THE JO-NAN-PASunfounded interpretation of the Jo nan pas who, while maintaining that the rupakiiya
of such nature is the Self of the five Jinas etc., concluded erroneously that the purified
Self is the negation of all relative phenomenal elements attached to a pre-existing
pure jiiiina; for according to them this negation is not the non-propositional absolute
Negation (prasajyaprati!fedha) of the Prasangikas but a really existent Gnosis Void of
all else (gzan stoti). The Jo nan pas thus consider that the stoti gzugs Body adorned
with the Marks and secondary Marks is an object. And it is against this combination
of two techniques that their critics took exception; see in this regard Gun than bsTan
pa'i sgron me's Legs bsad siiiti po 'i yig cha, fol. 12a-b: zag med yeses dtios su 'khru/
pa yin ziti I de iiid gzugs sku rgya/ ba /tia sags kyi bdag iiid du smra ba nil 'dis dag
pa 'i bdag zes biags pa stiar gyi ye ses de 'i steti du kun rdsob rnams bkag pa ni med
dgag tsam rna yin par ye .~es de iiid yin pa Ia mtshan dpes bkra ba 'i stoti gzugs kyi sku
zig 'dsin statis su 'dod pas/ dus 'khor gyi chos skad cuti zig bsres pa yin tel
The Tibetan critics usually stress that this theory was unknown before the Jo nan
pas, and in particular before Dol bu pa, who was the first to write it down in a manual.
48 Along with the Nes don rgya mtsho the DN (tha lib) mentions a bsdus don sa boar},
commentaries on the Uttaratantra and the Abhisamayii/atikiira, the bsTan pa 'i spyi
'grel, and the bKa bsdu bzi pa as Dol bu pa's treatises expounding the gzan stoti. See
G. N. Roerich, Blue Annals, p. 777.
49 The rendering 'noema' and 'noesis' for the term dbyitis rig is only an approximation.
This non-dual realization of the integration of dbyitis rig constitutes a high order of
intuition relating to the level of the dharmakiiya.
50 These are the pure condition (sin tu rnam dag gi gnas skabs), the impure-and-pure
condition (rna dag pa dati dag pa 'i gnas skabs) and the impure condition (rna dag
pa 'i gnas skabs).
51 Cf. supra, n. 33.
52 This may be an error for the Chos kyi dbyitis su bstod pa = Dharmadhiitustotra (?).
53 Cf. infra, 6b. And, as is explained later (fol. 7a), with this theory of the total non-
existence of the relative-which is to be carefully distinguished from Absolute-Nega-
tion-the Jo nan pas risk falling into the extreme of destruction (ucchediinta).
54 This is the first kiirikii ofBhartrhari's Viikyapadlya:
anadinidhanaJTl brahma sabdatattvaJTl yad ak~aram/
vivartate 'rthabhavena prakriya jagato yatal).//
A less adequate translation of VP 1. 1 is found in the Tibetan version of Jfianasri's
Commentary on the Latikiivatiira (fol. 126b in the Peking ed.); this version has been
noted by H. Nakamura, Studies in Indology and Buddhology (S. Yamaguchi Presenta-
tion Vol., Kyoto, 1955), p. 123 f.
55 On the significance of orfz and the ak!fara in Vedantic philosophy in general, cf. H.
Oldenberg, Die Lehre der Upanishaden (Gottingen, 1923), pp. 134 f., 227; P.
Deussen, Das System des Vedanta (Leipzig, 1920), pp. 8-9, 143-145, 157, 213 f.;
recently: J. A. B. van Buitenen,JAOS, 79 (1950), pp. 176-187.
56 The sense of this remark is not altogether clear. But nati gi byed pa may correspond
to anta/:lkarm:za; on this cf. e.g. VP 1. 114; 3.7.41 and 3.6.23 (v. H. Nakamura, foe.
cit.).
57 Cf. R. Garbe, Salflkhya-Philosophie, p. 367 f.
58 This description of the Sii:JTlkhya, apparently based on the Madhyamakiivatiira 6. 121,
differs somewhat from that found in the Siilflkhyakiirikii and Kaumundl (v. 59-61)
and described by Garbe, loc. cit., and by E. Frauwallner, Geschichte der Indischen
Philosophie, I (Salzburg, 1953), pp. 316-318, 378f. (where the doctrine which is
described by Frauwallner is attributed---der Einfachheit halber [p. 303]-to Pafi-
casikha). Cf. supra, p. 79 n. 18.