indeed, the correspondence is interesting, basically they treat a similar set of topics, but the treatment is mostly different. Not to say there aren’t any similarities, but still.
Okay, we find the Dharmaskandha passage here:
Google translates it as:
For a while, Bhagavan was in Shiluofa and lived in the Garden of Solitude in Siduolin . From time to time, there was a Brahman named Shengwen , who came to visit the place of the Buddha , put his palms together respectfully, and said to the Buddha : " I would like to ask the Venerable Gautama less .[4] Only willing to obey . At that time, the World Honored One told Fan Zhi : " Ask as you please , and I will explain it ." Fan Zhi asked , “How many kinds of roots are there ?” The World Honored One said , " There are twenty-two . What are twenty -two ?
Sounds pretty different to the Pali. It then lists the twenty-two faculties. Let’s look at the definition of the “eye”:
What eye root ? It is said that the eyes and forms have been rightly seen and shared with each other , which is called the root of the eyes . Also , when the eye increases and develops eye consciousness , it is called the root of the eye . Also, the eyes and the color are rightly hindered from reaching the same part , which is called the root of the eyes . Also, the right eye for form and the same division with it are called the eye root . Such as the eyes of the past, future, and present are called eye -roots , also known as known, understood, comprehensible, omniscient , cut off , understood , seen , obtained , felt , realized , and so on . , what is observed , what is observed , what is examined, the decision , the touch , the touch , the certificate, etc. What is the answer? It is said that the pure form created by either hell , or near life , or ghost world , or heaven or human , or middling existence and cultivation . All the names are different words ,[5] Thinking , etc. , giving speeches and sayings are called the famous eye , the famous eye place , the famous eye realm , the famous eye root , the famous view , the famous way , the famous guidance , the famous white , the famous purity , the famous store , the famous door , the famous field , the famous things , Celebrities , famous pools , famous seas , famous sores , famous sore gates , and famous shores . If it is the root of the eye , it is taken from the inside .
Now, as for the Vibhanga, it abbreviates the Dhammasangani definition, which I quote here in full:
Yaṁ cakkhu catunnaṁ mahābhūtānaṁ upādāya pasādo attabhāvapariyāpanno anidassano sappaṭigho, yamhi cakkhumhi anidassanamhi sappaṭighamhi rūpaṁ sanidassanaṁ sappaṭighaṁ paṭihaññi vā paṭihaññati vā paṭihaññissati vā paṭihaññe vā, cakkhumpetaṁ cakkhāyatanampetaṁ cakkhudhātupesā cakkhundriyaṁpetaṁ lokopeso dvārāpesā samuddopeso paṇḍaraṁpetaṁ khettampetaṁ vatthuṁpetaṁ nettampetaṁ nayanaṁpetaṁ orimaṁ tīraṁpetaṁ suñño gāmopeso
The eye, that is to say the sentient organ, derived from the Great Phenomena, included in the self-state, nature of the self, invisible and reacting—by which eye, invisible and reacting, one has seen, sees, will, or may see material shape that is visible and reacting—this that is sight, the sphere of eight, the element of vision, the faculty of vision, [this that is] “the world”, “a door”, “an ocean”, “lucent”, “a field”, “[physical] basis”, “a guide”, “guidance”, the “hither shore”, an “empty village”—this is that [material] shape which constitutes the sphere of vision.
It looks like they share some things in common. The list of synonyms at the end is pretty interesting! Still, it looks like the similarities finish with the Pañhāpucchaka, which is about 80% of the text. So 80% is completely different, and 20% has some similarity. And specifically, it is the most “abhidhammic” portions that are different.
Let’s test that theory!
The first of three parts of the Dhatukaya is here:
http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/T26n1540_001
It begins with a matika outlining various dhamma categories, which don’t obviously correspond to any Sutta grouping, then gives definitions of them, and goes on to expand and explain the definitions.
The Dhatukatha begins like this:
https://suttacentral.net/dt1.1/en/unarada?reference=none&highlight=false
It’s a matika that has nothing to do with Dhamma categories, but rather is a set of logical operations for determining relations between dhamma categories; in other words, it’s an order of magnitude more abstract. The categories themselves are introduced on the next page, and they are the samyutta matika, with nothing in common with the categories of the Dhatukaya.
A couple more pages define the scope of the text, then we get to the meat at Dt 2.1. Here we see that there is no expansion or definition of the terms, rather it applies the logical categories of inclusion and exclusion, etc., to the matika.
I’m going to go ahead and say, “almost nothing in common”. I’m sure a deeper analysis would find more things that relate, but they’re really quite different.
I haven’t studied it in a while, but I do not believe this is the case. The Vijnanakaya includes, as a small part, a discussion of some disputed topics, among them being discussions of the puggala and sarvamasti, both of which are among the first topics in the Kathavatthu. But the discussions are much shorter, and there is nothing of the literally hundreds of further topics in the Kathavatthu.
In any case, the Kathavatthu is not really an example of the specifically Theravada Abhidhamma style, as it consists of quotes and argumentation, rather than the playing out of a matika. The peculiar style, which I still hold to be unique to the Theravada, is best exemplified by the Dhammasangani, the Patthana, and the Yamaka, as well as places like the Dhatukatha.
The same format as the Vibhanga suttantabhajaniya or the abhidhammabhajaniya? I can’t recall that myself, but I’m going to go out on a limb and guess it’s the suttantabhajaniya, and that here too, the specifically Theravadin manner of Abhidhamma is quite distinct.
Note that this shows that the Theravada understood that there is a a uniquely “abhidhammic” style within the Abhidhamma, and it is that that I am referring to.
Obviously I needed to define my terms more precisely in the OP. I’m well aware that there are substantial similarities in both content and method between the various Abhidhammas. In fact, one of my longstanding desiderata has been to create a set of Abhidhamma parallels. But the similarities tend to be in those things that are closer to the suttas, as you’d expect.
The Abhidhammas share, in addition, a fairly small core of specifically Abhidhammic ideas (like the, I think, six conditions mentioned in the Sariputrabhidharma vs. the 24 of the Patthana) but the extended treatment is almost completely different. And the other Abhidhammas lack completely (?) the Theravada Abhidhamma method of mathematical creation of entire texts from permutations of a matika.
