TANTRIC BUDDHISM (INCLUDING CHINA AND JAPAN)theory; for this reason his theories are often discussed together with theirs, as is
done at the end of the present chapter of the ThG.
The above very brief sketch of some of the philosophical problems posed by
the Jo nan pa school should at least be sufficient to reveal their great importance,
and also to show that it is scarcely adequate to characterize them as representing
chiefly 'tantristische Zauberlehren.' Opinions may perhaps differ as to whether
the Kalacakra, which (as seen above) was one of the pillars of their theory, was
above all a magical teaching or not; but the Jo nan pa analysis of the mind
(sems), of the Gnosis (ye ses) and of siinyatii as the gian stan clearly bears
witness to a very deep concern with the soteriological, metaphysical, epis-
temological and psychological problems which interested philosophers in
general. That doctrines closely allied with the gian stan were also accepted by at
least some bKa' brgyud pa and rNin rna pa scholars would indicate that the Jo
nan pa masters were not altogether isolated.^6
The apparently very close relationship of the Jo nan pas with both Indian
teachings and Indian teachers is also notable. It has even led one scholar to
speak of 'Brahmanists' in Tibet.^7 The originator and source of their doctrines,
Yu mo, is indeed said to have received his doctrine at Kailasa;^8 and the chief
systematizer of their doctrines, Dol bu pa (also known as Dol po pa) ses rab
rgyal mtshan, must have come from the Dol po region near the frontier of
Nepal. sa And such links then continued up to the time of the suppression of the
school in the seventeenth century. For at that time Taranatha was in close
contact with Nepalese and Indian par:H;lits;^9 and the wall-paintings he had
executed in the Phun tshogs glin temple are reminiscent of certain Indian
schools of painting, includingly curiously enough to a certain extent even the
modem Bengal school.^10
The history of the Jo nan pa school may perhaps at the same time be
explained, at least to a certain extent, by factors in the history of gTsan. Under
the Sa skya pas this province had for a long time assumed a preponderant posi-
tion in Tibet. Separatist tendencies were later strongly asserted by the princes of
Rin spuns, some of whom, though connected principally with the Karma pas and
more specifically with the Zva dmar hierarchs, also patronized the Jo nan pas. In
fact the ThG links the decline of the Jo nail pas with the downfall of Karma
bsTan skyon dban po, the last of the Rin spuii.s princes, who was defeated in
1642 by Gu sri Khan on behalf of the fifth Dalai Lama.^11 Given these circum-
stances, it may then be pertinent to consider the possibility that the Jo nan pa
school was proscribed at the time of the fifth Dalai Lama both because of the
unorthodoxy of its teachings and because of some Himalayan and ultramontane
connexions which might have tended to sustain local separatist movements in
the south-western areas of Tibet in which they were chiefly established. At all
events it is known that the Jo nan pa centres in gTsan were at that time con-
verted to the dGe lugs pa order; and the only monasteries that survived were,
according to the ThG, to be found in eastern Tibet.^12 At that time also the line of
incarnations to which Taranatha himself belonged was transferred to Mongolia,