By Kokyo Henkel
In the Lankavatara Sutra, the Scripture of the Buddha’s Entry into Sri Lanka, the Buddha expounds in many ways the teaching that there is nothing other than mind. There are also many teachings on the compassionate spirit of the bodhisattva in this sutra, such as the teaching of what we call the icchantika. This is a strange concept, a kind of disturbing concept, but this sutra liberates the concept from its disturbing quality. An icchantika originally meant someone who totally indulges himself and doesn’t care about anybody else, or even about his own liberation. She doesn’t believe in cause and effect, and in Buddha’s teachings this is called “wrong view.” Right view, conventionally speaking, is trusting in the workings of cause and effect and karma, or cause and effect as it works through living beings with intentions, where large-hearted intentions lead to happiness and self-centered intentions lead to unhappiness. Because of their extreme wrong view, and the extremely harmful actions they commit due to this wrong view, the icchantikas have basically cut off the possibility for Buddhahood; therefore it was even said that they actually had no Buddha Nature. Buddha Nature is sometimes described as the potential to become a Buddha, and the icchantika is compared to a scorched seed which can never grow, as if the very genetic structure of its Buddha Nature has been ruined.
In the Mahayana, the Great Vehicle of universal salvation for all beings, this is a very disturbing concept: that any living being could not have the potential for Buddhahood. The Mahayana generally proposes that all living beings, no matter how much trouble they’ve caused, have the potential to be Buddhas and not only that, but they will become Buddhas. In this spirit, the Lankavatara Sutra has a beautiful section about the icchantika, where the Buddha says, “As for icchantikas, who in this world would liberate them except icchantikas?” That’s the first teaching: how are icchantikas freed from suffering? By icchantikas. The Buddha goes on, “There are two kinds of icchantikas: those who forsake good roots and those whose vows regarding others are without limit.” The first kind sounds like the original definition of icchantika, they forsake their roots of goodness, they don’t care about wisdom and compassion that grow into Buddhahood. That’s the classic icchantika. But there’s another kind of icchantika in this sutra, those whose vows to benefit others are limitless: bodhisattva icchantikas. Then why are they called icchantikas?
Strange isn’t it?
The Buddha continues, “What is meant by forsaking good roots? This refers to slandering the bodhisattva canon and falsely claiming it is not in accord with the teaching of liberation in the sutras or in the vinaya.” There’s a little plug here for the Mahayana, the vehicle of bodhisattvas. Some earlier schools of Buddhism that were more conservative felt that this radical bodhisattva ideal was going too far, and that teachings such as the Lankavatara Sutra were not authentic Buddhist sutras. However there is great compassionate value in the Mahayana sutras and the Mahayana vinaya, the teachings about ethical conduct such as the Brahmajala Sutra, the source of our bodhisattva precepts. The Buddha says, “Because they forsake their good roots they don’t enter nirvana.” So, these are the first kind of icchantika.
Next are the other type of icchantika. They are “bodhisattvas whose practice includes the vow not to enter nirvana until all beings enter nirvana.” That’s the classic definition of a bodhisattva; they have great compassion that wants to free everyone from suffering, and the way to completely free everyone is to carry them across to great nirvana which is perfect, unshakable peace and complete freedom from suffering. That’s the bodhisattva vow. Not just to help beings a little bit, but to help carry them all to nirvana, perfect peace. And they vow not to enter nirvana themselves until everybody else goes first. This second type of icchantika is quite different from the first kind! But remember that the original definition of icchantika is one who is incapable of realizing Buddhahood. The first kind is incapable because they have cut off their good roots by slandering the bodhisattva’s practice. The second type is incapable because they are bodhisattvas and they are not going to enter nirvana, or Buddhahood, until all beings enter, which realistically speaking would take so long that the bodhisattvas are virtually incapable of entering nirvana themselves. So the bodhisattva icchantika skillfully turns the original meaning of the term in this amazing and surprising Zen-like way. The Buddha in this sutra takes the most disturbing concept of someone who is incapable of becoming a Buddha, and instantly makes it into the greatest possible thing. In our Zen ancestor Keizan Zenji’s autobiography, he says, “At age 25, just like Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva, I made the great compassionate vow of an icchantika.” When I first read that I thought, “What? He made the vow of an icchantika, to be the most evil, despicable, person?” Now I see that this may have been based on the Lankavatara Sutra.
But there’s more here in the sutra too. If you start to feel sad that as a bodhisattva with such a vow you would never realize this great realm called nirvana, since a bodhisattva’s practice includes the vow not to enter nirvana until all beings enter, the Buddha goes on to say, “However, what bodhisattvas mean by entering nirvana is characterized by not entering nirvana.” In the Mahayana, where the teachings of emptiness reign supreme, the true characteristic of nirvana is no nirvana. Nirvana has no characteristics, it cannot be said to be like this or that. Ultimately speaking, there is no “nirvana” for anyone to enter or leave. Therefore, not entering nirvana may not be such a bad thing after all. In fact how could it ever be entered anyway? The Buddha explains further, “Bodhisattva icchantikas never enter nirvana. They know that everything is already in nirvana; thus they never enter nirvana.” Though it could be said that there is no nirvana to enter, it could also be said that there is nothing that is not already truly in nirvana. But bodhisattvas are careful not to say that since everything is in nirvana, then right now is nirvana. There are many Zen sayings like, “To say it’s this misses the mark.” Bodhisattva icchantikas know everything is already in nirvana – not just people, but everything is quiescent from the start, naturally at peace and free from obscurations, as it is. Since the bodhisattva icchantikas know that everything is already in nirvana, they never enter nirvana. How can you enter if you’re already inside?
“This is not true of those icchantikas who forsake their good roots.” If they slander the Mahayana, they slander the teaching that all things are quiescent from the start and naturally in the state of nirvana. For such icchantikas, it’s going to be hard work, but eventually they do get to seemingly enter nirvana. The bodhisattva icchantikas don’t get to enter nirvana because they’re already in nirvana along with everything and everyone else. But these other non-bodhisattva icchantikas, they can graduate from being icchantikas and apparently enter nirvana. But how will they be able to even appear to enter nirvana if they have forsaken their roots of wisdom and compassion? “Mahamati, even though they forsake their good roots, through the power of the Tathagatas, the Buddhas, at some point their good roots reappear.” The permeation of wisdom from the pure Dharmakaya actually enters their storehouse consciousness and plants the seed for opening to nirvana. Through the power of the Buddhas, at some point this wisdom seed is planted and their good roots grow again. The Tathagatas are not some beings outside of us, because there is no such thing as anything outside of us. But, mysteriously, due to everyone’s connection with the Tathagatas, such a seed can manifest. The Buddha says, “And how so? Because Tathagatas do not forsake any being.” So could it be that those ignorant and harmful icchantikas really do have Buddha Nature after all?