In the field of Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma studies, a progressive view of history has been accepted by Japanese scholars. The theory, which assumes a unilinear development of the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma texts, from the sūtra itself to later exegeses such as the Abhidharmakośa, was first presented by Taiken Kimura (1881–1930, 木村泰賢), who is known as the Japanese establisher of modern academic study on the Abhidharma. After Kimura, his progressive theory was maintained by his followers, although they made some amendments. However, this progressive theory is being severely criticized by recent scholarship because Kimura’s followers also learned that the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma treatises have variants that sometimes conflict with each other at various points in the Sarvāstivāda dogmatics, and this discovery strongly indicates that the development of those texts cannot be assumed to be a unilinear one. In brief, scholars in the field of Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma studies are facing a paradigm shift, and they are therefore required to rethink the viewpoint, methodology, and framework of its study.
To tackle the issue, in this paper I consider Kimura’s theory in Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma studies, from Fa Bao (eighth century CE, 法寶), one of the disciples of Xuan Zhang (玄奘), to Japanese modern scholars, with a particular focus on the chronology of the Abhidharma treatises. By comparing Kimura’s theory of Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma history with the approach taken by both traditional scholars and Kimura’s contemporaries, it is shown that his theory should be evaluated as an interpretation of pre-modern chronology with the application of modern academic thinking. Finally, based on the conclusion that Kimura was under the influence of traditional scholarship in East Asia, I point out the necessity of further research on pre-modern Abhidharma studies, especially those from Edo-period Japan, to critically reconsider modern studies on it.
