THE JO-NAN-PASkha pa's principal teachers. He was a pupil ofNa dbon Kun dga' dpal; he is known as
a critic of the Kalacakra, and the three Byan chub sems 'grels attributed to Nagarjuna
as well as of the khrid of the Sa<,iangayoga. At first he also considered the
Uttaratantra to be a Vijnavavadin work, but he later changed his opinion. He is espe-
cially famous for his commentaries on the Abhidharma and the Madhyamakiivatiira.
74 Cf. PSJZ, p. 271 where it is stated that, before becoming a disciple of Tson kha pa,
rGyal tshab Dar rna rin chen ( 1304-1432) had studied at Sa skya, gSan phu, rTse
than, etc. and had defeated in discussion Ron ston and gYag sde pal). chen.
75 Sakya mchog !dan, 1428-1507, was a disciple of Ron ston sakya rgyal mtshan
(1307-1440), who is stated to follow the Madhyamika-Svatantrika doctrine.
Sakya mchog !dan is said to have at first followed the Madhyamika, then the
Vijnanavada, and finally the Jo nan pa doctrine (ThG 85b3--4; cf. PSJZ, p. 257). His
doctrines, like the Jo nan pa ones, are said to have the effect of destroying the cause
of the dharmakiiya of the tathiigata (see below; and above, fol. lOa); this is so
because he came to reject the Prasangika theory according to which siinyatii is
Absolute-Negation (which is not to be confused with total non-existence, ye nas med
pa).
76 These are Nagarjuna's Miidhyamikakiirikiis, Vigrahavyiivartin'i, Ratnamiilii,
Yukti!fWitikii, Siinyatiisaptati, and Vaidalyasiitra. Bu ston in his Chos 'byun (fol. 19b)
gives a slightly different list; cf. also E. Obermiller's note 506 in his translation of Bu
stan's History of Buddhism.
77 This general interpretation of the Madhyamika was quite frequent amongst scholars
of the Sa skya pa, rNin rna pa, Karma pa and 'Brug pa schools. It was also accepted
by zan Thag sag pa, a follower of sPa tshab lo tsa ba who introduced the Madhyamika
into Tibet (cf. DN cha 8a-b).
78 dBu rna pa chen po. The term 'Great Madhyamika' (dbu rna chen po) is applied by
certain Tibetan scholars, including the Jo nan pas and Karma Mi bskyod rdo rje
(1507-1554), to the theory of the Gnosis without differentiation between apprehender
and apprehended (griihya-griihaka: gzun 'dsin giiis med kyi yeses) which is held to
be the ultimate reality (gnas lugs rnthar thug pa). This advaya-jiiiina corresponds to
the Jo nan pa definition of the parini!fpanna or Absolute. According to Mi bskyod rdo
Ije, this doctrine of the dbu rna chen po was taught in the Stotra collection attributed
to Nagarjuna and in Aryadeva's Catul;sataka. The Great Madhyamika is then distinct
from the partial Madhyamika (phyogs goig pa 'i dbu rna) which teaches Absolute non-
Existence (bden par med pa tsam gyi stan iiid and the med dgag or Absolute-
Negation). Mi bskyod rdo rje furthermore held that the Prajnaparamita Siitras and the
Abhisamayiilankiira are to be interpreted in accordance with the dbu rna chen po of
the allkiikiira doctrine of the Nirakaravadins Asanga and Vasubandhu; Asanga,
Vasubandhu, Dignaga, and Dharmakirti are thus considered to have maintained the
dbu rna chen po which is then assimilated to the sems tsam rnam brdsun pa doctrine.
The doctrine of the gzan stn chen rna also belongs to the dbu rna chen po.
Sakya mchog !dan apparently also accepted a comparable classification of these
Indian sources inasmuch as he is stated to consider the Madhyamika of Candrakirti
which teaches Insubstantiality (no bo iiid rned pa, nil;svabhiivatii) to be a lower doc-
trine which does not correspond to the highest Gnosis.
Long before ~i bskyod rdo Ije, Go rams pa bSod nams sen ge (1420-1489), a
contemporary of Sakya mchog !dan, had rejected for the Sa skya pas the idea that the
teachings of Maitreyanatha and the works of Asanga, Vasubandhu, Digniiga, and
the other masters of this line could be considered as setting forth the dbu rna chen
po identical essentially with the 'real' opinion of Nagarjuna and Aryadeva. Indeed,
if such were the case, Go ram pa asks, what texts should we have belonging to the
Cittamatra?