[Buddha-l] Re: G-d, the D-vil and other imaginary friends

[Vicente Gonzalez]

JT> I had thought that the only Mahayana sutra to mention icchantikas was
JT> the Lankavatara. (And that's without any textcritical work to suggest
JT> whether or not this doctrine might have been a later addition--not that
JT> that would be ultimately significant.)
JT> Are there others?

yes. Maybe the main discussion on this topic appears in the mahayana
Mahaparinirvana Sutra. 

The Sutra teaches a "true self" (the emptiness, in positive meaning),
as the final nature of the reality. In a first uncompleted version,
the Sutra presented icchantikas without Buddha nature. Later,
Dharmaksema made a complete translation, and the view on icchantikas
having Buddha Nature was imposed. However, there was a later
appearance of the old uncompleted version. Mainly, it seems to be a
problem of translations. Across the history some people used the old
meaning in doctrinal fights. We can see this use in later times, in
example with Nichiren.  

Following the Suzuki's Lankavatara, also there are icchantikas
Boddhisatvas. Due their old votes of not leaving this world until the
enlightenment of all beings, these Boddhisatvas don't pass to Nirvana.
They have a deep insight in the nature of the things and they don't
need it. They ignore the roots of merit performing his beneficial
role. There are some Pure Land views following this use, in where
Shinran see to himself as an icchantika, however the Amida compassion
is able to rescue even the people who refuse him.

However, I remember to have read in the Sutra of the Complete
Enlightenment, the advice addressed to bodhisattvas of avoiding
purposes to remain indefinitely in the world.

This problem is really slippery.
Should the boddhisatva remain in the world, being aware of the nature
of the world, to teach the forgetfulness of the empty condition of the
world to others? 

Or the final emptiness is the total forgetfulness of emptiness and
bodhisattva role, and in this case without teaching any thing to
others? 

In the second case, Can Mahayana become Hinayana in the effort of
being Mahayana?. Or maybe it is that All is already perfect and these
questions doesn't make sense. But in this case, Why the appearance of
Buddhas in the world being masters of a religious way?


br,