THE JO-NAN-PASthat Maitreyanatha really had in mind the gzan stan theory; his conception of the
advayajiiiina as the Absolute is thus close to that of the Jo nan pas.
Karma 'Phrin las seems also to have held views on the tathiigatagarbha that might
be compared with those of the Jo nan pas, and he refers to the views of Ran byun rdo
rje (?1284-1339) on this subject. (I owe this last reference to the kindness of Dr. H.
V. Guenther. The dates are as indicated by H. E. Richardson, "The Karmapa Sect,"
JRAS, 1958-59.)---The link may thus have been above all with the Karma pas, as is
indeed indicated by rJe btsun Chos kyi rgyal mtshan's Klu grub dgons rgyan. ThG
(bKa' brgyud pa chapter, fol. 46b) attributes such errors to an inability to distinguish
properly between the neyiirtha and nltiirtha texts.
6 The Si tu rin po che Chos kyi iiin byed is said to have at first followed the Mud-
hyamika theory but to have been later introduced to the Jo nan pa doctrine by a rNin
rna pa and to have then adopted the gzan stan theory (see ThG 51 b ).-A gzan stan
chen rna is said to be still accepted by rNin rna pa bla mas.
7 E. Obermiller, "The Sublime Science," AO, 9 (1931), 106-107. Cf. also Th.
Stcherbatsky, Buddhist Logio, I (1932), pp. 114 and 169; TPS, p. 92.
8 V. ThG II b, below. On connexions with saivism, cf. TPS, p. 92.
Sa The Dol po region in question used to be counted a part of mNa' rls province, and it
is mentioned together with Pu hran, Glo bo (or Mustang, on which see G. Tucci, Pre-
liminary Report on Two Scientific Expeditions to Nepal), Gu ge, and Ya tshe as part
of the sTod region. See also the Kha skon of the Nor pa chos 'byun, fol. 130b5. This
Dol po is now part of Nepal.
The appelation Dol po pa of ses rab rgyal mtshan points to the connexion between
this Jo nan pa master and a Dol po region of sTod mNa' ris. And the name Dol bu
must be identical with Dol po-or very nearly so--for not only is Ses rab rgyal
mtshan also known as Dol bu pa, but for the place name Dol po'i Ban tshan of DN
(tha lla3) the Kha skon (fol. 148 'og rna b5, translated below) has Dol bu Ban tshan
(or Ban tshad?) in mNa' ris.
The name Dol however raises a problem. It appears as a kind of surname of
persons whose connexion with mNa' ris Dol po is not determined; and, indeed,
according to the DN (pa 5a5), Dol is a gdun or clan; but elsewhere it appears as a
place name.-In any case, Dol pa was the 'surname' of many illustrious Tibetan
masters. In the DN (ca 14a3), Dol pa dMar Z.Ur pais the same person as Rog ses rab
rgya mtsho. And in many cases a precise connexion with mNa' ris has not been estab-
lished; for example, Dol pa Zan thai of the dol gdun was a native of 'Tshur phu (DN
pa 5a5; on the 'Tshur family (rigs) in Dol gyi mda', see iia 7b5; cf. ga 34b4).
However, Dol pa dBan rgyal was from sTod (as distinct from sMad: DN na 5a4). (A
La[s] stod pa dBan rgyal is mentioned in DN tha 9b and iia 57b6; La stod was the
province in which the early Jo nan pa master Thugs rje brtson 'grus was born, and
Byan is part of it. On this see the translation of the Kha skon below, as well asp. 80 n.
19 and p. 81 n. 39). Moreover, Dol pa 'Gar ston dBan phug grub belonged to the spir-
itual lineage of Yu mo, the early Jo nan pa master and teacher of the Kalacakra (DN
ja 6b7 and tha Sa; cf. also ga 38b6 and tha 4b4).
The latter passages at least appear to establish a link between several bla mas
bearing the 'surname' Dol pa and Yu mo (who lived in the Kailiisa region and who
was the spiritual ancestor of Dol po pa) and his lineage.
It is to be noted that this area in general, and in particular the region of Kailiisa and
Manasarovar, have for countless centuries been places of pilgrimage for ascetics and
yogins from India. It is then not impossible that encounters with them may have had
some kind of influence on the doctrinal tendencies of the Jo nan pateachers.
9 On the pal)Qits Gokula and Kr~l)a as well as Buddhagupta, Pumananda, Purnavajra,
etc., v. TPS, pp. 137 and 164 (cf. p. 74-75).