Buddhaghosa introduces unorthodox views of anonymous ones in his
Visuddhimagga (Vism) and other Pāli commentaries, while Dhammapāla in his
sub-commentaries sometimes identifies them as the Abhayagirivihāravāsins’.
It has been pointed that some of the views are found in the Vimuttimagga
(Vim), and consequently the Vim has been considered to be the work of this
school. Nevertheless, some scholars threw doubts about the relevance of the
coincidence of the three facts, that is, the anonymous ones’ views known to
Buddhaghosa, the Dhammapāla’s identification and the doctine in the Vim.
It seems, however, not fair if we, reputing that a theory is not enough proven,
attempt to make an alternative explanation besed on a pile of hypotheses
without verification and further investigation, while there is no rebuttal. It has
to be more carefully weighed that if a sigle dhamma as a constituent element
is different, it affects the basis of the elaborate system of the Theravāda
Abhidhamma philosophy. In this sense, a placement of dhutaṅga (ascetic
practice) in the Abhidhamma categories can be of great significance as one of
the criteria to characterize the Abhayagirivihāravāsins.
Taking that into account, I reexamined the controversy over the definition
of dhutaṅga in the Vism and the Vim, and then considered how and why the
Mahāvihāravāsins and the Abhayagirivihāravāsins classified it into a different
category. Overviewing the references in the Vism and the Vim and especially
looking closely the passage in the Vim: “[Dhutaṅga] should not be stated
to be wholesome, unwholesome or indeterminate,” one may challenge their
concordance. However, there is a further crucial evidence to link the Vim to the
Abhayagirivihāravāsins, that in the Vim dhutaṅga is explicitly mentioned in the
list of concept (paññatti) which has been unknown to the scholars.
Looking into the Pāli canon, we often meet ascetic practitioners who are
of evil wishes, pursue a reputation, and so on. There are philosophical gaps
between the Vism and Pāli commentaries, too, regarding the understanding of
dhutaṅga. Furthermore, we notice that the definition of dhutaṅga in the Vism
was not given by Buddhaghosa, but was quoted from “Aṭṭhakathā” as an old
commentary. It seems reasonable to suppose that discussions as to dhutaṅga
arose in the Sīhaḷa-sources of Pāli commentaries and bhāṇakas (reciters),
and that these two schools built their definitions of dhutaṅga, receiving the
preceding discussions and trying to refuse the view that it can be unwholesome.
