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

[r.g.morrison]

Joel Tetelman writes:

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

Yes. The Mahaaprinirvaa.na Suutra has quite a bit to say on the icchantikas. 
A good article on this is 'The Problem of the Icchantikas in the Mahaayaana 
Mahaaparinirvaa.na Suutra' by Ming-Wood Liu (*The Journal of the 
International Association of Buddhist Studies*, Vol.7 No.1, 1984, pp.57-81). 
He examines three of the Chinese translations, and one sees how the earlier 
view that the icchnatikas can never, ever gain Awakening ('like scorched 
seeds, they will never send forth the sprout of Awakening', p.66, quoting 
MPNS 418a), is superceded by the later view that only the Buddhas can save 
them.

Perhaps this notion of the icchantika arose among some lazy (or perhaps just 
more realstic) bodhisattvas who thought that 'we just can't save everybody, 
can we?'

On the topic of the Buddha-Nature (or Tathaagatagarbha), the MPNS (the 
version translated into English by Yamamoto) makes it unambiguously clear 
that to take the notion of Buddha-nature to refer to a real existing 'thing' 
is a big mistake. To this end the text is continually giving analogies to 
make this point unambiguously clear, for example the analogy milk and ghee. 
Milk plus the right conditions eventually gives rise to ghee.  But if you 
think that ghee in some manner actually exists in the milk, then you are a 
literal minded twit.  Given how ofter the Buddha in this text has to 
continually make this point, it seems that there were quite a few literal 
minded twits around!  So basically, the notion of Buddha-naure here is to 
remind folks that they all have the *potential* - IF they practice for 
example the six perfections (used in the MPNS) - to become Buddhas at some 
future time.  Elswehere in this sutra, it says that having Buddha-nature = 
having a 'mind' (*citta?).  As plants have no mind, they have no 
Buddha-nature, a view I believe was changed to suit Chinese views on nature.

If you can access the Buddha-L archives, Stephen Hodge (who's working on a 
translation of the MPNS from the Tibertan) had quite a few interesting 
things to say on these topics.

Robert Morrison