Category:Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies

Lai, Whalen. "A Clue to the Authorship of the Awakening of Faith: 'Śikṣānanda's' Redaction of the Word 'Nien'." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 3, no. 1 (1980): 34–53. https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/view/8506/2413.

Jones, Christopher V. "A Self-Aggrandizing Vehicle: Tathāgatagarbha, Tīrthikas, and the True Self." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 39 (2016): 115–70.

Higgins, David. "Buddha in the Storehouse: Mi bskyod rdo rje on the Relationship between Tathāgatagarbha and Ālayavijñāna." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 42 (2019): 169–230.

D'Amato, Mario. "Can All Beings Potentially Attain Awakening? Gotra-theory in the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 26, no. 1 (2003): 115–38. https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/view/8933/2826.

The question of the authorship of the Ta-ch'eng chi-hsin lun The Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna, tr. Paramārtha, hereafter referred to as the AFM), has long been a lively subject of discussion among scholars of Buddhism. Such eminent Buddhologists as Demiéville, Liebenthal, and Mochizuki (to name just a few), have debated the authenticity of the two Chinese translations of the text and discussed the possibility that the original text of the AFM might have been composed in China as part of a controversy between two branches of the Ti-lun sect. In recent editions of the Journal of the IABS the question of the authorship of the AFM has been raised again. In a couple of intriguing essays, Professor Whalen Lai has presented some new arguments in support of the Chinese authorship of the text.
      I do not intend here to try to resolve all of the many questions involved in determining the author of the AFM (such an undertaking is well beyond the scope of a short paper), but I would like to address an argument that Professor Lai raised in the first of his articles—namely his contention that the AFM's exposition of the relationship of hsin (mind) and nien (thought, thought-moment) bears such an "unmistakable sinitic stamp" that it must have been authored in China. I will try to show that the AFM's central conception of an "unmoved," pure mind (hsin) existing as the basis of the deluded movement of thoughts (nien) has an important Indian precedent in the cittaprakṛti and ayoniśomanaskāra notions of the Ratnagotravibhāga-mahāyānottaratantraśāstra (hereafter referred to as the RGV), a text with which the AFM's author may well have been familiar. I do not intend this as a criticism of Professor Lai's research—the parallels he finds between Chinese thought regarding hsin and nien prior to the period of the Six Dynasties and the elucidation of these notions in the AFM deserve serious attention. I simply would like to show that similar parallels—if not direct textual influences—exist between the AFM and the Indian-composed RGV, so that there is no compelling reason to conclude that the AFM theory of mind (hsin) and thoughts (nien) demonstrates Chinese authorship. (Grosnick, "Cittaprakṛti and Ayoniśomanaskāra in the Ratnagotravibhāga," 35–36)

Lai, Whalen. "Hu-Jan Nien-Ch'i (Suddenly a Thought Rose): Chinese Understanding of Mind and Consciousness." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 3, no. 2 (1980): 42–59. https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/view/8520/2427.

Harrison, Paul. "Is the Dharma-kāya the Real 'Phantom Body' of the Buddha?" Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 15, no. 1 (1992): 44–94. https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/view/8792/2699.

One of the most interesting notions found in the early tathāgatagarbha literature is the idea that nirvāṇa should be understood as nonorigination (anutpāda). This idea is explicitly formulated in two texts, the Ratnagotravibhāga, the only śāstra extant in Sanskrit which is completely devoted to the tathāgatagarbha and Buddha-nature teachings, and the Jñānālokālaṅkārasūtra, the sūtra upon which the Ratnagotravibhāga bases its exposition of nonorigination. The Jñānālokālaṅkārasūtra itself does not speak of the tathāgatagarbha or Buddha-nature doctrines, but the Ratnagotravibhāga takes the Jñānālokālaṅkārasūtra explanation of nonorigination and links it to the view of nirvāṇa found in two of the important early sūtras that do speak of the tathāgatagarbha, the Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśa and the Śrīmālādevīsūtra. This interpretation of nirvāṇa in terms of nonorigination is of considerable importance in understanding the early tathāgatagarbha teaching, for it clarifies certain notions frequently associated with the tathāgatagarbha like the "natural purity of mind" (cittaprakṛtiviśuddhi)—notions which have been hotly debated ever since the doctrine's inception. It may also tell us something about the conceptual issues which divided the schools of early Buddhism and so hold clues for understanding the origin of Mahāyāna Buddhism. (Grosnick, "Nonorigination and Nirvāṇa," 33)

Keenan, John P. "Original Purity and the Focus of Early Yogācāra." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 5, no. 1 (1982): 7–18. https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/view/8560/2467.

Prior to the Sui-T'ang period, the concept of Buddha-nature, the fundamental or universal nature of enlightenment in sentient beings, was already a topic of central importance to Chinese Buddhists.

Radich, Michael. "Reading the Writing on the Wall: 'Sengchou's' Cave at Xiaonanhai, Early Chinese Buddhist Meditation, and Unique Portions of *Dharmakṣema's Mahāparinirvāṇamahāsūtra." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 42 (2019): 515–632.

The teaching that all sentient beings have Buddha-nature (tathāgatagarbha) was first proclaimed in the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra. Developed in a series of Mahāyāna sūtras, such as the Śrīmālādevīsūtra and Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśasūtra, it was then systematized in the Ratnagotravibhāga (abbr. RGV), alias Mahāyānottaratantraśāstra. The core idea of the RGV’s teaching is that everyone possesses Buddha-nature. The latter does not change throughout the progression from the level of ordinary beings to that of a Buddha, it is merely purified through the separation from adventitious defilements. Once this purification is complete, awakening is accomplished.

      Both Indian and Tibetan traditions struggled with the question of the ontological status of Buddha-nature. One finds indeed in some sūtras descriptions of Buddha-nature as permanent and pervading every sentient being, which are also characteristics ascribed by non-Buddhists to the Self (ātman). But if Buddha-nature were to be understood as a permanent entity akin to a Self, how could this teaching be compatible with the standard Buddhist doctrine that everything is impermanent and selfless?
      Some Mahāyāna sūtras, such as the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, would offer support for the assimilation of Buddha-nature with a Self. The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra is quite explicit in associating the two notions, characterizing in particular the dharmakāya in terms of “perfection of Self” (ātmapāramitā), but warns about the confusion of the “correct” ātman, which is Buddha-nature, with ātman taken in its ordinary sense.¹
      RGV I.37 and RGVV also speak of the “perfection of Self” as an epithet of the dharmakāya, interpreting however this notion of “Self” (ātman) in the sense of selflessness (nairātmya) or quiescence of conceptual proliferations (prapañca), thus distinguishing Buddha-nature from the notion of a personal, permanent Self (ātman).²
      Nevertheless, the RGV does not promote the doctrine of emptiness in the sense that everything is ultimately empty of intrinsic nature. Quite on the contrary, the RGV stresses the real existence of Buddha-nature, and proclaims the superiority of the Buddha-nature doctrine to the emptiness doctrine of the Prajñāpāramitāsūtras.³
      The RGV thus on the one hand distinguishes Buddha-nature from the disapproved view of a Self, while on the other hand it admits Buddha-nature as ultimately existent⁴—an ambiguous viewpoint, and a challenging one for its interpreters. . . .
      The present paper deals with a selection of rṄog’s most significant views on the doctrine of Buddha-nature and considers some reactions to his interpretations in the works of his followers. Since the RGV commentaries attributed to two of rṄog’s "four main [spiritual] sons" (sras kyi thu bo bźi), Źaṅ Tshes spoṅ ba Chos kyi bla ma and Gro luṅ pa Blo gros byuṅ gnas,¹⁹ as yet remain to be found,²⁰ we will concentrate on the next-earliest available work, a commentary by Phywa pa Chos kyi seṅ ge (1109–1169).²¹ (Kano, introduction, 249–55)

Notes:

1. The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra equates ātman with Buddha-nature (see P 788 tu 105b5 [≈T vol. 12, 407b; 883b]: bdag ces bya ba ni de bźin gśegs paʼi sñiṅ poʼi don to //) and characterizes the dharmakāya (that is, the resultant aspect of Buddha-nature; see below [i]) in terms of “perfection of permanence” (nityapāramitā), “perfection of bliss” (sukhapāramitā), “perfection of Self (ātmapāramitā), and “perfection of purity” (śubhapāramitā) (see P 788 tu 33b3–34a2 [≈T vol. 12, 377c-378a; 862b]).

2. RGVV 31, 13–16: tathāgatas tu^a punar yathābhūtajñānena sarvadharmanairātmyaparapāramiprāptaḥ^b / tac cāsya nairātmyam anātmalakṣaṇena yathādarśanam avisaṃvāditatvāt^c sarvakālam ātmābhipreto nairātmyam evātmeti^d kṛtvā / yathoktaṃ sthito ʼsthānayogeneti /
(^a Schmithausen [1971: 143] corrected tathāgataḥ to tathāgatas tu; ^b Johnston xvi; ^c Schmithausen [1971: 143] corrected avisaṃvāditvāt to avisaṃvāditatvāt;^d Schmithausen [1971: 143] corrected evātmani to evātmeti)
RGVV 32,9–10: prajñāpāramitābhāvanayākāśopamasattvabhājanalokanairātmya- niṣṭhāgamanād.
See also RGVV 33,8–10: tām eva cāvidyāvāsabhūmiṃ pratītya sūkṣmanimittaprapañca- samudācārayogād atyantam anabhisaṃskārām ātmapāramitāṃ nādhigacchanti.
Schmithausen (1971: 143–144 and 1973: 135) links this sentence to the Madhyamaka view. For instance, the Madhyamakahṛdaya (III.284cd) similarly defines dharmakāya as quiescence of conceptual proliferations (buddhānāṃ dharmakāyo ʼyaṃ prapañcopaśamaḥ śivaḥ).

3. The alternative title of the RGV, mahāyānottaratantra “supreme doctrine of the Mahāyāna," hints to the superiority of the Buddha-nature doctrine to the emptiness doctrine. Cf. RGV I.160: pūrvam evaṃ vyavasthāpya tantre punar ihottare / pañcadoṣaprahāṇāya dhātvastitvaṃ prakāśitam /

4. Cf. RGV I.53, I.165; RGVV 2,11–13.

19. The other two are Khyuṅ rin chen grags and ʼBre śes rab ʼbar. Cf. bKaʼ gdams chos ʼbyuṅ gsal baʼi sgron me, 151.

20. Both A khu Chiṅ Śes rab rgya mtsho and gŹon nu dpal ascribe RGV commentaries to these two authors. (Cf. respectively Tho yig, nos. 11333 and 11339, and rGyud bla me loṅ, 4,23, 574,5.) gŹon nu dpal also lists RGV commentaries by Chos kyi bla ma’s disciple Ñaṅ braṅ pa Chos kyi ye śes (12th century); Phywa pa’s disciple gTsaṅ nag pa brTson ʼgrus seṅ ge (12th century); and Dan ʼbag sMra baʼi seṅ ge (12th century). See gŹon nu dpal, rGyud bla me loṅ, 4,23–24. A khu Chiṅ Śes rab rgya mtsho most likely copied gŹon nu dpal’s references (see Tho yig nos. 11331, 11334, 11335).

21. Phywa pa authored a RGV commentary and a topical outline of RGV (based on rṄog’s topical outline), both of which were found recently at gNas bcu lha khaṅ of ʼBras spuṅs Monastery and published in 2006 in the bKaʼ gdams gsuṅ ʼbum. See Theg pa chen po rgyud bla maʼi bstan bcos kyi tshig daṅ don gyi cha rgya cher bsñad pa phra baʼi don gsal ba (abbr. rGyud bla don gsal), vol. 7, pp. 163–345; Theg pa chen po rgyud bla maʼi bsdus paʼi don, vol. 7, pp. 145–156. The authorship of the rGyud bla don gsal is confirmed on the basis of (a) the colophon of the manuscript that states “composed by the monk Chos kyi seṅ ge” (see Phywa pa, rGyud bla don gsal, 93a3: theg pa chen po rgyud bla maʼi bstan bcos kyi tshig daṅ don gyi cha rgya cher bsñad pa phra baʼi don gsal ba źes bya ba / / śa kyaʼi dge sloṅ chos kyi bla maʼi źabs kyi rdul phyi bos nod pa dge sloṅ chos kyi seṅ ges ñe bar sbyar ba rdzogs s.hyō / /) and (b) a citation nominally attributed to Phywa pa in Blo gros mtshuṅs med’s RGV commentary (see Kano 2007: 109, n. 75).

The question of whether Paramārtha's version of the Awakening of Faith in Mahayana (AFM) may really be a Chinese composition has long intrigued scholars of Buddhism. Because no original Sanskrit manuscript of the AFM has ever been found nor any reference to the AFM discovered in any Buddhist text composed in India, scholars have long suspected that the AFM might not be a Chinese translation of an Indian work. The traditional attribution of the text to Aśvaghoṣa is even more suspect—as Paul Demiéville pointed out, it is almost impossible to believe that the Aśvaghoṣa whom one associates with the Buddhacarita, the Mahāvibhāṣā, and the Sarvāstivadins could have composed any Mahāyāna text, much less a sophisticated Mahāyāna treatise like the AFM. And the discovery at the beginning of this century of Japanese references to the seventh century Buddhist figure Hui-chun, who is quoted as saying that the AFM was composed not by Aśvaghoṣa, but by a "prisoner of war" who belonged to the T'i lun School, prompted many distinguished scholars, including Shinko Mochizuki and Walter Liebenthal, to argue that the work was a Chinese fabrication by a person affiliated with the native Chinese T'i lun School, which devoted itself to the study of Vasubandhu's Daśabhūmivyākhyā. Indeed, as recently as 1958, Liebenthal went so far as to say that one could take it as "established" that a member of the T'i lun School composed the AFM. Few would go so far as actually to name the member of the T'i lun School who wrote the AFM, as Liebenthal did (indeed, as Liebenthal himself remarked, it is difficult to believe that any member of the T'i lun School could have written the AFM, given that the author of the AFM does not even seem to know the ten bodhisattvabhūmis described in the Daśabhūmivyākhya), but for a long time scholarly opinion has leaned in the direction of assigning authorship of the AFM to the Chinese. Just recently Professor Whalen Lai has brought forward some cogent new reasons for regarding the AFM as a Chinese composition.

      In light of all this, it might seem rather daring to suggest that an Indian actually composed the AFM, but that is what I propose to argue. I do not intend to suggest that the Sarvāstivādin Aśvaghoṣa, or even a "Mahāyāna Aśvaghoṣa" composed the AFM. The first place that any Aśvaghoṣa is listed as the author of the text is in Hui-yüan's Ta-ch'êng i chang, a work composed about a half century after Paramārtha was said to have translated the AFM, so the attribution of the text to Aśvaghoṣa probably postdated its composition. But there are a couple of pieces of important philological evidence, heretofore largely overlooked, that seem to point strongly to an Indian Buddhist, most likely Paramārtha himself, as the real author of the text, or at least of major parts of it. The first piece of evidence is the use in the AFM of the three categories of t'i, hsiang, and yung, categories which I will try to show were derived by the author of the AFM from Sanskrit categories used in the Ratnagotravibhāgamahāyānottaratantraśāstra (RGV) and which could not have been formulated by anyone who did not possess a knowledge of Sanskrit. The second piece of evidence is Paramārtha's interpolation of passages from the RGV into the Mahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya (MSbh), which seems to show not only that Paramārtha was intimately familiar with the RGV and its categories, but also that he was personally concerned about issues

central to the AFM. When examined together with some interesting biographical details from accounts of Paramārtha's life, this evidence seems to suggest the very real possibility that Paramārtha was the author of the AFM. (Grosnick, introduction, 65–66)

In the Buddhist Canon, there are two main corpuses of texts which go by the name Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra (henceforth abbreviated to MNS) and have as their main concern the recounting of the events and dialogues of the last days of the Buddha. The first, presumably of earlier origin, is a comprehensive compendium of Hīnayāna ideas and precepts. It exists today in its Pali, Sanskrit and Chinese versions, and for its attention to factual details has been resorted to as the principal source of reference in most standard studies of the Buddha's life. As for the second, only its Chinese and Tibetan translations are still extant.[1] While it also relates some of the well-known episodes of the final months of the Buddha Śākyamuni, notably his illness and the last meal offered by Cunda, such narrations are treated in the work merely as convenient spring-boards for the expression of such standard Mahayana ideas as the eternal nature of Buddhahood and expedience as method of instruction. Both in style and content, this corpus exhibits the disregard of historical particulars and the fascination with the supernatural and the ideal which characterize Mahāyāna writings in general. As a Mahāyāna sūtra, it is of rather late date, for it mentions such influential "middle Mahāyāna" works as the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra and the Śūraṃgamasaṃādhi-nirdeśa in its text, and so could not have been compiled before the second century A.D.[2] It is this Mahāyāna version of the MNS which we are going to examine in our present study. (Liu, introduction, 63)

Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. "The Gzhan stong Model of Reality: Some More Material on Its Origin, Transmission, and Interpretation." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 34, no. 1–2 (2011): 187–223. https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/view/10602/4454.

For the origins of the Mahāyāna we must agree with Hirakawa[1] that while some Mahāyāna doctrines are derived from the Mahāsāṃghika school, some others are derived from the Sarvāstivādin school. I would add that unless some other source can be pointed to, we may conclude that Mahāyāna Buddhism in its various forms, at least leaving out the special development of Tantrism, can be traced to either the Mahāsāṃghika or the Sarvāstivādin schools.
      It is well recognized by Buddhologists that the Mahāsāṃghika sect arose by a schism from the previously undivided Buddhist saṃgha in the second century after the Buddha's Nirvāṇa (A.N.), leaving the other part of the saṃgha to be called Sthavira. As to precisely when the schism occurred, there was a difference of opinion as to whether it happened as a result of the Second Buddhist Council (about 110 A.N.) over a laxity of Vinaya rules by some monks, or happened later in the century (137 A.N.) over the five theses about Arhats and which occasioned a 'Third Buddhist Council' sponsored by the Kings Nanda and Mahāpadma. There were some other possibilities, as summarized by Nattier and Prebish,[2] who conclude that the schism occurred 116 A.N. over Vinaya rules, while the argument over Arhat attainment provoked a further split within the already existing Mahāsāṃghika sect. It is immaterial for our purposes whether the 'five theses of Mahādeva' downgrading the Arhat occasioned the schism between the Mahāsāṃghikas and the Sthaviras, or whether this downgrading was an internal argument within the Mahāsāṃghika. What is important here is that the downgrading of the Arhat continued into a Mahāyāna scripture called the Śrīmālā-sūtra, and that the five theses are a characteristic of the Mahāsāṃghika, to wit: 1. Arhats are tempted by others, 2. they still have ignorance, 3. they still have doubt, 4. they are liberated by others; and 5. the path is accompanied by utterance. The fifth of these seems explainable by other Mahāsāṃghika tenets, in Bareau's listing:[3] No. 58 'morality is not mental'; No. 59 'morality does not follow upon thought'; No. 60 'virtue caused by a vow increases'; No. 61 'candor (vijñapti) is virtue'; No. 62 'reticence (avijñapti) is immoral.'
      Part I of this paper attempts to relate the Śrīmālā-sūtra and the Tathāgatagarbha doctrine to the Mahāsaṃnghika school. Part II discusses the terms dharmatā and svabhāva so as to expose an ancient quarrel. (Wayman, introduction, 35–36)

Notes

1. Akira Hirakawa, "The Rise of Mahāyāna Buddhism and its Relationship to the Worship of Stupas," Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko, No. 22, Tokyo, 1963, p. 57.
2. Janice J. Nattier and Charles S. Prebish, "Mahāsaṃghika Origins: The Beginnings of Buddhist Sectarianism," History of Religions, 16:3, Feb., 1977, pp. 237, ff.

3. André Bareau, Les sectes bouddhiques du Petit Véhicule (École Française d'Extrême-Orient, 1955), Chapitre I 'Les Mahâsânghika', pp. 55–74.

In the Chinese Buddhist Canon, there are two corpuses of texts which go by the name of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra (henceforth, MNS). The first corresponds in main to the Mahāparinibbāna-suttanta in the Dīgha-nikāya of the Pāli Canon. Being essentially Hīnayāna in outlook, it has received little attention in China. The second, which exhibits all the features of a Mahāyāna text, generated immediate enthusiasm on its first introduction into China in the early fifth century, and has exerted enormous influence on the development of Chinese Buddhist thought. Especially worth mentioning in this connection is its teaching of Buddha-nature. It is well-known that the idea of Buddha-nature, one of the central concepts in Chinese Buddhism, was first made popular in the country by the Mahāyāna version of the MNS, which remains the principal source of reference as well as the final authority in all subsequent discussions on the subject. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to assert that without a proper understanding of the Buddha-nature doctrine as appears in this Mahāyāna version of the MNS, it would be impossible to grasp the significance of the subsequent evolution of the concept in the Chinese Buddhist tradition.

      It is the orthodox belief that the MNS teaches that all sentient beings possess the Buddha-nature. Since in the MNS "Buddha-nature" refers to "the nature of the Buddha" and "to possess" the Buddha-nature in the case of sentient beings usually indicates "to have in the future,"[1] this belief amounts to the conviction that the MNS maintains that all sentient beings will achieve Buddhahood someday. This conviction is well attested by the text of the MNS. Thus, we find it clearly expressed in the MNS that "all three vehicles will eventually share the same Buddha-nature":

Good sons! The same is true of the śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas and bodhisattvas, [all of whom will attain] the same Buddha-nature, in the like manner as [cows of different colours produce] milk [looking the same]. Why is it so? For all of them will [sooner or later] put an end to defilements. However, there are various sentient beings who maintain that Buddhas, bodhisattvas, śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas are different [with respect to their final destiny. [Thus,] there are various śrāvakas and common people who doubt [the teaching] that the three vehicles are not different. These sentient beings will finally come to understand that all three vehicles [will eventually share] the same Buddha-nature. . . .[2]

Those who refuse to accept the tenet that all sentient beings without exception will possess the Buddha-nature are criticized by the MNS as wanting in faith.[3] In the sūtra, this idea of the universal presence of the Buddha-nature is presented as one of the distinctive themes of Mahāyāna writings[4] as well as among the principal claims to excellence of the MNS itself.[5] It is so highly esteemed that it is described as representing the "essential meaning" (tzu-i) of the Buddha's teaching;[6] and, together with the doctrine of the eternal nature of the Tathāgata, it is said to be definitive (chüeh-ting) and not open to future amendments.[7]
      If this thesis of the eventual enlightenment of all sentient beings does indeed constitute the central theme of the MNS, it is strongly qualified by the presence in the sutra of the concept of the icchantika. The term "icchantika" is derived from the Sanskrit root is meaning "to desire," "to wish" and "to long for." This explains the variant Chinese renderings of the term "icchantika" as "a being of many desires" (to-yü), "a being cherishing desires" (lo-yü) and "a being full of greed" (ta-t'an).[8] But in the MNS, the failings attributed to the icchantikas far exceed those which are usually associated with people of such descriptions. In the sūtra, the icchantika is described as "devoid of good roots" [9] and as "the most wicked being."[10] He is depicted as "having no capacity for the [true] Dharma"[11] such that he can never be rehabilitated by the instruction of the Buddha and so will never attain supreme enlightenment. Taken at its face value, this picture of a being condemned forever to spiritual darkness appears to contradict the proposition of the MNS that all sentient beings possess the Buddha-nature and so are destined for Buddhahood, and commentators of the MNS have been hard pressed to find a viable way out of this apparent dilemma.

      The present article, which is the second of a two-part study on the problem of Buddha-nature in the MNS,[12] is an attempt to unravel the various strands of thought present in the MNS regarding the character and fate of the icchantikas. It is hoped that our discussion, brief and sketchy as it is, will be of help in throwing light on this highly intricate question. (Liu, "The Problem of the Icchantika," 57–59)

Mathes, Klaus-Dieter. "Tāranātha's 'Twenty-One Differences with Regard to the Profound Meaning': Comparing the Views of the Two Gźan Stoṅ Masters Dol po pa and Śākya mchog ldan." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 27, no. 2 (2004): 285–328. https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/view/8952/2845.