been criticized as not reflecting the matter correctly. I personally see a lot of sense in referring to the Pāli canon and other “canonical” collections as “early Buddhist” collections, and, following Ven. Sujato and Brahmāli, understanding all ancient Buddhist texts that were structured like the sūtra-piṭaka texts as “early Buddhist texts”, in that this is the earliest currently known type of Buddhist literature, which seems to be confirmed by the Gāndhārī finds.