Huifeng wrote:However, the post Vaibhasika material, mainly (semi-) Sautrantika, such as the Kosa, has received huge attention. But, this is not strictly Abhidharma, although many read it as such. In fact, if one reads the Nyananusara, it is obvious that the Vaibhasika Abhidharmikas thought that the Kosa misrepresented the Abhidharma.
Reasons? Later Sautrantika material such as the Kosa is very influential in classical Indian Buddhism. Also, there are Sanskrit versions. The Theravada Abhidhamma is in Pali. Most of the actual Sarvastivada Abhidharma material is only in Chinese. Also, the heavy weight of Tibetan Buddhism in looking at classical Indian Buddhism - the Tibetan traditions have the Kosa, know of but do not have the Sarvastivada material per se, and haven't really heard of the Theravadin Abhidhamma.
Would you say that, when it comes to Sravakayana Abhidharmic influences, Chinese Buddhism leans more towards orthodox Sarvastivada Abhidharma, or also relies a lot on the Kosa?
Well, very few if any do anything straight Abhidharma at all now, or for the last 1000 yrs or so. Though, from people like Yin Shun and the like, then they'll look at all of them. They tend not to have the everything-is-in-the-Kosa attitude that I often see in the West (due to the above reasons). If they want Vaibhasika, then it's the Vibhasa, for example. If they want Sautrantika, then it's the Kosa, its commentaries, and the like.
And in terms of influence, then it's usually contra Abhidharma, rather than from Abhidharma. The Mahaprajnaparamita Upadesa (Dazhidu lun) has a huge amount of Abhidharma material, a not-quite-orthodox Kasmir Vaibhasika but more Gandharin flavor, at that. But then, it's all shot down in a blaze of Madhyamaka. And those other early Madhyamaka texts, eg. the Zhong lun, have a lot of varied Abhidharma material in them too, likewise Jizang and his line. And also the *Satyasiddhi (Chengshi lun), which is sort of Mahasamghika on top of Vaibhasika / Sautrantika stuff.
It's all there, and it depends on the text, the author, and so forth, whether it's classical and modern Chinese Buddhism.
And now, because more stuff from the Pali is available in Chinese (or Japanese), modern Chinese Buddhism can also consider that, too. It's wide open, and getting wider.