2018 Tilopa A Buddhist Yogin of The Tent

TILOPĀ
A BUDDHIST YOGIN OF THE TENTH CENTURY
FABRIZIO TORRICELLI
LIBRARY OF TIBETAN WORKS AND ARCHIVES

TILOPĀ
TILOPĀ
A BUDDHIST YOGIN OF THE TENTH CENTURY
FABRIZIO TORRICELLI
In Memoriam
Jacques Élisée Reclus

Geographer
(1830~1905)
Sante Geronimo Caserio

Baker
(1873~1894)
Fabio Massimo Bardelli

Mathematician
(1952~2001)
CONTENTS
Maps and Illustrations x

Abbreviations xi
Orthographic Conventions xiii
Preface xv
Acknowledgments xxv
I —WATERS, KINGS, POLITIES, AND CITIES 1
Gaṅgā and Pāṭaliputra 3
Krīpura, Koṭālipāḍā, and Karṇasuvarṇa 8
Bengal After Śaśāṅka 9
Samataṭa 11
Harikela 17
Arakan 17
Tāranātha’s Candras: a Conjecture 22
The Pālas 23
Gopāla 24
Dharmapāla 26
Nālandā Mahāvihāra 28
Uddaṇḍapura Mahāvihāra 31
Vikramaśīla Mahāvihāra 33
Somapura Mahāvihāra 33
Trikuṭaka Vihāra 34
Devapāla 34
After Devapāla 38
The Candras of Arakan 40
The Kingdom of Harikela 42
The Candras of Bengal 44
Pūrṇacandra 46
Suvarṇacandra 46
Trailokyacandra 47
Śrīcandra 50
Notes to the First Chapter 53
II — THE HAGIOGRAPHIC TRADITION 65
The Sources 65
Source α ― Shamsher Manuscript 65
Source β ― Mar pa 66
Source γ ― Vajrāsana 74
Source δ ― Abhayadatta 76
Source ε ― sGam po pa 78
vii
viii TILOPĀ
Source ζ ― Vibhūticandra 78
Source η ― rGyal thang pa 80
Source θ ― rDo rje mdzes ’od 82
Source ι ― U rgyan pa 82
Source κ ― Mon rtse pa 83
Source λ ― gTsang smyon He ru ka 84
Source μ ― Kun dga’ rin chen 85
Source ν ― dBang phyug rgyal mtshan 86
Source ξ ― lHa btsun 87
Words for Tradition and Traditions of Words 87
Yoginītantras 88
Cakraśaṃvara 91
Abhiṣekas 92
Cittaviśrāma, Manobhaṅga, and Uḍḍiyāna 92
Ḍākinīs and Siddhas 94
Śmaśānas 95
Outlines 98
Shamsher Manuscript (α) 98
Mar pa (β) 102
rGyal thang pa (η) 103
rDo rje mdzes ’od (θ) 104
U rgyan pa (ι) 105
Mon rtse pa (κ) 106
gTsang smyon He ru ka (λ) 107
Kun dga’ rin chen (μ) 108
dBang phyug rgyal mtshan (ν) 109
lHa btsun (ξ) 111
The Names of the Sesame Grinder 113
The Marpan Tradition 113
Notes to the Second Chapter 121
III — WHO, WHEN, AND WHERE 127
Sahor 128
*Jagāõ 130
The First Years 131
The Apprenticeship 137
Caryāpā 138
Kambalapā 142
Nāgārjuna 145
Where Tilopā Met His First Gurus 151
Sukhasiddhi 158
Where Tilopā Met the Ḍākinī 161
The Received Doctrines 164
CONTENTS ix
The Practice 169

Among the Ḍākinīs of Uḍḍiyāna 171
Back from Uḍḍiyāna 178
Tilopā’s Manifestations 180
With the Yogin 182
With the Tīrthika 185
With the Magician 186
With the Liquor-Selling Woman 187
With the Singer 189
With the Butcher 190
With the Materialist 191
With the Sorcerer 193
Tilopā’s Apotheosis 193
As a Manifestation of Śaṃvara 194
As Śaṃvara Himself 195
No Longer Monk: Tilopā and Nāropā 196
Tilopā’s Ultimate Apotheosis 202
Notes to the Third Chapter 203
IV — A TILOPAN BIBLIOGRAPHY 207
Indic Material 207
Tibetan Material 210
bsTan ’gyur 210
bDe mchog snyan brgyud 212
rNam thar and rNam mgur 216
gDams ngag mdzod 216
Tilopā and the bKa’ brgyud Curriculum 217
A Tentative Index of the Tilopan Corpus 222
Notes to the Fourth Chapter 226
BIBLIOGRAPHY 227
Graeco-Roman Sources 227
Indic Sources 228
Chinese Sources 228
Tibetan Sources 229
Other Sources 236
INDEX 253
x TILOPĀ
Maps and Illustrations

Maps
Satellite image of the area of Ancient Bengal (October 29, 2002).................... xxvii
Current administrative divisions in the same area ............................................ xxviii
Major floodplains .................................................................................................... 2
Approximate territorial division of Ancient Bengal ................................................ 3
Figures
Front cover: The name of Tilopā (Tillopāda) in the Nepali manuscript of the
Tillopādasya dohākoṣapañjikā sārārthapañjikā, detail of fol. 16b4.
Mar pa. rNal ’byor gyi dbang phyug ti lo pa’i lo rgyus, fol. 1b ............................ 66
rGyal thang pa. rJe btsun chen po tilli pa’i rnam par thar pa, fols 1b–2b ......... 121
Manuscript image of Tilopā (late 15th century). .................................................. 196
Mural image of Tilopā (15th century). ................................................................ 203
Abbreviations
AGAA Tilopā’s *Aṣṭaguhyārthāvavāda
AMM Tilopā’s Acintyamahāmudrā
AŚ1 Aṣṭaśmaśāna (Ō. 2342, Tō. 1212)
AŚ2 Aṣṭaśmaśāna (Ō. 2343, Tō. 1213)
AŚĀ Aṣṭaśmaśānākhyāna (Ō. 2345, Tō. 1216)
B. Bengali
BA Roerich 1949
BCE Before the Common Era
BD People’s Republic of Bangladesh
bD bDe mchog snyan brgyud
BHS Edgerton 1953
C Co ne xylograph bsTan ’gyur
c. (circa) approximately
CE Common Era
cent./c. century
cf. (confer) compare
cod. (codex) manuscript
D sDe dge xylograph bsTan ’gyur
ed. edition, editor
ff. and the following pages/lines
fol./fols folio/folios
G dGa’ ldan manuscript bsTan ’gyur (bsTan ’gyur gser bris ma)
gD gDams ngag mdzod
GS Tilopā’s Gurusādhana
H. Hindi
HS ‘History Set’ = Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs
HVT Hevajratantra (Snellgrove 1959)
IASWR Institute for Advanced Studies of World Religions, New York
ibid. (ibidem) in the same place
ID Republic of Indonesia
IN-AP Andhra Pradesh, India
IN-AS Assam, India
IN-BR Bihar, India
IN-GJ Gujarat, India
IN-HP Himachal Pradesh, India
IN-JH Jharkhand, India
IN-KA Karnataka, India
IN-MZ Mizoram, India
xi
xii TILOPĀ
IN-OR Odisha, India

IN-PB Punjab, India
IN-TG Telangana, India
IN-TR Tripura, India
IN-UP Uttar Pradesh, India
IN-WB West Bengal, India
IsIAO Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente, Roma
KBhA Tilopā’s Karuṇābhāvanādhiṣṭāna
KT Karṇatantravajrayoginī, or °vajrapada (Ō. 4632, Tō. 2338)
Lat. Latin
LGR Bla ma brgyud pa’i rim pa (Passavanti 2008)
l./ll. line/lines
loc. cit. (loco citato) in the place cited
MIA Middle Indo-Aryan
MM Republic of the Union of Myanmar (Burma)
MMU Tilopā’s Mahāmudropadeśa
Ms. Manuscript
MV Republic of Maldives
MVy Mahāvyutpatti
MW Monier-Williams 1899
N sNar thang xylograph bsTan ’gyur
n. note
NDhG Tilopā’s Nijadharmatāgīti
NGMPP Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project, Kathmandu
no./nos number/numbers
NP Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal
NSV Tilopā’s Nimittasūcanāvyākaraṇa
Ō. Ōtani Catalogue
om. (omisit) omitted
op.cit. (opere citato) in the work cited
p./pp. page/pages
Pā. Pāli
Pkt Prākrit
Q Peking Qianlong xylograph bsTan ’gyur
r (recto) front side of a folio
r. reign/reigned
ṢDhU Tilopā’s Ṣaḍdharmopadeśa
SGMA Tilopā’s Sekagranthamocanāvavāda
SIL Templeman 1983
Skt Sanskrit
SUMKPC Tilopā’s Śrī-Saṃvaropadeśamukhakarṇaparamparācintāmaṇi
SŚS Tilopā’s Sahajaśaṃvarasvādhiṣṭhāna
ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS xiii
SUT Saṃvarodayatantra (Ō. 20, Tō. 373)

s.v. (sub voce) under the word
T. Taishō
TBRC Tibetan Buddhist Resource Center, Cambridge, Ma.
TCUP Tilopā’s Tattvacaturupadeśaprasannadīpa
TDK Tillopādasya dohākoṣa
TDKP Tillopādasya dohākoṣapañjikā sārārthapañjikā
Tel. Telugu
THBI Chimpa and Chattopadhyaya 1970
TH Kingdom of Thailand
Tib. Tibetan
Tō. Tōhoku Catalogue
transl. translation, translator
TT Tibetan Tripitaka
TVG Tilopā’s *Tilatailavajragīti
UYYSSŚK Uḍḍiyānaśrīyogayoginīsvayambhūtasambhogaśmaśānakalpa (Ō.
2615, Tō. 1744)
v (verso) back side of a folio
v./vv. verse/verses
VḌBhDCTSN Tilopā’s *Śrī-Vajraḍākinībhāvanādṛṣṭicaryātrayasaṃketanirdeśa
VABNBHK Tilopā’s Viṣāntarabāhyanivṛttibhāvanākrama
VḌNDh Tilopā’s Vajraḍākinīniṣkāyadharma
VS Vajravārāhīsādhana (Ō. 2292, Tō. 1581)
Zh Zhang lo’i thim yig
Orthographic Conventions
Chinese has been romanized according to the standard Pinyin system, and Tibetan
in the modified Wylie.
In general, as regards the Tibetan texts, unless significant, sandhi and
orthography have been silently standardized in order to provide the reader with
witnesses as much accessible as possible. For the same reason, punctuation and
euphonic junctions have been silently standardized. In particular, abbreviations,
compendious writing, numeral graphemes, logograms, anusvāras have been
solved, and the phonetic alternations of the morphemes have been regularized
according to the final and postfinal of the preceding syllable. Similar
standardization has been silently applied with the orthographic and some very
common grammatical alternations.
Preface
Le plagiat est nécessaire. Le progrès l’implique

(Isidore-Lucien Ducasse, Comte de Lautréamont,
1870, Poésies, 2: 275)
T he I every human being claims to be, just because he does claim so,
is nothing but a fiction, although sometimes extremely persuasive.
Echoing the Buddhist discourse, Friedrich Nietzsche warns us that
there is no being behind the doing, acting, becoming; the doer is merely a
fiction added to the action―the act is everything (1887: 1.13). Now, if we
consider the doer, this subjectum, as nothing but the collection of his acts,
portraying a Bengali gentleman of a thousand years ago requires exhibiting
him through what he would have done in the course of his life: in short,
what falls under a double register, the deeds he would have done, and the
words he would have said. This book takes into account that gentleman’s
deeds.
In order to provide the reader with a perspective wider than the merely
antiquarian matter of this book, it is indispensable to postulate here the
handful of concepts that have been my companions in years of research.
The access to the needed information was gained through its memory,
recorded in the sources I have consulted: it was crucial to start with them.
On the other hand, what kind of sources were they? As to the literary genre,
they belong to what we usually call hagiology, and the fact that the deeds of
Buddhist masters be labelled in Tibet as stories of their ‘complete
liberation’ (Tib. rnam par thar pa, or rnam thar : Skt vimokṣa), had to
induce me to the utmost prudence.
Ever since the epoch of classical Orientalism, we are alerted that these
rnam thars ‘cannot be generally regarded as works of absolute historical
value’ (Tucci 1933: 54): ‘they must be considered neither histories nor
xv
xvi TILOPĀ
chronicles. The events they relate with a particular satisfaction are spiritual
conquests, visions and ecstasies’ (Tucci 1949: 150). In fact, the Tibetan
hagiographies of our Bengali adept, or siddha (Tib. grub thob), and expert
of yoga, or yogin (rnal ’byor pa), convey a sort of offical picture: a man
bluish of appearance, with blood-shot eyes, naked or wearing cotton
undergarments; a gentleman who would have done strange things and said
things even more bizarre. Besides, what conveys a deeper sense of
distancing effect is that he would have done and said those things a
thousand years ago, in a land imbued with an extraordinary history and
civilization.
While studying this kind of literature, it became increasingly clear that
the datum, the historiographical or geographical information, sometimes
the fabula itself, i.e. the story behind the plot, had been entrusted to those
sources in a way sometimes inconsistent, on occasion even dissonant. The
problems involved by such material in a historiographical approach were
becoming more and more evident.
First, I had to keep constantly in mind that the rnam thars were
composed and transmitted within a specific tradition, in order to be used by
Buddhist practitioners and monks in a pious context―even in a ritual
sense―of veneration and identification with the master, the guru (Tib. bla
ma). Second, though it is to be acknowledged that ‘even the historian could
find in these biographies precious elements otherwise impossible to get’
(Tucci 1933: 54), I could not ignore that the historian there evoked is
typically none other than the archivist of the facts recorded by the
hegemonic power and episteme of each epoch. Along with other officials
expressed by the same power, the historians care and administer the datum
denoted as objective by the label of-absolute-historical-value. Third,
pronouncing the word objective sounds like a magic spell conjuring up
reality: objective as a pledge of truth, when the collapse of any absolute
certainty is before our open eyes, and the appeal to objectivity and
neutrality of the Encyclopaedists turned out to be a constructed myth
(Flood 2006: 15).
Fama malum qua non aliud uelocius ullum... (Verg. Aen. 4.174–77): Vergil
dazzles us with a poetical meditation on that social process categorized as
fame (Lat. fama). Let us read it in John Dryden’s exquisite poetical
translation (1697: 162):
PREFACE xvii
Fame, the great ill, from small beginnings grows:

Swift from the first; and ev’ry moment brings
New vigor to her flights, new pinions to her wings.
Soon grows the pigmy to gigantic size;
Her feet on earth, her forehead in the skies.
In 1608, a thirty-four-year-old Tibetan Buddhist monk, Tāranātha (1575–

1634), wrote a significant remark in his ‘History of Indian Buddhism’
(rGya gar chos ’byung):
Here in Tibet, whatever account, no matter whether correct or not, is

acceptable: if there is something widespread among all people, due to its
great fame (grags), even though something else absolutely true is said, it
does not come to the ear (rGya gar chos ’byung 81.4–5; THBI 124).
Undoubtedly Tāranātha had read neither Vergil nor Dryden’s translation

and circumscribes his consideration to Tibet. However, what has been said
by an Italian and a Tibetan about fama and grags respectively can work as
a useful underlying thinking when we consider one of its aspects, tradition.
Be it a practice, a custom, or a legend―in our case, a hagiographic

corpus―a tradition can be observed as a process of deferred interaction
between humans, where memory and transmission have their special game.
In addition, being a cultural phenomenon, I could look at tradition as a
process of communication in which both continuity and change, langue and
parole, have their legitimate place. The game of Chinese Whispers, or
Telephone in US English, as a metaphor for cumulative error appeared to
me a feasible model of how that communication is crossed from its very
beginning by a progressive alteration of the primary information. The first
addresser A quickly whispers a message (x) to the addressee B; the latter
turns himself into the addresser of what he believes the same message and
whispers it, further slightly deforming it, to the next addressee C, and so on
according to the following model―
A → x → B → x’ → C → x’’ → D...
xviii TILOPĀ
Many questions arose as to the role played by this kind of alteration in the
building of a hagiographic tradition: in particular, what else comes into
play in the process, and who is responsible of it, so to speak. Of course, in
defining the problem, I aspired to a concept of tradition without suspecting
what implications it would have conveyed. A response to the Chinese
Whispers problem was attempted through different disciplinary approaches:
in the first place, semiotics.
Proceeding one step at a time, let us consider the first segment of the
communication chain. A and B are linked by a certain relationship but, if
we represented this relationship in a vectorial way, we would have missed
the fact that both addresser and addressee somehow negotiate the meaning
of the message x and build it together (Flood 2006: 181). The model, then,
was becoming more complex—
A→x↔B
Two types of characters are at stake: one is the message (x), the other is the
pair addresser and addressee (A, B). Two functions are active. The former
is signification: the sign raises a connection between something present to
something absent (aliquid pro aliquo). The latter is communication: the
social relationship within a given system of signification between A and B.
The addressee, being in the presence of something that works as a sign,
starts a process of semiosis. In the process, however, a third element comes
into play, that somehow brought me beyond the Dating Game of both
addresser/addressee and the Saussurean signifiant/signifié.
In point of fact, we usually recognize a binary dynamics in all human
action within a social context, be it either an equalitarian or an active-
passive one. Nevertheless, triadic models are possible as well, and the
Peircean semiosis―with its sign, object, and interpretant―is one of them.
We owe to Charles Peirce the enunciation in the field of semiotics of the
concept of interpretant, namely, that additional sign resulting from the
relationship between the sign in its materiality (representamen), and what
that sign decides to stay for (immediate object), starting from the object
which actually is (dynamic object). In other words, the interpretant is ‘an
equivalent sign, or perhaps a more developed sign’, created in the mind of
the addressee by the representamen (Peirce 1931–58, 2: 228). This new
sign, the interpretant, can become in turn the object of another new sign,
and so on indefinitely. We find a clear description of this process of
shifting from sign to sign in the first volume of Peirce’s Collected Papers
PREFACE xix
(1931–58, 1: 339):
The meaning of a representation can be nothing but a representation. In

fact, it is nothing but the representation itself conceived as stripped of
irrelevant clothing. But this clothing never can be completely stripped off;
it is only changed for something more diaphanous. So there is an infinite
regression here. Finally, the interpretant is nothing but another
representation to which the torch of truth is handed along; and as
representation, it has its interpretant again. Lo, another infinite series.
According to Umberto Eco (1975: 101–103), when a process of unlimited

semiosis is operating, the interpretant can take various forms. It can be the
equivalent significant in another semiotic system, or an emotional
association that takes the value of a fixed connotation. It may be identified
with the whole system of the denotations and connotations of a term, or it
can even be a complex speech, a behavioral response, and many other
things. Given that ‘every thought is a sign’ (Peirce 1931–58, 1: 538, 2: 253,
5: 314, 470), this unlimited semiosis is not only the making of thinking
activity, but also what underlies a possible model of deferred interaction, as
in the case of tradition—
A → x ↔ B → x’ ↔ C → x’’ ↔ D...
What is the social relevance of this unlimited semiotic process? Is there a

remote possibility of one and only one truth? Is this truth at the supposed
beginning of the process? Can language express it somehow? What kind of
representation is that to which the torch of truth is handed along?
Professor of Classical Philology at the University of Basel, Nietzsche in the

Winter Semester of 1872–73 taught a lecture course on the history of Greek
eloquence. The course was attended by two students only, thus the lectures
on classical rhetoric planned for the Summer Semester of 1874 were never
offered.
To an irony of fate, it is in the notes prepared by our zealous professor
for the to-be-suppressed course, that we read the following crucial words
(Nietzsche 1873–74: 106–107; Blair 1983):
xx TILOPĀ
There is obviously no unrhetorical ‘naturalness’ of language to which one

could appeal; the language itself is the result of audible rhetorical arts.
The power to discover and to make operative that which works and
impresses, with respect to each thing, a power which Aristotle calls
rhetoric, is, at the same time, the essence of language; the latter is based
just as little as rhetoric is upon that which is true, upon the essence of
things. Language does not desire to instruct, but to convey to others a
subjective impulse and its acceptance.
If we dare assess the essence of language as rhetorical, if this is the case, it

would be wise to reconsider one of the Aristotelian foundation stones of the
White Man’s culture, namely the maxim that man is by nature a political
animal (ánthrōpos phýsei politikón zṓion, Aristot. Pol. 1253a 2–3).
Possibly, in the first book of his Politics, Aristotle was not celebrating the
human being. There is in fact more than one reason to suppose that he was
looking at a specific human, namely, at that who lived within a small
community, the pólis, whose members administered public space by
identifying and pursuing the common good. In some way, he was
celebrating what was vanishing before his eyes in the sun of new, more
complex―and even more perverse―conceptions of power, to start with
Alexander’s dream. That fading, I dare say, matches with the last two
millennia of the White Man’s history, and with the history of the
interpretation of ‘political’, namely the history of its unlimited semiosis.
Now, at a possible end of this history of ours, and of our long oblivion of
Being―of our Seinsvergessenheit in Heideggerian words―it would be
prudent admitting that, rather than political, man is to be seen as a
rhetorical animal.
Be rhetorical the waves on the sea of communication, the deep current
causing them from the bottom of that sea seems to be identification:
affirmed, just because there is division. As already observed, it is
identification to compensate for division (Burke 1969: 22). We know in
fact that all social processes have contradictory tendencies: as humans, we
are pushed by the need to maintain our psychological balance, and in
consequence we seek unity in contradiction. With contradiction comes the
need for mediation: ‘If men were not apart from one another, there would
be no need for the rhetorician to proclaim their unity’ (Aune 2003: 8).
Be rhetorical the human communication, in every interaction at least
one non-explicit intention is placed. Such intention(s), in turn, determine(s)
a constellation of meanings. Particularly relevant to identify what is in
PREFACE xxi
question with tradition is that both functions are to be regarded as

rhetorical, namely that of the addresser and that of the addressee. Nay, the
latter seems to have a major role in the play, as for example in the above
described model of the Chinese Whispers communication chain. Imagine
for example that the A element of the chain is a surgeon, and the B element
knows it: the word whispered by A is ‘sunset’, but B misunderstands it and
retransmits ‘lancet’ because he sees A as a surgeon. In a context of text
interpretation, a similar albeit not identical phenomenon has been labelled
as intentio lectoris, namely what the reader has the text to say according to
his own systems of signification, or to his own desires, instincts, and belief
(Eco 1992: 64).
Water, earth, water with earth. Among those who supposed that only
material principles underlie all things, we read in the first book of
Aristotle’s Metaphysics, that Thales of Miletus pointed at water as both an
element (stoichéion) and principle (archḗ) of existing things. In Aristotle’s
words, it is matter of an element and principle of which all things consist,
from which they first come, and into which they are ultimately resolved: an
element and principle which persists although modified by its affections
(Aristot. Met. 983b 6–21). Thales was born in the last quarter of the seventh
century BCE on the western coast of Anatolia, near the mouth of the
Meander River. We are reported on his theories in the context of Aristotle’s
lectures, given in the fourth century BCE, about first philosophy: it is not too
arduous to imagine him in front of the Aegean Sea, walking to and fro
while teaching under the colonnades of his Lyceum in Athens.
Fourteen centuries later, a virtual descendant of the gymnosophists
(gymnosphistái), those naked philosophers Alexander of Macedon would
have met with (Plut. Alex. 64.1–5), our Bengali siddha and yogin
exemplifies the spiritual path to his disciple pointing out the flow of the
Gaṅgā River: at the start, he says, it is similar to a stream passing through a
gorge; at the halfway point, it slowly descends; at the end, when its waters
join the sea, it is like the reunion of a son with his mother (MMU).
History is even more liquid than water itself, and the roots of later
events sink deeply into unbearable remoteness. Aristotle asserts that the
barbarian-Asiatic type of royalty resembles that of tyrannies, albeit legal
and hereditary,
xxii TILOPĀ
...because the barbarians are more servile (doulikṓteroi) in their nature

than the Greeks, and the Asiatics than the Europeans, they endure despotic
rule without any resentment’ (Aristot. Pol. 3.1285a 20).
In actual fact, such an authoritative father of the European ethnocentrism

was the tutor of Alexander III of Macedon, and the latter is indirectly
responsible of the first pieces of information ever achieved by Europeans
about the countries to the east of the Indus.
This information is based on the eyewitness account by the Greek
Hellenistic informant Megasthenes. After the death of Alexander (323
BCE), Seleucus I Nicator, formerly an Alexander’s officer, had been
nominated the satrap of Babylon. Megasthenes was sent to Pāṭaliputra
(Palíbothra) as Seleucus’ emissary and met with Candragupta Maurya
(Sandrókottos) around 304/303 BCE. Documenting a diplomatic meeting
with the founder of the Mauryan empire to negotiate an exchange of
provinces for elephants, Megasthenes’ Indica―fragments of which have
arrived to us paraphrased and inserted in the works of later authors (1st cent.
nd
BCE–2 cent. CE)―provides us with the oldest description of the Gangetic
plain, and of the nation of the Gangaridai who lived there.
When and where, these two questions about time and space do not merely
entail purportedly neutral containers of a fact; they solicit more and point
out at the contextual reason of the fact itself. We may possibly discern two
possible answers, namely two types of discourse on what is manifest
around us. The former answer could be categorized as an historical
description of the world. Being human the approach and language, the
described world cannot be but a human one, the only one we can move in.
As such, the world appears as a multifaceted and multitemporal system of
human relations, be they social, economic, political, or cultural. The latter
kind of answer is traditionally conceived as a geographical description of
the earth, namely, of the oecumene (oikouménē) or world that humans
know and inhabit, as Strabo meant at the beginning of the current era.
As a matter of fact, a threefold abstraction is implied in what we mean
with geography: the world is implicitly reduced to the earth, the earth to its
surface, and the latter to a two-dimensional table (Farinelli 2003: 6).
Therefore, the kind of space we imagine in a modern map is more
geometrical than human, and like the Euclidean space, it is regarded as
PREFACE xxiii
continuous, homogeneous, and isotropic, i.e. uniform in all orientations

(op.cit. 13).
This conception of a measurable abstract space undoubtedly can date
back to the map of the Florentine Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli and the map-
based travels of the Genoese Cristoforo Colombo, but not long before the
fifteenth century. Thus, for example, the Venetian Marco Polo still reported
spatial distances in terms of time needed to cover them, i.e. days on foot or
horseback, nights, and so forth. In the same way as deserts and forests had
not yet the length we are used to at present, the directions were given
according to the winds, and the space was still evaluated and
communicated to others on account of journey-based personal experience.
As it was the case under other skies, and even since a long time before the
beginning of the fourteenth century, Marco Polo’s earth was not yet
reducible to a table, because it was rather a diachronic system of places
than the synchronic two-dimensional space containing them: thus each
place was perceived as a portion of surface of the earth that was not
equivalent to any other. If this was the case of the soldier, the merchant, the
migrant, or the pilgrim, in a complementary way, it was generally that very
place―to be exact, its local memory―to give a sense of identity to the
inhabitants.
Being a fluid archive of human discourses on what has been and still is
in some way, history is the word which is said in relation to what and when;
likewise, geography is an archive of discourses on what and where. It is
conspicuous that whichever historical discourse cannot be but a historical
and geographical one all together. Consequently, depicting a Bengali
gentleman of a thousand years ago implies to see the ground he trod on,
recognise the places and the landscape which would suit to his deeds:
inspire them in a sense. Below any iconographic embellishment built over
by later hagiographers, there must be a landscape where―and when―his
deeds regain their specific cultural sense and step out of the cabinet of
curiosities of collectors of antiquarian and exotic fetishes.
It is well to keep in mind, however, that a landscape is not what we see,
but what we choose to see: no objectivity is there in human memory. The
‘gloomy wood’ (selva oscura) where Dante Alighieri found himself when
half way through the journey of his life is not the wood of a woodsman of
his time.
xxiv TILOPĀ
It is my hope that the material collected and discussed in this book be of

some interest to the indologist, the tibetologist, the buddhologist, the
historian of religions, as well as to the student of Bauddha Dharma:
different perspectives, different focuses. Consequently, readers are not
supposed to read from beginning to end: it is more fruitful if they feel free
to pick and choose among the chapters what is their closer interest, and use
the rest of the book as a reference one. With a view to a better orientation,
readers are provided with the following map of the topics.
Summing up, this book comprises four chapters. In CHAPTER I a
geographical and historical background is painted, a landscape of waters,
kings, polities, and cities, based on epigraphical, numismatic, and
archaeological material; on written travelogues of Chinese, Arab, and
Italian travellers; on Tibetan accounts and compilations. In CHAPTER II the
relevant Indo-Tibetan hagiographic sources are described, discussed, and
outlined in the context of their tradition. With the intention of
characterising such a tradition and its Tibetan sprouts, for the most part
among the bKa’ brgyud lineages, the following main entries are introduced:
Tantric Buddhism, Yoginītantras, Cakraśaṃvara, Manobhaṅga,
Cittaviśrāma, Uḍḍiyāna, ḍākinī, siddha, guru, and śmaśāna. In CHAPTER III
an attempt is made at a biographical portrait of our gentleman of a thousand
years ago, assessing the who, the when, and the where. In CHAPTER IV a
preliminary description of bibliographic details and context of the Indic and
the Tibetan sources, which have transmitted the word of our Bengali
gentleman, is given. As regards the Indic source, being the case of a codex
unicus, it is described by means of palaeographical and codicological
examination. As for the Tibetan documents, they can be found in different
collections, namely canonical (bsTan ’gyur), sectarian (bDe mchog snyan
brgyud), and non-sectarian (gDams ngag mdzod). Special attention is paid
to the collection of the bDe mchog snyan brgyud with the relevant
hagiographic material (gser ’phreng), its genesis, and arrangement.
PREFACE xxv
Acknowledgments
The idea for this book matured in the years on the occasion of several
separate conversations with two youngest friends of mine, Dr Diego
Gullotta and Dr Marco Passavanti: whereas the former had words when I
had no ears, the latter had ears when I had no words any longer. The most
heartfelt thanks are due to them.
A grateful thought cannot but fly to all those who contributed to this
research since the nineties of the last century, one way or the other: first
and foremost to the eighth Gru gu Chos rgyal Rin po che Yon tan rGya
mtsho of the ’Brug pa bKa’ brgyud tradition, who inspired me to devote my
intellectual energies to a Bengali gentleman of a thousand years ago; to the
sGa rje Khams sprul Rin po che ’Jam dbyangs Don grub who encouraged
me to put a great deal of effort into written Tibetan; to Lobsang Shastri, at
that time Head Librarian of the Tibetan Section of the LTWA, currently
Senior Librarian at the Tibetan Buddhist Resource Centre (TBRC), who
gave me constant assistance in retrieving the needed Tibetan material; to
Acharya Sangye Tandar Naga, presently Head of the Cultural Research and
Tibetan Publication Department of the LTWA, who helped me so much to
become familiar with the abbreviations, the graphemes, and the logograms
of the Tibetan dbu med script; to Ani Dawa of the Tilokpur Ani Gompa,
Kangra District, HP, who made me practise and love colloquial Tibetan; to
my friends Kristin Blancke and Franco Pizzi who shared with me their
excellent food and knowledge of the bKa’ brgyud tradition while living at
Dharamsala; to Professor Raffaele Torella, at present Faculty Member of
the Sapienza University of Roma, who read with me Bagchi’s edition of the
Tillopādasya dohākoṣapañjikā sārārthapañjikā at his home and, in revising
my first translation of that text, gave indeed to me the only Sanskrit lessons
I ever had in my life; to Mr. Nam Raj Gurung, General Manager of the
Kathmandu office of the Nepal Research Centre (NRC), who helped me to
find the original manuscript of the Tillopādasya dohākoṣapañjikā
sārārthapañjikā; to Dr Albrecht Hanisch, Local Representative of the
Nepalese-German Manuscript Cataloguing Project (NGMCP) and Acting
Director of the NRC in Kathmandu, who provided me with any kind of
assistance while studying that manuscript; to Dr Rajan Khatiwoda, then a
Research Assistant and Cataloguer at the NGMCP in Kathmandu, who
xxvi TILOPĀ
helped me to read the Nepali bhujimol script; to Dr Cristiana Milli, for her
stoic patience in reading the draft of the book; to Dr Kostas Tzerakis of
Chania, Crete, for his computer help while finalising the index.
My appreciation is also extended to my friends of Boudhanath,
Kathmandu: first of all to Ram Ballav Das Tatma for his experience of life,
and love to his son Benjamin; to Kabita Nepali for her food and wise smile;
to Wangyal Lama, General Secretary of the Norbuling Children’s Home,
for his social commitment to a better Nepal; to Chirayeu and Swikriti
Lohani of Pharping for their noble kindness.
In conclusion, a more ecumenical debt of gratitude is owed to the
members of the scholars’ community for what they have taught me with
their knowledge and personal example: too many to be mentioned, they
have shown me what Tibetology is, and what is not.
Fabrizio Torricelli
Boudhanath, Kathmandu
MAP 1 Satellite image of the area of Ancient Bengal (October 29, 2002).
Jacques Descloitres, MODIS Rapid Response Team, NASA/GSFC
xxvii
TILOPĀ
MAP 2 Current administrative divisions in the same area
xxviii
I —WATERS, KINGS, POLITIES, AND CITIES
riverrun, past Eve and Adam’s, from swerve of

shore to bend of bay,... (James Joyce 1939,
Finnegans Wake: 3)
L abelled by Tibetans as East of India (rGya gar shar phyogs),

Ancient Bengal, or Bengal as we will refer to here for convenience,
roughly corresponds to the northeastern region of the Indian
subcontinent (MAP 1). In our time it is mainly divided between the Indian
state of West Bengal and the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, while some
areas are part of the neighboring Indian states of Bihar, Jharkhand, Assam,
Tripura, and Odisha (Orissa). Since most of the pages of this chapter deal
with places of contemporary Bangladesh, it could be useful to become
familiar with its seven divisions (bibhag), each named after their respective
divisional headquarters: Dhaka, Sylhet, Chittagong, Barisal, Khulna,
Rajshahi, and Rangpur (MAP 2), each division being further subdivided into
districts (zila) and subdistricts (upazila or thana).
When we observe a satellite image of this region, we can see that the
river system, counting on the order of seven hundred streams generally
flowing southwards, forms its prominent physical feature. This profusion of
water flowing towards the Bay of Bengal can be regarded as an impressive
network of four major floodplains, namely, the Gaṅgā-Padmā, the
Brahmaputra-Jamunā, the Padmā-Meghnā, the Surmā-Meghnā, as well as
the detached basin of the Karnaphuli River (MAP 3). During the last ten
centuries, since our gentleman’s time until our time, great changes seem to
have taken place in the hydrography of that land, constantly compelling the
people to abandon their earlier settlements and rebuild new ones. Water has
moulded earth and swayed human history, transforming densely populated
sites into unhealty desert areas and the other way round.1
1
2 TILOPĀ I
MAP 3 Major floodplains
In spite of the earth-moulding process of the waters of this riverine country,

and the human superimposition of impermanent political boundaries, a
rough geographical division between the northwestern and the southeastern
portions of Bengal seems to persist throughout the ages (R.C. Majumdar
WATERS, KINGS, POLITIES, AND CITIES 3
1971: 44–45). Be Gauḍa the most general geographical designation for the
former, and Vaṅga for the latter. More in detail as well as alternatively,
Puṇḍra, Varendra or Varendrī were also used for northern Bengal; Rāḍhā or
Suhma for western Bengal; Samataṭa and Harikela for eastern Bengal (MAP
4).
MAP 4 Approximate territorial division of Ancient Bengal
Following the diachronic patterns of dynastic historians within this

synchronic cartographical division, it is feasible to mark on the map some
sites, pinpointed by archaeologists as political, administrative, economic, or
religious ones, that could have been familiar to our Bengali gentleman of a
thousand years ago. Graeco-Roman accounts, coins, records of land grants
or kings’ lists, travelogues of medieval Chinese Buddhist pilgrims, of Arab
and Italian merchants, and historical or hagiographic compilations by
Tibetan clerics are the tiles of the mosaic.
Gaṅgā and Pāṭaliputra

Greek and Latin sources describe the Gangaridai of Alexander’s time (4th
cent. BCE) as provided with a highly developed monarchical polity in which
two nations, the Prasioi (Skt Prācyāḥ) with capital at Pāṭaliputra
(Pāṭaliputta, present Patna) and the Gangaridai were included. Diodorus
4 TILOPĀ I
Siculus still reports in the first century BCE that the army they organized
against Alexander counted twenty thousand charioteers, twenty myriads of
infantry, two thousand chariots, and four thousand elephants equipped for
war: the Gandaridai were in fact so powerful from the military viewpoint
that a campaign against them would have been hard to accomplish (Diod.
Bibl. 17.93.2–4). According to Claudius Ptolemy’s Geographia of the
second century CE, their land occupied the delta region of the Gaṅgā River,
with their homonymous royal capital Gaṅgā (Gángē Basíleion, Ptol. Geog.
7.1.81.5; Renou 1925: 35).2
Gone the greatness of the Gangaridai, Bengal seems to fade away as a
nation in the course of the Indo-Aryan gradual expansion eastwards. This
process had already found its best cultural habitat in one of the great
nations (mahājanapada) on the Indian political maps of the sixth–third
centuries BCE, namely the kingdom of Magadha in the south of current
Bihar, with its capital initially at Rājagṛha (Rājagaha, present Rajgir), and
then in Pāṭaliputra, the ancient town of the Prasioi. Subsequently, when
Aryanized Magadha came under the Buddhist Maurya dynasty (c. 322–187
BCE) of Pāṭaliputra, also the eastern regions assimilated many elements of
Aryan culture. However, because of the graduality of this eastward
advance, and the ensuing difference of speed and intensity of this
assimilation, throughout the history of the following centuries, whatever
kind of pressure from Pāṭaliputra was felt less in the east of Bengal than in
the west.3
It should be considered that the crisis of tribal societies in India dates
back to a handful of centuries before the Mauryas. Likewise, the
development of an agricultural economy based on private property instead
of rotation in land use was rather recent: although the system of barter was
still prevailing, a sort of proto-market had come to be from the occasional
exchange of surplus products. It is now generally agreed that the earliest
punch-marked coins were minted in India between the end of the sixth and
the beginning of the fifth century BCE: it was the time of, or probably not
long before Siddhārtha Gautama (Bechert 1991/92/97).4
If we cast an eye over that period, we cannot help but notice a
concurrence which deserves we stop and think about: the flowering in the
vast Indo-Gangetic Plain of new towns and cities on one side, and the
emergence of ‘heresies’ like Buddhism and Jainism on the other, as Max
Weber (1921: 204) had already remarked. Most of those cities were capitals
of kingdoms based on urban monarchy and gentry, and most of the people
inhabiting them were imbued with the metropolitan and cosmopolitan
values of resourceful merchants, surrounded by new luxuries, and absorbed

in practical concerns.
In point of fact, the horizon of the earliest Buddhist discourse was that
of an expanding economy combined with the formation of dynamic state
structures, and Buddhism seems to have been very sensitive to the needs
and expectations of that urbanized society. In short, since the sixth to the
fourth century BCE, merchants and craftsmen guilds had acquired so much
wealth, autonomy, and political prestige that the agricultural and pastoral
horizon of the Brahmanical tradition appeared too narrow. Albeit in another
context, Weber (1921: 33–39) had observed how the Brahmanical order
and the caste system formed an ‘obstacle’ to the full development of an
urban society where the prince’s interest grew increasingly interdependent
with that of the merchant. Such being the case, new sets of certainties were
needed; new forms of ethical religiosity, probably in the sense of Greek
eusébeia and Latin pietas (Hacker 1965), were more attractive than the
communal religion of the brahmins, with its ritual, etiquette, and hygiene
(Gombrich 1988: 19, 26–29): in one word, new forms of dhamma (Skt
dharma) like the Bauddha and Jaina ones.
In an urban society where the status was based more on wealth rather
than on birth, merchants could hardly feel comfortable with a discourse like
the Brahmanical one, which did not recognise nor approve their way of life
(Sarao 1990: 175 ff.). Whereas the Brahmanical tradition despised trade,
Buddhism developed a sort of Weberian elective affinity with the city
merchants, and an increasing number of merchants became Bauddha
followers (Carrithers 1983: 84). After all, ‘it was natural for the Buddhists
to support the mercantile groups as these (1) provided them with material
resources, and (2) were not obliged to regard them as competitors, as the
brahmins clearly did’ (Bailey and Mabbet 2003: 25).
Likewise, it is not a coincidence that Aśoka (c. 273–236 BCE), the
Maurya founder of the first and largest pan-Indian empire―from
contemporary Afghanistan to Assam, from the Himālayas to Andhra
Pradesh―converted to the new dharma and wanted his subjects be
informed of it through edicts and inscriptions on rocks and pillars to the
four corners of the Empire. Anyway, the affinity between the Buddhist
Maurya dynasty and merchants was not merely ideological: not only the
existing roads were made safer, but also considerable capital was expended
to construct new ones. Such infrastructural development, together with
greater security in the movement of people and goods, greater uniformity in
the measurement systems, and a more general use of money, fostered trade,
6 TILOPĀ I
and a higher welfare as a consequence.

We know very little about the political history of Bengal since the end
of the Mauryas in the second century BCE until the rise of the Guptas in the
fourth century CE. On the other hand, it is possible to have some idea of the
widespread trade between Bengal and China, as well as other markets from
both Mediterranean and Indian sources. In the Periplus Maris Erythraei, by
an anonymous Greek-speaking Egyptian merchant of the first century CE,
the ancient capital of the Gangaridai, is pointed at as a trade port with the
same name as the river, Gaṅgā (Schoff 1912: 217). We may infer that the
town was still prosperous during the time of the Śuṅgas (185–73 BCE) and
the Kuṣāṇas (1st–3rd cent. CE), for the reason that goods such as the
aromatic leaves of malabathrum and Gangetic spikenard, the most costly
ingredients of the ointments (oleum malabathri) and perfumes (nardinum)
of the Roman Empire, were carried down from the Himālayas and shipped
from there together with pearls and Gangetic muslin.
In the Milindapañha (1st cent. BCE–2nd cent. CE), Vaṅga opens a list of
countries with important seaports that a wealthy shipowner could reach for
his own profit: Vaṅga, Takkola in south Thailand, China, Sovīra in the
lower Indus Valley, Surat in Gujarat, Alexandria, the ports of the Colas
(kolapaṭṭa) on the Coromandel Coast, and Suvaṇṇabhūmi in south
Myanmar (Milindapañha 6.21; Rhys Davids 1894, 2: 359). A key port on
the coast of Vaṅga in that period was in all probability Tāmraliptī, the
Tamalítēs listed by Ptolemy as one of the towns on the banks of the Gaṅgā
River (Ptol. Geog. 7.1.73; Renou 1925: 32–33).5 From a more cultural
viewpoint, the earliest epigraphical occurrence of Vaṅga (Vaṃga) we have
to date can be found in an inscription from Nagarjunakonda (2nd–3rd cent.
CE), where the country appears to be an important centre of conversion to
Buddhism (Vogel 1929–30: 22).
The incorporation of Bengal in the Gupta Empire seems to begin by the
time of Samudragupta (c. 335 – c. 375), as it is indirectly told in his
panegyric (praśasti) engraved on the Aśokan pillar in the Allahabad fort
(Fleet 1888: 203–19).6 With the Gupta dynasty ruling from Pāṭaliputra,
Bengal was once again an imperial province as it had been under the
Mauryas, but its political and cultural position was decidedly less marginal.
We can surmise from fifth-century inscriptions that a large part of Bengal
was ruled by feudal chiefs (mahāsāmanta, or mahārāja), whereas northern
Bengal was under direct Gupta administration, and divided into units and
subunits.7
Let us take the case of the territorial division (bhukti) of
Puṇḍravardhana, which was controlled by governors (uparika, then

uparikamahārāja) installed by the Gupta king.8 Within the bhukti, the
districts (viṣaya) were administered by district magistrates (āyuktaka, or
viṣayapati, also titled kumārāmātya) appointed by the governor. Every
officer had his administrative centre and staff in the main town of the
viṣaya (viṣayādhikaraṇa) and was assisted by a board of four members
(adhiṣṭhānādhikaraṇa): (1) the mayor (nagaraśreṣṭhin) who was the
chairman of the merchant guild in the town, (2) the representative of the
mercantile class (prathamasārthavāha), (3) the representative of the artisan
class (prathamakulika), and (4) the representative of the scribal class
(prathamakāyastha). In addition, a viṣaya was subdivided into provinces
(maṇḍala), although sometimes it was the maṇḍala to be parted into
viṣayas. Further subdivisions of the viṣaya or maṇḍala were the markets
(vīthī), and then the villages (grāma).
Evidence of the economic prosperity of Bengal under the Guptas is
given not only by the large number of Gupta coins and imitations of them
found in the area, but also by the travelogues of Chinese Buddhist pilgrims,
to begin with a monk of the Eastern Jin period, Faxian.9 In his Fo guo ji
mention is made of the seaport of Tāmraliptī (Daomolidi 到摩梨帝) where
the Buddhist doctrine (fofa 佛法) was flourishing with its twenty-four
monasteries or saṅghārāmas (sengqielan 僧伽藍), and stayed there two
years writing and painting (T.2085.864c7–9; Legge 1886: 100).
Albeit worshippers of Viṣṇu (vaiṣṇava), the Guptas adopted a policy of
religious tolerance and played the role of patrons of both Jainism and
Buddhism. In particular, some of them are credited to have established the
great monastery (mahāvihāra) of Nālandā. The site is about eleven km
northwest of Rājagṛha, on the way Śākyamuni himself would have passed
by more than once. Since that time, Buddhist devotees have left countless
artistical signs of their religious fervour, and raised shelters for pilgrims
and monks. As a matter of fact, at the beginning of the fifth century the
monastery did not exist yet, for the reason that Faxian, who left India in
412, mentions in the Fo guo ji (T.2085.862c8–9; Legge 1886: 81) nothing
but the ‘village’ Nāla (Naluo juluo 那羅聚落).10 A different picture can be
found in the report of another Chinese pilgrim, a monk of the Tang period
who travelled India between 629 and 644, Xuanzang.11 In the ninth book of
the Da tang xi yu ji (T.2087.923b13–16; Beal 1884, 2: 167–70) Xuanzang
describes Nālandā (Nalantuo 那爛陀): there he had found a monastic
community, or saṃgha (sengtu 僧徒), which amounted to several thousand
8 TILOPĀ I
members. This piece of information is corroborated by a later pilgrim-monk

of the Tang period, Yijing:12 in the last quarter of the seventh century the
monks of Nālandā counted up to more than three thousand in the Nan hai ji
gui nei fa zhuan (T.2125.214a4, 227a26; Takakusu 1896: 65, 154), and
three thousand five hundred in the Da tang xi yu qiu fa gao seng zhuan
(T.2066.6b20; Lahiri 1986: 51).13
Krīpura, Koṭālipāḍā, and Karṇasuvarṇa

The trans-Meghnā region comprising the present-day districts of Comilla
and Noakhali (Noākhālī) seems to have been de facto independent of the
Gupta suzerainty till the end of the fifth century. Few years later, as we
know from a copperplate inscription found at Gunaighar, about thirty km to
the northwest of the town of Comilla, a lord with the name ending in -gupta
held sway in that region (Bhattacharyya 1930). The inscription is a land
grant issued in 507 by a ruler devout of Śiva (śaiva), Vainyagupta, in
favour of a Buddhist congregation of the Mahāyāna school of the
Vaivartikas: as such, it would be ‘the earliest epigraphic record of a
Brahmanic king making a gift of land to a Buddhist monastery’
(Bhattacharyya 1930: 51). We know from this document that
Vainyagupta’s capital, or ‘camp of victory’ (jayaskandhāvāra), was called
Krīpura, literally ‘market-town’. Inasmuch as the copperplate has been
found at about thirty km northwest of current Comilla, it is reasonable to
locate that town, ‘full of great ships and elephants and horses’ (mahānau-
hasty-aśva-jayaskandhāvārat) in the same area.14
The imperial power of the Guptas, eroded by the Hūṇas’ military
pressure since the end of the fifth century, fell into ruin few years later
under the ephemeral expansionist policy of Yaśodharman. As a side effect
of the political crush of northern India, an independent kingdom of Vaṅga
under Śaiva local rulers arose in the second quarter of the mid-sixth
century. Some inscriptions attest four kings: Dvādaśāditya, Dharmāditya,
Gopacandra, and Samācāradeva.15 All assumed the title mahārājādhirāja
which irrevocably testifies their sovereignty, whereas their recent
predecessor Vainyagupta was still designated as mahārāja. Moreover, it is
reasonable to assume that they reigned over eastern and southern Bengal, as
well as the southern part of western Bengal. We are in fact informed that
the western bhukti of Vardhamāna and the southern one of Navyāvakāśikā

were two important divisions administered by governors installed by
Gopacandra (Basak 1934: 192). On the other hand, eastern Bengal was
probably directly ruled by the king himself, whose possible headquarters
were in Koṭālipāḍā, the present Kotalipara (Pargiter 1910: 200). No other
kings are mentioned in the line, but a significant amount of debased
imitations of Gupta coins brought to light in the districts of Dhaka and
Gopalganj would suggest their existence. It is possible that one of these
unknown kings, if not the last one, had been defeated by the Chāḷukya king
Kīrtivarman (c. 567 – c. 597) during the latter’s raids into Bengal (R.C.
Majumdar 1971: 43).
Beyond the northwestern border of Vaṅga, during the sixth century, one
the effects of the fall of the Imperial Guptas was a three-generation struggle
for the possession of Magadha and parts of northwestern Bengal between
two families, the Maukharis and the Later Guptas, in earlier times
feudatories to the Imperial Guptas: whereas the former controlled the
central part of northern India from Kānyakubja (Kanauj, in current Uttar
Pradesh), the latter reigned over Bihar and northwestern Bengal.
Another significant side effect was the ascent of the kingdom of Gauḍa
connected with the expansionist adventure of Śaśāṅka (c. 590–c. 625). In
the beginning he was a feudatory (mahāsāmanta), most probably of
Mahāsenagupta, one of the Later Guptas. Then, he became the Śaiva
powerful king of Gauḍa-Magadha with capital at Karṇasuvarṇa.16 Mainly
articulated on his rivalry with the Buddhist king Harṣavardhana (c. 606–
647) who ruled northern India from the rich town of Kanauj since 606, and
with the latter’s ally Bhāskaravarman of Kāmarūpa, Śaśāṅka’s imperialistic
exploits did not last much later his death.
Bengal After Śaśāṅka

In the tenth book of the Da tang xi yu ji, Xuanzang describes the parts of
Bengal as separate independent countries, indirectly testifying the partition
of Śaśāṅka’s territories in north and west Bengal few years later, about 638.
As a matter of fact, he identifies four kingdoms in Bengal proper, namely
Puṇḍravardhana in the north, Karṇasuvarṇa in the west, Tāmraliptī in the
southwest, and Samataṭa in the southeast.
10 TILOPĀ I
Xuanzang refers to the major portion of northern Bengal, the territory

of the indigenous Pauṇḍras or Pauṇḍrakas, as Puṇḍravardhana
(Bennafadanna 奔那伐彈那, T.2087.927a14; Beal 1884, 2: 194), from the
name of its capital Puṇḍranagara: also named Puṇḍravardhanapura, it was
situated in the metropolitan province (maṇḍala) of Varendra (P.C. Sen
1929).17
The original part of Śaśāṅka’s kingdom of Gauḍa, roughly
corresponding to the northern portion of current West Bengal, is referred to
by Xuanzang under the name of its capital Karṇasuvarṇa (Jieluonasufalana
羯羅拏蘇伐刺那, T.2087.928a16; Beal 1884, 2: 201). Covering the lower
Brahmaputra Valley, the ancient kingdom of Prāgjyotiṣa mentioned in the
great epic was known in medieval times as Kāmarūpa, with capital at
Prāgjyotiṣapura, or Durjaya, the present Guwahati in Assam. Xuanzang had
occasion to meet with its king Bhāskavarman, the ally of Harṣavardhana.
Few years later, while Harṣavardhana conquered Śaśāṅka’s dominions
outside Bengal, Bhāskavarman occupied Puṇḍravardhana, conterminous
with Kāmarūpa, as well as Gauḍa with its capital Karṇasuvarṇa
(Bhattacharyya 1913–14; Barua Bahadur 1933: 56–98).
Tāmraliptī (Danmolidi 耽摩栗底) was the prosperous seaport where
Faxian had stayed for a couple of years at the beginning of the fifth century.
The vitality of this crucial emporium of northeastern India is confirmed by
Xuanzang: ‘Wonderful articles of value and gems are collected here in
abundance, and therefore the people of the country are in general very rich’
(T.2087.928a13; Beal 1884, 2: 201). Only one century after Xuanzang, this
chief emporium of Vaṅga for the trade with Sri Lanka and China was
totally ruined ‘on account of the silting up of the mouth of the Sarasvatī and
the consequent shifting of its course’ (R.C. Majumdar 1971: 3).18 The case
of Tamalítēs, or Tāmalitti, Daomolidi (到摩梨帝 in Faxian), Danmolidi
(耽摩栗底 in Xuanzang), Tāmraliptī, Tamluk is eminently illustrative of
the shifting processes in the earlier course of the lower Gaṅgā: once
situated on the Sarasvatī or another branch of the Gaṅgā, at present Tamluk
lies on the western bank of the Rupnarayan (Rūpnārāyaṇ), just above its
junction with the Hugli (Hūgli) (R.C. Majumdar 1971: 6, 345).
Samataṭa
The focus of Samataṭa was in the currently proposed Comilla Division of
Bangladesh. Its boundaries, roughly comprising the trans-Meghnā
territories from the hills of the Sylhet border to the Bay of Bengal, would
have been defined by the hills of Tripura and Arakan in the east, and the
combined waters of the Padmā, Meghnā, and Brahmaputra in the west
(Ghosh 2010–11). No better picture of Samataṭa (Sanmodazha 三摩呾吒)
in the mid-seventh century can be there than the description left to us by
Xuanzang himself (T.2087.927c20–23; Beal 1884, 2: 199):
This country is about 3000 li (1245 km) in circuit and borders on the great
sea. The land lies low and rich. The capital is about 20 li (8.3 km) round.
It is regularly cultivated, and is rich in crops, and the flowers and fruits
grow everywhere. The climate is soft and the habits of the people
agreeable. The men are hardy by nature, small of stature, and of black
complexion; they are fond of learning, and exercise themselves diligently
in the acquirement of it.19
In another place Xuanzang indirectly reports that Samataṭa was ruled at his
time by a line of kings of brāhmaṇa caste (poluomen 婆羅門), to which
also his master of śāstras (lunshi 論師) belonged, namely the Nālandā
patriarch Śīlabhadra (Shiluobatuoluo 尸羅跋陀羅) under whom he studied
over five years (T.2087.914c4–5; Beal 1884, 2: 110). The name of this
mid-seventh-century dynasty is not documented so far, but speculating on
the -bhadra ending of the monastic name Śīlabhadra, some scholars have
even conjectured the existence of a ‘Bhadra dynasty’ in Samataṭa.
In the second half of the seventh century, while northwestern Bengal
came under the Later Guptas, other royal families arose southeast after the
death of Harṣavardhana (R.C. Majumdar 1923). The Khaḍgas, the Nāthas,
the Rātas, and the Devas were the dynasties holding sway in Vaṅga and
Samataṭa during that period, some at the same time and some in sequence
as we will see.
We identify a line of Buddhist rulers whose names include the word
khaḍga ‘sword’ as a possible family name: Khaḍgodyama, Jātakhaḍga,
Devakhaḍga, Rājarāja(bhaṭṭa), Balabhaṭa, Udīrṇakhaḍga.20 In view of the
fact that a kṣatriya Khaḍka or Kharka clan is historically known in the
Gorkhā District of Nepal (Lévi 1905: 254), it has been conjectured that the
12 TILOPĀ I
Khaḍgas would have come to Bengal from Nepal after the death of
Harṣavardhana: possibly, on the occasion of some Nepalese and Tibetan
raids into the Indian midlands in those troublesome days (R.C. Majumdar
1924: 23–24; 1971: 79, 83–85). In the face of a lack of any positive
evidence, whatever the Khaḍgas’ origin may have been, the Deulbari
(Deulbāḍī) inscription refers to Khaḍgodyama as the first king and founder
(nṛpādhirāja) of the dynasty (Bhattasali 1923–24: 359). In the Ashrafpur
copperplate B he is told to have conquered that land (kṣiti) in all directions
(abhita, Laskar 1906: 90). As such, he would have paved the way for the
Khaḍga power. The absence in the inscriptions of any title of paramount
power would imply that the Khaḍgas were local kings. Besides, the
mention in the copperplates of two places near Dhaka would suggest that
they had held their first sway west of the Meghnā, in Vaṅga (Laskar 1906:
86).
The Ashrafpur copperplate grants were issued by Khaḍgodyama’s
grandson Devakhaḍga and the latter’s son Rājarāja in Devakhaḍga’s
thirteenth regnal year from their ‘camp of victory’ (jayaskandhāvāra) at
Karmānta (Bhattasali 1914). The place has been located by scholars in the
area around the village of Baḍkāmtā (Barkamta), near the eastern bank of
the river Meghnā, sixteen km west of Comilla (Dey 1899: 175; Bhattasali
1914; 1929: 6; Law 1954: 257. After visiting the area in 1913 ‘searching
for objects of antiquarian interest’, Nalinikanta Bhattasali (1914: 85)
describes it thus:
Imposing ruins of ancient buildings, temples and forts, large tanks

apparently several hundreds years old and innumerable stone images of
Buddhist and Shaiva gods and goddesses testify most conspicuously to the
antiquity and past greatness of the city of Karmmanta.
It has been reasonably speculated (Sircar 1971: 149) that Devakhaḍga

extended his sway, and shifted the Khaḍga capital from ‘somewhere in the
Dacca region’ to the east, that is to Karmānta in Samataṭa. Moreover,
though there is no mention of titles of paramount power, we are informed
in the Ashrafpur copperplates (A, l. 4; B, l. 15) that Devakhaḍga would have
had feudal rulers (viṣayapati) under him.
The conjecture of a Khaḍgas’ subsequent conquest of Samataṭa, or at
least of a part of it, would be confirmed by Devakhaḍga’s policy of
religious sponsorship of four Buddhist vihāras, which might be read as a
sort of search of legitimacy. Some further support in this sense can be
found in the Deulbari inscription of the chief consort of Devakhaḍga. Her

devotional act of gilding an image of the consort of Śiva indirectly
establishes a strong metaphoric connection between the Khaḍga royal
couple and the divine couple Śiva-Śarvāṇī. Besides, Devakhaḍga is
described (ll. 1–2) as a donor (dānapati), very influential (pratāpī), and as
one whose sword had defeated his enemies (vijitārikhaḍga): in other words,
he has deserved to conquer Samataṭa because he is pious and powerful.
For our purposes, it is worth mentioning a rare coin from Samataṭa,
known as ‘Ratnattraya type’ for its legend. Having compared two samples
of the same coin, John S. Deyell (2011: 102) described it thus:
Obverse: Within circle surrounded by dots, in the centre a male figure

seated on lotus, legs in padmāsana (lotus position), wearing a three-
pointed crown, holding in right hand a sword; single sinuous upward line
emanating from the elbow of each arm. Left, fiery sword; right, fiery
trident. Above, Devanagari inscription: ratnattraya.
Reverse: Within circle surrounded by dots, a cow seated to right, head
turned left licking calf. Above, crescent moon enclosing rayed sun.
Already the legend points here at a Bauddha context: the Sanskrit word
ratnatraya, or triratna, alludes to the Three Jewels of Buddhism, namely
the Buddha, his doctrine, and his community. Besides, since the seated
figure on the obverse ‘looks more like a Tantric Buddhist icon’ (103),
Deyell identifies that icon with Mañjuśrī: whereas the flaming sword
(khaḍga) in the right hand typifies the iconography of the bodhisattva, it
might be also the dynastic symbol of the dynasty (Khaḍga) issuing the coin.
Another mid-seventh-century copperplate grant discovered in the
Comilla District informs us of a line of Śaiva rulers in Samataṭa with names
ending in -nātha (Basak 1919–20b; 1934: 194 ff.): –nātha, Śrīnātha,
Bhavanātha, a nephew of the latter, and Lokanātha.21 As a faithful
feudatory of his paramount sovereign, or ‘highest lord’ (parameśvara, l.
13), Lokanātha would have successfully fought on the latter’s behalf
against Jayatuṅgavarṣa and Jīvadhāraṇa, two refractory feudatories of the
same parameśvara, (ll. 14–16). Now, since we know from the Ashrafpur
copperplates of the Khaḍgas that Devakhaḍga would have had feudal rulers
under him, we may conjecture that these Nāthas were sāmantas under the
overlordship of the Khaḍgas.
As to one of the two above mentioned disobedient feudatories of the
Khaḍgas, we know from the seventh-century copperplate inscription of
14 TILOPĀ I
Śrīdhāraṇarāta found at Kailan, southwest of Comilla (Sircar 1947), that the

Vaiṣṇava issuer of the inscription was son of the Jīvadhāraṇarāta mentioned
in the Comilla copperplate of the contemporary Lokanātha as
Jīvadhāraṇa.22 Both kings are styled lords of Samataṭa (Samataṭeśvara), but
exhibit no titles of paramount power.23 Since the Rātas must have been, at
least de jure, feudatories of the Khaḍgas, the absence of any reference to a
parameśvara in the inscription suggests their de facto independence. The
Rātas would have come to power in the first half of the seventh century
almost at the same time of the Khaḍgas: possibly, as already conjectured
(Sircar 1947: 227), under the same political circumstances.
The Rātas ruled from Devaparvata, capital and seat of their
administrative office (adhikaraṇa, l. 3). Depicted as a quadrangular town
with entrances to the four points of the compass (sarvatobhadraka),
encircled by the river Kṣīrodā where elephants play, and its banks are
littered with boats (ll. 2–3), the site was probably a hill-fort on the
Mainamati Hills (Maināmatī), eight km from Comilla, but its exact location
is not yet known. As pointed out by Dinesh Chandra Sircar (1947: 225–26)
on the authority of Bhattasali, the Kṣīrodā River, later named Khīrā or
Khīrnai, could be a still traceable dry river bed branching off from the
Gomatī (Gumti) west of Comilla:
It flows by the eastern side of the Mainamati Hills and skirts the southern
end of the hills near the Chaṇḍīmuḍā Peak where another branch of the
river meets it flowing by the western side of the hills. The river thus
surrounds the southern end of the Mainamati Hills, where the ancient fort
of Devaparvata seems to have been situated, and then runs south-west to
fall into the Dakatia (Ḍākātiā) River.
We know from Yijing’s Da tang xi yu qiu fa gao seng zhuan (T.2066.8c1;

Beal 1911: xl–xli; Lahiri 1986: 84–85) that a monk of that period, Sengzhe
(僧哲), had reached eastern India (dong Yindu 東印度) by the southern sea-
route, and when he disembarked in Samataṭa, a king named Rājarājabhaṭa
(Heluoshebatuo 曷羅社跋乇) ruled there. Undoubtedly, this king can be
identified with Rājarāja or Rājarājabhaṭṭa, the son of the Khaḍga king
Devakhaḍga mentioned in the copperplate grants (R.C. Majumdar 1923:
379; Basak 1934: 207). According to Sengzhe’s account, he greatly revered
the Three Jewels (sanbao 三寶 : triratna). Now, since the Khaḍgas appear
to have been all Buddhists, whereas the Nāthas were Śaivas and the Rātas
Vaiṣṇavas, most probably the brāhmaṇa royal family of Samataṭa to which
Xuanzang’s Śīlabhadra would have belonged were the Rātas.

In conclusion, according to Sircar (1971: 149), in the second half of the
seventh century, when the Khaḍgas were ruling over the region roughly
corresponding with the current Dhaka Division in Vaṅga, the Rātas were
holding sway over Samataṭa. Then, shortly before the visit of Sengzhe to
Samataṭa, Devakhaḍga would have extended his power from Vaṅga to
Samataṭa after forcing Śrīdhāraṇarāta out the country. As it emerges from
the tentative chronological scheme of the Khaḍgas and the Rātas provided
by Sircar (1947: 231), the crown-prince (yuvarāja) Baladhāraṇarāta
mentioned in the copperplate of Śrīdhāraṇarāta would have never reigned—
Khaḍgodyama c. 615 – c. 635

|
Jātakhaḍga c. 635 – c. 655 Jīvadhāraṇarāta c. 635 – c. 660
| |
Devakhaḍga c. 655 – c. 675 Śrīdhāraṇarāta c. 660 – c. 670
|
Rājarāja (bhaṭa) c. 675 – c. 700
Evidence of a late-eighth-century Deva dynasty of kings ruling from the

ancient capital Devaparvata since the end of the Rātas is given by five
copperplates and one stone inscription, all found on the Mainamati Hills.
These inscriptions bring to light a genealogy of four Buddhist rulers with
names ending in –deva: Śāntideva, Vīradeva, Ānandadeva, and
Bhavadeva.24 The dynasty would have ruled between about 685 and 765
(Morrison 1970: 24–25). The first record was issued from a new capital,
Vasantapura, in Ānandadeva’s thirty-ninth year of rule. Possibly, the court
shifted from Devaparvata under threat of overrun by Yaśovarman of
Kanauj during the first two decades of the eighth century. However,
Ānandadeva’s son Bhavadeva issued two years after accession his own
grant in the same copperplate from the old capital Devaparvata, evidently
regained shortly afterwards. These records give also evidence of a
connection with the sixth-century kingdom of Samataṭa, as the great-
grandfather of the donee of these grants would have been a contemporary
of Samācāradeva, a descendant of Gopacandra.
Tāranātha , in the thirty-ninth chapter of his rGya gar chos ’byung
(242.5–243.1; THBI 330), informs us of his geographical notion about the
16 TILOPĀ I
area he dubs eastern India (rGya gar shar phyogs): it would consist of three
parts, Vaṅgāla (Bhaṃ ga la), Oṛiśā (O ḍi bi sha), and Koki (Ko ki).
The name Vaṅgāla had come into use at least since the beginning of the
ninth century, as we read in the Nesarika grant of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa king
Govinda III, dated 805 (Sircar 1961), where the Pāla king Dharmapāla is
referred to as king of Vaṅgāla (Vaṅgālabhūmipa, l. 36). The same name
occurred as Bangālah to mean the Muslim sultanate of Bengal (Persian
Shah-i-Bangalah); as such it has been known by Tāranātha (Bhaṃ ga la) in
the sixteenth century. Then it has been adopted in the form of Bengala by
the Portuguese, and Bengal by the British. The two, Vaṅgāla and Oṛiśā (O
ḍi bi sha), i.e. the current Odisha, would belong to a region designated by
Tāranātha as Nyi ’og (Skt Aparāntaka), of which they constitute the east
side (shar phyogs).25
To the northeast and to the east of Vaṅgāla, Tāranātha lists several
regions from the present-day Assam to Cambodia which he designates with
the general name (spyi ming) of Koki.26 The following regions are
mentioned, apparently from north to south—
Gi ri warta this northeastern land

which is ‘surrounded by
hills’ includes ―
1) Kā ma rū Kāmarūpa (Assam);
2) Ti pu ra Tripura;
3) Ha sa ma Hasam (upper Assam);
Naṃ ga ṭa the regions (yul rnams) Lushai Hills (or Mizo Hills) of
near the northern the Patkai range in Mizoram and
mountains (byang phyogs Tripura;
kyi ri ngos la nye ba)
Pu khaṃ, Bal ku, coastal regions (rgya Chittagong Hill Tracts;
etc. mtsho la nye ba’i yul)
Mu nyang the region including―

1) Ra khang, Arakan in western Myanmar;
2) Haṃ sa wa ti, Pegu (Bago) in lower Myanmar;
3) Ma rko, etc. ?
Tsak ma the regions inhabited by the
Chakma (Changma) peoples,
settled in the Chittagong Hill
Tracts and Arakan;
Kam bo dza Cambodia.
Harikela
The first reference to the country of Harikela (Helijiluo 訶利雞羅) dates
back to the end of the seventh century, as we read in Yijing’s Da tang xi yu
qiu fa gao seng zhuan of two Chinese monks who had reached that country,
located in the eastern boundary of eastern India, by the southern sea-route
(T.2066.9b22; Beal 1911: xli; Lahiri 1986: 95). The authors of the eighth-
century Buddhist ritual manual, the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa (paṭala 22: 232–
33), confirm this easternmost location, mentioning patently from the west
the three, Vaṅga, Samataṭa, and Harikela as distinct (VaṅgaSamataṭāśrayāt
|| Harikele...). Moreover, in the ninth-century Śaurasenī Prākrit play by
Rājaśekhara, the Karpūramañjarī (1: 14.2; Konow and Lanman 1901, 9:
226–27), we find mention of Campā, Rāḍhā and Harikela (Harikelī), with a
paronomasia for each of the three: Pkt keli-āra (Skt keli-kāra), ‘causing
pastime’, referred to the women of the east, is the pun for Harikela
(Harikelī-keliāra). As for later sources, the twelfth-century
Abhidhānacintāmaṇi (957; Boehtlingk and Rieu 1847: 178) by
Hemacandra holds Harikela synonymous with Vaṅga (Vaṅgās tu
Harikelīyā), seemingly as a result of the expansion of the sway of the
Harikela rulers and their successors over wider areas of southeast Bengal.
Moreover, two later Sanskrit lexicons preserved in the manuscript
collection of the Dhaka University Library (Ms. no. 2141B,
Rudrākṣamahātmya, and Ms. no. 1451, Rūpacintāmāṇikośa), wherein
Harikela (Harikola) is identified with Śrīhaṭṭa (current Sylhet), deserve
attention as well (Paul 1939: iii–iv). The above pieces of information give
us three pivotal points in the location of Harikela, namely, (1) it is in the
extreme east of India; (2) it is reachable by sea, and thus endowed with a
coast and at least a sea-port; (3) it includes the internal region of Śrīhaṭṭa.
Arakan
The southern natural border of Harikela was the Nāf River. On its opposite
bank lay the ancient Burmese kingdom of Arakan.27 What Tāranātha calls
Rakhang in his rGya gar chos ’byung (242.6) is at present the Rakhine
State of Myanmar (Burma). It is a land of mountains, deep forests, rivers
and tangled creeks, the history of which is interlaced likewise with that of
Bengal, as the dynastic fortunes of the Candras of Arakan and those of the
18 TILOPĀ I
Candras of Bengal seem to suggest. Dhanyawadi (Dhaññavatī, Skt

Dhānyavatī) and Vesālī (Veśālī, Vesali or Wethali), the two early royal
capitals of Arakan, were trade ports located in the alluvial lowland of the
Kaladan River, and ships from the sea could reach both of them via two
tributaries of the Kaladan. Contact with Bengal was also possible by the
coastal road from Chittagong to Ramu, which crossed the Nāf River near
the mouth (Gutman 1976: 5).
More than the fourteenth-century Arakanese chronicles (razawin),
another order of evidence puts us on firmer ground to reconstruct a possible
sketch of the Candras of Arakan. This evidence is mainly epigraphical and
numismatic, consisting of royal panegyrics (praśasti), copperplate land
grants, bell inscriptions, as well as coeval coins. In particular, some
inscriptions on a quadrangular stone pillar from Vesālī, and positioned
since the sixteenth century in the Shittaung pagoda of Mrauk U
(Mrohaung), deserve our attention. The oldest legible one, a praśasti on its
west face, consists of sixty-five Sanskrit verses in honour of an early
eighth-century Buddhist king Ānandacandra.28
Possibly in order to emphasise the legitimacy of his reign, the praśasti
opens enumerating the names of the kings who have ruled over the area
before him followed by the duration of their reigns. Since Ānandacandra’s
royal catalogue has found more than one confirm and supplement in coins
findings, Edward Johnston (1944: 359) has signalized its primary
importance for the early history of Arakan, as it provides us with ‘a reliable
skeleton framework, going back 359 years from some date early in the
eighth century A.D., with some information, possibly not equally sound, for
the preceding 188 years’.
The list has three sections corresponding to three periods of the history
of Arakan. Whereas the kings of the first section (vv. 3–18), or at least the
earlier ones, sound mythical, the second section (vv. 19–32) deals with
rulers whose historicity is confirmed by the coins minted by some of them
(Nasir and Rhodes 2010), as well as by three other inscriptions. According
to Ānandacandra’s praśasti, sixteen Candras would have reigned for 230
years, about 370–600, initially at Dhanyawadi and then at Vesālī. Only
thirteen kings are enumerated, possibly because the three missing ones may
have ruled so briefly as to be ignored in the list. Besides, a coin of a king
Sūryacandra, paleographically datable to about the beginning of the seventh
century, may give us one of these three missing names out of the stated
sixteen kings.
CANDRAS OF ARAKAN
ACCORDING TO ĀNANDACANDRA’S INSCRIPTION (SECOND PERIOD)
numismatic evidence
(Sircar 1957–58)
accession year
reign years
KING’S NAME FURTHER EVIDENCE
1 Dvangcandra 55 370
2 Rājacandra 20 425
3 Bālacandra 9 445 *
4 Devacandra 22 454 * deva on the coins, assignable on
palaeographic ground to the first half of the
fifth century (Johnston 1944: 365);
5 Yajñacandra 7 476 *
6 Candrabandhu 6 483 *
7 Bhūmicandra 7 489 *
8 Bhūticandra 24 496 * a land grant made by Bhūticandra’s queen in
the eleventh year of the reign assigned to c.
507 (Gutman 1976: 27);
9 Nīticandra 55 520 * an inscription of Nīticandra’s queen
assignable to the first half of the sixth
century (Sircar 1957–58; Gutman 1976: 27);
10 Vīryacandra 3 575 * an inscription of Vīracandra of the last
quarter of the sixth century (Sircar 1957–58;
Gutman 1976: 27);
11 Prīticandra 12 578 *
12 Pṛthvīcandra 7 590 *
13 Dhṛticandra 3 597 *
Dvangcandra (c. 370 – c. 425), the first king of the second period, is said to
have been a great conqueror and to have built a royal city adorned by
surrounding walls and a moat (v. 20b; Johnston 1944: 375). As a matter of
fact, ten km east of the Kaladan, about hundred km from its mouth at
present Sittwe (Akyab), the ancient vestiges of Dhanyawadi can be
identified as the capital Dvangcandra had built. For more than one century,
the urban agglomerate which developed around the royal city must have
been the junction of a vast trade network linking China in the east with
India and beyond to the west (Hudson 2005: 1–2).29
As to the other kings, it is noteworthy that the name of Candrabandhu
20 TILOPĀ I
(c. 483 – c. 489) suggested to Johnston (1944: 369) some doubts about his
legitimacy, and to Pamela Gutman (1976: 43) that he could have been a
reunifier of the country in a confused period which eventually led to shift
the capital to Vesālī. Since the coins of Nīticandra (c. 520 – c. 575) are
more recurrent than those of any other king, probably he was the most
powerful ruler of the dynasty (Johnston 1944: 369), possibly the first one in
the new capital, Vesālī.30 The end of this Candra dynasty of Arakan with
Dhṛticandra about 600 seems to hint at another period of confusion during
which local chiefs must have carved out their independent kingdoms
(Gutman 1976: 44).
The last of the three sections of the praśasti pertains to Ānandacandra’s
family itemising his eight predecessors who would have together ruled for
almost 120 years.
CANDRAS OF ARAKAN
ACCORDING TO ĀNANDACANDRA’S INSCRIPTION (THIRD PERIOD)
numismatic evidence
(Sircar 1957–58)
accession year
reign years
KING’S NAME FURTHER EVIDENCE
1 Mahāvīra 12 600 king of Purempura;

2 Vrayajap (Brayajap) 12 612 a name of non Indian origin;
3 Seviṅreṅ (?) 12 624 another name of on Indian
origin;
4 Dharmaśūra 13 636
5 Vajraśakti 16 649 first of Ānandacandra’s family;
6 Dharmavijaya 36 665 *
7 Narendravijaya 2.9 701 son;
8 Vīranarendracandra or 16 704 * another son of Vajraśakti;
Dharmacandra dhamma candra (sic) on the
coins;
9 Ānandacandra 720 son.
Mahāvīra (c. 600–c. 612) is said to be king of Purempura (Purempura-

nareśvaraḥ, v. 33a; Johnston 1944: 376).31 As conjectured by Gutman
(1976: 44–45), it is possible that Mahāvīra had been an enterprising local
chief whose economical power was ‘based mainly on maritime trade’, who
would have extended his territory ‘to the rich alluvional plains of Arakan
when opportunity allowed’. Vajraśakti (c. 649–c. 665), the first king of
Ānandacandra’s family, is described as a descendant of the Deva family
(Devānvayodbhavaḥ, v. 37b; Johnston 1944: 376). This family name cannot
but recall the Bengali Deva dynasty of Devaparvata (c. 685–c. 765). As a
matter of fact, the recently discovered Buddhist complex at Ramkot on the
old Arakan highway, three km east of present Ramu, gives evidence of
relationships between the Mainamati Hills and the seventh–eighth-century
Arakanese capital of Vesālī (Gutman 1976: 6). Vajraśakti, being described
as one endowed with the pāramitās (dānaśīlādisaṃyukta), was apparently a
follower of the Mahāyāna. Dharmavijaya’s (c. 665–c. 701) coins have been
found at current Sittwe as well as on the Mainamati Hills. He would have
been a fervent Buddhist for the allusion to his reverence to the Three
Jewels, and for his ascent to the Tuṣita heaven after death (v. 40b; cf.
Griffiths 2015: 291–319).
Ānandacandra (c. 720–?), said to have sprung from the Devas’ egg-
lineage (Devāṇḍajā–, v. 62a), and scion of the egg-lineage of glorious pious
kings (śrīdharmarājāṇḍaja, v. 63a), is also called a Buddhist lay disciple
(upāsaka, v. 54b). Besides, references to the awakening beings
(bodhisattva, v. 47a) and to the dānapāramitā (v. 54a) reveal him as a
follower of Mahāyāna. As such Ānandacandra must have had fraternal
relations with the monks of king Śīlāmegha’s country (v. 61), which would
refer to current Sri Lanka.
Another country is mentioned in the context of Ānandacandra’s
marriage (vv. 62–65; Johnston 1944: 379, 382). His wife would have been
the daughter of the king of Śrītāmrapattana, with capital Śrī Pattana, which
may possibly be identified with Tāmraliptī (Johnston 1944: 372). Then, we
are told, the two would have entered into a good friendship, possibly a
treaty. As a matter of fact, there should have been at least two possible
causes for Ānandacandra’s concern at that time, coming from both south
and west. Whereas the former threat from the Pyu city-states was mainly
his own concern, the latter was shared with his Bengali father-in-law. Both
could have felt themselves vulnerable to the attacks from Yaśovarman of
Kanauj since about 720 (Gutman 1976: 49–50). As a matter of fact, albeit
ephemeral, Yaśovarman’s adventure would have destabilized the political
landscape of southeastern Bengal and Arakan. Most probably, the end of
Ānandacandra’s dynasty could have been one of these domino effects,
because after this praśasti there is a gap of a couple of centuries before the
other inscriptions on the north face of the same pillar―regrettably very
badly decipherable―nor is there any consistent archaeological evidence.
22 TILOPĀ I
Tāranātha’s Candras: a Conjecture

The tibetologist cannot but notice that the historical Candra dynasty of
Arakan with its twenty-two kings ended just when the dynasty of the
twenty Candra kings described in Tāranātha’s rGya gar chos ’byung is
supposed to end. As a matter of fact, according to Tāranātha, a lineage of
kings whose names bear the family name candra would have ruled in
Vaṅgāla (Bhaṃ ga la), i.e. southeastern Bengal. It is possible to calculate
the time of their end on the basis of the contemporaneity of the penultimate
king’s coronation with the last part of Dharmakīrti’s life: whereas
Xuanzang did not mention this seventh-century Buddhist author, we know
from Yijing, who was writing in about 691, that Dharmakirtī had flourished
in recent years. If that is the case, a tentative date for Dharmakirtī’s
death―and for the coronation of the penultimate Tāranātha’s Candra
king―could be 660; after the latter’s career, let us say thirty years,
Lalitacandra, a brother from father’s side (pha tshan gyi spun zla) of the
penultimate king, is said to have reigned for many years, conjecturally
forty-fifty years: which sets the end of this Candra dynasty around 730–
740.
Curiously, this almost impalpable chronological correspondence
between the last king in both Arakanese Candras and Tāranātha’s Candras,
finds some further resemblance between the forefathers of the respective
dynasties, namely the Dvangcandra (c. 370–c. 425) of the Mrauk U pillar
praśasti, and the Haricandra mentioned by Tāranātha. The former was the
founder of Dhanyawadi, ‘adorned by surrounding walls (prakāra for
prākāra) and a moat (khāta, v. 20b)’. As to the latter, we read (rGya gar
chos ’byung 66.5; THBI 104) about his rule in Vaṅgāla (sic) and his
attainment of perfection on the path of spells, as well as an intriguing
mention to his royal citadel (pho brang : pura), that ‘appeared as made of
the five kinds of gems, and on its surrounding walls (lcags ri : prākāra) the
three worlds were mirrored.
David Templeman (2010: 231), discussing ‘the model of India which
Tāranātha believed he was part of’, sensibly advises us that ‘much of what
purports to be an accurate summary of India’s Buddhist history is in fact a
wildly inaccurate and at other times, quite unfoundedly speculative in
nature’. Nevertheless, as it has been observed (R.C. Majumdar 1971: 169),
Tāranātha’s account may have some foundation of truth, as it has been for
other pieces of information that had found evidence only in recent
archaeological finds, to which evidently he had not access. Hence we
cannot totally neglect the possibility that Tāranātha had drawn from sources
now lost or inaccessible to us.32
In the twenty-seventh chapter of the rGya gar chos ’byung (187.4–6;
THBI 251), before introducing the period of Gopāla, Tāranātha writes the
following remark:
Thus Lalitacandra came as the last of the kings of the Candra dynasty.
Since that time, though there have been many of the princely descent of
the Candra line (Tsan dra’i rigs kyi rgyal rigs), did not appear anyone
who gained royal domain (rgyal srid). In the eastern regions, to begin with
Vaṅgāla and Oṛiśā, they became kings of their respective sferes―princely
descent endowed with relations (tshan ldan rgyal rigs), ministers (blon
po), brāhmaṇas (bram ze), and great merchants (tshong dpon). But there
were no king as such ruling over the country.
Then Tāranātha’s compilation goes on with Gopāla, whose time ‘fairly

agrees with the chronology of the Pāla kings which has been derived from
independent data’ (R.C. Majumdar 1971: 169).
The Pālas
In the first half of the eighth century, not only was Bengal without any
strong and durable central authority, but also under threat of attacks from
foreign invaders, as it was the case of Yaśovarman.33 In order to describe
that human landscape, historians typically refer to the term mātsyanyāya,
occurring in the copperplate inscription from Khalimpur (Batavyal 1894;
Kielhorn 1896–97), in the Maldah District of West Bengal, issued by king
Dharmapāla in the first years of the ninth century (v. 4):
His son was the crest jewel of the heads of kings, the glorious Gopāla,
whom the chiefs (prakṛti) made take the hands of Lakṣmī, to put an end to
the law of fish (mātsyanyāyam apohituṃ).
Already alluded in the Manusmṛti (7.20) where we read that, without a

coercive authority (daṇḍa), the stronger would roast the weaker, like fish
on a spit (śūle matsyānivāpakṣyan durbalān balavattarāḥ). According to
this view, the king’s duty (rājadharma) consists in protecting his own
24 TILOPĀ I
subjects from what is beyond the border, as well as the weaker from the
stronger’s abuses.34
The feeling of unbearable uncertainty conveyed by the metaphor of
mātsyanyāya is confirmed by Tāranātha. As we read in the rGya gar chos
’byung (192.3–193.2; THBI 257–58), at that time there was no king in
Bengal since many years, and the people in the country were unhappy. The
chiefs (gtso bo gtso bo rnams) assembled (’dus), discussed (gros), and
appointed (bskos) a king who could protect (skyong) the land (sa gzhi)
according to the law (khrims : Skt nyāya). But at night, a female serpent-
like spirit connected with the water element, a nāginī (klu mo), devoured
the chosen king.35 However, Tāranātha goes on, since there could be no
prosperity (mi shis) to a kingdom without a king, another person was
appointed to the throne every morning, killed in the night, and thrown out
at dawn. After some years like that, a kṣatriya hero born in the forests of
Puṇḍravardhana (Li kha ra shing ’phel) on the border between Madhyadeśa
(Yul dbus) and Bengal (Shar phyogs), went to the east and took his chances.
Once got the best of the evil nāginī, he was raised to the throne and given
the name Gopāla (c. 750–c. 775).
Gopāla
The coronation of this ancestor of the Buddhist Pāla dynasty, celebrated by
the chiefs (prakṛti) to put an end to the law of fish, marks a new period not
only for Bengal, but also for the whole rich Gangetic plains with their
metropolitan focus at Kanauj. As regards the origin of Gopāla’s lineage, a
hint is given to us by the eighth-century Yogācāra scholar Haribhadra, a
contemporary of Gopāla’s son Dharmapāla. In the votive verses
(praṇidhāna) which close his commentary to the Aṣṭasāhasrikā-
prajñāpāramitā, the Abhisamayālaṃkārāloka, he describes the Pāla king as
a scion of the family of Rājabhaṭa (v. 7: Rājyabhaṭādivaṃśpatita-
śrīdharmapālasya; Vaidya 1960: 558.15). Once excluded the hypothesis
that it be here matter of an ‘officer’ (bhaṭa) of some king, it is more
reasonable that this Rājabhaṭa might be identified with the Khaḍga king
Rājarājabhaṭa (c. 673–c. 690) mentioned in Yijing’s Da tang xi yu qiu fa
gao seng zhuan. If this is the case, Gopāla would have been connected with
the royal family of Vaṅga-Samataṭa, the Buddhist Khaḍgas: a clan whose
likely northwestern origin has been mentioned above.
Since Gopāla’s time until the tenth century, three powers, faced each
other struggling to extend their respective supremacy over the midlands of

northern India, namely, the southern Rāṣṭrakūṭas, the western Gurjara-
Pratīhāras, and the northeastern Pālas. Precisely in the years of Gopāla’s
accession to the throne of Bengal, a branch of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa family under
the rule of Dantidurga rose to power in Deccan.36
In the same period, the Gurjara-Pratīhāras conquered the western
regions of Mālava (Malwa) with its capital Avanti (Ujjain), in the wake of
the victory Nāgabhaṭa I (c. 725–c. 750) had won in 738, leading a
confederacy of Gurjaras against the armies of the Arabs of Sindh.37 It is on
that military success that he laid the foundation stone of his family’s
political prominence, as testified by the Gwalior stone inscription of king
Bhoja about his progenitor Nāgabhaṭa I (ll. 3–4, v. 4; R.C. Majumdar
1925–26: 107, 110–111).
Rāṣṭrakūṭas Gurjara-Pratīhāras Pālas

Dantivarman I
Indra I
Govinda I
Karka I
Indra II
Dantidurga (c. 735) Nāgabhaṭa I (c. 725)
Kṛṣṇa I (c. 755) Devarāja (c. 750) Gopāla (c. 750)
Govinda II (c. 772)
Dhruva (c. 780) Vatsarāja (c. 780) Dharmapāla (c. 775)
Govinda III (c. 793) Nāgabhaṭa II (c. 790)
Amoghavarṣa I (c. 814) Devapāla (c. 812)
Rāmabhadra (c. 833)
Mihira Bhoja (c. 836)
Mahendrapāla (c. 850)
Śūrapāla I (c. 865)
Vigrahapāla I (c. 873)
Kṛṣṇa II (c. 878) Nārāyaṇapāla (c. 875)
Mahendrapāla (c. 890)
Indra III (c. 914) Mahīpāla (c. 910)
Bhoja II (?– c. 914)
Amoghavarṣa II (c. 928)
Govinda IV (c. 930) Vināyakapāla (c. 930) Rājyapāla (c. 932)
Amoghavarṣa III (c. 936)
Kṛṣṇa III (c. 939)
Mahendrapāla II (c. 945)
Vināyakapāla II (c. 950)
26 TILOPĀ I
Vijayapāla (c. 960)

Khoṭṭiga (c. 967) Gopāla II (c. 967)
Karkka II (c. 972)
Vigrahapāla II (c. 987)
Mahīpāla I (c. 992)
Rājyapāla (c. 1018)
Trilocanapāla (c. 1020)
Mahendrapāla III Nayapāla (c. 1042)
Vigrahapāla III (c. 1058)
Mahīpāla II (c. 1085)
Śūrapāla II (c. 1086)
Rāmapāla (c. 1087)
Kumārapāla (c. 1141)
Gopāla III (c. 1143)
Madanapāla (c. 1158)
Govindapāla (c. 1176)
Palapāla (c. 1180)
(Adapted from Davidson 2002b: 49–50, 52)
We have no positive evidence of the limits of Gopāla’s original territory,

although certainly it included Vaṅga, as we can deduce from the fact that
the Gwalior inscription (ll. 7–8, v. 10) refers to the enemy of Bhoja’s father
Nāgabhaṭa II (790–833)―no doubt Dharmapāla―as the lord of Vaṅga
(Vaṅgapati).
Dharmapāla
As already observed (Banerji 1915: 48), Gopāla’s son and successor
Dharmapāla (c. 775 – c. 812) was ‘the real founder of the greatness of his
line and the Empire over which his successors ruled’.
Similar to the fight of dogs over a bone, the war between the Pratīhāra
king Vatsarāja (c. 780–c. 790) and Dharmapāla for the control of Kanauj
began few years before 790: Vatsarāja got the better, but the Rāṣṭrakūṭa
king Dhruva Dhārāvarṣa (c. 780–c. 793) supervened from the south over
the two and routed both loser and winner. Actually, the Rāṣṭrakūṭa
occupation of Kanauj did not last long because Dhruva was too far away
from home to consolidate his victory and had to retreat to the south.
Therefore, with the Pratīhāras seriously weakened by their last reverse, and
the Rāṣṭrakūṭas involved in their internal problems, in the absence of the
other two, the bone was gnawed by the Pāla king.

Being able to take advantage of the demise of the former adversary and
the remoteness of latter, Dharmapāla somehow gained control over Kanauj
and northern India. On account of his victorious imperialistic campaigns,
he assumed full imperial titles, parameśvara paramabhaṭṭāraka
mahārājādhirāja, while Gopāla is still called mahārājādhirāja in the
inscriptions. As a paramount sovereign, he set on the throne of Kanauj his
nominee Cakrāyudha.38
In the last decade of the eighth century, the Pratīhāra king Nāgabhaṭa II
(c. 790–c. 833), the successor of Vatsarāja, leading a confederacy of states
on the border of the Pālas and Rāṣṭrakūṭas’ empires, attacked Dharmapāla’s
protégé Cakrāyudha, defeated him, and established his ephemeral rule over
Kanauj. While Cakrāyudha had taken shelter with Dharmapāla, in a battle
near Mudgagiri (current Munger or Monghyr in Bihar), Nāgabhaṭa II
defeated also Dharmapāla (Gwalior stone, ll. 7–8, v. 10). Nevertheless, in
the beginning of the ninth century Nāgabhaṭa II was severely defeated by
the Rāṣṭrakūṭa king Govinda III (c. 793–c. 814), the son and successor of
Dhruva, while both Dharmapāla and Cakrāyudha surrended to him of their
own. In spite of this, like his father, Govinda III had to go back to the south
and busy himself with the Rāṣṭrakūṭa internal problems, leaving both
Dharmapāla and Cakrāyudha in possession of their kingdoms.
The Pālas exerted their power by means of a strong central hereditary
monarchy, where the eldest son was the heir-apparent (yuvarāja), and all
the kings’s family, sons, nephews, and grandnephews were somehow
involved in the government. Still based on the Imperial Gupta polity, the
provinces of the empire were divided into the traditional administrative
units―bhuktis, viṣayas, maṇḍalas, and so forth―but now Bengal was the
heart of the empire, no longer a part of it. Engraved on a stone pillar at
Badal, in the Rajshahi District, there is an inscription of Nārāyaṇapāla
(Kielhorn 1894), from which we know that the administration was run by a
group of officials under the king’s ministers (mantrin or saciva), out of
whom the chief minister (mahāmantrin) was selected.
On the traditional Indian model, the Pāla administration relied on the
hereditary principle in the appointment of ministers and magistrates,
constituting as a consequence the basis for further feudalization: in fact, the
Pāla polity included numerous vassal kings (maṇḍalādhipati or māṇḍalika)
under the imperial suzerainty, with feudal chiefs under them. 39 Lacking any
epigraphical evidence of the contrary, we may suppose that Dharmapāla
had direct administrative control only over Bengal and Bihar. As for the
28 TILOPĀ I
rest of the empire, it would have been administered by the local rulers who
had acknowledged the suzerainty of the Pālas. In fact, we know from a
copperplate inscription of Devapāla’s thirty-third regnal year, from Munger
(ll. 12–14, v. 8; Wilkins 1798: 124; Barnett 1925–26: 305), that his father
Dharmapāla,
...when the triumphal conquest of the various countries was completed,

removed the affliction of the kings he had summoned by his excellent
favour, and friendly let them return to their own respective lands.
Nālandā Mahāvihāra
From the cultural viewpoint, the Pāla rule represents more than four
centuries (c. 750–c. 1170) of strenuous sponsorship of Buddhism. Sukumar
Dutt (1962: 331) remarked that Buddhist monasteries, since the time of the
founding of the Nālandā Mahāvihāra, ‘had developed as seats and centres
of learning. To build monasteries and provide for their unkeep was
regarded more as a service rendered to the cause of learning and culture
than to the cause of Buddhism’. In actual fact, the traditional practice of
royal patronage of the Buddhist saṃgha is also a symptom―not only a
cause―of some gradual modification occurred within the daily life of the
monastic communities. The concept, ‘from study for faith to study for
knowledge’, as labelled by Dutt (1962: 319 ff.), has been widened by
Ronald Davidson (2002b: 107) and pushed beyond knowledge, in view of
the fulfilment of material needs: ‘Buddhist monasteries relied on clerical
virtue to assure the laity that their donations would reap extraordinary
rewards’.
In course of time, the initial Guptas and Yaśodharman’s establishment
of the Nālandā Mahāvihāra, this typical late Gupta architectonic compound
of several vihāras enclosed within a single rampart, had been enriched with
other vihāras. Among the successors of the Guptas who had patronized the
institution, Harṣavardhana of Kanauj is to be mentioned in the seventh
century. We know in fact from Xuanzang’s Da tang xi yu ji that this king,
referred to by the title Śīlādityarāja (Jieriwang 戒日王), had built a vihāra
of brass (T.2087.924b4–6; Beal 1884, 2: 174):40 albeit under construction
at the time of Xuanzang’s visit, its intended measurement would have been
about thirty metres (shizhang 十丈) when finished.
Xuanzang’s disciple Huili (慧立) composed in 664 the ‘Biography of
the Dharma Master Tripiṭaka from the Great Cien Monastery of the Great
Tang’ (Da tang da ci en si san zang fa shi zhuan 大唐大慈恩寺三藏
法師傳, Taishō vol. 50 no. 2053; Beal 1911). We read in the third book of
this biography of Xuanzang, that the king of the country in that period
(Harṣavardhana) respected and honoured the monks of the Nālandā
Mahāvihāra, and had granted more than hundred villages in order to
provide their supply: two hundred families in those villages daily
contributed several hundred shoulder-loads of round-grained sticky rice,
ordinary rice, butter, and milk. Hence the scholars living there, concludes
Huili, being so abudantly supplied, did not require to ask for the four
requisites (sishi 四事), i.e. clothes, food, bedding, and medicines, and that
was the source of the perfection of their studies, to which they had arrived
(T.2053.237c3–6; Beal 1911: 112–13).
In the same book, Huili’s description of the mahāvihāra as it was seen
by Xuanzang is not lacking of some scenic vividness (T.2053.237b17–22;
Beal 1911: 111–12). The picture represents several buildings combined into
a unique vihāra (si 寺) by means of a brick wall (walei 瓦壘) from without,
with a single gate (men 門) for the whole establishment, and a central main
courtyard (ting 庭) opening into eight minor courtyards (yuan 院 : ārāma).
Huili speaks of richly adorned towers (tai 臺), and beautiful multi-storeyed
buildings (lou 樓) congregated together; of palaces (guan 觀) rising in the
mist, and palaces’ halls (dian 殿) above the clouds; of the play of the wind
with clouds visible from upper doors and windows, and the conjunctions of
the sun and moon from the pavilions’ eaves (xuanyan 軒簷). Then, he
points at the clear waters of a pond with blue lotuses intermingled with red-
bright kanaka flowers on their surface, and mango groves at intervals,
spreading their shade. All the minor courtyards (yuan 院) with the
community cells (sengshi 僧室) were of four stages (chongchong 重重)
each, says Huili, and the stages had dragon-projections and coloured rafters
(liang 梁), carved and ornamented vermilion pillars (zhu 柱), richly
adorned balustrades (jian 檻), and the ridges of the roofs (meng 甍)
reflecting the light like a rainbow.
In the thirty-fourth chapter of the Nan hai ji gui nei fa zhuan concerning
the study of Buddhism in the western countries (xifang xue fa 西方學法),
Yijing informs us about the curriculum that a monk in the eighth century
had to follow in an Indian mahāvihāra. Involved as he was in the translation
of Sanskrit Buddhist texts into Chinese, Yijing gives a detailed syllabus of
30 TILOPĀ I
the grammar studies (shengming 聲明 : śabdavidyā) in India. On such a

linguistic basis, Yijing goes on (T.2125.229a3–13; Takakusu 1896: 176–
78), the students began to learn composition in prose and verse, and devote
themselves to the science of causes (yinming 因明 : hetuvidyā) and the
(Abhidharma)-kośa (Jushe 倶舍). Learning the (Nyāya)-dvāratārkaśāstra
(Jimenlun 理門論, for 因明正理門論, Taishō vol. 32, no. 1629 by
Nāgārjuna, translated into Chinese by Yijing), they rightly drew inferences,
and by studying Āryasūra’s Jātaka(māla) (Bensheng 本生) their
comprehension increased. Being tutored individually or in small groups, to
be precise within a space of no more than 3.3 m (zhang 丈) between
speaker and listener, they spent two or three years, generally in the
Nālandāvihāra (Nalantuosi 那爛陀寺) in central India, or in Vallabhi
(Balapi 跋臘毘, current Vala) in western India.
There, we are reported, eminent and accomplished men assembled in
crowds discussing about what is right and what wrong. Had wise men
declared their excellence, they became far famed. To try the sharpness of
their wit (lit. ‘the point of a spear’, feng 鋒), they proceeded to the king’s
court (wangting 王庭) and cast their sharp intellectual weapons: there they
offered their advice and exhibited their talent (cheng cai 呈才), hoping to
take advantage (xiwang liyong 希望利用) of it. When they sat at a forum
for debate (tanlun zhi chu 談論之處), they piled their seats (chong xi
重席), and sought to demonstrate their excellence. While refuting in a
public contest, all their opponents would have become tongue-tied,
recognizing themselves ashamed. The sound of their fame would have
made the five mountains of India vibrate and their fame flow over the four
borders. Then, they received land grants (fengyi 封邑) and were advanced
to an eminent rank (rong ban 榮班).
Not only spiritual liberation, nor the liberation from material needs
were at stake: in the process there must have been something else,
something more basic, less noble. Possibly, the power to which clerical
virtue and knowledge were conducive, not only guaranteed clothes, food,
bedding, and medicines: it represented a goal in itself, according to Max
Weber’s (1922: 358–59) reading of charisma as
... a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is set

apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural,
superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These
are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as
of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual
concerned is treated as a leader. In primitive circumstances this peculiar
kind of deference is paid to prophets, to people with a reputation for
therapeutic or legal wisdom, to leaders in the hunt, and heroes in war. It is
very often thought of as resting on magical powers.
Like the social game between children mimicking the adults and saying
each other, ‘I know one thing that you do not’, or ‘I have one thing that you
have not’, or else ‘I am something that you are not’, the human will to
power (Wille zur Macht) seems to articulate itself into three functions, the
pursuit of separate knowledge, private property, and distinction.
Dharmapāla was celebrated by Tibetans as a great patron of Buddhism,
and contemporary with Haribhadra, as we read at the end of the latter’s
Abhisamayālaṃkārāloka, and in Tāranātha’s thirtieth chapter of the rGya
gar chos ’byung (203.3–4; THBI 274):
Once ascended the throne, he [Dharmapāla] invited the teachers (’chad pa

po) of the Prajñāpāramitā: he had in particular great reverence for the
Ācārya Haribhadra (Seng ge bzang po). This king established about fifty
centres for the Dharma (chos gzhi), of which thirty-five were centres
where the Prajñāpāramitā was taught.
There is archaeological evidence of Dharmapāla’s concern with the

Nālandā Mahāvihāra in a copperplate inscription found in the north
verandah of monastery no. 1 among burnt debris (P.N. Bhattacharyya
1935–36; Sastri 1942: 84). Besides, Dharmapāla must have made special
arrangement for its administration after his founding the Vikramaśīla
Mahāvihāra, for we know from Tāranātha’s rGya gar chos ’byung (204.1;
THBI 275) that the person in charge (bdag po) of the latter was responsible
(skyong bar byed) for Nālandā Mahāvihāra as well.
Uddaṇḍapura Mahāvihāra
Commonly known through the Tibetan rendering as Odantapuri, the Indian
toponym Uddaṇḍapura is attested in a pedestal inscription found at Bihar
Sharif (Bihār Sharīf, Huntington 1984: 213), the headquarters of the
Nālandā District in the state of Bihar.41 Since Tāranātha confuses the order
of the Pāla kings, as known from epigraphy, we cannot rely on his
information about the foundation of the mahāvihāra (Sanderson 2009: 92–
32 TILOPĀ I
93). In this case, the Chos ’byung (111a5; Obermiller 1932: 156) completed
in 1322 by Bu ston Rin chen grub (1290–1364), although it ascribes the
foundation of Nālandā to Gopāla (des Nā len dra brtsigs), is more reliable
than Tāranātha. The latter in fact (rGya gar chos ’byung 193.2–3; THBI
258), not only ascribes the establishment of Nālanda to Gopāla after his
conquest of Magadha, but also it would have been the Nālandā Mahāvihāra
to have been built near Uddaṇḍapura (O tan ta pu ri dang nye ba Na nā len
dra). In this confusion, at least, Bu ston’s account of Gopāla is correctly
followed by the one of Dharmapāla, with a fascinating legend focussed on
the latter’s magic birth and foundation of the Uddaṇḍapura Mahāvihāra
(Chos ’byung 111a5–b4; Obermiller 1932: 156–157):
[Gopāla’s] queen (btsun mo), having little power, asked a brāhmaṇa

teacher (slob dpon bram ze) the magical skill (rig pa : vidyā) to bring the
king under her control. The latter picked a drug on the mountains covered
with snow (ri bo gangs can : himavat), sealed it and handed over to a
female servant (bran mo), but she slipped on a bridge: [the drug] fell to
the ground. Slowly carried by water, it entered the sea (rgya mtsho), and
was seized by the king of the nāgas (klu’i rgyal po), the serpent-like water
spirits, who swallowed it up. Once subjected, the nāga king Sāgarapāla
(rGya mtsho skyong) united with the queen, and a son was born, Śrīmad
Dharmapāla (dPal ldan Chos skyong). [...] [Once grown-up], the latter
became possessed of the desire of building a vihāra (lha khang) superior
to the other. [...] As he was distressed, at night the king of the nāgas with
five snake’s head appeared and said, ‘Being your father, I will make this
lake dry, and you shall erect the vihāra there. You must perform offering
ceremonies for seven weeks’. This was accordingly done. On the twenty-
first day the lake was dried up and the vihāra (gtsug lag khang) of
Uddaṇḍapura was erected.42
Such was the fame of the Uddaṇḍapura Mahāvihāra that few years later (c.
780) the Tibetan king contemporary with Dharmapāla, Khri srong lde
btsan, had bSam yas, the first Buddhist monastery in Tibet, built on the
very model of Uddaṇḍapura (sBa bzhed 34.9: O tan pu ri bya ba yod | btsan
po’i thugs dam gyi dpe de la bya’o gsungs). Its plan, a maṇḍala, or diagram
of the Buddhist cosmology, had the three-storeyed main temple in the
centre as the Mount Sumeru, the axis mundi, and the other buildings all
around for the eight continents (Tucci 1955–56).
Vikramaśīla Mahāvihāra
The Tibetan tradition almost unanimously credits to Dharmapāla the
founding of the Vikramaśīla Mahāvihāra.43 So it is reported in the thirtieth
chapter of the rGya gar chos ’byung (203.4–204.1; THBI 274–75), where
Tāranātha draws a sketch of Dharmapāla’s sponsorship of Buddhism:
[Dharmapāla] also built the vihāra (gtsug lag khang) of Śrī Vikramaśīla. It
has been erected in the north of Magadha on the top of a small hill (ri
de’u) adjacent to the Gaṅgā River. At its centre, there was the temple (lha
khang) with a human-size statue (sku tshad) of the Buddha (Byang chub
chen po : Mahābodhi). As there were all around fifty-three [images] in
smaller temples for the inner secret spells (gsang sngags : mantra), [and]
fifty-four common temples (lha khang dkyus ma), there were one hundred
and eight temples, around which he raised the surrounding wall. He
provided with food and clothing one hundred and fourteen persons,
namely, one hundred and eight paṇḍitas, along with the ācāryas for the
oblations (gtor ma : bali), for the consecration ceremonies (rab gnas :
pratiṣṭhāna) and for the fire offerings (sbyin sreg : homa), the person in
charge for mice (byi bsrung), the one in charge for pigeons (phug ron
srung ba), and the supervisor (gnyer byed pa) of servants (lha ’bangs): for
each of them he made provisions equal to those for four. Every month he
organized a festival (ston mo) for all listeners of the Dharma, and also
made excellent gifts to them.
A significant reference to this mahāvihāra can be found in a Nepalese

manuscript, in which a commentary to a hymn in praise of Tārā
(Sragdharā-stotra-ṭīkā; Mitra 1882: 229) is ascribed in the colophon to the
scholar-monk (paṇḍita-bhikṣu) Jinarakṣita from the mahāvihāra of
Vikramaśīladeva (śrīmad-Vikramaśīla-deva-mahāvihārīya) and the king’s
preceptor (rājaguru). We are informed that the name Vikramaśīla would be
the honorific epithet (biruda) of the king who founded the university (R.C.
Majumdar 1943, 1: 115n; 1971: 178n; cf. Sircar 1979: 23).44
Somapura Mahāvihāra
Dharmapāla also established the Somapura or Somapurī Mahāvihāra in
Varendra, in the present-day Rajshahi Division of Bangladesh, as we learn
from two short inscriptions on terracotta seals unearthed at Paharpur
(Pāhāṛpur) in the Naogaon District of Bangladesh (Dikshit 1938; Das
Gupta 1961).45 Both seals show the wheel as symbol of the Buddha’s
34 TILOPĀ I
Dharma (dharmacakra) in the upper part flanked by two antelopes, and the
legend, ‘issued by the monastic community belonging to the great
monastery of Dharmapāla at Somapura’ (śrī-Somapure śrī-
Dharmmapāladeva-mahāvihārīya-bhikṣu-saṅghasya).
Trikuṭaka Vihāra
We do not know where the vihāra of the ‘Three Strychnine Trees’
(Strychnos nux-vomica), or Trikuṭaka (Tib. Tsha ba gsum) is located, but
since Haribhadra mentions it at the end of his Abhisamayālaṃkārāloka
(Trikuṭakaśrīmadvihāro, praṇidhāna 6a; Vaidya 1960: 558.10), it must
have been active at least since then. Therefore, we can infer that it was
founded by Haribhadra’s patron Dharmapāla, as it is corroborated by Bu
ston’s Chos ’byung (112a7; Obermiller 1932: 158). In the twenty-ninth
chapter of Tāranātha’s rGya gar chos ’byung (198.2–5; cf. THBI 267), we
read a legend on its foundation. Though ascribed to Devapāla instead of
Dharmapāla for the above mentioned reverse king order in Tāranātha’s
compilation, the legend would locate the vihāra in Rāḍhā:
Inspired by a yogi called Śiromaṇi, the king raised a big army to wage war
on Oṛiśā (O ḍi bi sha) and other places, which were previously the centres
of Buddhists (nang pa or ‘insiders’), but by this period which came under
the influence of the adherents of non-Buddhist doctrines (mu stegs pa or
‘heretics’ : Skt tīrthika). When he crossed the region near Rāḍhā (Ra ra)
he saw a black man coming slowly from a distance. On being questioned
who he was, he said, ‘I am Mahākāla. Remove the sand dune from this
place and you will find a temple. To destroy the temples of the tīrthikas
you will have to do nothing else than surround this temple with the army
and play the musical instruments very loudly’. Then he removed the sand
dune and found a wonderful temple made of stone. The name of this was
Śrī Trikuṭaka Vihāra (dpal Tsha ba gsum gyi gtsug lag khang).
Devapāla
Dharmapāla’s second son and successor, Devapāla (c. 812–c. 850) kept the
prestige of the family at its highest point for almost forty years. On a stone
pillar surmonted by a figure of Garuḍa at Badal (Kielhorn 1894), we can
read a significant inscription of the time of Nārāyaṇapāla recording the
setting up of the pillar, with the panegyric of a Brahmanical dynasty of
ministers of four Pālas kings. The first would have been minister under
Dharmapāla and Devapāla; the third, grandson of the latter, held the same
office under Devapāla and his successor Śūrapāla, and then the fourth
under Nārāyaṇapāla—
Darbhapāṇi minister of Dharmapāla c. 775 – c. 812

Devapāla c. 812 – c. 850
Someśvara
Kedāramiśra ” Devapāla ”
Śūrapāla c. 865 – c. 873
Guravamiśra ” Nārāyaṇapāla c. 875 – c. 932
As to Devapāla, styled lord of Gauḍa (Gauḍeśvara, v. 13), we are told that

he long ruled over the sea-girt earth thanks to the counsel of his wise
minister Kedāramiśra, after his victories on the Utkala Kingdom in
northeastern Odisha, the Hūṇas settled near the Himālayas from central
Asia, and the Draviḍas and Gurjaras, namely his hereditary enemies
Amoghavarṣa of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas, and Mihira Bhoja of the Gurjara-
Pratīhāras (Kielhorn 1894: 162; Banerji 1915: 55–56). In a copperplate
inscription of Nārāyaṇapāla’s seventeenth regnal year from Bhagalpur
(Hultzsch 1886), we read that Devapāla’s brother and general Jayapāla
would have put to flight the king of Utkala from his capital, and secured the
submission the king of Prāgjyotiṣa (Kāmarūpa). The Munger copperplate,
recording the grant of the crown-prince (yauvarājya) Rājyapāla to an
eminent brāhmaṇa, also refers to Devapāla’s campaign at the outskirts of
his empire, to the south and the north: his war horses are described as
roaming the forests of the Vindhya Range and running into their lost
relatives with profusion of tears. Then, after a cursory allusion to his
triumph over other kings, most probably the Hūṇas, the poet alludes to the
invasion of the territories of the Kambojas.
Originally highlanders of eastern Iran, some clans of these celebrated
horsemen and stud farmers had migrated to the northwest of current Punjab
in the last centuries BCE. We can speculate from the metaphor in the
Munger inscription that describes the young horses of the imperial cavalry
as reaching the lands of the Kambojas (ll. 19–20, v. 13; Barnett 1925–26:
305), that the horses of Devapāla’s cavalry breeded by Kamboja breeders,
had invaded the Kambojas’ country. In point of fact we can suppose that,
since at least the time of Devapāla, the Pālas recruited horses from those
western territories. Possibly on the wave of that equine business, some
36 TILOPĀ I
Kamboja adventurers could also have found their way to the east either as
traders or mercenary soldiers, the latter presumably for the Pāla cavalry
(N.G. Majumdar 1933–34: 153; R.C. Majumdar 1971: 183 n. 138).
With Devapāla, the prestige of the dynasty could not but increase,
notably among the Buddhists, for his patronage of the monastic cultural
institutions, Nālandā and so forth. A copperplate inscription of Devapāla’s
thirty-ninth regnal year from Nālandā records the grant of five villages for
the monastery at Nālandā that Devapāla had to be built at the request of the
Bālaputradeva, the Śailendra king of Suvarṇadvīpa, corresponding to the
current Java, Sumatra and Malay Peninsula (Sastri 1924; N.G. Majumdar
1926). In addition, a stone inscription from Ghosrawa in the Gaya District
of Bihar, and now in the Indian Museum (Kielhorn 1888), contains the
panegyric of a Vīradeva from a Brahmanical family of Nagarahāra in the
current Afghanistan: once completed his Vedic studies, he would have
studied under several Buddhist savants. When his fame reached the ears of
Devapāla, the latter appointed him to a high office at Nālandā (Nālandā-
paripālanāyaniyata).
Some evidence of the commercial relations Arabs kept with the deltaic
regions of Pāla Bengal is given by the Abbasid gold dinars and silver
dirhams unearthed in the present-day Lalmai Hills, as well as from a ninth-
century travelogue, the Travel of the Merchant Sulaymān to India and
China, written in 851, and completed by Abū Zayd Ḥasan in 916.
Sulaymān describes three rival Indian powers (Elliot and Dowson 1867: 5,
25; R.C. Majumdar 1971: 116), namely the Gurjara-Pratīhāra king (Jurz),
the Rāṣṭrakūṭa king (Balharā), and the Pāla king (Ruhmi):
...a kingdom called Ruhmi, which is at war with that of Jurz. The king is
not held in very high estimation. He is at war with the Balharā as he is
with the king of Jurz. His troops are more numerous than those of the
Balharā, the king of Jurz, or the king of Tāfak. It is said that when he goes
out to battle he is followed by about fifty thousand elephants. He takes the
field only in winter, because elephants cannot endure thirst, and can only
go out in the cold season. It is stated that there are from ten to fifteen
thousand men in his army who are employed in fulling and washing
chothes.
There is a stuff made in his country which is not to be found
elsewhere; so fine and delicate is this material that a dress made of it may
be passed through a signet-ring. It is made of cotton, and we have seen a
piece of it. Trade is carried on by means of cowries, which are the current
money of the country. They have gold and silver in the country, aloes, and
the stuff called samara, of which madabs are made. The striped bushān or
karkadān is found in this country. It is an animal which has a single horn
in the middle of its forehead…
Not only does Sulaymān give us an idea of the entity of Devapāla’s troops
unbiasedly reporting the huge amount of his war elephants and launderers,
but also he provides us with some pieces of information useful to
reconstruct the international market of Bengal as perceived by an Arab
trader of the ninth century, to begin with the subsidiary currency to gold
and silver he found there, the cowries.46 The pyriform shells of the cowrie
(cypraea moneta) mentioned by Sulaymān were imported from the
Maldives in exchange of the export of rice from Bengal, and used as the
smallest unit of currency. Nevertheless, since a silver coin could easily be
exchanged with 1,280 cowries, and a gold coin with 20,480 cowries, we
can infer that the use of such a medium of exchange is not at all a symptom
of demonetization and decline of trade (Ghosh and Datta 2012: 41–42).47
The economic process of formation of a feudal society, based on self-
sufficient economy, generally goes parallel with the parcellization (or
sāmantization) of the political power. Nevertheless, southeastern Bengal
corresponds to a remarkable regional variation. As a matter of fact, while
the political and cultural sāmantization process was running at full speed,
international trade and commerce seem to have flourished as well. The
main possible reason of this Bengali specificity is again water. Thanks to
the riverine web of navigable trade routes, profitable goods from remote
areas could easily meet the demand of domestic market towns and
international seaports, from which they were shipped to southeastern Asian
countries, as well as to the countries of the west. Thanks to water, those
urban centres were kept commercially active, reachable each other, and
well connected by a solid and capillary administration. This can be evinced
by the selected register of extremely costly merchandise described by
Sulaymān, that is to say, a very fine cotton fabric possibly of muslin, the
aromatic and resinous heartwood of the aloeswood (Aquilaria), the hair of
the bushy tail of the yak (Skt camara) from which fly-whisks were made,
as well as rhino horns, the grinded powder of which is a much demanded
good even today in some illegal markets of southeast Asia for its supposed
therapeutic properties.48
38 TILOPĀ I
After Devapāla
Whereas energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but change, its
human narration, that is power, cannot but end. As it is the case for every
kind of political power, once the Pālas had reached the peak of their
supremacy, only descent was possible. The slowness in that steady decline
was guaranteed, besides chance, by a higly developed administrative
system securing an acceptable grade of continuity to the people’s daily life:
such a minimum of stability can in fact be vital when the political borders,
responding to the question who’s the king of what, were extremely fluid.
The crown-prince Rājyapāla mentioned in the Munger copperplate
might have died before his father, with ensuing dynastic trouble after the
death of Devapāla. In point of fact we have three Pāla rulers over a span of
twenty-five years, most probably with the assistance of the old minister
Kedāramiśra. First Devapāla’s other two sons Mahendrapāla (c. 850–c.
865) and Śūrapāla (c. 865–c. 873) succeeded to the throne, then their
second cousin Vigrahapāla (c. 873–c. 875). The latter, being the son of
Devapāla’s first cousin Jayapāla, as well as the grandson of Vākpāla, the
younger brother of Dharmapāla, inaugurated the sway of that collateral
branch of the dynasty (Banerji 1915: 57; R.C. Majumdar 1971: 119–20;
Davidson 2002b: 56).
Vigrahapāla, entering a religious life, abdicated the throne in favour of
his son Nārāyaṇapāla (c. 875–c. 932), who was assisted by the minister
Guravamiśra, son of the prudent Kedāramiśra. No military victory is
credited to Nārāyaṇapāla, but we cannot deny that he was able or lucky
enough to seat on the throne for more than half a century in those restless
years. In fact, the Pratīhāras’ imperial capital Kanauj was temporarily
occupied by the Rāṣṭrakūṭas. Once the victorious army left, the Pratīhāra
king recovered his position, but not his prestige. On the other hand, a
marriage between Nārāyaṇapāla’s son Rājyapāla with a princess of the
Rāṣṭrakūṭas, ensured more than thirty years of peaceful reign to Rājyapāla
(c. 932–c. 967)—
Gopāla
|
Dharmapāla Vākpāla
| |
Devapāla Jayapāla
| |
Mahendrapāla Śūrapāla Vigrahapāla
|
Nārāyaṇapāla
|
Rājyapāla
In a stone-slab panegyric from Bhaturiya in the Rajshahi District of

Bangladesh, Rājyapāla is credited only with conventionally bombastic
assertions of paramount sway over the Indian oecumene (Sircar 1959–60b).
After an invocation to Śambhu (Śiva), it records the grant of a village and
the imposition of a tax for a śivaliṅga established by a Yaśodāsa, to whom
the praśasti is dedicated. Since the latter was the minister (mantrin, saciva,
tantrādhikārin) of Rājyapāla, Yaśodāsa possibly inherited the position from
Guravamiśra. The panegyric says that, when he was the minister in charge
of administration (tantrādhikārin), his king’s command was obeyed by
several peoples, the list of whom is worth a notice (ll. 10–12, v. 8; Sircar
1959–60b: 154)—
Mlecchas the Arabs inhabiting the lower Indus Valley since the first quarter of
the eighth century;
Aṅgas in the present-day eastern Bihar, Jharkhand and West Bengal, as well
as the Tarai Area of Nepal;
Kaliṅgas in central-eastern India, comprising most of the modern coastal
Odisha, as well as the bordering northern regions of Andhra Pradesh;
Vaṅgas in southern West Bengal and Bangladesh;
Oḍras in Odisha;
Pāṇḍyas in the southernmost Indian districts;
Karṇātas the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of Mānyakheṭa (current Malkhed), risen to power in
south India in the mid-eighth century;
Lāṭas in southwest Gujarat;
Suhmas in West Bengal and northwestern Bangladesh;
Gurjaras the Gurjara-Pratīhāras of Kannauj;
Krītas as for the Krītas, Sircar suggests it could be matter of the Qiliduo
(訖利多) people who, according to a tradition reported by Xuanzang,
were also known as the ‘Bought’ (Maide 買得 : Skt Krīta), because
40 TILOPĀ I
they had been originally poor people purchased from the countries
surrounding Kashmir, and imported as servants to the Buddhist
monks by the disciple of Ānanda, the arhat Madhyāntika (Motiandijia
末田底迦); after the latter’s death, they constituted themselves rulers
over the neighbouring countries; the people of surrounding countries
despising these low-born men, would not associate with them, and
called them Krītas;
Cīnas with the Cīnas, the inscription probably alludes to the Kambojas.
Whenever a variety of political power bares the slightest sign of weakness,

or simply deserts the expected ritual of aggressiveness with the other forms
of power, it turns vulnerable to external and internal trouble. In the first
case, the threat comes from the outside to the inside. In the second case, it
is matter of a separatist pressure from the inside towards the outside. Both
vectors act on the outskirts of the empire, mostly on the opposite ones, as it
was the case of Bengal, where each of the two circumstances was
conducive to the other. Old and new enemies had in fact tried their luck at
the expense of the Pāla Empire, to begin with current Assam and Odisha,
which had regained their autonomy already in the last years of Devapāla’s
life. Then, the occasional raids from the south of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of
Amoghavarṣa (c. 814–c. 880), and the erosion of the Rāḍhā territories by
the king of Oṛiśā, opened the way to the campaigns from the west of the
Pratīhāras. Thus Mihira Bhoja (c. 836–c. 885) and his son Mahendrapāla
(c. 890–c. 910), together with their allies Candellas and Kāḷachuris,
annexed Magadha and northwestern Bengal to the Pratīhāra Empire.
The Candras of Arakan

After Ānandacandra’s praśasti (720), another Candra dynasty of Arakan
seems to emerge from the mists of time, out of what can be read in the
second inscription on the north face of the same Mrauk U pillar.
Paleographically linked to the proto-Bengali script prevalent in the Candra
Bengal (Gutman 1976: 68–69), the inscription mentions a king
Siṃghagaṇḍapatiśuracandra (l. 9), whose historicity is confirmed by two
coins from the Sittwe hoard with śrī siṃghagaṇḍacandra inscribed; then a
king Siṃghavikramaśūracandra (l. 12) and Siṃghaśūracandra (l. 16).
Johnston conjectures (1944: 373) that it is matter here of a tenth-century
new dynasty of Arakan, with personal names beginning with siṃgha- and
ending in -śūracandra, two of whom being called Siṃghaṇ(ḍ)apati-

śūracandra and Siṃghavikramaśūracandra. It is reasonable to conjecture
that this dynasty be connected with the Candras mentioned in the
Arakanese chronicles, who would have reigned since 788, that is half a
century after the end of Ānandacandra.
According to the Arakanese chronicles (Phayre 1844), among the fifty-
five mythical kings of the first city and period of Dhanyawadi (2666–825
BCE), nine kings―from the ninth to the seventeenth―would have been
named Candra. Conversely, only one Candra is attested among the twenty-
eight kings of the second period of Dhanyawadi (825 BCE–146 CE), as well
as one only among the forty-eight Sūryas who ruled over the third
Dhanyawadi (146–788), which should be the town described by
archaeologists. The following Arakanese Candra dynasty would have been
founded by Mahātaingcandra. He ascended the throne in 788 and had the
city of Vesālī built, or enlarged, as his capital. Eight kings after him would
have reigned there in lineal succession, from 788 to 957. Then in 957, after
the invasion of the Shan people of the current Shan Hills and other parts of
modern-day Myanmar, Vesālī collapsed but continued as capital till 1018
(Phayre 1844: 49; Fryer 1872: 203)—
CANDRAS OF ARAKAN
ACCORDING TO THE ARAKANESE CHRONICLES
accession year
(Phayre 1844)
reign years
KING’S NAME NOTES
1 Mahātaingcandra 788 son of the last king of Dhanyawadi, he could

be identified with the Dvangcandra of
Ānandacandra’s praśasti (Johnston 1944:
369); he is said to have rebuilt Vesālī, on the
site of the older capital, as it is confirmed by
late-eighth-century sculptures found there;
2 Sūryataingcandra 810 son of the latter;
3 Maulataingcandra 830 „
4 Paulataingcandra 849 „
5 Kālataingcandra 9 875 son of the latter, he can be tentatively
identified with Kālacandra, no. 3 in the list of
the second period in Ānandacandra’s praśasti,
who is said to have reigned nine years as well
42 TILOPĀ I
(Johnston 1944: 369);

6 Dulātaingcandra 884 son of the latter;
7 Śrītaingcandra 903 „
8 Siṃhataingcandra 935 „
9 Culataingcandra 951 son of the latter, he sent an expedition to
current Chittagong in 953; after his death, the
queen Candradevī married the following two
chiefs of the Mro hill tribes, ‘indicating that
the hill tribes were becoming urbanized,
taking advantage of the confused state of the
country’ (Gutman 1976: 73);
10 Amyasu 957 a chief of the Mro tribe;
11 Pe Phyu 964 nephew of the latter;
12 Nga Pin Nga Ton 994 son of Culataingcandra.
In view of the fact that the names mentioned in the Arakanese chronicles do
not correspond to those in the Mrauk U inscriptions, Johnston conjectures
that the source of the chronicles’ list had been authentic but very corrupted.
Another possible reason of this discrepancy can be found in the ‘variety of
throne names, popular names and posthumous names given to each
Burmese king’ (Gutman 1976: 72).
The Kingdom of Harikela

In all probability, the pressure exerted to the west of Bengal in the second
half of the ninth century induced the feudal lords of the easternmost regions
to a centrifugal policy oriented towards other spheres of influence in order
to carve out independent kingdoms for themselves. In the metaregion of
current Sylhet, Tripura, Chittagong and Arakan, roughly corresponding to a
portion of what Tāranātha calls Koki, an independent kingdom of Harikela
is known to us through a ninth-century incomplete copperplate inscription
found in an old temple in the Nasirabad area of Chittagong (R.C. Majumdar
1942). The inscription gives evidence of three rulers of a Buddhist dynasty:
Bhadradatta, Dhanadatta, and Kāntideva. Again, while the first two were
still vassals, possibly in consequence of a favourable dynastic marriage of
the second one with a Bindurati, the daughter of a great king
(mahābhūbhṛtsutā), their son Kāntideva would have claimed his
sovereignty (paramasaugata parameśvara mahārājādhirāja) over the
kingdom. As to which kingdom it was, we are tempted by Ramesh Chandra
Majumdar to speculate that the father of the Bindurati who married

Dhanadatta could have been Bhavadeva, the last known king of the Deva
dynasty that reigned over Samataṭa from Devaparvata. If this is the case,
Kāntideva would have inherited his maternal grandfather’s kingdom
coming into possession of wide areas of southeast Bengal. Since he
addresses in his copperplate to future kings of Harikela Maṇḍala, we can
infer that he was a king of that very maṇḍala including Chittagong and
some portions of the Chittagong Hill Tracts.
It has been reasonably conjectured that Harikela’s first kings may have
originated in Arakan (Gutman 1976: 319). Albeit Buddhist, the Harikela
kings minted their own coins with a Śiva’s bull surmounted by the toponym
Harikela on the obverse, and a trident (triśūla) on the reverse, patently on
the sixth-century model of the Arakan Candra coinage (Nasir 2016;
Shariful 2016). Their findspots cover a discontinuous range from southern
Arakan to Sylhet and Tripura: a piece of evidence that confirms the
maritime relationship between southern Arakan and the Bengal delta
region. Besides, since those finds have taken place for the most part in
southeastern Bengal, we get some further evidence to locate Harikela
(Wicks 1992: 90).
In the current Patiyā Subdistrict (upazila) of Chittagong District there is
a village named Kelisahar, which could be a vestige of the kingdom of
Harikela. According to Suniti Bhushan Qanungo (1988: 64), a voice of
local people has it that the village is very old and was once the capital of a
flourishing kingdom, as it is supported by a large quantity of ancient
vestiges found in the area. The toponym seems to be the Persianized form
of what is vulgarly known as Kelihara, which would be the reversed form
of Harikela: curiously enough, this conjectured anastrophe in the toponym
(keli-hara) cannot but be reminiscent of the above mentioned paronomasic
keli-āra in Rājaśekhara’s Karpūramañjarī.
Bardhamānapura is the name of the capital (vāsaka) of the Harikela
Maṇḍala from where Kāntideva issued his grant. The speculation about its
geographical identification in the maps has divided scholars into two
parties, the former locating Bardhamānapura in western Bengal, and the
latter more realistically to the east. There is indeed a village, Bara-Uthān or
Borodhān, near the sea coast in the Chandanaish Subdistrict of Chittagong
District, which could have been the possible port capital of Harikela:
It is not long before that the sea going craft were used to anchor near it.
Now the sea has receded much from its original coast, leaving the port in
44 TILOPĀ I
distress. It appears that the shrinking of ocean into itself brought about the
decay of this historic site, which is now reduced to a mere village. The
Sanskritized name of the city has, subsequently, been turned to Barudhan
in the uncultured rural tongue. In fact the area, surrounding the proposed
site of Bardhamānapura is so rich in old relics that it might hold some
independent or semi-independent kingdoms successively during that
period of history (Qanungo 1988: 64–65).
The Candras of Bengal

Among the vassals under Kāntideva’s sovereignty was a family we have
already met in Arakan as a royal one, the Candras. After that regal time,
according to Tāranātha’s rGya gar chos ’byung (187.4–6; THBI 251), the
scions of the Candra line had recycled themselves into princely descent
endowed with relations (tshan ldan rgyal rigs), ministers, brāhmaṇas, and
great merchants. Their presence in the eighth-century Bengal can be
inferred from the Mrauk U pillar inscription, in which we have read of
Ānandacandra, the Candra king of Arakan who married a daughter of the
king of Śrītāmrapattana (Tāmraliptī), possibly in the context of an alliance
treaty at the time of Yaśovarman. More to the point, albeit in a legendary
context, we have also read in the rGya gar chos ’byung (192.4; THBI 258)
that the rise of Gopāla would have been initially impeded by the queen
dowager of the last king of the Candras.
Since the mid-ninth century, this Buddhist family played a central role
in Bengal for about a century and a half. As we can see from the
approximate years of accession of the Pāla and Candra kings, the latter
would have made their own fortune when the former, after Devapāla (c.
812–c. 850) and before Mahīpāla I (c. 992–c. 1042), were running the risk
of losing definitively theirs—
Chowdhury 1967
Chowdhury 1967
Davidson 2002b
Majumdar 1971
Majumdar 1971
Sircar 1967–68
Fleming 2010
CANDRAS OF
PĀLAS
BENGAL
Gopāla I 756 750 750

Dharmapāla 781 770 775
Devapāla 821 810 812
Mahendrapāla ― ― 850 Pūrṇacandra
Śūrapāla I 861 850 865 Suvarṇacandra

Vigrahapāla I 861 850 873
Nārāyaṇapāla 866 854 875 Trailokyacandra 900 905 875
Rājyapāla 920 908 932 Śrīcandra 930 925 905 925
Gopāla II 952 940 967
Vigrahapāla II 969 960 987 Kalyāṇacandra 975 975 955 975
Mahīpāla I 995 988 992 Laḍahacandra 1000 955 1000
Govindacandra 1020 1010 1020
Nayapāla 1043 1038 1042
Vigrahapāla III 1058 1054 1058
Mahīpāla II 1075 1072 1085
Śūrapāla II 1080 1075 1086
Rāmapāla 1082 1077 1087
Kumārapāla 1124 1130 1141
Gopāla III 1129 1140 1143
Madanapāla 1143 1144 1158
Govindapāla —— 1158 1176
Palapāla —— —— 1180
The Candra kings are known to us through fourteen inscriptions found in

east Bengal, to begin with the eight ones issued by their most important
king, Śrīcandra—
regnal year
CANDRA KING LOCALITY MATERIAL
1 Śrīcandra 5 Paschimbhag copperplate

2 ” ― Kedārpur ”
3 ” ― Idilpur ”
4 ” ― Rampal ”
5 ” ― Dhulla ”
6 ” ― Bangladesh Museum ”
7 ” ― Bogra ”
8 ” 44/46 Madanpur ”
9 Kālyāṇacandra 24 Dhaka ”
10 Laḍahacandra ― Mainamati ”
11 ” ― Mainamati ”
12 ” 18 Bharella image
13 Govindacandra ― Mainamati copperplate
14 ” 23 Betka-Paikpada image
46 TILOPĀ I
Not only did Śrīcandra make his family an imperial one (parameśvaraḥ
paramabhaṭṭārako mahārājādhirājaḥ śrīmānŚrīcandradevaḥ), but he also
established the official history of the dynasty. We know in fact exactly
what Śrīcandra wanted to be recorded of him and his forefathers in five
published copperplate grant inscriptions with almost the same eulogistic
introductory stanzas, namely, the Rampal (Rāmpāl), Madanpur, Dhulla
(Dhullā), Bangladesh National Museum no. 77.1478, and Bogra
copperplates. Let us follow these revealing introductory stanzas from
Benjamin Fleming’s (2010) edition and translation of the Bogra praśasti.
Pūrṇacandra
Now, in the lineage of the powerful and prosperous Candras, rulers (bhuj)
of Rohitāgiri, was one like the full moon (pūrṇacandra) who was
celebrated in the world as the blessed Pūrṇacandra. He was mentioned
before his descendants in the pedestals of images (arcā) [as well as] on
victory columns (jayastambha), which had freshly chisel-hewn
benedictions (praśasti), and on copperplates (tāmra; Bogra copperplate ll.
3–5, v. 2).
As ‘princely descent endowed with relations’ in Tāranātha’s words, we

guess that Pūrṇacandra was a local ruler, presumably like his forefathers. In
all probability he was a feudatory of the Pālas in the confused dynastic
period after Devapāla. In the above verse the dynasty is said to have
originated in the family ruling over Rohitāgiri (Rohitāgiri-bhujām-vaṃśa).
This Rohitāgiri had been initially identified with Rohtasgarh (Rohtāsgaḍh,
Rohitāśvagiri) in the Rohtas (Rohatās) District of Bihar (Law 1954: 256;
Sircar 1967–68: 292; 1971: 152), but the place name, meaning ‘red hill’,
could be a Sanskritization of Bengali lālmāṭi, ‘red soil’. In this sense, it
appears more reasonable to associate Rohitāgiri with the current Lalmai
Hills, about eight km to the west of Comilla, where a number of Candra
inscriptions have been found (Bhattasali 1927: 418; Chowdhury 1967:
160–61; Luce and Bo-Hmu Ba Shin 1969: 120; R.C. Majumdar 1971: 200,
214).49
Suvarṇacandra
His son, Suvarṇacandra, a Buddhist (bauddha), was renowned in the
world as if because he was born into the respectable family of the Moon
(candra), that is, the Lord possessing beams that are a mine of nectar, who
lovingly bears the Buddha’s hare incarnation (śaśakajātaka) stationed in
his spot (aṅkasṃstham).

It is said that on the new moon day his mother, on account of her
pregnancy while desiring to see the orb of the moon rising, was gratified
because of [the sight of] the golden moon (suvarṇacandra) [and] so they
call [him] Suvarṇacandra (Bogra copperplate, ll. 5–8, vv. 3–4).
Since no other information is given here with the exception of

Suvarṇacandra’s faith, we can infer that also Pūrṇacandra’s son and
successor was a petty ruler under the Pālas, famed for his devotion to
Buddhism and to the influential Buddhist order. The religious position of
the Candras is confirmed by the invocation to the Buddha at the beginning
of their copperplate grants, by the epithet paramasaugata before the names
of kings, as well as by the emblem of the dharmacakra in their seal like
that of the Pāla kings.
Trailokyacandra
His son Trailokyacandra, the sanctifier of both families, who was the
abode feared by improper conduct (kaulīnabhītāśayas), was known in the
three worlds (trailokya) through his qualities by travellers of all
directions. He who resembled Dilīpa became king (nṛpati) on the island
(dvīpa) that has the name Candra prefixed to it, and he was a receptacle of
the good fortune that had blossomed under the royal umbrella insignia of
the king of Harikela (ādhāro Harikela-rāja-kakuda-cchatra-smitānāṃ
śriyāṃ).
As Jyotsnā to Candra, Śacī to Jiṣṇu, Gaurī to Hara, and Śrī to Hari, his
beloved―having the splendour of gold (kāñcana)―was to him whose
commands were respected [called] Śrīkāñcanā.
Possessing Indra’s radiance [and] understanding prudent policy, he
[Trailokyacandra] at a moment made auspicious through a lunar
conjunction attained through her [Śrīkāñcanā] a son, Śrīcandra, who
resembled the moon [and] in whom astrologers observed the marks of [a
future] king (Bogra copperplate, ll. 8–13, vv. 5–7).
The interpretation of the above ‘royal umbrella insignia of the king of

Harikela’ has been problematic for the scholars. There is in fact no
certainty whether Trailokyacandra, here compared to the mythical emperor
Dilīpa (Raghuvaṃśa 1.17), had power in Harikela de facto (Basak 1913–
14; Sircar 1949–50; 1959–60a; Mills 1993; Fleming 2010), or de jure as
well (N.G. Majumdar 1929; R.C. Majumdar 1943; Basak 1949–50; R.C.
Majumdar 1971). We might speculate that an initial de facto pre-eminent
48 TILOPĀ I
political position would have been endorsed de jure later: hypothetically, at

the death of an old Kāntideva or his successor; hypothetically again, under
the diplomatic pressure from the neighbour king Śrītaingcandra of the new
Candra dynasty of Arakan, most likely a distant relative of his. If that is the
case, the mention to the conquest of Candradvīpa―in this context identical
with Vaṅgāla (Sircar 1959–60a: 135; 1971: 133), i.e. a part of Vaṅga―and
to the king of Harikela on whose behalf it would have been made may
possibly suggest that in the first quarter of the tenth century
Trailokyacandra would have transferred the Candras’ allegiance from the
vulnerable Pālas to the sovereign of the emergent kingdom of Harikela.
One of Śrīcandra’s earliest records issued in his fifth regnal year (c.
930) has been unearthed in the village of Paschimbhag (Paścimbhāg) in the
Moulvibazar District of the Sylhet Division. In itself, the location of this
significant finding is an evidence of the Candra sway over northern
Harikela at that time. This Paschimbhag copperplate contains fifteen
introductory stanzas partially different in number and composition from
those in the Rampal, Madanpur, Dhulla, Bangladesh National Museum, and
Bogra copperplates: whereas some stanzas are common, and other are
absent, seven can be found only therein. In particular, the eulogy of
Trailokyacandra (vv. 5–10) is worthy of note for the political and cultural
history of Bengal, as it clearly mentions his conquest of Samataṭa:
After having conquered Samataṭa (Samataṭan nirjjitya), the [king’s]

soldiers exclaimed, ‘That prosperous (śrīmat) Devaparvata lying on the
Kṣīrodā (Kṣīrodām anu Devaparvvata) is this city where the visitor has
the feeling of astonishment at the wonderful reports about the Kambojas
(vismaya-rasaḥ Kamboja-vārttādbhutaiḥ)’, and the Lalambi forest
(Lālambī-vanam) in the area being searched by hundreds of boatmen (atra
nāvika-śatair anviṣṭa), they heard, in conformity with tradition, the tales
about superbly efficacious medicinal herbs (siddh-auṣadhi-vyāhārā iti ha
śrutās, Paschimbhag copperplate, ll. 9–11, v. 7; Sircar 1967–68: 291,
301).
It was a period when Kamboja bands were carrying out raids on Pāla
domains within the borders of Bengal. Probably these warriors on
horseback would have belonged to the progeny of the Kamboja groups of
adventurers, traders, and mercenaries who were settling since Devapāla’s
time in the territories around the northern and eastern borders of Bengal,
slowly merging with some local tribes. Then, probably attracted by the rich
possibilities of the prosperous empire of the Pālas, these Kambojas would

have aimed at wresting northwest Bengal from them (Sircar 1967–68: 291–
92).
Possibly with the help and military support of the king of Harikela,
Trailokyacandra was able or lucky enough to take advantage of the ensuing
political chaos and capture Devaparvata, so close to his paternal domain.
Capital of the earlier Rāta and Deva dynasties of Samataṭa as we read in the
Kailan and Mainamati copperplates (Sircar 1947; 1951), Devaparvata was
the prosperous town on the Kṣīrodā River. Most probably it had an
important riverine harbor with a developed system for docking; we read in
fact in the Kailan copperplate a seventh-century reference to the banks of
the river made of innumerable boats (naubhir aparimitābhir uparacita-
kūlā, ll. 2–3), and in the Paschimbhag copperplate the reference is to the
hundreds of boatmen searching and collecting medicinal herbs, and
probably other valuable goods in the nearby Lālambīvana, i.e. the current
Lalmai Hills near Comilla (Sircar 1967–68: 292).
The military success of that venturesome feudatory lord of Rohitāgiri
could have put him in a different position in front of the king of Harikela,
and laid the foundation stone of the Candra power. The Paschimbhag
copperplate would confirm Trailokyacandra’s growing prominence, as it
also hints metaphorically at a victorious tour (digvijaya) of his army in
south India, from the west-central Vindhya Range to the southernmost
Malaya Mountains.
Albeit conventional, and merely implying Trailokyacandra’s claim to
the status of independent king, the description indirectly provides
significant information on the starting point of this digvijaya: the soldiers
would have in fact enjoyed the curd of Vaṅga at the village Kṛṣṇaśikharin
(bhuktvā Vaṅga-dadhīni Kṛṣṇaśikhari-grāmeṣu..., l. 11, v. 8) before leaving
to the southwest. The village with its celebrated curd is known only in this
document, but we can assume from this reference that all Vaṅga or its most
part had come under Trailokyacandra’s control. Thus, while Bengal
witnessed the Kambojas’ presence within the Pāla Empire, Trailokyacandra
after the take of Samataṭa would have gradually spread his sway over
Vaṅga, as it is confirmed in the two copperplates of Laḍahacandra found at
Mainamati (Dani 1966).
According to the Dhaka copperplate of Kalyāṇacandra (Dani 1961),
Trailokyacandra would have defeated also the Gauḍas. By this name, most
likely the Kambojas were meant in the years of Kalyāṇacandra (c. 975–c.
1000), and a fortiori of Laḍahacandra (c. 1000–c. 1020). It was in fact
50 TILOPĀ I
around 975 that the so-called Kamboja Pālas, i.e. members of a Pāla
dynasty somehow related to the Kamboja aristocracy, took the control of
the principality of Gauḍa at the expense of the Imperial Pālas (R.C.
Majumdar 1971: 126–27, 203–204).
Albeit ‘under the royal umbrella insignia’ of the king of Harikela,
Trailokyacandra, would have added de facto large portions of southeast
Bengal to his paternal petty kingdom on the Lalmai Hills in Samataṭa. Once
achieved a renovated prominence to the Candra name, further geopolitical
requirements emerged in ruling a more extensive country with the more
prestigious position of viceroy, or mahārājādhirāja as Trailokyacandra’s
son Śrīcandra refers to him in the inscriptions. It is therefore reasonable that
Trailokyacandra had been induced to shift the capital (jayaskandhāvāra)
from Rohitāgiri to Vikramapura with the aim of fulfilling these new
requirements: not only the city would have been the Candras’ eventual
administrative centre, as proved by the grants of Śrīcandra and the latter’s
successors issued from there, but it was also destined to be the capital of
the Varmans and the Senas, the two Brahmanical dynasties which
succeeded the Candras. Regrettably, to date we can get a remote idea of its
location from the official name of Bikrampur, which occurred as an
administrative unit (pargana) during the Mughal period (Morrison 1970:
56–57). Nonetheless, the current inhabitants of a vast area in the
Munshiganj District of the Dhaka Division still claim to be from
Vikramapura.
Śrīcandra
As we read of Trailokyacandra’s son Śrīcandra in the Rampal, Madanpur,
Dhulla, Bangladesh National Museum, and Bogra copperplates,
... having made the earth embellished with a single umbrella (ekātapatra),
he was not obedient to fools, put his enemies into prisons, and made the
four directions fragrant with his fame (Bogra copperplate ll. 13–14, v. 8).
The conventional allusion to the ‘single umbrella’ of the paramount power

of Śrīcandra implies that he was the first emperor de jure of the family.
Hence, it must have been Śrīcandra to throw off the allegiance to the king
of Harikela―if not Trailokyacandra himself in his late years―in the wake
of further invasions of Bengal. As a matter of fact, the demise of the
Pratīhāras had modified the political landscape, and northern India had
found itself exposed to the conquest of territories by the ancient allies of the
Pratīhāras, namely the Candellas and the Kāḷachuris. Since the middle of
the ninth century until almost the end of the tenth century, that is during the
reigns of Rājyapāla, Gopāla II, and Vigrahapāla II, the Candellas and the
Kāḷachuris continued carrying out aggressive raids beyond the border of the
Pālas’ empire. Admittedly, it is problematic to decide of which border and
empire it was the case, because a central authority were not so strongly
perceived at that time, as we can guess from the Kāḷachuri and Candella
records, where Bengal is referred to according to its parts―Aṅga, Rāḍhā,
Gauḍa, and Vaṅgāla (R.C. Majumdar 1971: 126).
Śrīcandra’s territory covered southeast Bengal with Vikramapura as
central seat of authority. More in detail, the political map of the Candra
authority would have comprised Vaṅga with Vikramapura, Samataṭa with
Devaparvata, Harikela with the port town of Caṭigāõ (Chittagong), and the
region round Śrīhaṭṭa (Sylhet), as it is deducible from the geographical
position of the copperplate found at Paschimbhag. The same inscription
mentions Śrīcandra’s conquest of Kāmarūpa (Kāmarūpa vijaye, l. 17, v. 12)
by entering the forest-regions near the Lohitya, i.e. the Brahmaputra
(Lohityasya vanasthalī-parisarāḥ, l. 18, v. 12). Albeit one of Śrīcandra’s
earliest documents, only this copperplate refers to the victory, which is
however confirmed by his successors’ grants (Sircar 1967–68: 293).
Of the three generations of Candra kings claiming to have defeated the
‘Gauḍas’, that is the Kambojas—Trailokyacandra, Śrīcandra, and
Kalyāṇacandra—we have already seen what kind of involvement was in the
case of Trailokyacandra. As to his son, we know from the Mainamati
copperplate of Laḍahacandra that Śrīcandra defeated the kings of Gauḍa
and Prāgjyotiṣa (Kāmarūpa). Besides, we read in the Dhaka copperplate of
Kalyāṇacandra that Śrīcandra restored Gopāla II in his royal post, with the
latter’s queen who had been imprisoned. Most probably this epigraphic
material is just erratic evidence of a long conflict between the Imperial
Pālas, their allies Candras, and the Kamboja Pālas.
As observed by Ramesh Chandra Majumdar (1971: 126), while there is
mention of a ‘usurper’ of the kingdom in some Pāla inscriptions, other
documents refer to a Kamboja sway over the northern and western
dominions of the Pālas. One is the tenth-century brief inscription on the
Bangarh pillar in Dinajpur District of northern Bangladesh, which records
the erection of a Śaiva temple by a lord of Gauḍa of the Kamboja lineage
(Kāmbojānvayajane Gauḍapati, l. 2; Chanda 1911: 619). The other is a
copperplate inscription found at Irda, in the Balasore District of current
52 TILOPĀ I
Odisha (N.G. Majumdar 1933–34), recording the grant of lands in the

western bhukti of Vardhamāna by a king Nayapāla from the capital
(rājadhānī) of Priyaṅgu. The inscription mentions two other kings, the
issuer’s father and elder brother respectively, who reigned in succession
with full imperial titles (parameśvara paramabhaṭṭāraka
mahārājādhirāja): Rājyapāla, Nārāyaṇapāla, and Nayapāla.
Significantly, Rājyapāla is here described as a Buddhist (saugata), as an
‘ornament of the Kamboja family’ (Kamboja-vaṃśa-tilakaḥ, ll. 5–6, v. 6),
and as married with a queen Bhāgyadevī. Now, not only all the three above
kings have names already known in the Imperial Pāla dynasty, albeit in
different order, but the queens of the Rājyapāla of the Imperial Pālas and
this Rājyapāla of the Kambojas―both Buddhist (saugata) and living in the
same area at the same time―are named Bhāgyadevī. On the basis of these
similarities, admits Ramesh Chandra Majumdar, it is ‘tempting’ to identify
the two Rājyapālas. Obviously, such a slippery matter has been subject of
considerable debate in the academies (R.C. Majumdar 1971: 172–73).
Some scholars in fact have claimed that they must have been separate
persons, and there should be no hesitation about that; on the contrary, some
have upheld the identity of the two Rājyapalas, and of the two Pāla families
as a consequence: in both cases indeed a division of the Pāla territories in
the last quarter of the tenth century is an undisputable fact.
Let us consider schematically the two alternative solutions once again.
If the Kamboja Rājyapāla of the Irda copperplate was another person than
the Pāla king, it would follow that Rājyapāla, ‘an ambitious and powerful
Kamboja chief, perhaps a dignitary or high official under the Pālas, had
taken advantage of the weakness of the Pāla kingdom to set up an
independent principality which ultimately comprised western and northern
Bengal’ (R.C. Majumdar 1971: 127). On the other hand, if the Kamboja
king was the same Rājyapāla of the Pāla imperial dynasty, the claimed
Kamboja descent of Rājyapāla’s dynasty could be traceable only within a
matrilineal descent system: which is reasonable as well, as attested in more
than one case. It would be matter in this case of an ‘ambitious Kamboja
chief’ all the same, but at least one generation older than Rājyapāla: he
would have gained the confidence of the Pālas after Devapāla’s time,
possibly as a mercenary soldier in the beginning. Then he would have
become so influential to have his daughter married with a member of the
collateral branch of the Pāla dynasty inaugurated by Vākpāla: possibly one
of the three, Jayapāla, Vigrahapāla, or Nārāyaṇapāla.
Śrīcandra would have thus intervened on behalf of Gopāla II against the
latter’s brother (Dani 1966: 36). Described in the Dhaka copperplate of

Kalyāṇacandra as pṛthvīpāla, possibly a synonym for king (R.C. Majumdar
1971: 214), this Gopāla’s brother could be identified with the Kamboja
Pāla king Nārāyaṇapāla or his brother Nayapāla who would have taken
control of the reign of Gopāla II.
However, if Śrīcandra was on one occasion able to defeat the Gauḍa
king of the Kambojas and restore the Pāla king to his kingdom, a more
durable division of the Pāla territories between two branches of the same
family must have occurred after Rājyapāla’s death. One would have been
the kingdom of Nārāyaṇapāla and Nayapāla, comprising western (Rāḍhā)
and northern (Varendra) Bengal with capital at Priyaṅgu. The other
kingdom would have been under the sway of Gopāla II and Vigrahapāla II,
with capital seemingly at Gauḍa, and probably included both Aṅga and
Magadha.
Such are the waters, such the kings, the polities, and the cities
considered so far. Our Bengali gentleman of a thousand years ago begins to
be in view, and it is the right moment to focus on him through the sources
relevant to his deeds.
Notes to the First Chapter
1
With regard to the present course of the Gaṅgā (Lat. Ganges), important
modifications must have been occurred beyond its curve around the Rajmahal
Hills, near the current border of Bihar and West Bengal. We do not know its exact
course in the tenth century CE, but it is possible to develop some inductive idea
from its increasing sinuosity ratio and braiding index in recent times. We see from
analyses of the period of 1973–2006 that this meandering river lately becomes a
braided river, for high sediment transportation by Jamunā, and deposition of
Gaṅgā-Padmā river bed (Yeasmin and Islam 2011). Satellite images show its
present windings intersect the dry beds of some of its old channels as laid down on
the early maps, demonstrating that there has been more than one shifting towards
the south and the west before the Gaṅgā reached its present course.
In the nineteenth century the French geographer Elisée Reclus (1876–94: 192–
93) had already described this unsteady main stream as ‘constantly shifting its bed
by eating away, and withdrawing from, both banks alternately’. Regarding this
54 TILOPĀ I
shifting of the river course, we are informed by the same author (ibid.) that in the
middle of the eighteenth century, ‘...the Ganges wound through the plains at a
long distance from the Rajmahal Hills, but in 1788 it had not only approached, but
had actually cut for itself a new channel through these hills, so that isolated rocks
previously on the right now stood near the left bank. Ten years later on all vestige
of these reefs had disappeared, while the place where the main current formerly
flowed was occupied by an island eight miles long and nearly two miles broad
rising above the highest water level’. Emblematic of the consequences of this
process can be the case of the ancient capital city of Gauḍa (current Gaur, in the
Maldah District, West Bengal), which has been abandoned by the main
watercourse, previously flowing further north and east, and the town should have
been positioned on its right bank (R.C. Majumdar 1971: 2).
2
Since a large number of ship seals have been found by archaeologists at
Chandraketugarh beside the Bidyadhari River, about thirty-five km north-east of
Kolkata, the site might reasonably be identified with Gaṅgā (Dasgupta 1959).
3
A fragmentary stone inscription in a Brāhmī lettering similar to that of the
Aśokan records is the only epigraphical witness to the Maurya rule in Bengal. It
was found in the ancient town of Puṇḍranagara, corresponding to the current
village of Mahasthangarh in the district of Bogra, on the banks of the Karatoyā
River. We may deduce from that small piece of hard limestone that Puṇḍranagara
was an administrative town at least since the third century BCE (Bhandarkar 1931–
32).
4
As a matter of fact, if we accept the so-called Ceyolonese ‘long chronology’, the
historical Buddha would have entered ultimate nirvāṇa (parinibbāna) in 486 BCE,
that is to say, 218 years before the accession to the throne of the Maurya emperor
Aśoka, in 268 BCE (Lamotte 1958: 236-37). On the other hand, if we accept the
Indian ‘short chronology’, the span since the death of Siddhārtha until Aśoka’s
coronation would be of a century only, and Siddhārtha would have passed away
octogenarian around 384 BCE.
5
Tāmraliptī can be identified, following the later Buddhist Theravāda tradition,
with the town of Tāmalithi, capital of a great kingdom (Dīpavaṃsa 3.33;
Oldenberg 1879: 28, 131), or with the haven of Tāmalitti where the ambassadors
of the king of Laṃkā (Sri Lanka) landed to visit king Dhammāsoka (Aśoka), and
from where they embarked five months later (Mahāvaṃsa 11.23–24, 38; Geiger
1912: 79, 80). It is interesting to notice that those envoys’ trip would have taken
seven–twelve days of navigation between the north of Sri Lanka and Tāmalitti,
and seven days via land routes or along navigable watercourses between what is
the present-day Tamluk in the Midnapore District of West Bengal and Pāṭaliputta.
6
Among the nine kings (rāja) Samudragupta would have ‘exterminated’
(prasabhoddharaṇodvṛitta) in northern India (āryāvarta), the Allahabad praśasti
(l. 21) mentions a Candravarman (R.C. Majumdar 1971: 39–40). We know a great
king (mahārāja) with this name as the lord (adhipati) of Puṣkaraṇa (Pokharnā) in
a rock inscription on the Susunia Hill in Bankura District of southern West Bengal
(Vasu 1895; Sastri 1915–16). We may thus reasonably infer that Samudragupta’s
conquest of the western region of Dakṣiṇa-Rāḍhā opened the way into Bengal,
because Dakṣiṇa-Rāḍhā would correspond to the current region of Rarh (Raṛh)
that covers portions of West Bengal, Jharkhand and Bihar. Besides, the Allahabad
praśasti enumerates the lords (nṛpati) of lands along the borders (pratyanta) of the
Empire (ll. 22–23), viz. Samataṭa, Ḍavāka, Kāmarūpa, Nepal, and Karṭrpura. This
fact leads us to assume that, before the conquest of Samudragupta, these lands
were inhabited by independent nations, since then tributaries (karada) of the
Guptas.
7
See Gupta documents such as the copperplate inscriptions found at Baigram
(Basak 1931–32), Damodarpur (Basak 1919–20a), and Paharpur (Dikshit 1929–
30).
8
The Puṇḍravardhana Bhukti would have included large portions of the present
Bogra and Rajshahi Districts in the Rajshahi Division, and the Dinajpur District,
since 2010 in the Rangpur Division (R.C. Majumdar 1971: 13, 320).
9
Faxian (法顯, 336/345–418/423) left Chang’an in 399 to search for original texts
of monastic discipline. Following the trade routes through central Asia, he reached
India: there he travelled and studied till 412. The ‘Account of the Eminent Monk
Faxian’ (Gao seng fa xian zhuan 高僧法顯傳) was written around 417 by an
anonymous monk, on the basis of the verbal report Faxian would have given two
years after his return to China in 414. Then the text occurs in the Song, Yuan, and
Ming editions of the Buddhist canon as ‘Record of the Buddhist Countries’ (Fo
guo ji 佛國記, Taishō vol. 51 no. 2085).
10
Faxian mentions the village Nāla as the birthplace of Buddha’s disciple
Śāriputra, the place where he returned and entered parinirvāṇa: there Faxian
would have revered his stūpa still in existence.
11
Xuanzang (玄奘, c. 602–c. 664) left Chang’an in 627 on the traditional caravan
routes and reached India, where he pilgrimaged for more than ten years. Once
back about 646, on imperial command Xuanzang reported to his disciple and
56 TILOPĀ I
assistant Bianji (辯機) what he had seen. The latter wrote down on the basis of his
master’s oral travelogue the ‘Record of the Regions West of the Great Tang’ (Da
tang xi yu ji 大唐西域記, Taishō vol. 51 no. 2087).
12
Yijing (義淨, c. 635–c. 713) set out from Guangzhou (Canton) in 671 on board
a Persian merchant vessel to India in search of texts. Back to China twenty-five
years later, he composed two texts, the ‘Account of Eminent Monks who Sought
the Doctrine West of the Great Tang’ (Da tang xi yu qiu fa gao seng zhuan
大唐西域求法高僧傳, Taishō vol. 51 no. 2066), and the ‘Account of the Inner
Law Sent Home from the South Seas’ (Nan hai ji gui nei fa zhuan
南海寄歸內法傳, Taishō vol. 54 no. 2125).
13
The foundation of the first monastery (vihāra) would date back to the reign of
the late Imperial Gupta king Kumāragupta I (c. 415 – c. 455), referred to as
Śakrāditya (Shuojialuoayiduo 鑠迦羅阿逸多, T.2087. 923b21; Beal 1884, 2: 168)
by Xuanzang, as well as in a seal found at Nālandā (Sastri 1942: 38). The Chinese
pilgrim reveals a succession of four other Guptas who would have added
monasteries of their own in about one century (T.2087.923b27, b29, c1, c14; Beal
1884, 2: 168, 170), namely, Buddhagupta (Fotuojuduo 佛陀鞠多), Tathāgatagupta
(Datajieduojuduo 呾他揭多鞠多), Bālāditya (Poluoadieduo 婆羅阿迭多), and
Vajra (Sheluo 闍羅): Śakrāditya’s son and successor, Buddhagupta would have
built a monastery (jialan 伽藍 : ārāma) to the south of the first one;
Tathāgatagupta to the east, Bālāditya to the north-east, and Vajra to the west of the
latter respectively. After Vajra, a sixth monastery would have been built by an
unnamed ruler of central India to the north of the latter; then this king, apparently
not a Gupta, would have built round these edifices a high enclosing wall with one
gate (T.2087.923c16; Beal 1884, 2: 170).
Apart from Kumāragupta I, we can identify only Bālāditya. This royal patron,
named Bālāditya in his coins and by Xuanzang, is in fact Narasiṃhagupta
Bālāditya, the Gupta king who would have driven, together with the Aulikara king
Yaśodharman, the central Asian Hūṇas’ army led by Mihirakula (r. c. 515–c. 530)
from the plains of northern India in 528: thus we read in the pillar inscriptions
from Mandasor erected by Yaśodharman to celebrate the victory (Fleet 1888:
147–48). As to the other kings, due to the many problems about the Gupta
dynastic succession after Kumāragupta I, we have no solid certainty for an
identification. In fact we ignore whether Kumāragupta I was directly succeded by
his son Skandagupta Vikramāditya, or his other son Pūrugupta Prakāśāditya.
Likewise, we are basically in the dark as to the circumstances of the succession,
who succeded whom, when, and how: be it the case of Kumāragupta II
Kramāditya, Budhagupta, Vainyagupta, Kumāragupta III, and Viṣṇugupta (Heras
1928: 14–23). On the other hand, it is possible to conjecture that Xuanzang’s

unnamed ruler of central India (zhong Yindu wang 中印度王) and sixth patron of
Nālandā were the above mentioned Yaśodharman of Mālava (current Malwa),
contemporary with Narasiṃhagupta Bālāditya. In point of fact, after the demise of
the Imperial Guptas, his short-lived empire over northern India has been the only
one till the time of Harṣavardhana, who was already a contemporary with
Xuanzang (Dutt 1962: 330).
14
Since Vainyagupta’s official status was that of a feudatory lord, as he is titled
mahārāja in the inscription, it is problematic to identify the issuer of the grant
with the Vainyagupta of a clay seal fragment from Nālandā (Fleet 1888: 117–19;
Sastri 1942: 67), referred to instead as ‘a king among great kings’
(mahārājādhirāja, l. 5). As a matter of fact, such a title of paramount sovereignty
is definitely more consistent with the coinage of the gold coin of Vainyagupta
preserved at the British Museum (Department of Coins and Medals, no.
IGp144.590). Besides, whereas the Vainyagupta of the Gunaighar copperplate
depicts himself as ‘meditating on the feet of Śiva’ (bhagavān-mahādeva-
pādānudhyāta, l. 2), the one of the clay seal is a Vaiṣṇava, being styled
paramabhāgavata. Possibly, the Vainyagupta ruling from Krīpura was a distant
scion of the Imperial Guptas―even if he professed himself a Śaiva, and the
Guptas Vaiṣṇavas―who must have declared his independence during the troubled
times of Hūṇas’ overrun. It is worthy of note that the dignitary carrying
Vainyagupta’s orders to the local officials as a messenger (dūtaka) was a
subordinate vassal (mahārāja and mahāsāmanta) by the name of Vijayasena,
whom we will meet again. Five official titles of distinction honour Vijayasena in
the Gunaighar inscription (ll. 15–16), viz. the high chamberlain (mahāpratīhāra),
the chief of the elephant corps (mahāpīlupati), the governor of five administrative
offices (pañcādhikaraṇoparika), the auditor general (pāṭyuparika), and the prefect
of the watchmen of the city (purapāloparika).
15
Six copperplates have been discovered in the area of Kotalipara in the
Gopalganj District of Bangladesh (Banerji 1910; Pargiter 1911; Bhattasali 1925–
26; Islam 2011; Furui 2013), one at Mallasārul in the Bardhaman (Burdwan)
District of West Bengal (Pargiter 1910; N.G. Majumdar 1935–36), and one at
Jairampur in the Balasore (Baleshwar) District of Odisha (Rajaguru 1963). As to
numismatic evidence, gold coins of Gopacandra with a Brāhmī legend ‘gopa’ on
the obverse have been found; two of them, preserved in the reserve collection at
the Bangladesh National Museum are described (Islam and Nasrin 2014). The
order of succession and time of those four Vaṅga rulers has been occasion of
debate: if palaeographic reasons would place Dvādaśāditya the first, and
Samācāradeva the last of the line, it is not clear whether Gopacandra preceded
58 TILOPĀ I
(R.C. Majumdar on historical ground) or followed (Pargiter, Sircar on

palaeographic ground) Dharmāditya. It is known from the Mallasārul copperplate
of Gopacandra that a mahārāja Vijayasena was the feudal chief (mahāsāmanta) of
the Vardhamāna Bhukti with its capital Vardhamānapura, present Bardhaman.
Since this Vijayasena can be reasonably identified with the one mentioned in the
Gunaighar copperplate of Vainyagupta, we may assume with Ramesh Chandra
Majumdar that the interval between Vainyagupta (c. 507) and Gopacandra were
not a long one. In addition, since the same two officers, Nāgadeva and Nayasena,
are mentioned in two different copperplates, one of Gopacandra and one of
Dharmāditya (Pargiter 1910: 200, 204), we can guess that the interval between
Gopacandra and Dharmāditya were not a long one either. We may thus infer that
their reigns would range approximately between 525 and 575 (R.C. Majumdar
1971: 44). Moreover, if Vijayasena was a ruler of the Vardhamāna Bhukti under
Gopacandra, he may also have held the same office under Vainyagupta. If this was
the case, Vainyagupta, albeit a mahārāja, would have already presided over the
southern imperial provinces of Bengal, to both the east (Vaṅga and Samataṭa) and
west (Vardhamāna and Navyāvakāśikā).
16
The ruins of Karṇasuvarṇa have been found at Rājabāḍīdāṅga (Rajbaridanga),
twelve km southwest of Berhampore in the Murshidabad District of West Bengal.
17
The Pauṇḍras are said in the Mahābhārata to dwell to the east of Mudgagiri
(current Munger in Bihar), and to have as their ancestor a prince Puṇḍra who ruled
on the banks of the Kauśikī. Constantly shifting its channel westward, the Kauśikī
(Kosi) today is a tributary of the Gaṅgā, but originally it ran eastward converging
with the Mahānandā, and flowed into the Karatoyā (R.C. Majumdar 1971: 5). On
the basis of Xuanzang’s estimations of the circuit of Puṇḍravardhana (4000 li =
1660 km), it has been inferred that the kingdom would have laid over an extent
from the Ṭīstā and the Brahmaputra on the east to the Mahānandā on the west, and
the Gaṅgā on the south, a territory corresponding rougly to the present Rajshahi
Division of Bangladesh (Cunningham 1871: 480).
18
An analogous fate to Tāmraliptī would have Saptagrāma or Sātgāon suffered in
the sixteenth century.
19
Due to its position and distance from Kāmarūpa (about 1250 li = 518.75 km)
and Tāmraliptī (900 li = 373.5 km), the capital of Samataṭa in the seventh century
had been located by Alexander Cunningham (1871: 501–502) in Jessore, and even
identified as the Gángē Basíleion of Ptolemy. This location was based on the fact
that, especially in a riverine land like lower Bengal, road distances should be
calculated about one fourth greater than the point-to-point aerial ones. But, since
the distance between Tamluk (Tāmraliptī) and Jessore is 164.47 km on the map,
even if we add one fourth to it (41.1175 km), the result (205.5875 km) still lacks
almost one hundred and fifty km to the distance given by Xuanzang. A more
realistic calculation would locate the capital in the area of Comilla which lies
within the compass of 360 km from Tamluk.
20
What we know about the Khaḍgas comes from (1) two copperplate inscriptions
of Devakhaḍga discovered at Ashrafpur, fifty km northeast of Dhaka (Mitra 1885;
Laskar 1906); (2) one short pedestal inscription of Devakhaḍga’s queen
Prabhāvatī on a brass image of Śiva’s consort Sarvāṇī found at Deulbari, twenty-
three km south of Comilla, and stolen shortly after its discovery (Bhattasali 1923–
24b; Huntington 1984: 28–29, 205); (3) one copperplate of Balabhaṭa on the
Mainamati Hills, eight km west of Comilla (Gupta 1979); (4) eleven coins sold by
a local collector of Comilla to the Bangladesh National Museum (no. E-93.317–E-
93.326), (5) one coin with the inscription ratnattraya on the obverse, from a single
auction specimen in Baldwin’s Auction no. 21, October 1999, lot 802 (Mitchiner
2000: 62, no. 82), (6) one coin of the ratnattraya type from the collection of John
S. Deyell, acquired by Joe Cribb for the British Museum in 1999 (Deyell 2011),
(7) a few more coins of this ratnattraya type seen on the market in subsequent
years (Deyell 2011: 101), like the one from CoinArchives’ Auction no. 26,
January 2017, lot 192 (Figure 9), and (7) a piece of information witnessed by the
Chinese Buddhist pilgrim Yijing.
21
A seal with the goddess Lakṣmī standing on a lotus is attached to the plate. Two
legends, one in relief below the lotus and one impressed on the right of Lakṣmī,
read kumārāmātyādhikaraṇasya and lokanātasya respectively: in all probability,
the grant would have been issued from the office (adhikaraṇa) of the district
magistrate (kumārāmātya) of an unmentioned overlord, and countersigned by a
Lokanātha whose ancestors are eulogised in nine verses (ll. 2–16). Owing to
corrosion of the copperplate, we cannot read the first name of the founder of the
dynasty, but we can infer that he was the first Nātha endowed with legal access to
the royal charter of kumārāmātya (l. 1). In the inscription this Mr. Nātha is
referred to as adhimahārāja (l. 5). The title, like adhirāja, is typically a royal one,
but sometimes it has been applied also to feudatories; so it seems to be the case
here, because his warlike son Śrīnātha is described as a sāmanta (l. 6). Then, the
latter’s pious son Bhavanātha would have abdicated in favour of a nephew whose
name is not mentioned. His successor, we do not know whether son or nephew of
the latter, was Lokanātha. The inscription describes him as a mixed-caste (karaṇa,
l. 16) because his mother was a pāraśava (l. 9), i.e. born from a brāhmaṇa father
and a śūdra mother, a form of marriage permissible and common in the seventh
century (Basak 1934: 197).
60 TILOPĀ I
22
Like the copperplate of Lokanātha, also the Kailan one shows a heavy brazen
seal attached to its left side, with the goddess Lakṣmī standing on a lotus. A
legend in raised letters read śrīmat Samataṭeśvarapādānudhyātasya, and
kumārāmatyādhikaraṇasya. There is another legend, afterwards embossed on the
seal to the right of the deity, where we read śrīśrīdharaṇaratasya, suggesting that
Śrīdhāraṇarāta would have countersigned the document.
23
Śrīdhāraṇarāta is represented with the subordinate title prāptapañcamahāśabda,
an epithet to be understood in the twelfth-century Rājataraṅgiṇī as indicating the
enjoyment of a combination of five official designations beginning with the word
mahat, namely high chamberlain (mahāpratīhāra), minister for foreign affairs
(mahāsāndhivigrahika), superintendent of the stables (mahāśvaśālādhikṛta),
treasurer (mahābhāṇḍāgārika), and chief military officer (mahāsādhanika).
24
Only two inscriptions have been published, the Mainamati plate of Ānandadeva
with his son Bhavadeva’s endorsement on the reverse (Sircar 1951), and the
Calcutta Asiatic Society plate of Bhavadeva from the Ānanda Vihāra on the
Mainamati Hills. Śāntideva would have come first. Then, while his son Vīradeva
is titled mahārāja, Ānandadeva, son by Vīradeva’s wife, is titled
mahārājādhirāja. The latter’s son and successor Bhavadeva, titled ‘the highest
lord, the noble lord, a king among great kings’ (parameśvara paramabhaṭṭāraka
mahārājādhirāja), is the last known king of the dynasty.
25
It sounds difficult that the name Nyi ’og could refer to the eastern side of the
western border. This would be the case if we interpret it as Skt aparāntaka on the
basis of its unique occurrence in the eighth–ninth century Sanskrit-Tibetan
dictionary of the Mahāvyutpatti (MVy 9179), nyi ’og gi gos, meaning ‘western
style cloth’. In point of fact, whereas Aparānta or Aparāntaka is usually
understood as the ancient western coastal region of India familiar to the early
Buddhist tradition (Lamotte 1958: 328), what is denoted here in a broad sense
could be understood as either the world ‘under heaven’ (nyi ’og) like the Chinese
tianxia (天下, Kapstein 2009: 66 n. 59), or northern India from coast to coast, ‘the
limits of which have nothing beyond’ (apara-anta).
26
Seemingly, the name originates from the Kuki peoples speaking different
Tibeto-Burman dialects and living since a remote time dispersed in the present-
day contiguous states of Manipur, Nagaland, Assam and Mizoram, in the
Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh, and in northwestern Myanmar.
27
The traditional etymon of Arakan is from Pāli rakkhasa (Skt rākṣasa), as it
would be confirmed by Burmese bilu, ‘ogre’ or ‘demon’, and by the old Tamil
word arrakaṉ for Sanskrit rākṣasa. Another feasible etymon could be found
through Tamil arrakam, arakku, Malayalam arakku, Kannaḍa aragu, Tulu araků,
aragů, ‘lac’, ‘shellac’, for Sanskrit rākṣā (Burrow and Emeneau 1961: no. 199). It
is reasonable to conjecture that the resin secreted by an insect (Kerria lacca) on
certain trees, mainly in India and Thailand, and used for dyeing and other
applications, could have been a valuable merchandise produced by the ancient hill
tribes of that land.
28
As the script almost matches with that of Yaśovarmadeva’s inscription at
Nālandā, it has been assigned by Johnston (1944) to the first half of the eighth
century to a date ‘not much later than’ 700, and by Sircar (1957–58) to about 729
on the basis of the reign-span of Yaśovarman (c. 725–c. 754). This datation is
confirmed not only by a comparison with the above mentioned copperplate of
Bhavadeva (Sircar 1951), but also by the internal evidence of a contemporary king
Śīlamegha mentioned therein, as Śīlamegha would be the throne name of king
Aggabodhi IV of Ceylon who reigned 727–766 (Gutman 1976: 36–38).
29
The ancient Dhanyawadi reveals an inner city and an outer one. The former, a
quadrangular walled area with another square series of walls inside it, should be
the site of the king’s palace, his court, and the administrative power. Close to its
northern side, the important Buddhist pilgrimage destination of Mahāmuni temple
was the centre of the outer city. The latter, almost oval in shape, walled an area of
5.6 km2. Considering the scarcity of brick foundations in the interval between the
outer and inner city walls, its inhabitants must have been common people living in
wooden structures, whose paddy fields were enclosed within the outer walls as
well, in order to prevent the recurrent raids by hill tribes. Since archaeology gives
evidence that Dhanyawadi was inhabited until the early sixth century, seemingly
the capital would have been shifted to Vesālī in that period (Gutman 1976: 43).
30
Vesālī was founded in the sixth century about ten km south of Dhanyawadi.
Larger (6.2 km2) and safer than Dhanyawadi, to embrace the most of drained land
on the foothills, the new capital has a somewhat oval shape. We can distinguish an
inner rectangular royal city (457  305 m) with walls protected by a moat, and the
cultivated fields within the outer walls.
31
Purempura has been identified with a place mentioned in the Pāli Mahāniddesa,
Naranapūra in Sinhalese manuscripts, Purapura or Parapūra in Burmese
manuscripts, and Parammukha or Parapura in Thai manuscripts (Johnston 1944:
369). It may reasonably be equated with the coastal trade port of Barakura
described by Ptolemy (Barakóura empórion, Ptol. Geog. 7.2.2.10; Renou 1925:
62 TILOPĀ I
43), at present the village of Parapāra, on the west bank of the Nāf.
32
As to the sources available in Tibet at the beginning of the seventeenth century,
Tāranātha listed the ones he had used for his compilation (rGya gar chos ’byung
130b1–5; THBI 350–51): (1) a variety of fragmentary narrations and compilations
chronologically incomplete, and probably barely reliable; (2) an unnamed work in
two thousand ślokas by a paṇḍita of Magadha, *Kṣemendrabhadra or
*Dharaṇīndrabhadra (Sa dbang bzang po), covering the history up to the time of
the Pāla king Rāmapāla; (3) the oral accounts of some Indian paṇḍitas; (4) a
Buddhapurāṇa, in one thousand and two hundred ślokas, by a kṣatriya paṇḍita
Indradatta (dbang pos sbyin) covering the period up to the four Sena kings; (5) an
untitled account of the succession of the teachers (slob dpon : ācārya) of
Vikramaśīla, of similar length, by a brāhmaṇa paṇḍita Bhaṭāghaṭī.
33
Yaśovarman seized Kanauj around 720 but was defeated in 733 by Lalitāditya
Muktapīḍa (c. 725–c. 756), the emperor of the Kashmiri dynasty of the Kārkoṭas.
34
As to the word prakṛti, we will see Tāranātha’s gtso bo gtso bo rnams (rGya gar
chos ’byung 192.3) to confirm the interpretation of prakṛti in the above context as
‘chiefs’ rather than ‘subjects’, as a more democratic reading would have suggested
(R.C. Majumdar 1971: 95–96). But, in the light of this not so much egalitarian
perspective, it is this primal ‘law of fish’, according to which the small fish is
devoured by those who are stronger than it, that a king has to face.
35
Interestingly, according to Tāranātha’s sources, the nāginī would have been the
queen dowager of either king Gopicandra (rgyal po Go pi tsan dra’i btsun mo) or
Lalitacandra (La li ta tsan dra’i btsun mo), the last two Candras mentioned above.
Tāranātha explains that she would have been a powerful and ferocious nāginī
made the queen of a former king (or the former of the two brothers, i.e.
Gopicandra) who was gifted with magic powers (sngon rgyal po rdzu ’phrul can).
36
Dantidurga (c. 735–c. 755) rose to power at the expense of the Chāḷukya king
Solankī ‘Vallabha’ Kīrtivarman, and assumed the title Vallabharāja, which was
attached to the names of the subsequent Rāṣṭrakūṭa kings (Reu 1933: 42).
37
The coastal markets of western India had suffered Arab retaliations since the
last quarter of the seventh century for the attacks of pirates―seemingly protected
by the king of Sindh, Rājā Dāhir (661–712)―on Arab shipping. Thus, about
eighty years since the death of Muhammad (c. 632), while the Umayyad general
Tariq ibn Ziyad conquered the Visigothic kingdom of Hispania, another Umayyad
general, Muhammad Bin Qasim, had entered the Indian subcontinent at the orders
of the governor of Iraq, Al-Ḥajjāj bin Yūsuf. With the defeat and death of Rājā
Dāhir in 712, the dominion of the Umayyad Caliphate (Al-Ḫilāfa al-ʾumawiyya)
had been established also in the Indus Valley. Few years later, in 738, the forward
intrusion of the Arabs of Sindh was stopped by Nāgabhaṭa I.
38
The episode can be read in the Khalimpur inscription (ll. 21–23, v. 12; Kielhorn
1896–97: 248, 252), which describes how an unnamed king of Kānyakubja
(Kanauj) was installed by the Parameśvara Paramabhaṭṭāraka Mahārājādhirāja
Dharmapāladeva with the ready approval of the convened kings. The name of the
king of Kanauj, Cakrāyudha, is known to us from the Gwalior inscription (l. 7, v.
9b; R.C. Majumdar 1925–26: 108), where he is described as one whose lowly
demeanour was manifest from his dependence on others.
39
Thus we infer from the eleventh-century Rāmganj copperplate inscription of
Īśvaraghoṣa (N.G. Majumdar 1929: 149), where the donor is an alleged
mahāmāṇḍalika (= maṇḍalādhipati) with rājans, rājanyakas, rājanakas, rāṇakas,
sāmantas, and mahāsāmantas at his command. Since the inscription refers to the
viṣaya as a subunit of a maṇdala, the latter may be regarded as akin to the bhukti:
possibly, as suggested by Ramesh Chandra Majumdar (1971: 307–308), the bhukti
was an administrative unit ruled by the Pālas through their uparikas, while the
maṇḍala was under an adhipati enjoying internal autonomy.
40
Most probably, the walls were covered by thin malleable sheets of brass, as the
Chinese term yushi (俞石) would be for the calamine stone (Medhurst 1842–43:
s.v. shih), i.e. Lat. cadmea (Plin. Nat. 34.2), used in the formation of brass.
41
The site has been located thirteen km far from the ruins of Nālandā.
42
To prove Tāranātha’s confusion in compiling from his sources on this point, he
relates almost the same legend as told by Bu ston, but so as to ascribe the
foundation of Somapura Mahāvihāra to Devapāla (rGya gar chos ’byung 196.5–
197.6; THBI 265–66).
43
The site of Vikramaśīla has been identified with the remains brought to light at
Antichak, a village on the right bank of the Gaṅgā in the Bhagalpur District of
Bihar. The village is located at about fifty km east of Bhagalpur, and about
thirteen km northeast of Kahalgaon.
44
Nine field seasons of digging since 1960 by the Department of Ancient Indian
History and Archaeology of the Patna University, and a large excavation in the
years 1971 to 1882 by the Vikramashila Excavation Project of the Archaeological
64 TILOPĀ I
Survey of India have revealed a huge square monastery with a cruciform stūpa in
its centre, a library building, and a number of votive stūpas; in particular, a copper
seal with the legend vikramasya found there is noteworthy (Indian Archaeology –
A Review 1973–74: 9).
45
The ruins of Somapura have been found in the current Paharpur less than fifty
km northwest of Mahasthangarh, the ancient Puṇḍranagara on the banks of the
Karatoyā River (Ghoshal 1934).
46
B. kaḍi, H. kauḍī : Skt kapardaḥ, kapardikā, Pkt kavaḍḍa-, kavaḍḍiā. A later
account of the Venetian merchant Marco Polo (1254–1324) confirms this use of
cowries in the southeast of Asia. Curiously, the word he uses is porcellana: from
Italian porcello, in turn from Latin porcus, meaning a ‘female little pig’ or ‘gilt’,
but also alluding to the genitals of a virgin, as attested by M. Terentius Varro (Var.
Rust. 2.4.10). It is probably in this latter sense that Marco Polo adopted it on
account of the resemblance of the fissure of the shell to a vulva.
47
As to the diffusion of the cowries as small currency, Marco Polo reports about
their use in Yunnan, Bengal (Bangala), Jiaozhi (Cauçugu, Caugigu), and Annam
(Amu), today in northern Vietnam. Following the Latin version (De mirabilibus
mundi) in the redaction Z of a fifteenth-century manuscript kept at Toledo, Spain
(Barbieri 1998), the portions of Yunnan mentioned by Marco Polo are, (1) Carajan
(Ms. Z Caraçan, Carayan), i.e. Dali in northwestern Yunnan (...expe‹n›dunt pro
monetas porcellanas, 56.16; ...in ista quoque provincia expe‹n›dunt similiter
porcelanas de quibus superius declaratum, 57.7); (2) Zardandan (Çardandan), in
Persian ‘gold teeth’, the land of the people of Jinchi, ‘gold teeth’ in Chinese,
identified with the Dai people of current Baoshan in western Yunnan (...moneta
eorum est aurum, sed expendunt etiam porcelanas, 58.12); (3) Toloman in
northeastern Yunnan (...invenitur etiam in provincia illa aurum in habundancia.
Moneta quam minutim expendunt sunt porcellane, de quibus superius declaratur.
Et similiter supradicte provincie Bangala, Cauzugu et Amu expendunt porcellanas
et aurum. Aliqui sunt mercatores; et illi divites sunt valde, et multis et magnis
utuntur mercimon‹i›is, 63.8–10).
48
Sulaymān’s mention of an animal with a single horn lets us identify this kind of
Rhinocerotidae with the Indian (Rhinoceros unicornis) and the Javan (Rhinoceros
sondaicus) species who have one horn only.
49
Another possibility has been suggested by H. Rashid (1968: 251 ff. in Gutman
1976: 320) who cannot exlude that Rohitāgiri-bhujām-vaṃśa could be a metaphor
for the Arakanese Candras because the hills near Vesālī are red in the dry season.
II — THE HAGIOGRAPHIC TRADITION
Ómēron ex Omḗrou saphēnízein (Porph. Quaest.

Hom. 2.297.16)
A
t Aristarchus’ suggestion that we should ‘elucidate Homer out of
Homer’, a contextual approach to the most significant sources on
the hero of these pages can be conducive to a better comprehension
of several peculiar expressions, as well as historically and geographically
puzzling passages therein.
The Sources
It may be convenient to describe at the outset the relevant hagiographic
material, arranging in chronological order the sources sifted through, each
of them marked by a progressive letter of the Greek alphabet.
Source α ― Shamsher Manuscript

This Nepalese palm-leaf fragmentary manuscript (IASWR, MB II 144) has
been discovered in the late Twenties of the last century from the collection
of Kaiser Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana in Kathmandu (Tucci 1930; Lévi
1930–32; Pandey 1990). It is the most important Buddhist hagiographic
record of siddhas we know in Sanskrit. Being free of any later Tibetan
intervention, we will see later that the anonymous texts therein bunched
together represent an unavoidable reference point in discussing any
historical question concerning the siddhas’ movement on the prevalent
65
66 TILOPĀ II
basis of Tibetan tradition. Since it contains an account of the ‘siddha-

philosopher’ Maitrīgupta, contemporary with Dīpaṃkara Śrījñāna Atiśa (c.
982–c. 1054), and the account ends in his mid-career, it has reasonably
inferred that the texts are nearly contemporary and should go back to the
eleventh century (Tatz 1987: 696).
FIGURE 1: Mar pa. rNal ’byor gyi dbang phyug ti lo pa’i lo rgyus, fol. 1b
Source β ― Mar pa
(1) rNal ’byor gyi dbang phyug ti lo pa’i lo rgyus (Torricelli and Naga 1995),
(2) dPal na ro paṇ chen gyi lo rgyus. In bDe mchog mkha’ ’gro snyan brgyud,
KHA: brGyud pa yid bzhin nor bu’i rnam par thar pa.
These two texts are known to us through a codex unicus which can be
found in a manuscript from the library of A pho rin po che Ye shes rang
grol (1925–74), the grandson of the ’Brug pa bKa’ brgyud master Shā kya
shrī rTogs ldan (1853–1919). Handwritten in an elegant cursive script (dbu
med), the manuscript contains a bKa’ brgyud scholastic manual (yig cha)
titled ‘The Aural Transmission from the Ḍākinīs of Śambara’ (bDe mchog
mkha’ ’gro snyan brgyud). It has been described in an anonymous preface
by Ellis Gene Smith in 1973 when its photostat reproduction was
published, and then by Peter Alan Roberts (2007).
As we will see more in detail later, this kind of textual collections
generally has two main sections, viz. the accounts of the successive masters
in the transmission lineage (brgyud), and the instructions relevant to that
esoteric tradition (snyan brgyud). In addition, these compilations can be
introduced by a survey of the teachings therein included. In our case, the
collection is preceded by the valuable ‘Introductory Notes by the Translator
of Zhang’ (Zhang lo’i thim yig), namely Zhang Lo tsā ba Grub pa dpal
Byang chub ’od zer, one of the earliest protagonists of the bDe mchog
snyan brgyud (Torricelli 2001). As to the transmission lineage, the
collection has the accounts of the following masters, some tentative dates
of whom have been proposed by Gene Smith and rectified by Roberts
(2007: 16, 50) on the basis of the internal evidence of the biographies―
THE HAGIOGRAPHIC TRADITION 67
Tilopa
|
Nāropā
(c. 956 – c. 1040)
|
Mar pa Chos kyi blo gros
(c. 1012 – c. 1097)
|
Mi la ras pa
(1040/52–1123/35)
|
Ras chung rDo rje grags pa
(1084–1161)
|
Khyung tshang pa Ye shes bla ma
(1115–1176)
|
Mar ston Tshul khrims Slob dpon sTar sgom Ma gcig Ang jo
’byung gnas | |
| | |
Zhang Lo tsā ba Grub pa dpal

(?–1237)
|
Dha ra shrī (rDa ra shrī)
|
bSod nams rgyal mtshan
|
Kun ldan ras ma
|
Bya btang pa bDe legs rin chen gZi brjid rgyal mtshan
(?–1337) (1290–1360)
| |
Dus zhabs pa Rin chen rgya mtsho

(?–1400)
|
Chos grags dpal bzang po
|
’Jam pa’i dbyangs Rin chen rgyal mtshan
(1453–1517)
68 TILOPĀ II
|
gNas rnying pa rGyal mtshan rin chen
|
Byams pa gser mchog ’Od zer dpal
|
Shar kha ras chen
|
Kun dga’ dar po (Ā nan da da ya)
We read in Gene Smith’s preface to the two-volume photostat, that ‘the yig
cha itself is, to a large extent, the work of Shar kha ras chen, Kun dga’ dar
po, and Byang chub bzang po’. The first master, who could be identified
with Ras chen Chos rje Shar ka (Roberts 2007: 47, 50), is the author of two
teachings, and the second of thirteen. Out of the latter’s texts, in the
colophon of the ’Khor lo sdom pa snyan brgyud lugs kyi dkyil ’khor sdom
tshig mun sel sgron me (p. 802 of the photostat of the first volume), we
read that Kun dga’ dar po (Ā nan da da ya) composed it (sbyar) at Se brag
sgrub gling ‘at the behest of Kun dga’ dpal ’byor’ (Kun dga’ dpal ’byor
zhes bya ring bskul ngor) in a Fire Rabbit year (rab byung zhes bya me pho
yos kyi lo). The year could be either 1447 if in the eighth Tibetan sixty-year
cycle (rab byung), or 1507 if in the ninth. On the other hand, since the
colophon shows Kun dga’ dar po’s personal connection with the Second
’Brug chen Kun dga’ dpal ’byor (1428–76), the year 1447 would seem
more realistic.
As to the third master, Byang chub bzang po (Bo dhi bha dra) authored
two instructional texts as well as two hagiographies. In fact, having been a
pupil of the last two ’Brug pa bKa’ brgyud masters whose accounts appear
in the collection―Shar kha Ras chen and the latter’s disciple Kun dga’ dar
po―he is the author of their accounts.1 We may thus reasonably infer that
this bDe mchog mkha’ ’gro snyan brgyud was compiled and edited by
Byang chub bzang po in the first half of the sixteenth century.
Unfortunately, his role as a compiler of the whole yig cha is less apparent.
First of all, we do not know whether he completed a work already begun by
his gurus, or the responsibility of both project and its fulfilment are to be
ascribed only to him; what’s more, we do not know his modus operandi in
the compilation of the texts.2 Let us see if ‘elucidating Homer out of
Homer’ can be of some help.
The Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs is a ninety-volume
collection of Tibetan historical and biographical texts. This ‘History Set’
(HS) has been compiled and facsimiled in recent times (2010–12) by the
editorial house of dPal brtsegs in Lhasa. Among the works reproduced from
ancient manuscripts and woodblock prints preserved for the most part in
the Drepung Monastery libraries, we can find another text authored by
Byang chub bzang po, the ‘Garland of Wish-fulfilling Gems of the Aural
Transmission Lineage’ (sNyan brgyud kyi brgyud pa yid bzhin nor bu’i
phreng ba 22: 249–455). This work includes the accounts of the sNyan
brgyud masters from Tilopa to Kun dga’ dar po, and its structure tallies
with that of our source β, with the exception of the rnam thar of Slob dpon
sTar sgom, which is missing in HS. A first comparison between the two
collections shows that, out of twenty-one hagiographies, thirteen texts
covering more than half of the whole work, are identical (=), and eight are
different (≠)—
β pp. HS pp.
Tilopa 8–28 ≠ 250–261
Nāropā 29–62 ≠ 261–276
Mar pa 63–96 ≠ 276–283
Mi la ras pa 97–125 ≠ 283–292
Ras chung 125–150 ≠ 292–310
Khyung tshang pa Ye shes bla ma 151–164 ≠ 310–320
Mar ston Tshul khrims ’byung gnas 165–169 = 320–325
Slob dpon sTar sgom 170–174 ― ―
Ma gcig Ang jo 175–176 = 325–327
Zhang Lo tsā ba 176–186 = 327–337
Dha ra shrī 187–196 = 337–347
bSod nams rgyal mtshan 197–206 = 347–357
Kun ldan ras ma 207–214 = 357–364
Bya btang pa bDe legs rin chen 215–226 = 364–376
gZi brjid rgyal mtshan 226–236 = 376–386
Dus zhabs pa Rin chen rgya mtsho 237–246 = 386–396
Chos grags dpal bzang po 247–248 ≠ 396–398
’Jam pa’i dbyangs Rin chen rgyal mtshan 249–257 = 398–407
gNas rnying pa rGyal mtshan rin chen 259–272 = 407–421
Byams pa gser mchog ’Od zer dpal 273–280 ≠ 422–425
Shar kha ras chen 281–291 = 425–434
Kun dga’ dar po 293–312 = 434–455
We can assume that Byang chub bzang po arranged two versions of the
same hagiographic collection. It stands to reason that also the HS text had
been prepared with the aim of fulfilling the same function within the same
scholastic context. Most probably, our editor organized the accounts of the
70 TILOPĀ II
successive masters of the bDe mchog snyan brgyud in parallel with the
instructions to be included in the yig cha. Now, given that he did it twice,
and the final version is obviously consistent with the one preserved along
with the instructional section in the manuscript β, we can infer that the HS
version represents its previous form.
For what reason did Byang chub bzang po compose the same collection
on two occasions? What happened since the time of the former version
until that of the latter? Apart from the texts matching in β and HS,3 out of
the eight ones that differ, HS has no final note at all for five, viz. the rnam
thars of Tilopa, Nāropā, Mi la ras pa, Ras chung, and Khyung tshang pa Ye
shes bla ma: thus, most likely they are the work of Byang chub bzang po
himself. As to the other three different texts, whereas the first two could
reasonably be ascribed to Byang chub bzang po as well, only the last one
has a genuine colophon.4
With regard to β, it appears in the colophon of the first text that it has
been composed at Gro bo lung in lHo brag by the great bKa’ brgyud master
and translator (lo tsā ba) Mar pa Chos kyi blo gros (c. 1012–c. 1097):5
de nas grub pa thob pas kyang sprul Now, the account of the lord of yoga
pa’i skur grags pa | rnal ’byor gyi dbang Tilopa who attained perfection and was
phyug te lo pa’i lo rgyus | sku che ba’i also celebrated as a nirmāṇakāya,
yon tan de nyid kyis mdzad pa’i gzhung composed in an autonomous way and
rang mtshan du byas nas mtha’ dag pa expounded in a complete form, the text
zhig bstan zin | dpal gro bo lung gi of the deeds performed by means of
dgon par | sras mdo sde’i don du yi ger those great good qualities has been
bkod pa rdzogs so (β 28). written down for my son mDo sde in
the seclusion of Gro bo lung.
The colophon of the second text confirms the author, but it does not
mention any place of composition, albeit seemingly the same:
dpal na ro paṇ chen gyi lo rgyus bstan The account of the great scholar, the
zin to || sras mdo sde’i don du mar pas glorious Nāropā, has been revealed.
yi ger bkod pa rdzogs so (β 62). Mar pa has terminated to set it down in
writing for his son mDo sde.
Whereas the accounts of Tilopa and Nāropā are authored by Mar pa in

more formal colophons mentioning both place (only the former) and
recipient of the dedication, the next hagiography of Mar pa is allegedly
attributed to Mi la ras pa.6 The account of Mi la ras pa would have been
arranged in written form by Ras chung.7 That of Ras chung pa by Ra Sher

snang pa alias Rin chen Grags, his attendant (Roberts 2007: 50).8 That of
Khyung tshang pa Ye shes bla ma would have been composed by Zhang Lo
tsā ba.9 That of Chos grags dpal bzang po by Mi bskyod rdo rje.10
Eventually, the account of Byams pa gser mchog ’Od zer dpal is an
anonymous devotional hymn (gsol ’debs) to him.
If something happened to justify Byang chub bzang po’s new version
(β), it must be somehow relevant with all or part of these eight texts. In
actual fact, the largest part of what occurs in HS and has been replaced in β
is most probably the editorial work of Byang chub bzang po. Then, in the
new version every substituted text has its own colophon in which the
attributed authorship sounds barely credible. In point of fact, the authors of
those rnam thars would be so eminent and earlier that it is tempting to
agree with Roberts (2007: 50):
Unfortunately, although the colophons of Tibetan texts can usually be

taken on trust, these biographies are not from an early date, and their
attributed authorship is spurious; it is probably a late devotional
attribution.
Was Byang chub bzang po a counterfeiter, a sort of liar, albeit a

‘devotional’ one? For sure this Tibetan monk and meditator of the first half
of the sixteenth century was fully conversant with the history of his
Buddhist tradition, the ’Brug pa bKa’ brgyud pa. Consequently, he could
not be unaware of the cultural weight of the attributed authorship for some
of the new texts in β. Could he have been so naive to underestimate the
consequences of such cumbersome attributions on the history of his own
tradition? Probably not: thus, still on the supposition that it could be matter
of forgery, we have at least to acknowledge that Byang chub bzang po must
have acted bona fide.
In a possible scenario which could justify the new entries of β, we can
imagine that our honest editor, after compiling the HS collection, had had
in his hands a number of old papers, no matter whether found in a library or
given by someone else. Besides, we must take into account that the old
papers he would have collected also included Zhang Lo tsā ba’s
‘Introductory Notes’, another weighty foundation stone of the bDe mchog
snyan brgyud tradition: is the Zhang lo’i thim yig spurious as well? Since
the alleged Donation of Constantine (Constitutum domini Constantini
imperatoris), Western scholars are so much used to ecclesiastical forgery
72 TILOPĀ II
and mendacity, that they are naturally skeptical about clerical documents.
Nevertheless, a handful of facts seems to corroborate the authenticity of
those old Tibetan papers.
First, whereas the former account appears on the whole more accurate,
the latter gives the impression to be a rough draft. As a matter of fact, in the
account of Nāropā fifteen shorthand glosses can be found. If we observe
some cases, we see that these glosses can play either a narrative or a
poetical function. In the first case the author shortens the narrative context:
de nas bla ma’i sprul par ngo ma shes te After that, how he felt sad for having
’gyod pa dang | bla ma yid la byed cing not recognized it as a magical
phyin tshul sogs gong dang ’dra bar kun apparition of the guru, he proceeded
la shes par bya’o (β 36.6–7). keeping in mind the guru, and all the
rest should be known to every one as
similar to the above.
Likewise, in the second case,
zhes pa’i bar rnams dgos pa’i dbang gis The text up to the above, apart from the
| ’don pa bsgyur ba ma gtogs gong dang modified chant, should be combined
’dra bar kun la sbyar bar bya’o || yang according to the need with all in the
te lo pa gar gshegs cha med cing | lo same way as above. Again, how Telopa
gcig gi bar du chos dang tha mal gyi vanished with no trace, and for one year
gtam gcig kyang ma byung yang | nā there was not even one single
ros phyi bzhin du ’brengs te dka’ ba doctrinary or conventional communica-
chen pos btsal tshul sogs kyang gong tion, and also how Nāropā went after
dang ’dra shes par bya’o (β 46.1–3). seeking for him through great hardship,
and so forth should be known as above.
On the contrary, the third gloss clips the poetical context:
dus gsum sangs rgyas thams cad dang || ‘All Buddhas of the three times, and...’
zhes dang dngos kyi tshig rkang gsum Including this, the three original lines of
po gong dang ’dra ba la | thun mongs the verse are as above; [add] to them:
yid bzhin nor bu ltos (β 46.6). ‘Look at the common wish-fulfilling
gem’.
Again, whereas the fourth clip is in the narration,
nā ro pas ma go tshul sogs gong dang How Nāropā did not understand, and so
’dra’o (β 46.6–7). forth is as above.
the fifth is poetical:
dus gsum zhes sogs dang | dam tshig ‘[All Buddhas of] the three times, [and]
yid bzhin nor bu ltos (β 47.3). ...’ Including this, and so forth, [add:]
‘Look at the wish-fulfilling gem of
commitments’.
Poetical as well are the subsequent clips, from the sixth to the fourteenth.11
Only the last clip is again a narrative one:
zhes pa’i dka’ chen re res bzhin la It must be said combining it with what
sbyor zhes par bya’o (β 52.7). corresponds to one by one of the above
told hardships.
Quite sophisticated a forger would have been our editor to prepare a first
well organized text, and the following one as a rushed draft, without even
resolving the shortenings.
Moreover, as we will see more in detail in the next chapter, out of the
major points of discussion in Nāropā’s hagiographies, his
birthplace―whether in Kashmir or in Bengal―plays a prominent part
(Davidson 2005: 45). Now, whereas Byang chub bzang po’s account in HS
correctly places Nāropā’s birthplace in Bengal, the corresponding new
entry in β locates it in Kashmir.12 We may thus take for granted that our
editor was not responsible of the peculiarities of the account in β.
We know from the opening dedicatory verses of the former text (β 9) as
well as from both colophons that these accounts (lo rgyus) were ‘arranged
in written form’ (yi ger bkod pa) by Mar pa for the sake of his son Dar ma
mDo sde (sras mDo sde’i don du). If the fifteenth-century ‘Blue Annals’,
the Deb ther sngon po by ’Gos Lo tsā ba, are still reliable on that point,
Mar pa would have taken bDag med ma as his main wife after his second
journey to India in 1054, at the age of forty-two (Deb ther sngon po 354.4;
BA 402). It is reasonable that Mar pa and bDag med ma’s eldest son, Dar
ma mDo sde, had been born approximately one year later, around 1055. We
are also informed that Mi la ras pa resided six years and about eight months
with Mar pa, since the age of thirty-eight to forty-four (Deb ther sngon po
378.1–3; BA 432–33), i.e. in the years 1078–1084. Given that mDo sde
would have died when Mi la ras pa was still with Mar pa, the years 1055–
1084 could be the tentative dates of Dar ma mDo sde’s lifespan.
74 TILOPĀ II
Consequently, Mar pa should have composed both accounts at some time

of the same period.
Notwithstanding the widely acknowledged bKa’ brgyud ‘proclivity to
fictionalize almost every aspects of its lineage’ (Davidson 2005: 142), it is
human psychology more than philology to leave us hardly any doubt about
the authenticity of these two texts. Mar pa was a father, and his eldest son’s
temper would have been even too much akin to his own. As Mar pa’s father
had been anxious about him during the latter’s first years, so was Mar pa as
a father in turn when facing with Dar ma mdo sde’s intemperances. From
this viewpoint, the three occurences of mDo sde’s name in a dedicatory
context (mDo sde’i don) would imply that Mar pa not only composed the
two accounts for the sake of his son, but also that the ‘one to be disciplined’
(gdul bya) alluded to in the first verse of the rNal ’byor gyi dbang phyug ti
lo pa’i lo rgyus is not a generic disciple, but first and foremost mDo sde
himself.
A hypercritical approach could even suggest that dedicatory verses and
colophons be another case of fictional contrivance to ascribe the texts to
Mar pa. As it was the case with mDo sde’s tragic―and so stupid―fall
from a horse, a hypothetical posthumous concoctor of the first two bKa’
brgyud masters’ accounts mentioning Mar pa’s alleged heir would be far
too cynical a counterfeiter, even for a clericus.
If this has been the case, we can reasonably assume that it is matter here
of a pedagogical strategy―a paternal one―which would have brought Mar
pa to inaugurate with these two accounts the fortunate genre of the bKa’
brgyud collections of hagiographies known as ‘golden rosaries’ (gser
’phreng). Albeit not exclusively confined to the bKa’ brgyud pas, assuming
that the hagiographic genre of gser ’phreng was especially popular with the
early bKa’ brgyud masters, Gene Smith (2001: 39) conjectures that ‘the
gser ’phreng originated among the ’Brug pa and sTag lung traditions
within which bla mchod (gurupūjā) and rnam thar reached their highest
degree of elaboration as liturgical and contemplative practices’.
Having been composed in the second half of the eleventh century, a
second ancillary conjecture is that, they are the earliest hagiographies of the
two Bengali siddhas we have.
Source γ ― Vajrāsana
*Caturaśītisiddhābhyarthanā (Grub thob brgyad cu rtsa bzhi’i gsol
’debs). In bsTan ’gyur, rGyud (Ō. 4578, Tō. 3758; Schmid 1958; Egyed
1984; Linrothe 2006: 427–32).
The colophon of this ‘authentically Indian list’ (Davidson 2002b: 306) of

eighty-five siddhas ascribes it to the guru rDo rje gdan pa (bla ma rdo rje
gdan pa), that is Vajrāsana, and the translation-cum-revision (bsgyur cing
zhus te gtan la phab ba) to the paṇḍita Vairocana (paṇ ḍi ta Bai ro ca na),
with the translator Chos kyi grags pa (lo tsā ba shrī Chos kyi grags pa).13
As we read in the thirty-fourth chapter of Tāranātha’s rGya gar chos
’byung (226.2–3; THBI 305), the Pāla king Nayapāla (c. 1042–c. 1058)
revered a Vajrāsana the Great (Mahāvajrāsana : rDo rje gdan pa chen po),
called Puṇyaśrī when a layman (dge bsnyen : upāsaka), and
Puṇyākaragupta once taken the monastic vows (rab tu byung ba :
pravrajita). Moreover, in his ‘Account of Succession of Abbots at
Vikramaśīla’, Tāranātha records that, when Atiśa left his chair of abbot
(mkhan po : upādhyāya), no doubt when he departed for Tibet around 1042,
there was a vacancy of seven years; then the position was held by
Vajrāsana the Great (Mahāvajrāsana) for a while (rGya gar chos ’byung
242.3; THBI 329). Further details do we have from Tāranātha’s earlier bKa’
babs bdun ldan (1600), the fifth chapter of which concerns the masters’
lineage of the generation stage (utpattikrama). Here Vajrāsana appears as
identifiable with either Vajrāsana the Great (Mahāvajrāsana : rDo rje gdan
pa chen po) contemporary with Atiśa, or the latter’s pupil, Vajrāsana the
Middle (rDo rje gdan pa bar pa), alias Ratnākaragupta (Ratna ā ka ra
gupta):14
As for the master Vajrāsana the Great (Mahāvajrāsana), he was born in

the district of Malabar. He was of brāhmaṇa caste and mastered all fields
of knowledge. Later he took monastic vows at Nālandā. He mastered
entirely all non-Buddhist (phyi) and Buddhist (nang) mantras, but in
particular he became really great as to the esoteric teachings (gdams ngag
: upadeśa). [...] At about the same time as Atiśa, he was enthroned abbot
of Vajrāsana. Later on he was also abbot of Vikramaśīla.
As for the latter’s pupil, Vajrāsana the Middle or Ratnākaragupta (de’i
slob ma rDo rje gdan pa bar pa Ratna ā ka ra gupta), he was born in the
eastern district of Gauḍa (Shar phyogs Gau ra’i yul). As to the caste, he
was a brāhmaṇa. From the earliest youth he mastered all the sūtras and
tantras. Since he had also perfected all the propitiatory services (bsnyen pa
: sevā), he practiced as a tantric master (rdo rje slob dpon : vajrācārya),
but he was only a layman (dge bsnyen : upāsaka). [...] Then the Ācārya
become a fully ordained monk at Vikramaśīla. There he met with a lot of
76 TILOPĀ II
paṇḍitas, yogins and esoteric teachings. He got all the Ācārya Vajrāsana’s
consecrations (dbang), tantras, and also esoteric teachings. Later he was
abbot of Vajrāsana for a long time (rDo rje gdan gyi mkhan po rgyun ring
du mdzad). Then he wanted to go to the south. Finally the Ācārya and
thirty disciples arrived at Sauri. [...] He stayed there in Sauri and even was
famous as Sauripāda (Sau ri pa). The Ācārya had perfected the
utpattikrama and had the vision of many chosen tutelary divinities (yi
dam). In particular, he enhanced the esoteric teachings in the land of
India... (bKa’ babs bdun ldan 448.1–449.4; cf. SIL 64–65).
Given that Vajrāsana the Great was a contemporary fellow of Atiśa, and
Vajrāsana the Middle one generation younger, we may surmise that both
flourished in the second half of the eleventh century. In addition, since the
text includes Atiśa himself (Mar me mdzad, no. 22) among the eighty-five
siddhas, it is more realistic to ascribe the *Caturaśītisiddhābhyarthanā to
Vajrāsana the Middle alias Ratnākaragupta. This conjecture is corroborated
by the fact that, while the former was from the south of India, the latter was
from Gauḍa, therefore a Bengali like most of the eulogized siddhas.
Moreover, he would have been well versed in propitiatory services (sevā)
and consistent devotional texts, as it is the case of this prayer (gsol ’debs)
to the eighty-five siddhas.
Of our hero (Telopa, no. 23), we have just two pieces of information,
namely, he attained the supreme accomplishment grinding sesame (til
brdung) and saw (mjal) the Buddha in Bengal (Bhaṃ ga la).
Source δ ― Abhayadatta
*Caturaśītisiddhapravṛtti (Grub thob brgyad cu rtsa bzhi’i rnam thar).
In bsTan ’gyur (Ō. 5091; Grünwedel 1916: 170; Sempa Dorje 1979;
Robinson 1979: 98–99; Dowman 1985: 151).
A brief account of Tillopa is included in this celebrated collection of

hagiographies of eighty-four siddhas (Tillo pa’i lo rgyus, no. 22). We know
from the colophon of the whole collection, written in the first person, that
the bhikṣu sMon grub shes rab translated this ‘Account of the Eighty-Four
Siddhas’ as it had been orally expounded (zhal nas gsungs pa ltar) by
Abhayadattaśrī, the great Indian guru of Campārṇa (Tsam par ṇa).15 This
Abhayadatta (Mi ’jigs pa sbyin pa), alias Abhayadattaśrī (Mi ’jigs sbyin
pa’i dpal) or Abhayaśrī (Mi ’jigs pa dpal) would have been a pupil of the
above mentioned Vajrāsana the Middle (source γ).
In point of fact, we read in Tāranātha’s bKa’ babs bdun ldan (449.3;

SIL 65) that Vajrāsana the Middle alias Ratnākaragupta, taught an
Abhayākara (des slob dpon ’Jigs med ’byung gnas la gdams pa yin). Being
the latter name a shortened form of Abhayākaragupta, it is reasonably
possible that the oral author of the *Caturaśītisiddhapravṛtti might be the
famous ācārya Abhayākaragupta (’Jigs med ’byung gnas sbas pa), to whom
twenty-two works are ascribed in the bsTan ’gyur. This possibility seems to
be corroborated by Tāranātha (bKa’ babs bdun ldan 457.4; SIL 71), who
informs us that he was disciple of Sauripāda, that is of the above mentioned
Vajrāsana the Middle. Besides, we read in the ‘Record of Teachings
Received’, or gSan yig (2: 199) by the Fifth Dalai Lama Ngag dbang blo
bzang rgya mtsho’s (1617–1682), that Vajrāsana was listened to (gsan) by
Tsa mi Sangs rgyas grags pa sMon grub shes rab, and Abhayākara(gupta).
The former seems to be the complete name of sMon grub shes rab, alias the
Tangut (Mi nyag) Tsa mi Lo tsā ba sMon grub shes rab, who translated
together with Abhayadattaśrī/Abhayākaragupta himself at least two other
texts of the latter, viz. Tō. 1198 and 2484 (Tibskrit s.v. Abhayadatta,
Abhayadattaśrī, and Abhayaśrī).
The nineteenth-century Tibetan scholar ’Jam mgon Kong sprul Blo gros
mtha’ yas, in his gDams ngag mdzod (gD), contextualizes the composition
of the *Caturaśītisiddhapravṛtti reporting the legend of a pious King Kuñji
(gD 11: 9–11). In order to fulfill his mother’s dying wish, the king would
have invited the eighty-four siddhas for a tantric gathering, or gaṇacakra
(tshogs kyi ’khor lo). Although no longer alive, thanks to the intervention of
two ḍākinīs, the siddhas would have miraculously arrived and spent a long
time there with the king. Eventually, each siddha would have sung a dohā
and vanished. In the legend, we are told that Vīraprabha, a travelling
scholar, would have heard about that gaṇacakra, but missed it for a week.
Neverthless, the same two ḍākinīs would have transmitted to him all the
dohās sung by the siddhas. Then Vīraprabha would have transcribed the
whole collection of songs into a book titled Ratnamāla (Rin chen phreng
ba). Then the lineage of transmission of the text is given (Kapstein 2000:
52–71; 2006: 49–61)―
Vīraprabha
|
Kamala a brāhmaṇa paṇḍita;
(Ka ma la)
|
78 TILOPĀ II
Jamāri a hermit siddha;

(Dza ma ri)
|
Abhayadattaśrī the Magadhan paṇḍita who wrote a commentary
(Mi ’jigs sbyin pa’i dpal) of the dohās with the relevant rnam thars (do ha’i
| ’grel pa rnam thar dang bcas pa mdzad);
sMon grub shes rab the Tangut translator who translated into Tibetan
and edited all the above together with his master
(yab sras kyis Bod ’dir bsgyur zhing ’chad nyan
gyis gtan la phab te dar rgyas su mdzad pa yin).
Source ε ― sGam po pa
Tai lo dang nā ro’i rnam thar. In gSung ’bum yid bzhin nor bu, KA, fols
1a–12a (pp. 1–24).
According to ’Gos Lo tsā ba’s Deb ther sngon po (377.7; BA 457), sGam
po pa bSod nams rin chen―aliases Dwags po lHa rje, and Zla ’od gzhon
nu―(1079–1153), would have spent thirteen months in the presence of
Mar pa’s disciple, Mi la ras pa (1040–1123). Now, since he would have
met his guru at the age of thirty-one (1079 + 31), while the latter was
seventy years old (1040 + 70), their first meeting would have occurred in
the year Iron Male Tiger (lcags pho stag), that is 1110, and the year of his
leaving would have been in the year Iron Female Hare (lcags mo yos), or
1111 (Deb ther sngon po 398.6; BA 458).
In spite of the title, sGam po pa’s Tai lo dang nā ro’i rnam thar does
not contain any real account of Tailopa’s life, but it mostly concerns with
his disciple Nāropā.
Source ζ ― Vibhūticandra
*Bāhyasādhanasaṃyoga (Phyi sgrub kyis rten ’brel). In bsTan ’gyur,
Ō. 5015.
On the textual basis of Ō. 5015, and 5014 (...bla ma phyi ltar sgrub pa’i
man ngag...), a better tentative re-Sanskritization of Tib. Phyi sgrub kyis
rten ’brel ought to be *Bāhyasādhanasaṃyoga instead of
*Bāhyasiddhipratītyasamutpāda (Cordier 1909‒15, 84: 3; Ō. 5015; TT 87:
14): thus the title should be understood as ‘Circumstances of the Outer
Practice’. Although the catalogue of the Peking Qianlong bsTan ’gyur
assigns the text to Tillopa (Tailikapāda), the colophon of the same edition
(Q YU 30a3), with the related sNar thang (N YU 30a6) and dGa’ ldan bsTan
’gyur (G YU 37a1), describes it as composed by Vibhūticandra (paṇ chen
Bhi bu ti tsan dras mdzad pa).16
Following the trail of Cyrus Stearns’ study on that paṇḍita (1996), we
know that Vibhūticandra was born in the second half of the twelfth century
in the Varendra Maṇḍala, within the Puṇḍravardhana Bhukti of northern
Bengal, and he would have studied as an ordained monk at Vikramaśīla.
With regard to his guru, the Kashmiri paṇḍita Śākyaśrībhadra (c. 1127–c.
1225), he could have met him either at Vikramaśīla or at Jagaddala, the
mahāvihāra in Varendra, where he went to escape eastwards from Turuṣka
invaders of Muḥammad ibn Bakhtyār Khaljī pressing from the west.17 After
three years spent studying there under Śākyaśrībhadra, in 1204 the two fled
to Tibet together with other fellow fugitives.
During the eleven years of his first stay in Tibet (1204–1214),
Vibhūticandra had contacts with more than one representative of the later
spread (phyi dar) of Buddhism in Tibet, in particular, with the founder of
the ’Bri gung tradition of the bKa’ brgyud pas, ’Bri gung skyob pa ’Jig rten
mgon po (1143–1217), and with the patriarch of Sa skya, rJe btsun Grags
pa rgyal mtshan (1147–1216), as well as with the latter’s nephew, the
future Sa skya Paṇḍita, Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan (1182–1251). In 1213 he
was in mNga’ ris with Śākyaśrībhadra: there, in a royal palace in Pu rang,
he translated many texts in collaboration with Glo bo Lo tsā ba Shes rab rin
chen. In 1214, when the old Śākyaśrībhadra left Tibet to Kashmir,
Vibhūticandra went to Kathmandu: probably with Glo bo Lo tsā ba, as their
collaboration continued there. In Kathmandu, he studied under important
masters, such as the Indian ācārya of Vikramaśīla Ratnarakṣita (Lo Bue
1997: 634), and the Newari Buddhaśrī (bal po Buddha shrī).18 Moreover,
Vibhūticandra would have become abbot of the Tham Bahil of
Kathmandu.19
In Tibet for a second time, we are informed of his translation work at
the temple of ’Bring mtshams in gTsang―where he composed and auto-
translated his important Trisaṃvaraprabhāmālā―and that he would have
‘spent time at the monastery of ’Bri khung gling, where his activities were
very influential’ (Stearns 1996: 139). Once back in Nepal, he occupied
again his position at the Tham Bahil until old age: it is in that period that
the crucial meeting between Vibhūticandra and ‘a much later Śavaripa
acting as the esoteric preceptor for Vibhūticandra’ (Davidson 2002b: 228)
did occur.20 The teachings on the ṣaḍaṅgayoga (rnal ’byor yan lag drug
80 TILOPĀ II
pa) of the Kālacakra system, which he received from that ‘young yogin
with bone loops fixed in his ear lobes’ (Stearns 1996: 139), were since then
labelled as the direct transmission of Vibhūticandra (Bi bhū ti’i nye
brgyud).
In order to spread this transmission, he composed his Yogaṣaḍaṅga, and
went to Tibet for the third time. There he gave the Kālacakra consecration
and Śavaripa’s teachings to many Tibetan people convened to Ding ri, near
the Tibet-Nepal border, where he was guest of the renowned yogin Ko brag
pa bSod nams rgyal mtshan (1181/2–1261). While living in the charnel
ground of mKhan pa, west of Ding ri glang ’khor, Vibhūticandra would
have translated several texts in association with the Tibetan translator Mi
mnyam bzang po. Among them, not only did he translate important texts on
Kālacakra, such as Anupamarakṣita’s Ṣaḍaṅgayoga, and the Yogaṣaḍaṅga
transmitted to him by Śavaripa at Tham Bahil before leaving, but he also
translated Tillopa’s Gurusādhana (GS, Ō. 5014), Nāropā’s Gurusiddhi (Ō.
5016), and Nāgārjuna’s Guruguhyasiddhi (Ō. 5017). Although the
*Bāhyasādhanasaṃyoga has no colophon, due to both the position it
occupies in the three bsTan ’gyur editions (Ō. 5015), and the texts
Vibhūticandra dealt with during his stay at Ding ri, it is reasonable to agree
with Stearns (1996: 162) and assign it to that period.
Reporting what Tillopa would have said to Nāropā, alias Abhayakīrti
(’Jigs med grags pa) at the moment of their first encounter, and later at the
presence of a lay disciple Indrabodhi of that period, Vibhūticandra puts the
same Tillopa’s Gurusādhana he had translated (Ō. 5014) within a
hagiographic anecdotal context, namely the ‘circumstances’ (rten ’brel). As
to the source of this account, a reasonable conjecture could identify it with
Vibhūticandra’s connections in the ’Bri gung bKa’ brgyud milieu, notably
during his first stay in Tibet, in 1204–14, with ’Bri gung skyob pa ’Jig rten
mgon po.
Source η ― rGyal thang pa

rJe btsun chen po tilli pa’i rnam par thar pa.
When mentioned, the name of the author of this old collection of

hagiographies occurs as rGyal thang pa bDe chen rdo rje at the end of the
lives of Tillipa, Mar pa, and Mi la ras pa; as rGyal ldang pa bDe chen rdo
rje after the life of gLing ras pa Padma rdo rje; as rGya ldang pa bDe chen
rdo rje at the end of the lives of sGam po pa bSod nams rin chen, Phag mo
gru pa rDo rje rgyal po, gTsang pa rGya ras Ye shes rdo rje, and rGod
tshang pa mGon po rdo rje. Two lines below the latter, the colophon of the
entire collection has again rGyal thang pa bDe chen rdo rje (cf. Roberts
2007: 11–15). In Gene Smith’s anonymous preface to the modern photostat
reproduction of this gser ’phreng, we read that rGyal thang pa was a
disciple of the founder of the western (stod) school of the ’Brug pa bKa’
brgyud tradition, rGod tshang pa mGon po rdo rje (1189–1258), ‘the last
guru whose biography appears in this collection’―
LINEAGE TRADITION
Tillipa Siddha tradition

|
Nāropā
(c. 956 – c. 1040)
|
Mar pa Chos kyi blo gros Mar pa bKa’ brgyud
(c. 1012 – c. 1097)
|
Mi la ras pa
(1040/52–1123/35)
|
sGam po pa bSod nams rin chen Dwags po bKa’ brgyud
(1079–1153)
|
Phag mo gru pa rDo rje rgyal po Phag gru bKa’ brgyud
(1110–1170)
|
gLing ras pa Padma rdo rje gLing ras bKa’ brgyud
(1128–1188)
|
gTsang pa rGya ras Ye shes rdo rje ’Brug pa bKa’ brgyud
(1161–1211)
|
rGod tshang pa mGon po rdo rje sTod ’Brug bKa’ brgyud
(1189–1258)
The manuscript can be dated to the latter half of the fifteenth century or the
first half of the sixteenth century, and it is preserved at Hemis in Ladakh.
82 TILOPĀ II
Source θ ― rDo rje mdzes ’od

bKa’ brgyud kyi rnam thar chen mo rin po che’i gter mdzod dgos ’dod
’byung gnas (Gyaltsen 1990).
We are informed by Khenpo Könchog Gyaltsen (1990: xvi) that this late-
thirteenth-century author from Western Tibet was a disciple of Ri khrod
dbang phyug (1181–1255), himself a disciple of ’Bri gung skyob pa ’Jig
rten mgon po.21
LINEAGE TRADITION
Telopa Siddha tradition

|
Nāropā
(c. 956 – c. 1040)
|
Mar pa Chos kyi blo gros Mar pa bKa’ brgyud
(c. 1012 – c. 1097)
|
Mi la ras pa
(1040/52–1123/35)
|
sGam po pa bSod nams rin chen Dwags po bKa’ brgyud
(1079–1153)
|
Phag mo gru pa rDo rje rgyal po Phag gru bKa’ brgyud
(1110–1170)
|
’Bri gung skyob pa ’Jig rten mgon po ’Bri gung bKa’ brgyud
(1143–1217)
|
Ri khrod dbang phyug
(1181–1255)
Source ι ― U rgyan pa
bKa’ brgyud yid bzhin nor bu yi ’phreng ba.
U rgyan pa Rin chen dpal, alias Seng ge dpal (1230–1309), the siddha
compiler of the entire collection, was since 1247 a disciple of the above
mentioned rGod tshang pa mGon po rdo rje (1189–1258): the latter, ‘tired
of the jealousy of his older disciples towards U rgyan pa, decided to

disperse them all to several meditation places’ (Vitali 2012: 34). About
1252, while the young man was thinking to go to Śambhala on account of
his previous studies in the Kālacakra tradition, rGod tshang pa convinced
him that he had connection with neither Śambhala nor the Kālacakra, but
rather with Uḍḍiyāna (Tucci 1940: 372–75). So did he go there, as we read
in the Deb ther sngon po (612.2–4; BA 701):
He reached Dhūmasthala (Dhu ma tha la) in Uḍḍiyāna. There a

vajrayoginī (rdo rje rnal ’byor ma) in the form of a prostitute’s daughter
(smad ’tshong ma’i bu mo) offered him a bowl full of vegetables and
blessed (byin gyis brlabs pa : adhiṣṭhāna) him: by this all the remaining
defiling elements of his former karmic deeds were first brought out and
consumed; the meaning of the trivajra (rdo rje gsum) arose in his mind.
Then the vajrayoginī manifested her true form (nyid kyi skur bstan) and
bestowed on him the oral instructions (zhal gyi gdams pa). After that he
returned.
Nevertheless, it is possible that he never reached Uḍḍiyāna, but would have

stopped at Jālandhara (Vitali 2012: 35). The ḍākinī would have transmitted
to U rgyan pa the teachings relevant with the propitiatory services and
accomplishment procedures (bsnyen sgrub : sevāsādhana) of the three
adamantine states (rdo rje gsum gyi bsnyen sgrub) of body, speech and
mind (kāyavākcitta), then famed as the propitiatory services and
accomplishment procedures from Uḍḍiyāna (U rgyan bsnyen sgrub, Gene
Smith 2001: 46; Stearns 2001: 5).
As we read in the preface to the photostat, this gser ’phreng compiled
between 1295 and 1304 belongs to the ’Bri gung bKa’ brgyud pa tradition,
because the last hagiography is that of ’Gar Dam pa Chos sdings pa (1180–
1240), another disciple of ’Bri gung skyob pa ’Jig rten mgon po, namely
the same milieu of sources ζ and θ. The manuscript is preserved in the
library of the Kangyur Rimpoche of Darjeeling.
Source κ ― Mon rtse pa

dKar brgyud gser ’phreng.
This gser ’phreng, compiled in the second half of the fifteenth century by
Mon rtse pa Kun dga’ dpal ldan (1408–1475), follows the ’Ba’ ra lineage of
the Yang dgon school, in turn an offshoot of the sTod ’Brug school of the
84 TILOPĀ II
’Brug pa bKa’ brgyud pa tradition (Gene Smith 2001: 46–48). The

manuscript, compiled and calligraphed in the second half of the fifteenth
century, is conserved at Takna in Ladakh.
Source λ ― gTsang smyon He ru ka

bDe mchog mkha’ ’gro snyan brgyud kyi gzhung ’brel sa bcad dang
sbrags pa (bDe mchog mkha’ ’gro snyan rgyud kyi gdams pa yid bzhin
nor bu skor gsum).
gTsang smyon He ru ka Sangs rgyas rgyal mtshan (1452–1507) and his

guru Sha ra rab ’byams pa Sangs rgyas seng ge belonged to the Ras chung
bKa’ brgyud pa, a subsect of the Bka’ brgyud pa that has now completely
disappeared as a separate entity. Since the ’Brug pa bKa’ brgyud pas,
especially the sTod subsect, focus their practice on the Ras chung snyan
brgyud of the bDe mchog mkha’ ’gro snyan brgyud, gTsang smyon is now
considered to belong to the ’Brug pa branch of the Dwags po bKa’ brgyud
pa. As for his lineage, we are informed by gTsang smyon himself in his
gZhung ’brel—
Tilopa
|
Nāropā
(c. 956 – c. 1040)
|
Mar pa Chos kyi blo gros
(c. 1012 – c. 1097)
|
Mi la ras pa
(1040/52–1123/35)
|
Ras chung rDo rje grags
(1084–1161)
|
Khyung tshang pa Ye shes bla ma
(1115–1176)
|
Mar ston Tshul khrims
’byung gnas Slob dpon sTar bsgom Ma gcig Ong bhyo ras ma
| | |
| | |
Zhang Lo tsā ba Byang chub ’od zer

(?–1237)
|
Sras Byang sems bSod nams rgyal mtshan
|
Ma gcig ’Khrul zhig Kun ldan ras ma
|
mKhas btsun gZi brjid rgyal mtshan
|
mKhan po dBang phyug shes rab
|
Ri khrod ras pa gZhon nu rgyal mtshan
|
Ras chen pa gDan cig pa gZhon nu dpal ldan
|
La phyi pa mDong ston Nam mkha’ rgyal mtshan
|
’Dul ’dzin pa Ngag gi dbang po
|
Sha ra Rab byams pa Sangs rgyas seng nge
We read in the English ‘Contents’ of the photostat reproduction of the text

(1: 1–2), that this hagiography is included in a Ras chung snyan brgyud
collection which was compiled in 1494. The manuscript A, titled bDe
mchog mkha’ ’gro snyan rgyud kyi gzhung ’brel sa gcad dang sbrags pa, is
known as the Bya btang ’Phrin las dpal ’bar Manuscript. The manuscript B,
with the title bDe mchog mkha’ ’gro snyan rgyud kyi gdams pa yid bzhin
nor bu skor gsum, is known as the Gra dkar Rab ’jam pa Manuscript. Even
if the dating of the two manuscripts is quite difficult, Ms. A would be of the
second half of the sixteenth century, and Ms. B would be of the beginning
of the seventeenth century and more corrupted than the former.
Source μ ― Kun dga’ rin chen

bKa’ rgyud bla ma rnams kyi rnam thar rin chen gser ’phreng.
These concise texts were composed in 1508 by ’Bri gung Chos rje Kun
dga’ rin chen (1475–1527), the last abbot of ’Bri gung monastery to follow
the pure ’Bri gung bKa’ brgyud pa tradition, before the rNying ma pa
tradition gradually took over.
86 TILOPĀ II
Source ν ― dBang phyug rgyal mtshan

rJe btsun chen po ti lo’i rnam par thar pa. In rJe btsun ti lo pa dang nā
ro pa’i rnam thar rin po che.
We read in the colophon that the author, a disciple of gTsang smyon He ru

ka, composed the rJe btsun chen po ti lo’i rnam par thar pa in 1523 (chu
mo lug gi lo) in the hermitage of rDza ri bSam gtan gling. As to the
sources, dBang phyug rgyal mtshan informs us a first time (ν KA 3b2) that
he had examined about eight previous hagiographies to compose his own
(rnam thar phyi mo brgyad tsam la bltas). More details are given at the end
(ν KA 76b4–77a2), where he declares that his work is a compilation from
about ten earlier ones (rje btsun Ti lo pa’i rnam thar phyi mo snga rabs
gong mas mdzad pa bcu phrag cig gi zab tshad bsdus). Six of them are
mentioned, undoubtedly in order of importance, that is for the use he had
made of; providentially, the first two are still extant—
AUTHOR AND TEXT TIME TRADITION SOURCE

1 gTsang smyon He ru ka’s 15th c. Ras chung snyan brgyud λ
concise rnam thar as dBang
phyug rgyal mtshan’s starting
point (gTsang chen He ru ka’i
mdzad pa’i rnam thar bsdus pa
la rtsa ba’i gzhung shing byas);
2 rGyal thang pa’s rnam thar 13th c. sTod ’Brug η
(grub chen rGyal thang pa bde
chen rdo rje’i mdzad pa’i rnam
thar);
3 sPyan snga Rin chen ldan’s brief 13th c. Yang dgon stod ’Brug
rnam thar (’Jig rten mgon po’i
rgyal tshab dam pa spyan mnga’
rin po che grags ’byung gis
mdzad pa’i rnam thar bsdus pa);
4 Mar ston Tshul khrims ’byung 12th c. Ras chung snyan brgyud
gnas’ rnam thar (rje btsun dam
pa Mar ston tshul khrims kyis
mdzad pa’i rnam thar), a
disciple of Khyung tshang pa Ye
shes bla ma, alias g.Ye chung pa
dGe bshes khyung po (1115–
1176);
5 mKha’ spyod dbang po’s rnam 14th c. Karma kaṃ tshang

thar (mkhas shing grub pa
bsnyes pa’i skyes mchog sprul
sku mKha’ spyod dbang pos
mdzad pa’i rnam thar), the
second Zhwa dmar (1350–
1405);
6 Ras chen Chos rje Shar ka’s 16th c. Ras chung snyan brgyud
rnam thar (mnyam med Ras
chen chos rjes mdzad pa’i rnam
thar).
Source ξ ― lHa btsun

Sangs rgyas thams cad kyi rnam ’phrul rje btsun ti lo pa’i rnam mgur.
A descendant of the old royal dynasty of Tibet, as testified by the respectful

monastic title lha btsun (Gene Smith 2001: 288 n. 181), lHa btsun Rin chen
rnam rgyal (1473–1557) can be regarded as ‘the most significant student of
gTsang smyon’ (Gene Smith 2001: 75). We read at the end of his Ti lo pa’i
rnam mgur that he printed it first on the tenth day of the middle of the three
Summer months of the Iron-Male-Dog year (lcags pho khyi’i lo), that is in
1550. The printery was in the hermitage (nyang dben) of Brag dkar rta so,
in sKyid grong rdzong, a site where Mi la ras pa would have meditated for
years. lHa btsun faithfully follows the teachings and contents of the purest
oral bKa’ brgyud pa tradition going back to Ras chung. This text is the only
Ti lo pa’i rnam mgur we have, that is a rnam thar interspersed with songs
(mgur). These songs are by Tilopa himself and belong to four texts, the
nine root verses of the Vajraḍākinīniṣkāyadharma (VḌNDh), the
Acintyamahāmudrā (AMM, Torricelli 2007), the Mahāmudropadeśa
(MMU, Tiso and Torricelli 1991), and the *Nijadharmatāgīti (NDhG).
Words for Tradition and Traditions of Words

Being words’ usage to decide their meaning, an analysis of the traditional
context wherein terms or data occur paves the way for appreciating their
implications. In order to do that, some cultural terms and few geographical
88 TILOPĀ II
names will be introduced on the occasion of their first occurrence in the

hagiographic sources.
Some Sanskrit terms consistent with the complex notion of tradition
occur in the texts of the Shamsher Manuscript (α), namely āmnāya,
guruparamparā, sampradāya, and tantra. We could take them as lexical
markers for a possible history of the cultural process of identification:
affirmed, in so far as separation is painfully felt. The primeval inclination
to identify oneself as a member of a family, clan, tribe, people, caste, class,
religious group, party, club, university, and so forth―this fancy of a social
identity in order to become aware of oneself, inevitably moves us to the
pursuit of continuity, before and after the span of our life.
Being primarily transmitted or received authoritative words, āmnāya
can signify both the contents of an instructional tradition and the group of
adepts sharing it, according to the context. As an uninterrupted series
(paramparā), the compound guruparamparā points at the unbroken lineage
of gurus within an āmnāya. Likewise, sampradāya alludes to a tradition as
a granted or received instruction, belief, or usage, but it can also mean the
cultural system relevant to that tradition.
While āmnāya evokes the word (ā√mnā), either uttered or committed to
memory, the semantic focus of sampradāya is the gift (sam-pra√dā): be it
granted, received or shared. Both āmnāya and sampradāya, like
paramparā, call to mind the human urge of permanence, of durability, of a
legacy: the same urge that is revealed by the Latin word traditio, from
tradĕre (trans-dare), literally ‘hand over’, actually a juridical notion in the
context of transfers of property and legacies.
Yoginītantras
Vajrayāna, Mantrayāna, Mantranaya, Tantric or Esoteric Buddhism are
different names for an endogenous cultural outgrowth in the Buddhist
tradition that its followers call Mahāyāna, Great Vehicle. It developed
typically in the post-Gupta centuries as an increasing amount of worship
ceremonies, visualization techniques, evocation rituals, esoteric diagrams,
formulae, and magic spells centred upon one or another deity. Within an
analogical perspective, the chosen tutelary deity (iṣṭadevatā) was
meditatively and ritually deemed as the divine expression of the cosmic
energy, that was―and still is―represented in an esoteric circular diagram
called maṇḍala. Under such circumstances, a symbol was taken as the
symbol: in the same way as every single phenomenon (dharma) can stay
for the full expanse of all phenomena (dharmadhātu). In view of the

spiritual accomplishment (siddhi), specific procedures (sādhana) were
secretely transmitted from guru to disciple, and the effectiveness of the
legacy (āmnāya) was guaranteed by the authority of the lineage
(paramparā), as well as by the secret elite sharing the transmission
(sampradāya).
The textual bodies of those esoteric instructions were known by the
name of tantras: from the root tan, denoting acts as extending, spreading,
protracting, continuing, propagating, displaying, but also bending, and
weaving, as it is the case with this noun for a loom and a warp as well.
Once again, the word suggests an akin notion of chronological continuity,
but with a further sign―or interpretant―which presages the action of
interlacing threads: as in the case of the Latin word textum for ‘text’, from
texĕre ‘to weave’.
On account of the occurrences in the early-ninth-century Tibetan
catalogue dKar chag ldan dkar ma (Lalou 1953: 326–28), the tantric texts
translated in the Tang period (Chou 1945), and the commentarial references
in Buddhaguhya’s Vairocanābhisambodhitantrapiṇḍārtha (Ō. 3486, Tō.
2662, fol. 3a4–b6 of D), Davidson has pointed at an esoteric canon in use
in the eighth century: ‘a body of texts that were identified by acknowledged
bearers of the culture at discrete points in the hermeneutic process’ (2002b:
152, 376 n. 125).
For our purposes it is sufficient some familiarity with the most common
classification of the extant Tibetan tantric corpus, to locate with Davidson
most of the above texts within the first three of the four classes of tantras,
as they have been ranked by the later, or ‘new’ (gsar ma) exegetical
tradition, namely, (1) the ritual tantras, or Kriyātantras (bya ba’i rgyud), (2)
the practical tantras, or Caryātantras (spyod pa’i rgyud), (3) the tantras of
integration, or union, or yoga, called Yogatantras (rnal ’byor gyi rgyud),
and (4) the tantras of highest yoga, Yoganiruttara- or Yogottaratantras (rnal
’byor bla na med kyi rgyud). As these last tantras involved the ritual
presence of female yoga practitioners, the yoginīs (rnal ’byor ma), they
were also termed Yoginītantras (rnal ’byor ma’i rgyud). Later, the gsar ma
Tibetan tradition divided the Yogottaratantras into the two, Mother (ma
rgyud) and Father Tantras (pha rgyud), the former including tantras such as
the Cakrasaṃvara, and the latter the Guhyasamāja. Graded according to
different human types for their intellectual and emotional levels, every
system was conceived to lead to the realization in a more radical, and
quicker a way than the lower one.
90 TILOPĀ II
We can draw it as a process clear of any detail, since its earliest

Kriyātantra issues around the second century CE until its most mature and
radical articulation with the Yoginītantras, thriving during the rule of the
Candras and the last Pālas, between the tenth and the twelfth century—
Yoginītantra
10th–12th cent.
|
proto-Yoginī
mid-8th c.→
Yogottaratantra
8th cent.→
Yogatantra
late 7th c.→
Caryātantra
mid-7th c.→
|
Ubhayatantra
Kriyātantra
2nd–6th cent.
Source: Adapted from English 2002, pp. 2–7.
Although the above scheme shows just a sprouting process of a tantric

system from an older matrix, taking from botany, also pollination and
dissemination play their part: the former as the whole of individual esoteric
transmissions from guru to disciple, the latter as the cultural propagation of
Vajrayāna. It is under the latter perspective that the process has been
summarized in the fifteenth century by ’Gos Lo tsā ba in his Deb ther
sngon po. Opening the chapter on the Kālacakra, the subject is introduced
by a schematic general account of the propagation of the Mahāyāna
Guhyamantra (theg pa chen po gsang sngags) in India:
At first, the Yogatantras, to begin with the Tattvasaṃgraha (De kho na

nyid bsdus pa, i.e. the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha) and others,
appeared (byung) in the east to king Pradyotacandra (Rab gsal zla ba) and
others, and were explained (bshad). Then, the Yogatantras (rnal ’byor gyi
rgyud), including the Guhyasamāja (gSang ba ’dus pa) and others [i.e.
Yoganiruttara-, Yogottara-, or Anuttarayogatantras], appeared to Ācārya
Nāgārjuna with his disciples (slob dpon Klu sgrub slob ma dang bcas pa),
and were explained, then spread from the south. After that, from the west,
Śrī Kambalapā (dpal La ba pa) and others removed (phyung) from the
country of Uḍḍiyāna the Yoginītantras (rnal ’byor ma’i rgyud rnams), that
spread also in Madhyadeśa (Deb ther sngon po 662.1–3; cf. BA 753).
Cakraśaṃvara
In the central position of the maṇḍalas of the Yogottara- and Yoginītantras
we do no find the Buddha Vairocana as in the case of the Caryā- and
Yogatantras, but Akṣobhya, or one of his multiple wrathful manifestations,
all members of the Adamantine Family (vajrakula : rdo rje’i rigs) of
Buddhas.22
One of these manifestations, crucial in the life of our Bengali
gentleman, is Cakrasaṃvara, a hypostasis of Heruka or Hevajra, and
essentially identitical with Buddhakapāla, Mahāmāyā, Saṃvara, and
Vajraḍāka (Snellgrove 1959, 1: 30–33; Mallmann 1975: 182–90). As such,
he is the central deity in the maṇḍalas of the Yoginītantras. In particular,
Heruka takes the name of Cakrasaṃvara or Saṃvara when imagined
copulating with his consort Vajravārāhī (rDo rje phag mo), alias
Jñānaḍākinī (Ye shes mkha’ ’gro ma), Bhagavatīyoginī (bCom ldan rnal
’byor ma), or Vajrayoginī (rDo rje rnal ’byor ma; Bhattacharyya 1924:
160–162; Tucci 1935: 16–74; Meisezahl 1967; Mallmann 1969; 1975: 50–
52, 187–89; Kossak and Casey Singer 1998 nos 2, 20, 21, 32, 43; English
2002). The theonym occurs as Śaṃvara/Śambara (bDe mchog), or
‘sublime’ (vara) ‘bliss’ (śam); as Saṃvara/Sambara, ‘union’ (sDom pa)
from Skt saṃ√vṛ, it is a synonym of samāja (’dus pa), saṃyoga, and
samayoga; as Cakraśaṃvara or Cakraśambara ‘sublime bliss in the cakras’
(bDe mchog ’khor lo), and Cakrasaṃvara, or ‘union of the cakras’ (’Khor
lo sdom pa), it alludes to the yoga experience which comes into existence
when the energy wheels or cakras (’khor lo) of the subtle body are
reintegrated into a dynamic synthesis (Tucci 1935: 17–19; Guenther 1963b:
4; Gray 2007: 4, 35–38).
The maṇḍala to enter―first liturgically in the maturation path
(vipākamārga : smin lam), then yogically in the liberation path
(muktimārga : grol lam)―has been described or implied in the huge
literature belonging to the cycle of tantras relevant with this deity, to begin
with the Cakrasaṃvaratantra, composed during the early-eighth to mid-
ninth century (Gray 2007: 11–14).23
While the text is entitled in the Sanskrit colophons the ‘Great King of
Yoginī Tantras called the Śrī Cakrasaṃvara’, (Śrīcakrasaṃvara-nāma-
92 TILOPĀ II
mahāyoginī-tantra-rāja), at the end of each of its fifty-one chapters, it

refers to itself as the ‘Discourse of Śrī Heruka’ (Śrīherukābhidhāna); since
this same text was considered a condensed version of a much larger tantra,
the Tibetan tradition knows it as the ‘King of Tantras or the Saṃvara Light’
(Tantrarāja-śrī-laghusaṃvara : rGyud kyi rgyal po dpal bde mchog nyung
ngu, Ō. 16, Tō. 368; Gray 2007: 4–5). According to Bu ston Rin chen
grub’s authoritative classification in his rGyud sde spyi’i rnam par bzhag
rgyud sde rin po che’i mdzes rgyan, as it has been outlined by Giuseppe
Tucci (1949: 263), the tantras of Śaṃvara (bDe mchog) are part of those
connected with Heruka in the prajñā class (shes rab) of the anuttaratantras
(bla na med).24
Abhiṣekas
The name of the ritual acts authorizing each step along the path is another
word that occurs in the Shamsher Manuscript, as well as in all the material
under study. It is a word that demands to be added to our conceptual grid:
seka ‘sprinkling’, in the sense of abhiṣeka ‘consecration’ or
‘empowerment’ (dbang bskur). By means of a subtle purification (abhi√sic
‘purify with aspersion of water’), the disciple is authorized, that is to say,
the power (dbang) to proceed deeper into the spiritual path is bestowed
(bskur) upon him. Such a path is ritually pointed out by the entering the
maṇḍala (maṇḍalapraveśa).
In the highest tantras, the starting point of the path is marked by the
first of four consecrations, called the Consecration of the Jar (kalaśābhiṣeka
: bum dbang), which comprises some consecrations—generally six—
performed in the lower tantras as well. The more essential aspect of the
practice, consisting in the progressive dissolution of any residual dualistic
attitude, is actuated by the three higher consecrations, viz. the Secret
Consecration (guhyābhiṣeka : gsang dbang), the Consecration of the
Knowledge of the ritual partner under the name of Prajñā
(prajñājñānābhiṣeka : shes rab ye shes kyi dbang), and finally the Fourth
Consecration (caturthābhiṣeka : dbang bzhi pa), also known as the
Consecration of the Word (śabdābhiṣeka : tshig dbang).
Cittaviśrāma, Manobhaṅga, and Uḍḍiyāna

These three places of the siddhas’ oecumene are mentioned in the
Shamsher Manuscript. Since they are all crucial to the history of Buddhism
in general, and to our Bengali siddha in particular, it could be wise to
anticipate here a concise geographical annotation.

We know from this document that the two mountains ‘Mind-Quietness’
(Cittaviśrāma) and ‘Intellect-Destruction’ (Manobhaṅga) are in the south of
India: thus not far from Dhānyakaṭaka, the Sātavāhana capital in the current
Guntur District of Andhra Pradesh. As we will see in the next chapter,
albeit their hyperesoteric names, the two mountains are more concrete than
we can expect from hagiology.
Uḍḍiyāna, or Uḍḍiyāṇa, Oḍḍiyāna, Udyāna, Oḍyāna, Wuchang (烏長)
in the account by Faxian, Wuchangna (烏仗那) in Xuanzang’s, is a region
in the upper valley of the Swat (Śubhavastu). Called Supofasudu
(蘇婆伐窣堵) by Xuanzang, the river flows near the current Pakistan-
Afghanistan border, which had made the most of the proximity to the old
trade routes between India and Central Asia (Tucci 1940; Kuwayama
1991). While Faxian still reports that monastic Buddhism was flourishing
in Uḍḍiyāna in his time (T.2085.858a20; Legge 1886: 28), two centuries
later the religious landscape appears totally different in the eyes of
Xuanzang: most of the about 1400 old monasteries on both sides of the
Swat River were now waste and overgrown with weeds (T.2087.882b17;
Beal 1884, 1: 120).
As a matter of fact, not many years after Faxian until the first quarter of
the sixth century, the northwest frontier of the Gupta empire had to suffer
the military pressure of the central Asian Hūṇas. Eventually the Gupta king
Narasiṃhagupta Bālāditya and the Aulikara king Yaśodharman drove the
Hūṇas’ army commanded by Mihirakula (r. c. 515–c. 530) from the plains
of northern India in 528: thus we read in the pillar inscriptions from
Mandasor erected by Yaśodharman to celebrate the victory (Fleet 1888:
147–48), but the events before that success had ended up destabilising the
Buddhist monastic communities in the northwestern region of the Indian
subcontinent. After the crisis of the Buddhist monastic communities in
Uḍḍiyāna, consequent upon the Hūṇas’ invasions in the sixth century, it is
quite possible that some groups of ascetics developed an independent form
of tantric Buddhism, out of the control of the monastic orthodoxy, and
strongly permeated of Śaiva elements. As we will see, the erotic alchemy of
the coincidentia oppositorum was essential in those communities. Yogins
and yoginīs were involved in ritual copulations (maithuna) in order to pass,
philosophically as well as physically, the most archetypal human threshold
to the experience of cosmic energy. It is in the yoginī cultural context of
Uḍḍiyāna that the Shamsher Manuscript records the name of the tantric
94 TILOPĀ II
deity Saṃvara, i.e. Cakrasaṃvara, in connection with the siddha Lūyīpāda.
Ḍākinīs and Siddhas

Uḍḍiyāna is traditionally celebrated as the land of ḍākinīs: another word
which will be overwhelmingly present in every folio of our material. The
ḍākinīs, before being fairy-like spirits floating in the space, from √ḍī or
√ḍai ‘to fly’, as suggested in Kāṇha’s Yogaratnamālā,25 by its Sanskrit
synonym khecarī, and the Tibetan mkha’ ’gro ma; before being yelling she-
demons, as several Indic words would seem to evoke;26 before being
subsumed in both Śaiva and Bauddha esoteric pantheons as ferocious
goddesses, these demonic females must have had a human birth: in all
probability just a model in the beginning, an ideal, working as an existential
imperative.
The rhetorical representation of the perfect female yoga practitioner, or
yoginī, must have developed into an idealized manifestation of the female
energy in human form. The almost intolerable intensity of life as a whole,
its ferocity and sensuality to the highest degree find their tolerable
synthesis in the ḍākinīs’ aspects, when they are imagined in sādhanas, or
represented in maṇḍalas, or when the tantric consort in the ritual copulation
played the role of the female goddess. However, the apotheosis is complete
when the yoginī or ḍākinī becomes a meditational deity whose inspirational
function along the path of practice cannot but remind under many aspects
the functions of the divine messenger Iris in Greek and Latin literature, or
the angels in the Zoroastrian, Judaic, Christian, and Muslim one.
To illustrate the phenomenon that laid the basis for the siddha
movement, David Gray (2007: 7) speaks of the ‘unusual social context’ in
which the tradition of the yoginīs or ḍākinīs arose:
It appears almost certain that the Yoginītantras, with their focus on sexual
practices, the transgressive consumption of ‘polluting’ substances such as
bodily effluvia, female deities such as yoginīs and ḍākinīs, and fierce male
deities, such as the Heruka deities―who are closely modeled on Śaiva
deities such as Mahākāla and Bhairava, and bear the accoutrements of
charnel ground dwelling yogins―did not soley derive from a mainstream
monastic Buddhist context. Instead, they seem to have developed among
and/or been influenced by liminal groups of renunciant yogins and
yoginīs, who collectively constituted what might be called the ‘siddha
movement’.
As already observed by Mohammed Shahidullah (1928: 18), the cultural

approach of the siddhas as a whole represented a movement of reaction to
the formal aspects―merely exterior ones―of tantrism. Indeed they would
not go against the liturgy at all, yet some of them were aware of its limits, if
not steeped in the sap of their individual inner exertion: a limitation lasting
until the egoic barriers are not overcome. The siddhas seem to embody the
dialectical antithesis to a certain institutionalized kind of form—were it a
ritualistic, a magical, or an intellectual one—in the direction of a further
synthesis. However, as it is the case of every kind of critique when
observed within a dialectical perspective, what is denounced is somehow
recreated at the same time: so can we see that, if the object of the siddhas’
critique was institutional formalism, the result was indeed another form,
and again another institutional formalism, another church: thus another
kind of human power.
The attitude witnessed by the siddhas’ literature could be appreciated as
a sort of reformatory bias within Buddhist esotericism: the following step,
in the context of the highest tantras, of progress towards the innermost and
the crucial of the rite. Even though an external rituality was described, and
really performed, a noetic process was always alluded to. The fact that such
a crucial process might have taken place by operating on any of the three
inseparable fields of experience―breath, imaginative thinking, or
male/female ejaculate―hints at a different perceptive spontaneity of man at
that time. However, the traditional experiential grasps of the contingent will
concern us―poor post-human humanity―typically more cerebral and less
natural than then, in that they are grasps, rather than for what they actually
clutch at.
Śmaśānas
To begin with β, a word occurs in the Tibetan sources again and again, dur
khrod (śmaśāna), or ‘charnel ground’. The ‘Gothic’ culture of bones and
skulls was gaining strong prominence in the texts of the Yoginītantras, in
line with the emergent Kāpālika esoteric aesthetics. As a matter of fact,
although nearly all of our knowledge about the Kāpālika sect and the
Kāpālika-like movement relies on fictional and hostile sources, these Hindu
worshippers of the god Bhairava-Śiva and his consort appear well
represented all over most of southern India since the eighth century
(Lorenzen 1972: 52–53).
We can imagine that, whereas the macrocosmic Śaiva model was based
96 TILOPĀ II
on the myth of the extreme penance of Śiva after beheading the god
Brahmā, its microcosmic shadows were the single Kāpālika ascetics who
practised the ‘great vow’ (mahāvrata), smeared with ashes, dwelling in
charnel grounds, eating in a skull cup (kapāla), with a staff (khaṭvāṅga) or
a trident (triśula) in their hand, undertaking severe yoga practices, and
showing an extremely antinomic, even criminal conduct (Lorenzen 1972:
73–82). Likewise, if the myth of Padmapāṇi or Heruka’s subjugation, and
the subsequent conversion of Maheśvara or Bhairava-cum-consort, was the
Bauddha atemporal model of a productive cultural dialogue and ensuing
contamination between Śaiva and Bauddha esoteric discourses, its
historical expression is the same kind of ascetics, with equally
reprehensible fashion and behavior.
One of the earliest occurrences of the eight charnel grounds as they
appear at the margins of the maṇḍalas in the Cakrasaṃvara tradition is the
following list in the Saṃvarodayatantra (SUT 17.36–37, dPal bde mchog
’byung ba zhes bya ba’i rgyud kyi rgyal po chen po, Ō. 20, Tō. 373; Tsuda
1974)―
Fierce Caṇḍogra gTum drag

Impenetrable Gahvara Tshang tshing
Adamantine Flame Vajrajvāla rDo rje ’bar ba
Bones Place Karaṅkin Keng rus can
Terrible Laughter Aṭṭahāsa Mi bzad bzhad
Auspicious Forest Lakṣmīvana bKra shis mchog
Terrible Darkness Ghorāndhakāra Mun pa drag po
Kili-kila Noise Kilikilārava Ki li ki la’i sgra
If we follow Tsuda (1974: 292) in supplementing the unspecified directions

as per Bu ston’s dPal bde mchog ’khor lo sdom pa ’byung ba’i sgrub thabs
(474), the arrangement in the compass would be counterclockwise: E, N,
W, S, NE, SE, SW, NW.
The Tibetan bsTan ’gyur preserves the translation of four texts on the
subject of the eight charnel grounds, to begin with two anonymous works
having the same title, Aṣṭaśmaśāna (Dur khrod brgyad). The former (AŚ1,
Ō. 2342, Tō. 1212) is organized according to a clockwise compass order,
viz. E, S, W, N, NE, SE, SW, NW.
Composed as a memorandum (bdag nyid dran phyir bri bar bya), the
latter Aṣṭaśmaśāna (AŚ2, Ō. 2343, Tō. 1213) is visibly reminiscent of the
Saṃvarodayatantra: while it refers to the four cardinal points of the
compass counterclockwise (g.yon gyi shar sogs phyogs rnams), the four
intermediate points are referred to clockwise (g.yas kyi dbang ldan phyogs
rnams), viz. E, N, W, S, NE, SE, SW, NW.
The third text is the Aṣṭaśmaśānākhyāna (AŚĀ, Dur khrod brgyad kyi
bshad pa, Ō. 2345, Tō. 1216), by an Ācāryayogin (Slob dpon rnal ’byor
pa): the order is counterclockwise for the four cardinal points, and
clockwise for the four intermediate points: E, N, W, S, SE, SW, NW, NE.
The fourth text would be a compilation (btus pa) from the mahāsiddha
Virūpā’s (Bir ba pa) Uḍḍiyānaśrīyogayoginīsvayambhūtasambhogaśmaśā-
nakalpa (UYYSSŚK, dPal U rgyan gyi rnal ’byor pa dang rnal ’byor ma’i
rang byung gi longs spyod dur khrod kyi rtog pa, Ō. 2615, Tō. 1744).
Clockwise sequence: E, S, W, N, SE, SW, NW, NE.
Another text useful for a comparation can be the twelfth-century
Vajravārāhīsādhana (VS, rDo rje rnal ’byor ma’i sgrub thabs, Ō. 2292, Tō.
1581, vv. 70–76; English 2002: 310–13) by Umāpatideva or
Umapatidattapāda (U ma pa ti datta’i zhabs). The order is again
counterclockwise for the cardinal points, and clockwise for the intermediate
ones: E, N, W, S, NE, SE, SW, NW.
Rearranging the order as described in AŚ1, we can draw this scheme—
SUT AŚ1 AŚ2 AŚĀ UYYSSŚK VS

Ō. 20, Ō. 2342, Ō. 2343, Ō. 2345, Ō. 2615, Ō. 2292,
Tō. 373 Tō. 1212 Tō. 1213 Tō. 1216 Tō. 1744 Tō. 1581
E Caṇḍogra Aṭṭahāsa Caṇḍogra Caṇḍogra Caṇḍogra Caṇḍogra
gTum drag Aṭṭa ha sa gTum mchog gTum drag gTum drag
S Karaṅkin Cāritra Subhīṣaṇa Bhīmasena Jvālavana Subhīṣaṇa
Keng rus Tsa ri tra rNam ’jigs ’Jigs sde ’Bar ba’i
can nags tshal
W Vajrajvāla Kolagiri *Jvālapari- Karaṅkaka Kāpāla Karaṅkaka
rDo rje ’bar Ko la gi ri veṣakāpāla Keng rus Thod pa can
ba ’Bar ba
’khyim pa
thod pa can
N Gahvara Jayantī Gahvara Gahvara Bhairava Gahvara
Tshang Dza yaṇṭi Ga ha ra Tshang ’Jigs byed
tshing tshing can
NE Aṭṭahāsa Ujjayinī Aṭṭahāsa Aṭṭahāsa Kilikilāra- Aṭṭaṭṭahāsa
Mi bzad Udzdza ya Aṭṭa ha sa Ha har dgod va
bzhad ni pa Ca co sgrogs
98 TILOPĀ II
SE Lakṣmīva- Prayāga *Lakṣmīvat *Śrīvana *Śrīnāyaka Lākṣmīva-

na Pra yā ga La kṣ‹m›i dPal gyi dPal ’dren na
bKra shis can nags
mchog
SW Ghorāndha *Vakra- Ghorāndha Ghorāndha Aṭṭahāsa Ghorāndha-
-kāra karṇasama -kāra -kāra Ha ha kāra
Mun pa rNa ’chus ’Jig pa’i ’Jigs pa’i sgrogs
drag po sa ma mun pa mun pa
NW Kilikilāra- Devīkoṭa Kilikilāra- Kilikilāra- Ghorāndha Kilakilāra-
va lHa mo’i va va -kāra va
Ki li ki la’i mkhar Kī li kī la’i Kī li kī lar Mun chen
sgra sgra sgrogs pa
Noticeably the charnel grounds mentioned in the above texts are maṇḍala-
based, and their names appear as much fictitious as the multiple Tibetan
translations demonstrate. It cannot be excluded that portions of them be just
qualifications of the proper nouns (English 2002: 347), conceived in the
course of some exalted ascetic’s accomplishments; hence in the present day
it is very difficult to know whether all the sacred toponyms ever
corresponded to any definite and stable places on the map, or were applied
to a variety of sites in certain circumstances; whether to one or more than
one simultaneously, and whether time had ever shifted those designations
from one to another (Roşu 1969: 37–39). No doubt, it is discouraging to
count at least two places in Tibet claimed as Cāritra, and at least four as
Devīkoṭa (Huber 1990: 144–45). In addition, if this clerical Buddhist
relocation of traditional Indian sites on Tibetan soil dates from about the
eleventh century, it is even more disheartening that analogous processes
must have already occurred more than once in India as well, and certainly
since longer a time. From this point of view, the fact that a current toponym
could be evocative of some ancient sacred place is not at all contributing to
any conclusive identification.
Outlines
Shamsher Manuscript (α)
Going along with Tucci’s (1930) partition into nine fragments, our first
source could be schematized according to the following outline.
1 The Buddhabodhisattvasiddhānām āmnāyaḥ, or ‘Tradition of the

Buddhas, the Bodhisattvas and the Siddhas’, is a hagiographic account
of the āmnāya of nonmentation (amanasikāra).
1―Buddha (bhagavān) leaves the hearers (śravaka) of Mahāyāna and
goes to the south: there, he institutes the maṇḍala of Dharmadhātu.
2―Nāgārjuna is predicted (vyākṛta).
3―Regarded as later than the Nāgārjuna predicted, there is a
hagiographic sketch of a Dāmodara, also called Śākyamitra as a monk
(bhikṣu) devoted to the bodhisattva Ratnamati, and then Advayavajra
when blessed (adhiṣṭhita) by the tantric deity Vajrayoginī. The text
mentions Saraha as a spiritual ancestor of Advayavajra.
4―In order to introduce the main guru of Dāmodara, alias Śākyamitra,
Advayavajra, the text jumps back to Nāgārjuna, and describes him as
the guru of a Triśaraṇa, subsequently known as the siddha Śabara, who
took the two mountains Manobhaṅga and Cittaviśrāma as his abode
for practice (Manobhaṅga-Cittaviśrāmau), and lived there under the
aspect of a Śabara, that is like the tribal people of the forest.
2 In the second of the two guruparaṃparās of the āmnāya of
amanasikāra, the name of our Bengali siddha occurs for the first time
as Tilopā:27 he appears as disciple of a Vajrayoginī of Uḍḍiyāna,
Uḍḍinī Vajrayoginī.28 In the same guruparaṃparā he is the guru of
Nāropā, in turn guru of Advayavajra; in the second guruparamparā
Advayavajra’s guru is Śabara.
3 After a speculation about the name of Vajravārāhī, the triangular
(trikoṇa) phenomenogonic symbol of the womb of the existent
(dharmodaya) is introduced.
4 A short meditative and ritual practice focused upon Vajrayoginī is
described.
5 The Vajrayoginīguruparaṃparā, ‘Masters’ Lineage of Vajrayoginī’,
like the second fragment, is a name list with a lineage of gurus in the
practices of Vajrayoginī: Śabara appears as guru of Sāgaradatta.
6 The Amanasikāra yathāśrutakramaḥ, or ‘Reported Lineage of
Nonmentation’, this important fragment studied by Mark Tatz (1987)
is a more detailed account of the Dāmodara/Śākyamitra/Advayavajra
introduced in the first fragment; his further names are Martabodha,
when he was a young ascetic brāhmaṇa (ekadaṇḍin; Lorenzen 1972:
104–105), and Maitrīgupta, when a bhikṣu of the ancient Buddhist
school of the Sammatīyas, or Pudgalavādins.
1―He studied Mahāyāna under Nāropā for twenty years (pramāṇa-
100 TILOPĀ II
mādhyamika-pārimitānayādi-śāstraṃ śrutam), and esoteric Buddhism

(mantranayaśāstra) with Rāgavajra for five years. Then, following the
philosophical debate current at Nālandā and Vikramaśīla about the
ontological status of mental images (ākāra)―whether they have some
objective content (sākāra) as claimed by Jñānaśrīmitra, or not
(nirākāra) as sustained by Ratnākaraśānti (Kajiyama 1965)―he
studied the Nirākāra approach with Ratnākaraśānti at Nālandā for one
year, and the Sākāra approach with Jñānaśrīmitra at Vikramaśīla for
two years. After that he was in Vikramapura as the bhikṣu Maitrīgupta
for four years.
2―Ordered in a dream, he went to Khasarpaṇa, probably in the forests
of Puṇḍravardhana (Tatz 1987: 701), where he stayed for one year.
3―At the order of another dream, he went with Sāgara, a prince
(rājaputra) of Rāḍhā, to Manobhaṅga and Cittaviśrāma, the two
mountains in the south of India where the lord of Śabaras had his
abode (Dakṣiṇāpathe Manobhaṅga-Cittaviśrāmau parvatau).
4―The two, after one year at Dhānyakaṭaka, reached the two sacred
mountains.
5―Eventually the Śabara appeared and caused his (or their) direct
vision (sākṣād darśanaṃ) and gave him/them consecration (sekaṃ
dadāti) with the initiatic name Advayavajra. The two, Advayavajra
and Sāgara, received instruction by the lord of Śabaras (Śabareśvara)
and the latter’s consorts Padmāvalī and Jñānavālī.
7 The Sampradāyavidhiḥ, or ‘Propitiation Rite of the Lineage’, is a text
conducive to the integration (yoga) with the ‘Blessed Lady’
(bhagavatī, i.e. Vajrayoginī); at the end the spells, or mantras as spelt
within the masters’ lineage (guruparaṃparākathana) are prescribed.
8 At the instructions of Lūyīpāda, the unidentified hero of this curious
fragment went to Uḍḍiyāna in search of the tantra of ‘Saṃvara’s
Foaming Sea’ (Lūyīpādādeśāt Saṃvarārṇavatantram ānetum
Oḍiyānaṃ gataḥ). The anonymous hero of the fragment remained in
Uḍḍiyāna for four days with a yoginī; then he took fraudulently that
tantra on the other bank of the river. But the yoginī saw all the process,
so the tantra was brought by the breeze back at the presence of the
adamantine woman (vajrāṅganā).29 The fragment ends with a list of
siddhas in the tradition of this tantra: Kukurīpāda, Indrabhūtipāda,
Lakṣmīkarā, Virupāpāda, Paiṇḍapātika I, Ḍiṅgara, and Paiṇḍapātika II.
9 A practice of Vajrayoginī is transmitted (bhagavatīṃ saṃhāryety
āmnāyaḥ).
As to the different siddhas’ lines of transmission reported in the Shamsher

Manuscript, they can be organized in the following scheme—
1 2a 2b 5 8
amanasikāra amanasikāra amanasikāra Vajrayoginī Saṃvarārṇava
(Lūyīpāda)
|
Kukurīpāda
|
(Saraha) Indrabhūtipā Indrabhūtipāda
| | |
Nāgārjuna UḍḍinīVajrayoginī Lakṣmīkarā
| | |
Śabara Tilopā Śabaranātha Śabaranātha Virupāpāda
| | | |
Nāropā | | |
| | | |
Advayavajra Advayavajra I Sāgaradatta Paiṇḍapātika I
| | | |
Dhyāyīpā Vajrapāṇi Vijayaghoṣa Ḍiṅgara
| | | |
Amoghaśrī Paiṇḍapātika Anaṅgavajra Paiṇḍapātika II
| |
Abhayākaragupta Biso
| |
Advayavajra II Paiṇḍapātika
|
Vinayagupta
|
Vāgīśvara
|
Sudhanaśrī
|
Līlāvajra
|
Lalitavajra
|
Kovihāra
Paṇḍita
102 TILOPĀ II
Mar pa (β)
rNal ’byor gyi dbang phyug ti lo pa’i lo rgyus
fols 1b–11b (photostat pp. 8–28)
EXPLICIT IMPLICIT TITLES PAGE

1 Mi rang rgyud par grags pa―[Telopa’s] fame as an individual
human being; 11.2
1.1.1 mkha’ ’gros lung bstan―he had a revelation by the ḍākinīs; 11.3
his native land, family, birth, and first name; 11.4
the soothsayer’s response; 11.5
many ugly women’s pronouncement; 12.1
the same women’s prediction; 12.4
1.1.2 bla ma btsal―he sought for a guru: 13.4
Caryāpā (Tsa rya pa), 13.4
Kambalapā (La wa pa), 13.5
Mātaṅgīpā (Ma tang gi), 13.5
a woman; 13.7
1.1.3 sgrub pa mdzad pa―he practised; 14.3
*Tilatailavajragīti (TVG), or the ‘Adamantine Song
of Sesame Oil’; 15.1
1.2.1 mkha’ ’gro zil gyis mnan―he overpowered the ḍākinīs; 15.6
1.2.2 chos zhus pa―he received the Dharma; 18.1
the teachings received in Uḍḍiyāna; 19.3
the Vajraḍākinīniṣkāyadharma (VḌNDh), or the
‘Ninefold Dharma of Incorporeal Ḍākinīs’ (Lus med
mkha’ ’gro’i chos dgu); 19.7
1.3 mi’i bla ma med pa―as one without human gurus; 20.3
1.4 sprul pa sna tshogs bstan pa―he showed himself under several
manifestations: 20.4
1.4.1 rnal ’byor pa zil gyis mnan pa―he overpowered the yogin; 20.5
1.4.2 mu stegs pa btul ba―he converted the tīrthika; 21.6
1.4.3 sgyu ma mkhan btul ba―he converted the magician; 22.4
1.4.4 chang ’tshong ma btul ba―he converted the liquor-selling
woman; 23.3
1.4.5 glu mkhan btul ba―he converted the singer; 23.6
1.4.6 shan pa btul ba―he converted the butcher; 24.3
1.4.7 las ’bras med par ’dod pa btul ba―he converted the denier of the
effect of actions; 24.6
1.4.8 mthu mkhan btul ba―he converted the sorcerer; 25.6
2 bDe mchog gi sprul par grags pa―his fame as a manifestation of
Śaṃvara; 26.3
3 bDe mchog dngos su grags pa―his fame as Śaṃvara himself; 27.1

4 Sangs rgyas thams cad kyi sku ’dus par grags pa―his fame as
the aggregation of the bodies of all Buddhas. 27.6
rGyal thang pa (η)

rJe btsun chen po tilli pa’i rnam par thar pa
fols 1a–22a (photostat pp. 16–57)
(β) η EXPLICIT IMPLICIT TITLES PAGE

1 rTsa ba’i tshig gis bstod par brjod pa―the root eulogy; 16.2
2 rtsa ba’i tshig gi ’grel pa bshad pa―the commentary on
it; 18.2
2.1 explanation of verse 1 (... ces pa’i don); 18.3
2.2 explanation of verse 2; 19.4
2.3 explanation of verse 3; 20.6
(1.1.1) 2.4 explanation of verse 4: 21.3
Tillipa’s native land, family, birth, and first
name; 22.5
soothsayers and astrologers’ response; 23.4
2.5 explanation of verse 5: 23.7
the ‘ugly woman’s’ pronouncement; 24.1
the ‘same woman’s’ prediction; 24.6
departure to Uḍḍiyāna; 25.6
the victory over the ḍākinīs; 26.5
the obtention of teachings; 29.1
the Vajraḍākinīniṣkāyadharma (VḌNDh); 31.2
vision and union with Vajradhara; 31.5
(1.3) 2.9 explanation of verse 9: 32.7
as one without human gurus; 33.1
as one with human gurus; 33.2
first transmission; 33.5
second transmission; 37.7
third transmission; 38.2
fourth transmission; 40.1
(1.4) 2.10 explanation of verse 10: 40.4
(1.4.1) the victory over the yogin; 40.6
(1.4.2) the conversion of the tīrthika; 42.6
(1.4.3) the conversion of the magician; 43.7
104 TILOPĀ II
(1.4.4) the conversion of the liquor-selling woman; 45.5

(1.4.7) the conversion of the lokāyata; 47.3
(1.4.6) the conversion of the butcher; 49.4
(1.4.5) the conversion of the singer; 50.3
(1.4.8) the conversion of the sorcerer; 51.1
(2) as a manifestation of Cakrasaṃvara; 52.3
(3) as Cakrasaṃvara himself; 53.5
(4) as the aggregation of the bodies of all
Buddhas; 54.4
2.13 explanation of verse 13. 55.2
rDo rje mdzes ’od (θ)

Te lo pa’i rnam thar
fols 27a–43b (photostat pp. 53–86)
(β) θ EXPLICIT IMPLICIT TITLES PAGE

(1) 1 Mi rang rgyud pa ltar bstan pa―[Telopa’s]
manifestation as an individual human being; 54.1
1.1 mkha’ ’gro ma zil gyis mnan zhing chos gsan pa―he
overpowered the ḍākinīs and listened to the Dharma; 54.1
his native land, family, birth, and first name; 54.1
‘ugly woman’s’ pronouncement; 54.6
‘the same woman’s’ prediction; 55.2
(1.2.1) the victory over the ḍākinīs; 57.1
(1.2.2) the obtention of teachings; 59.3
received teachings in Uḍḍiyāna; 63.5
(1.3) 1.2 mi’i bla ma med par bstan pa―he manifested himself as
one without human gurus; 66.1
1.3 mi’i bla ma yod par bstan pa―he manifested himself as
one with human gurus; 66.5
1.4 mkha’ spyod kyi dngos grub thob par mdzad pa―he
attained to the perfection of the celestial form; the
*Tilatailavajragīti (TVG); 69.5
(1.4.1) 1.5 rnal ’byor pa zil gyis mnan pa―he overpowered the
yogin; 71.1
(1.4.2) 1.6 mu stegs pa btul ba―he converted the tīrthika; 73.2
(1.4.4) 1.7 chang ’tshong ma―the liquor-selling woman; 74.3

(1.4.3) 1.8 sgyu ma mkhan btul ba―he converted the magician; 75.4
1.9 lus kyi bkod pa du ma bstan pa―he showed himself
under many physical forms; 76.4
(1.4.7) 1.10 las rgyu ’bras dngos su bstan pa―he showed directly the
causality of actions; 76.6
(1.4.6) 1.11 shan pa btul ba―he converted the butcher; 79.2
(1.4.5) 1.12 glu mkhan btul ba―he converted the singer; 80.1
(1.4.8) 1.13 nus pa mkhan btul ba―he converted the sorcerer; 80.6
(2) 2 bde mchog ’khor lo’i sprul par bstan pa―[Telopa’s]
revelation as a manifestation of Cakraśaṃvara; 82.1
(3) 3 bde mchog ’khor lo dngos su bstan pa―his revelation as
Cakraśaṃvara himself; 83.6
(4) 4 dus gsum gyi sangs rgyas thams cad kyi sku bsdus par
bstan pa―his revelation as the aggregation of the bodies
of all Buddhas. 84.4
U rgyan pa (ι)
Te lo pa’i rnam thar
It is to be noticed U rgyan pa’s inaccuracy in sections numbering because

of the interpolation of the section here given in curly brackets as {3}.
(β) ι EXPLICIT IMPLICIT TITLES PAGE

(1) 1.1 Telopa’s native land, family, birth, and
first name; 14.1
‘the same woman’s’ prediction; 15.2
Buddha visions and four transmissions; 17.2
(1.2.1) the victory over the ḍākinīs; 18.1
(1.2.2) the obtention of teachings; 19.5
the name of Telopa; 21.5
received teachings in Uḍḍiyāna; 22.1
(1.3) 1.2 mi’i bla ma med par bstan pa―he showed himself as
one without human gurus; 23.1
1.3 mi’i bla ma yod par bstan pa―he showed himself as
one with human gurus; 23.2
106 TILOPĀ II
(1.4.1) 1.4 rnal ’byor pa zil gyis mnan pa―he overpowered the
yogin; 23.3
(1.4.2) 1.5 mu stegs pa btul ba―he converted the tīrthika; 25.2
(1.4.3) 1.6 sgyu ma mkhan btul ba―he converted the magician; 26.4
(1.4.4) 1.7 chang ’tshong ma btul ba―he converted the woman
selling liquor; 28.4
1.8 lus kyi bkod pa du ma mdzad pa―he assumed many
forms; 30.1
(1.4.7) 1.9 las rgyu ’bras mngon sum du bstan pa―he showed
vividly the causality of actions; 31.3
(1.4.6) 1.10 shan pa btul ba―he converted the butcher; 33.2
(1.4.5) 1.11 glu mkhan btul ba―he converted the singer; 34.3
(1.4.8) 1.12 nus pa can gzhan btul ba―he converted another
sorcerer; 35.3
(2) 2 bde mchog ’khor lor bstan pa―[Telopa’s] revelation as
Cakraśaṃvara; 36.5
{3} phyogs bcur grags pa mtha’ yas su grags pa―his
endless fame in the ten directions; 38.3
{3.1} rgya gar shar phyogs su khams gsum rab ’joms ngo
mtshar du grags pa―his fame in the east of India; 38.5
{3.2} rgya gar lho phyogs su sprul pa’i skus mngon shes
phyogs bcur khyab par grags pa―his fame in the south 41.1
of India;
{3.3} rgya gar nub phyogs su log par lta ba tshar bcad nas
sangs rgyas kyi bstan pa rgyas par mdzad pa―his fame
in the west of India; 42.4
{3.4} rgya gar byang phyogs su skal bzang thabs kyis btul
bas ngo mtshar snyan par grags pa―his fame in the
north of India; 45.3
(3) 3 bde mchog ’khor lo dngos su bstan pa―his
manifestation as Cakraśaṃvara himself; 50.2
(4) 4 dus gsum sangs rgyas thams cad kyi skur ’dus pa’i rang
bzhin du bstan pa―his manifestation as the aggregation
of the bodies of all Buddhas. 51.3
Mon rtse pa (κ)

Ti lo shes rab bzang po’i rnam par thar
(β) κ IMPLICIT TITLES PAGE

(1) 1.1 Tilopa as a human being; 23.5
(1.1.1) birth; 23.7

soothsayers’ response; 24.2
the same woman’s prediction; 25.3
(1.2.1) 1.2.1 the victory over the ḍākinīs; 26.3
(1.2.2) 1.2.2 the obtention of teachings; 29.4
1.2.3 the Vajraḍākinīniṣkāyadharma (VḌNDh); 31.7
(1.3) 1.3 as one without human gurus; 32.3
(1.4) 1.4 several manifestations; 32.7
(1.4.1) 1.4.1 the victory over the yogin; 33.1
(1.4.2) 1.4.2 the conversion of the tīrthika; 34.7
(1.4.3) 1.4.3 the conversion of the magician; 35.7
(1.4.4) 1.4.4 the conversion of the woman selling liquor; 37.5
1.4.5 several manifestations as a yogin; 38.5
(1.4.7) 1.4.6 the conversion of the lokāyata; 39.1
(1.4.6) 1.4.7 the conversion of the butcher; 40.6
(1.4.5) 1.4.8 the conversion of the singer; 41.4
(1.4.8) 1.4.9 the conversion of the sorcerer; 42.1
(2) 2 as a manifestation of Cakrasaṃvara; 43.1
(3) 3 as Cakrasaṃvara himself; 44.5
(4) 4 as the aggregation of the bodies of all Buddhas. 45.7
gTsang smyon He ru ka (λ)

Ti lo pa’i rnam thar
MS. A―fols 9b–20a (photostat pp. 22–43)
MS. B―fols 9a–19b (photostat pp. 97–118)
Ms. A Ms. B
(β) EXPLICIT IMPLICIT TITLES
PAGE PAGE
(1.1) rJe btsun ma’i slob ma’i slob ma’i tshul stan pa rdo rje
’chang gi mchog gi sprul sku ti lo shes rab bzang po
ni―Tilopa Prajñābhadra, the sublime manifestation
body of Vajradhara, is shown as the disciple of a disciple
of Bhagavatī; 22.2 97.6
his native land, family, and birth; 22.3 97.7
the astrologers’ response and his first name;
22.4 98.1
the old ugly woman’s first pronouncement;
22.7 98.4
Buddhas’ visions; 23.4 99.2
the same woman’s second pronouncement; 23.6 99.3
108 TILOPĀ II
the beautiful woman’s prediction; 23.7 99.4

(1.2) the victory over the ḍākinīs and the
obtention of teachings; 25.1 100.5
the Vajraḍākinīniṣkāyadharma (VḌNDh); 29.7 105.2
(1.3) as one without human gurus; 30.2 105.6
(1.4) gdul bya gzhan don rgya chen nus pa rnams smin grol la
bkod tshul―how he brought onto the path of ripening
and liberation those to be disciplined; 30.6 106.2
(1.4.1) rnal ’byor pa nus ldan rjes su bzung tshul―how he
accepted the powerful yogin as a disciple; 31.2 106.4
(1.4.2) mu stegs pa rjes su bzung tshul―how he accepted the
tīrthika as a disciple; 32.6 108.1
(1.4.3) sgyu ma mkhan rjes su bzung tshul―how he accepted
the magician as a disciple; 33.7 109.1
(1.4.4) chang ’tshong ma rjes su bzung tshul―how he accepted
the liquor-selling woman as a disciple; 34.7 110.3
(1.4.5) mu stegs rgyang ’phan rjes su bzung tshul―how he
accepted the lokāyata as a disciple; 35.6 111.2
(1.4.6) shan pa rjes su bzung tshul―how he accepted the
butcher as a disciple; 37.2 112.5
(1.4.7) glu mkhan rjes su bzung tshul―how he accepted the
singer as a disciple; 37.7 113.2
(1.4.8) mthu bo che rjes su bzung tshul―how he accepted the
sorcerer as a disciple; 38.4 113.6
(2) bde mchog ’khor lo’i sprul pa ru ’dug ces grags―his
fame as a manifestation of Cakraśaṃvara; 39.3 114.5
(3) bde mchog ’khor lo dngos su ’dug ces grags―his fame
as Cakraśaṃvara himself; 40.7 116.1
(4) his fame as the aggregation of the bodies of
all Buddhas. 42.1 117.1
Kun dga’ rin chen (μ)

rJe btsun ti lo pa’i rnam thar dbang bzhi’i chu rgyun
(β) IMPLICIT TITLES PAGE

(1.1.1) Tillipa’s native land, family, birth, soothsayers’ response, and
first name; 41.1
the ugly woman’s pronouncement; 42.4
(1.1.2) Tillipa’s first career; 43.2
the same woman’s prediction; 43.2
Mātaṅgīpā and his prediction; 43.4

(1.1.3) as servant of the prostitute Dharima and grinder of sesame; 44.1
(1.4.1) the victory over a yogin; 46.3
(1.2.1) the victory over the ḍākinīs in Uḍḍiyāna; 49.1
(1.2.2) the obtention of teachings. 49.4
dBang phyug rgyal mtshan (ν)

rJe btsun ti lo’i rnam par thar pa
fols 0b–78a (photostat pp. 1–157)
(β) ν EXPLICIT TITLES PAGE
(1) 1 Bram ze rang dga’ ba’i tshul bzung ba phyi’i rnam

thar―outer biography, [Tilopa] in the form of an
ordinary brāhmaṇa; 10.1
(1.1) 1.1 ngo mtshar mchog tu gyur pa bsam gyis mi khyab pa’i
sgo nas sku bltams pa’i tshul―how he took an
inconceivable miraculous birth; 10.5
(1.2) 1.2 chos bdag ye shes mkha’ ’gro’i phyag nas rang gi dam
chos snyan rgyud nor bu’i bskor gsum u rgyan nas gdan
’dren pa la bskul ba’i tshul―how he was exhorted to
bring from Uḍḍiyāna the three gems of the aural
transmission, the sublime doctrine, from the hands of the
doctrine-holder the jñānaḍākinī; 21.5
(1.2.1) 1.3 lta stangs gsum gyis longs sku dam tshig gi mkha’ ’gro
dang sprul sku las kyi mkha’ ’gro zil gyis gnan pa’i
tshul―how he overpowered the karmaḍākinīs of the
nirmāṇakāya, and the samayaḍākinīs of the
sambhogakāya by means of three gazes; 30.5
1.4 chos sku ye shes kyi mkha’ ’gro dang spangs rtogs dbyer
med pas tshugs thub tu bzhugs pa la ’khor yid ma rangs
pa la yab tu mnga’ gsol ba’i tshul―how he was invested
as the consort while sitting regardless among a reluctant
retinue, as his abandonment and realization was
inseparably united with the jñānaḍākinī of the
dharmakāya; 34.1
(1.2.2) 1.5 lus med mkha’ ’gros snyan rgyud kyi cha lag chos bskor
dgu dam chos bdag po la phul ba’i tshul―how the
incorporeal ḍākinīs offered to the lord the ninefold
sublime doctrine as an extra practice of the aural 41.2
transmission;
110 TILOPĀ II
(2) 2 bde mchog gi sprul par zhal gyis bzhes pa nang gi rnam
thar―inner biography, [Tilopa] as a manifestation of
Śaṃvara; 44.3
2.1 u rgyan nas phebs te ki ri me dpung ’bar ba’i dur khrod
du sangs rgyas rdo rje ’chang gis smin byed kyi dbang
bzhi bskur rgyud sde mtha’ dag gnang ba’i tshul―how
he left from Uḍḍiyāna, and the Buddha Vajradhāra gave
him the four ripening consecrations and all the tantras in
the charnel ground of Ki ri me dpung ’bar ba; 45.2
2.2 ma dag pa’i snang ba zlog phyir bka’ babs bzhi’i bla ma
brten pa’i tshul―how he relied upon the gurus of four
transmissions to avoid impure perceptions; 47.5
2.3 sa ma bhai ra wa ’jigs byed bzhad pa zhes bya ba’i dur
khrod du rnal ’byor gyi dbang phyug chen po ma tang gis
lung bstan nas dha ri ma’i khol po mdzad de sprul bsgyur
gyi bkod pa mchog gi rdzu ’phrul bstan nas grub pa’i
skyes mchog za hor rgyal po ’khor bcas mkha’ spyod du
drangs pa’i tshul―how he had a revelation in the charnel
ground of Sa ma bhai ra wa ’Jigs byed bzhad pa by the
great lord of yoga Mātaṅgīpā, he magically exhibited
sublime arrays of transformations working as servant of
Dharima, then the accomplished supreme being brought
the king of Zahor and his entourage to the celestial realm; 50.3
*Tilatailavajragīti (TVG); 63.3
(1.4) 2.4 tshad med kyi thugs rjes thugs sras rnal ’byor mtshan
brgyad smin grol la bkod pa’i tshul―how his
immeasurable compassion brought onto the path of
ripening and liberation eight spiritual sons with the marks
of yoga; 65.3
(1.4.1) 2.4.1 rnal ’byor pa nus pa thogs med rjes su bzung ba―he
accepted as a disciple the yogin Nus pa thogs med; 65.3
(1.4.2) 2.4.2 mu stegs nag po rjes su bzung tshul―how he accepted as
a disciple the tīrthika Nag po; 70.5
(1.4.3) 2.4.3 sgyu ma mkhan rjes su bzung tshul―how he accepted as
a disciple the magician; 74.4
(1.4.4) 2.4.4 chang ’tshong ma rjes su bzung ba’i tshul―how he
accepted as a disciple the liquor-selling woman; 78.5
(1.4.7) 2.4.5 las rgyu ’bras dngos su bstan te mu stegs rgyang phan pa
rjes su bzung ba’i tshul―how he showed directly the
causality of actions and accepted as a disciple the
materialist tīrthika; 84.4
(1.4.6) 2.4.6 shan pa rjes su bzung ba’i tshul―how he accepted as a
disciple the butcher; 91.1

(1.4.5) 2.4.7 glu mkhan rjes su bzung ba’i tshul―how he accepted as a
disciple the singer; 93.4
(1.4.8) 2.4.8 mthu bo che rjes su bzung tshul―how he accepted the
sorcerer as a disciple; 101.3
2.5 rje btsun chen po ti lo pa de nyid dge slong gi cha byad
kyis rgyal po sogs sems can mang po’i don mdzad pas
’khor lo bde mchog gis sprul par zhal gyis bzhes pa―the
great venerable Tilopa, acting in monastic garb for the
sake of many sentient beings to begin with the king, was
taken as a manifestation of Cakraśaṃvara; 112.3
(3) 3 bde mchog dngos su zhal gyis bzhes pa gsang ba’i rnam
thar―secret biography, he was taken as Śaṃvara 119.4
himself;
3.1 rnam par mthar pa’i yon tan ma lus pa rnams bskyed pa’i
rgyu dad pa’i gling bzhi lus kyi tshul gyis mdor bstan
pa―the four continents of faith, generating cause for all
the qualities of a perfect liberation, were briefly presented
by means of the body; 120.1
3.2 mthun mong ma yid pa’i rnam par thar pa’i yon tan yan
lag gi tshul gyis zur tsam bshad pa―the quality of an
uncommon perfect liberation is partially shown by means
of the limbs; 128.4
3.3 ’jug tu gzhi gcig gi steng su ’khor ’das kyi gnad ma lus pa
gcig tu dril nas gtan la phab pa―all the essentials of
saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are merged together and put in order
on a single basis for involvement; 142.4
(4) 4 dus gsum sangs rgyas kun gyi ngo bor zhal gyis bzhes pa
de kho na nyid kyi rnam thar―ultimate biography,
[Tilopa] as the essence of all Buddhas of the three times. 143.2
lHa btsun (ξ)

Sangs rgyas thams cad kyi rnam ’phrul rje btsun ti lo pa’i rnam mgur
(β) ξ EXPLICIT TITLES PAGE

(1) 1 sKu bltams te u rgyan du ye shes mkha’ ’gro la snyan
brgyud yid bzhin nor bu skor gsum len du byon pa’i mdzad
pa―[Tilopa’s] birth and arrival at the presence of the
jñānaḍākinī in Uḍḍiyāna to take the three wish-fulfilling
gems of the aural transmission; 7.4
112 TILOPĀ II

(1.4) 2 nor bu skor gsum cha lag dang bcas pa blangs nas rgya gar
du byon te bka’ babs bzhi’i bla ma rten tshul gyi sgo nas
rnal ’byor mtshan brgyad la sogs pa thun mong dang thun
mong ma yin pa’i gdul bya mtha’ yas pa smin grol la ’god
pa’i mdzad pa―once taken the three wish-fulfilling gems
and auxiliary teachings, his arrival to India, where he relied
upon the gurus of four transmissions and brought onto the
path of ripening and liberation countless ordinary and
extraordinary disciples, to begin with the eight qualified
yogins; 22.1
(1.4.1) 2.1 rnal ’byor pa nus ldan rjes su bzung tshul―how he
accepted the powerful yogin as a disciple (AMM I); 23.2
(1.4.2) 2.2 mu stegs pa rjes su bzung tshul―how he accepted the
tīrthika as a disciple (AMM II); 29.2
(1.4.3) 2.3 sgyu ma mkhan rjes su bzung tshul―how he accepted the
magician as a disciple (AMM VIII); 33.5
(1.4.4) 2.4 chang ’tshong ma rjes su bzung tshul―how he accepted the
woman selling liquor as a disciple (AMM III); 39.4
(1.4.7) 2.5 las rgyu ’bras bden pa dngos su bstan nas mu stegs rgyang
’phan pa rjes su bzung tshul―how he showed directly the
truth of the causality of actions and accepted the lokāyata
as a disciple (AMM V); 43.5
(1.4.6) 2.6 shan pa rjes su bzung tshul―how he accepted the butcher
as a disciple (AMM VI); 48.6
(1.4.5) 2.7 glu mkhan rjes su bzung tshul―how he accepted the singer
as a disciple (AMM IV); 52.6
(1.4.8) 2.8 mthu bo che rjes su bzung tshul―how he accepted the
sorcerer as a disciple (AMM VII); 57.1
(2) 2.9 bde mchog ’khor lo’i sprul pa ru ’dug ces grags―his fame
as a manifestation of Cakraśaṃvara; 61.5
(3) 2.10 bde mchog ’khor lo dngos su ’dug ces grags―his fame as
Cakraśaṃvara himself; 63.5
(4) 2.11 dus gsum gyi sangs rgyas thams cad kyi sku ’dus par bstan
pa―he revealed himself as the aggregation of the bodies of
all Buddhas of the three times. 65.2
2.12 rnal ’byor gyi dbang phyug ti lo pas | chu bo gang gā’i
’gram du | nā ro pa la gsungs pa rang byung bsam gyis mi
khyab pa zhes bya ba i thi―the inconceivable self-born,
that the lord of yoga Tilopa said to Nāropā by the bank of
the Gaṅgā River (MMU); 66.3
2.13 dur khrod chen po dag pa’i dbyings su | slob dpon chen po
ti lo pas | paṇ chen nā ro pa la chos nyid gnyug ma’i mgur

du gdams pa―the great Ācārya Tilopa’s instruction on the
innate being of phenomena put into verse for the great
scholar Nāropa in the great charnel ground of Dag pa’i
dbyings (NDhG); 72.3
3 za hor gyi yul khams stongs par mdzad nas dag pa’i zhing
du gshegs pa’i mdzad pa―having emptied the kingdom of
Zahor, he went to the pure realms. 73.3
The Names of the Sesame Grinder

So far Nāropā’s guru has been called in various ways according to the
sources. The name occurs once in Apabhraṃśa as Tīlopāa (Skt Tilopāda) in
the Tillopādasya dohākoṣapañjikā sārārthapañjikā (TDKP), four times in
Sanskrit as Tillopāda in the same text, and on one occasion as Tilopā in the
Shamsher Manuscript (source α). It is variously attested in the above
described Tibetan sources as Tilopa (β, κ, λ, ν, ξ), Telopa (β, γ, θ, ι, κ),
Tillopa (δ, ζ), Tillipa (η, μ), and Tailopa (ε). On the basis of source α, the
Indic designation Tilopā will be adopted hereafter for our convenience.
All these forms come from the Sanskrit word tila (Tib. til) ‘sesame’
because of his drawing off oil from its seeds. On account of this activity,
Mar pa (β 14.4) informs us that he was known in Tibetan as the Sesame
Grinder (Til brdungs zhabs : Tailikapāda) as well.
Another of his names, gSal ’od (β, η, θ, ι, κ, λ, μ, ξ) or gSal ba’i ’od (ν,
ξ) is the first one he received, while Shes rab bzang po (β, ε, η, θ, ι, κ, λ, μ,
ν, ξ) or Pradznyā bha ṭa/Pradznya bha dra (η, ν) i.e. Prajñābhadra, would
be the initiatic name he received from the jñānaḍākinī in Uḍḍiyāna. Other
initiatic names (gsang mtshan) of Tilopā have been registered by rDo rje
mdzes ’od (θ 43b1–2), viz. *Mahāsukhavajra (bDe chen rdo rje),
*Nirvikalpavajra (rTog med rdo rje), *Sukhacakra (bDe ba’i ’khor lo), and
*Kālapā (Ka la pa).
The Marpan Tradition

Being the first human guru of the Mar pa bKa’ brgyud pa traditions, the
narrative of Tilopā’s life usually opens the collections of hagiographies
(gser ’phreng) of the masters prominent in those lineages in view of
114 TILOPĀ II
gurupūjā practices. Most likely, Mar pa’s account depends mainly on the
reports of his guru Nāropā, or someone of the siddhas’ entourage. If this is
the case, the words he listened to, and allegedly passed to his son mDo sde,
would have come from direct spectator. Since Nāropā and his entourage
witnessed the events of our siddha’s life only in part, many pieces of
information would necessarily depend on Tilopā himself. It is realistic to
conclude that, in about one century―since Tilopā to Dar ma mDo sde―the
fabula of the deeds has been somehow arranged at least three times,
according to both the pedagogic intent of the addresser (the master) and the
reverential approach of the addressee (the disciple). In line with the model
discussed in the Preface, we can represent the stream of this transmission of
data as a deferred interaction between informant and informed within the
bKa’ brgyud hagiographic tradition―
Tilopā → x ↔ Nāropā → x’ ↔ Nāropā’s entourage → x’’ ↔ Mar pa.
We do not know whether the narrative scheme of Mar pa’s account should
be ascribed to Tilopā, Nāropā, Nāropā’s entourage, or to Mar pa. For sure,
being β the earliest documental material on Tilopā, it deserves special
attention. Moreover, since Mar pa is assumed to have composed them,
there is sufficient reason to ascribe to that author the narrative scheme as
well.
In order to unearth some historical data out of their hagiographic
context, it could be a good strategy to look more in detail into Mar pa’s
narrative scheme. In particular, since Mar pa seems to lay here the
foundation stone of what later bKa’ brgyud tradition would codify up to the
level of an ideology, we will start from his trikāya (sku gsum) perspective
as it is exposed in the opening verses to his rNal ’byor gyi dbang phyug ti
lo pa’i lo rgyus. Possibly, to speak of three bodies of a buddha, that is to
say of an ‘awakened being’, exposes us to the many risks of reification, so
as to transform an intuitional or mystical view into a metaphysical or
religious one.30 Whereas the dharmakāya (chos kyi sku) or ‘body of
absolute reality’ is formless, the other two bodies have a perceptible form
(rūpakāya : gzugs sku), namely the sambhogakāya (longs spyod rdzogs pa’i
sku) or ‘body of enjoyment’, and the nirmāṇakāya (sprul pa’i sku) or
‘manifestation body’. The three are here pointed out only metaphorically:
the dharmakāya is alluded to as simplicity beyond any mental elaboration
(spros bral), the sambhogakāya as pervading throughout space (mkha’
khyab), and the nirmāṇakāya as the ‘nine moods of dance’ (gar dgu’i
nyams). As we will see, particularly interesting is here the last of the three,
the nine moods of dance, meaning the nine aesthetic emotions, or flavours
(rasa : ro) inspired in an audience by a performer, as well as the nine
expression modes of a tantric deity.
In Mar pa’s vision, the maturation of the one to be disciplined passes
through these three Buddha bodies. Now, they turn out to be the secret
source of a vast lake, barely rippled by ‘space-floating’ ḍākinīs, where he
can see the ‘lotus of the great bliss’ rising out of water with its special
fruits, the two siddhas Tilopā (Prajñābhadra) and Nāropā.
Following Mar pa’s verses, a threefold scheme comes out: first, to
reveal the nirmāṇakāya through the transmission lineage; second, to make
the ‘space-pervading’ sambhogakāya enter the organismic body (lus)
through dreams; third, to introduce the dharmakāya, which is ‘simplicity
beyond any mental elaboration’, through its characterization. Now, Mar pa
goes on, as to the aural transmission (snyan brgyud : karṇatantra) of the
ḍākinīs, out of the three―master, disciple, and Dharma―the last one is
threefold in turn, viz. outer, inner, and secret.
Again, the outer level of the Dharma relevant with the nirmāṇakāya
consists of instructions (gdams pa : avavāda) on the transmission lineage
(paramparā). Similarly, the inner level, relevant with the sambhogakāya,
consists of instructions on the maturation path (vipākamārga), and the
secret one, related to the dharmakāya, instructs on the liberation path
(muktimārga).
LEVEL BUDDHA BODY RELEVANT INSTRUCTIONS
outer nirmāṇakāya paramparā

inner sambhogakāya vipākamārga
secret dharmakāya muktimārga
The pedagogic scheme is now more explicit: for the sake of his son, Mar pa
is presenting in written form the wish-fulfilling gem of the transmission
lineage (brgyud pa yid bzhin nor bu : paramparācintāmaṇi), or instruction
of the nirmāṇakāya. In other words, he is summoning the artistic and tantric
implications of the specific mental states that have been before poetically
labelled as the nine moods of dance.
This multifaceted phenomenology is based on the Indian aesthetic
canon of rasa―in the sense of both tasting and what is tasted―as
expounded in the Rasasūtra, sixth of the thirty-six chapters of Bharata’s
Nāṭyaśāstra (6.15).31 Bharata accepts eight kinds of rasa: the erotic
116 TILOPĀ II
(śṛṅgāra : sgeg pa), the comic (hāsya : rgod pa), the compassionate
(karuṇa : snying rje), the furious (raudra : drag shul), the heroic (vīra :
dpa’ ba), the fearsome (bhayānaka : ’jigs su rung ba), the unpleasant
(bībhatsa : mi sdug pa), and the wonderful (adbhuta : ngo mtshar). Then,
later speculation admits a ninth rasa, the calm (śānta : zhi ba, Gnoli 1956:
29).
As to their tantric interpretation, Gray (2007: 44–45) has pointed out
Abhayākaragupta’s description of the Cakrasaṃvara maṇḍala in the latter’s
Niṣpannayogāvalī (Bhattacharyya 1949: 23). The central deity of the
Yoginītantras is depicted therein as bringing together in one the nine moods
of dance (navarasa). We have seen that Mar pa, apparently following the
same ideological scheme, identifies Tilopā as the nirmāṇakāya of
Cakrasaṃvara and alludes to it as the ‘nine moods of dance’ (gar dgu’i
nyams). Alex Wayman (1977: 328) has drawn attention to a passage from a
text of the Yoginītantras, the Prakāśa-nāma-śrīhevajrasādhana (dPal rdo
rje’i sgrub thabs rab tu gsal ba, Ō. 2367, Tō. 1238 108a5) by a teacher of
Atiśa according to Khetsun Sangpo (1973–90, 1: 593), the late-tenth-
century Rāhulagupta:
‘Enjoying the same taste’ (ro gcig pa nyid : ekarasa) with Nairātmyā
(bDag med ma) is the erotic (sgeg pa); staying in the charnel grounds is
the heroic (dpa’ ba); the frown and grin is the unpleasant (mi sdug pa);
the blazing light is the furious (drag shul); the exaggeration of face is the
comic (rgod pa); the garland of dripping heads is the fearsome (’jigs su
rung ba); the consciousness of assisting sentient beings is the
compassionate (snying rje); the illusory form is the wonderful (ngo mtshar
ba); the abandonment of the defilement of lust, and so on is the calm (zhi
ba).
Now, given that Mar pa seems to conceive his pedagogic effort to illustrate
the nirmāṇakāya within the scope of such an aesthetic view, the sketches in
the narrative of Tilopā would have been purposely depicted according to
one of the above moods of dance. Reasonably, the author’s rhetorical plan
would have been that of inducing the one to be disciplined to experiment
the related principal feelings of human nature, rubricated by Bharata as the
permanent mental states (sthāyibhāva)—
sthāyibhāva rasa
delight (rati) erotic (sṛṅgāra)
laughter (hāsa) the comic (hāsya)
sorrow (śoka) the compassionate (karuṇa)

anger (krodha) the furious (raudra)
heroism (utsāha) the heroic (vīra)
fear (bhaya) the fearsome (bhayānaka)
disgust (jugupsā) the unpleasant (bībhatsa)
astonishment (vismaya) the wonderful (adbhuta)
serenity (śama) the calm (śānta)
Mar pa divides the narrative of Tilopā into four parts: (1) his fame as an
individual human being (mi rang rgyud pa), (2) as a manifestation of
Śaṃvara (bde mchog gi sprul pa), (3) as Śaṃvara himself (bde mchog
dngos), and (4) as the aggregation of the bodies of all Buddhas (sangs
rgyas thams cad kyi sku ’dus pa). The sequence of the last three parts of
this fourfold scheme does not follow any strict chronological criteria but,
again, a pedagogic one. Directing the attention of the addressee to be
disciplined to an intriguing rasa-variety of tasteful sketches, Mar pa leads
him within concentric circles, corresponding in the narrative to a gradual
process of transfiguration of Tilopā into the tantric deity Cakrasaṃvara. As
we will see, this process would culminate two generations later in one of
the most interesting cultural issues within the Marpan tradition, the corpus
focussing upon the practice of that deity, the bDe mchog snyan brgyud.
During the centuries, more than one method of interpretation of the
cycle of Cakrasaṃvara and its relevant accomplishment liturgies (sādhana :
sgrub thabs) have been elaborated. A disciple of gTsang smyon He ru ka,
rGod tshang ras pa sNa tshogs rang grol (1494–1570), in a work on the
cycle according to the Ras chung snyan brgyud tradition, the bDe mchog
spyi bshad (2a6–b4; Tucci 1935: 29 n. 1), mentions nine sādhana treatises
(sgrub thabs kyi bstan bcos : sādhana-śāstra) in the vipāka- and
muktimārga (smin grol). They would correspond to the methods (lugs) of
(1) the Dharmarāja Pradyotacandra (chos rgyal Rab gsal zla ba), (2) the
Mahāsiddha Lūyīpāda (grub chen Lo hi pa), (3) the Ācārya Kṛṣṇa, i.e.
Kṛṣṇācārya (slob dpon Nag po pa), (4) the Mahāsiddha Vajraghaṇṭāpāda
(grub chen rDo rje dril bu pa), (5) the Mahāsiddha Kambalapā (sgrub chen
Lwa wa pa), (6) the Ācārya Nāgārjuna (slob dpon Klu grub), (7) King
Indrabhūti (rgyal po In dra bo dhi), (8) the Lord Maitrīpāda (mnga’ bdag
Mai tri pa), and (9) the brāhmaṇa ācārya Trilocana (slob dpon bram ze
sPyan gsum pa). In the Deb ther sngon po we read the following
transmission lineage connected with the cycle of Cakrasaṃvara (336.1–4;
BA 380; see also 764, 803)―
118 TILOPĀ II
the primordial buddha (ādibuddha) Vajradhara

(rDo rje ’chang)
|
the bodhisattva Vajrapāṇi
(Phyag na rdo rje)
|
Saraha
(Sa ra ha)
|
Śabareśvara
(Sha ba ra dbang phyug)
|
Lūyīpāda
(Lū yi pa/Lu i pa/Lu hi pa)
|
the king Dārikāpā
(rgyal po Ḍā ri kā pa)
|
the minister Ḍeṅgipā
(blon po Ḍang gi pa)
|
Vajraghaṇṭāpā
(rDo rje dril bu pa)
|
Kūrmapāda
(Ru sbal zhabs can)
|
Jālandharapā
(Dza lan dha ra pa)
|
Kṛṣṇācārya
(Nag po spyod pa ba)
|
Vijayapāda
(rNam rgyal zhabs)
|
Tilopā
(Tilli pa)
|
Nāropā
(Nā ro pa)
A narrative scheme similar to the Marpan one (β) can be found in later
accounts as those by rDo rje mdzes ’od (θ) and U rgyan pa (ι) in the
thirteenth century, Mon rtse pa (κ) and gTsang smyon He ru ka (λ) in the
fifteenth century, dBang phyug rgyal mtshan (ν) and lHa btsun (ξ) in the
sixteenth century.
rGyal thang pa’s thirteenth-century account (η) has a scheme only
apparently different. While divided in two sections―a hymn of thirteen root
verses (rtsa ba’i tshig), and a commentary upon them (rtsa ba’i tshig ’grel
pa)―the central verses, 4 to 12, run roughly parallel with Mar pa’s scheme.
From the literary point of view, the hymn is one of the most charming of
these accounts. Be the following an occasion to catch a bird’s-eye view of
the traditional hagiographic material on Tilopā (Torricelli 1998a).
Homage to the glorious guru Prajñābhadra!
[1] Buddha, Protector of beings, o Tilopā,

All Buddhas of the three times,
Being one with Thee in body speech and mind,
O Guru, I devoutedly praise Thee!
[2] Tilopā, as a manifestation of the Buddhas,

Thou art in particular Cakrasaṃvara himself:
Perfect for scriptures and reasoning, instructions and logic.
O emanated sublime being, praise unto Thee!
[3] O Tilopā, as an emanated sublime being,

All sentient beings of this universe,
By Thy great compassion yielding benefit and bliss,
Are assisted. O Lord, praise unto Thee!
[4] This world, this continent,

India in particular; Jago is the place,
A region occupied by the Brahmaputra:
Being born in that sublime place, praise unto Thee!
[5] When you were but one year old, a ḍākinī

Commanded Herd cows and buffalo!
She revealed spiritual parents, land, and the rest.
O emanated Lord, praise unto Thee!
120 TILOPĀ II
[6] The ḍākinī commanded again:

Thy consciousness was blessed with her consecration.
To celestial Uḍḍiyāna, sublime place, there
Thou went by magic power. Praise be!
[7] The noblest of ladies, Bhagavatī Yoginī,

Showed three symbols and gave teachings.
Thou became master of all teachings.
Thou sang an adamantine song. Praise unto Thee!
[8] Blazing Mass of Fire Hill:

Dwelling in that great charnel ground,
Once in the presence of Vajradhara,
Thou became one with him. Praise unto Thee!
[9] For the joy and inspiration of other beings,

Ḍeṅgipā, Karṇaripā,
Mātaṅgī and Lavapa:
Thou relied on the gurus of the fourfold lore. Praise be!
[10] For others’ benefit,

The yogin and the tīrthika,
The magician and the woman selling liquor:
Thy power brought them to discipline. Praise unto Thee!
[11] Under many guises

Thou revealed the law of cause and effect, virtue, and sin.
Converting the butcher and the sorcerer,
Thou worked for the benefit of beings. Lord praise be!
[12] Sometimes Thou appeared as a monk.

Knowing grammar and logic without any study,
Thou converted and liberated the king and his retinue.
O emanated Lord, praise unto Thee!
[13] O great Lord Tilopā,

Having exhibited the limitless liberation of Thy deeds,
As a rainbow body Thou departed into space.
For Thy perfect deeds, I devoutedly give praise unto Thee!
FIGURE 2: rGyal thang pa. rJe btsun chen po tilli pa’i rnam par thar pa, fols 1b–2b
Notes to the Second Chapter
1
β 291: Bo dhi bha dras Byang ri se brag gi sgrub gling du sbyar ba rdzogs sho. β
312: Bo dhi bha dras sbyar ba rdzogs so.
2
As to the pagination of the manuscript, it must be observed that the account of
Tilopa ends (β 28) at folio 11b (bcu gcig), and the first folio of the following
account of Nāropā (β 29), although seemingly of the same copyst’s hand, is
122 TILOPĀ II
numbered 11bis (bcu gcig ’og).

3
We read in the colophons of the matching texts that the rnam thar of Mar ston
Tshul khrims ’byung gnas was composed (sbyar) by Zhang Lo tsā ba (grub pa
dpal bzang po). In all probability, albeit not mentioned, the latter exposed (bstan)
also the account of Ma gcig Ang jo (Ma gcig ong jo). The rnam thar of Zhang Lo
tsā ba was composed (sbyar) by Dha ra shrī; that of Dha ra shrī was arranged in
written form (yi ger bkod) by bSod nams rgyal mtshan; that of bSod nams rgyal
mtshan was arranged in written form (yi ger bkod) by Rin chen rgyal mtshan; that
of Kun ldan ras ma (drin chen ma) was written (bris) by gZi brjid rgyal mtshan;
that of Bya btang pa bDe legs rin chen was composed (sbyar) by gZi brjid rgyal
mtshan; that of gZi brjid rgyal mtshan was written (bris) by Dus zhabs pa Rin
chen rgya mtsho; that of Dus zhabs pa Rin chen rgya mtsho was arranged in
written form (yi ger bkod) by bZang po chos grub at the behest (gsung) of Bla ma
Rin chen chos grags; that of ’Jam pa’i dbyangs Rin chen rgyal mtshan was written
(bris) by ’Od bZang dpal; that of gNas rnying pa rGyal mtshan rin chen was
arranged (bkod) by Grags pa rgyal mtshan (bdag Grags pa rgyal mtshan) at the
behest (bskul) of lHo dGon gsar kha’i Bla ma bDe legs pa; the accounts of Shar
kha ras chen and Kun dga’ dar po (Ā nan da da ya) were composed (sbyar) by
their disciple and assistant (slob ’bangs su gyur pa) Byang chub bzang po (Bo dhi
bha dra).
4
The anonymous compiler of the rnam thar of Mar pa concludes that his account
was sufficient due to the existence of another extensive one (HS 283, rnam par
thar pa rgyas pa zur du yod pa las rtogs shing ’di ni de tsam gyis chog go).
Similarly, we read that the account of Chos grags dpal bzang po is a condensed
one (HS 398, mdor bsdus rdzogs so). Finally, we are informed that the account of
Byams pa gser mchog ’Od zer dpal was written (bris) by A wa dhu ti pa Ko brag
pa (HS 425).
5
For alternative dates see Davidson 2005: 141–48.
6
β 96: rje btsun Mi la ras pas sbyar ba bstan zin to.
7
β 125: Ras chung pas yi ger bkod pa.
8
β 150: Ra Sher snang pas yi ger bkod pa.
9
β 164: Chos rje Zhang Lo tstsha bas sbyar rdzogs so.
10
β 248: rnam thar mdor bsdus zur tsam ’di | Mi skyod rdo rje gus pa’i blos | dkar
po chos lung dben par bsgrigs.

11
β 47.6: dus gsum zhes sogs dang | gtum mo sems kyi me long ltos, 48.4: dus
gsum zhes sogs dang | sgyu lus sems kyi me long ltos, 49.2: dus gsum zhes sogs
dang | rmi lam sems kyi me long ltos, 49.6: dus gsum zhes sogs dang | ’od gsal
sems kyi me long ltos, 50.5: dus gsum zhes sogs dang | ’pho ba sems kyi me long
ltos, 51.1: dus gsum zhes sogs dang | bde chen sems kyi me long ltos, 51.4: dus
gsum zhes sogs dang | bar do sems kyi me long ltos, 52.1: dus gsum zhes sogs
dang | gsang sngags lam gyi gdams pa ltos, 52.6: dus gsum zhes sogs dang | rang
sems phyag rgya chen po ltos.
12
HS 22: 261: shar phyogs bha ga la’i shrī na ga ra’i grong khyer jam bu zhes
bya ba na...; β 29: yul rgya gar nub phyogs kha che shri na ga ra bya ba na grong
khyer ’dzam bu bya ba yod.
13
Apart from this text, three other works are ascribed to Vajrāsana in the tantric
section of the bsTan ’gyur. Vairocana is to be identified with the Vairocanavajra
(rNam par snang mdzad rdo rje), or Vairocanarakṣita (rNam par snang mdzad
srung ba) from Odisha, whom we will meet again as a celebrated translator of
dohās (Schaeffer 2000). Chos kyi grags pa (Dharmakīrti) would be Ba ri Lo tsā ba
Chos kyi grags pa, as it is confirmed by the colophon of the Mahīṣānanasādhana
(Ō. 2838; Tō. 1975), which has been translated by rNam par snang mdzad srung
ba (Vairocanarakṣita) and Ba ri Lo tsā ba Chos kyi grags pa, i.e. Dharmakīrti, the
translator from Ba ri, in gTsang.
14
The bsTan ’gyur has four works by Ratnākaragupta (Rin chen ’byung gnas sbas
pa).
15
Campārṇa or Campāraṇa, i.e. current Champa (Campā) in Bihar–West Bengal
border.
16
Of the nine works ascribed to him as an author in the Peking Qianlong bsTan
’gyur (Ōtani catalogue), together with the sNar thang and dGa’ ldan bsTan ’gyur,
only seven occur in the sDe dge (Tōhoku catalogue), and in the related Co ne
bsTan ’gyur: Yogaṣaḍaṅga (Ō. 2091, Tō. 1375), Antarmañjari (Ō. 2093, Tō.
1377), Svapnohana (Ō. 2621, Tō. 1749), Piṇḍīkṛtasādhanapañjikā (Ō. 2701, Tō.
1832), Trisaṃvaraprabhāmālā (Ō. 4549, Tō. 3727), Āryāmoghapāśasādhana (Ō.
4841), our text (Ō. 5015), Bodhicaryāvatāratātparyapañjikāviśeṣadyotanī (Ō.
5282, Tō. 2880), and Amarakoṣaṭīkākāmadhenu (Ō. 5788, Tō. 4300).
17
The Jagaddala Mahāvihāra, probably founded by Rāmapāla (c. 1087–c. 1141),
124 TILOPĀ II
would have been destroyed by the Turuṣkas around 1207 (Dutt 1962: 376–80).
18
Ratnarakṣita would have also taught Sanskrit to the above mentioned Zhang Lo
tsā ba Phur pa skyabs (–1273), whom we will meet again (Lewis 1996: 156).
19
Also called Stham Bihar, or Bikramaśīla Bihar, this small monastery in the
Thamel area of present Kathmandu would have been founded around 1042 by
Atiśa on his way to Tibet (Roerich 1959: 55–56; Petech 1984: 42–43; Locke 1985:
404–413).
20
As pointed out by Davidson, before this thirteenth century Śavaripa, we are
informed of more than one Śavaripa, whose earliest textual occurrence is in the
Shamsher Manuscript (source α).
21
For different identification and date see Roberts 2007: 9–11.
22
Five Buddha families (pañcakula) are mentioned in the Hevajratantra thus
(I.v.5): vajra padma tathā karma tathāgata ratnaiva ca | kulāni pañcavidhāny
āhur uttamāni mahākṛpa. The vajra-family is associated with the Buddha
Akṣobhya, the tathāgata-family with Vairocana, the padma-family with
Amitābha, the ratna-family with Ratnasambhava, and the karma-family with
Amoghasiddhi (HVT II.xi.5–7).
23
Tō. 368–414 for the Tibetan bKa’ ’gyur, and 1401–1606 for the bsTan ’gyur
(Wayman 1962: 234).
24
They are divided in fundamental (rtsa) and explanatory (bshad) tantras. As to
the former, there is the Mahāsambarodaya (Ō. 20, Tō. 373); as to the latter, there
are four subdivisions: (1) extraordinary (thun mong ma yin), (2) ordinary (thun
mong), (3) tantras about which there is discussion whether they are pure or not,
and (4) a fourth one. In the first subdivision there are the Vajraḍāka (Ō. 18, Tō.
370), the Herukābhyudaya (Ō. 21, Tō. 374), the Yoginīsañcaya (Ō. 23, Tō. 375),
the Mahāsambarodaya (Ō. 20, Tō. 373), and the Caturyoginīsampuṭatantra (Ō.
24, Tō. 376). In the second subdivision there is the rGyud kyi rgyal po chen po
dpal yang dag par sbyor ba’i thig le (Ō. 27, Tō. 382). As to the third subdivision
including the tantras ‘about which there is discussion whether they are pure or
not’, there are four further subdivisions: (1) the tantras related to citta (thugs
rgyud), (2) to vāk (gsung rgyud), (3) to kāya (sku rgyud), and (4) the emanated
tantras (’phros rgyud). In the first citta sub-subdivision, there are the Guhyavajra
(Ō. 28, Tō. 383), the Guhyasarvacchinda (Ō. 29, Tō. 384), the
Cakrasaṃvaraguhyācintya (Ō. 30, Tō. 385), the Khasama (Ō. 31, Tō. 386), the
Mahākha (Ō. 32, Tō. 387), the Kāyavākcitta (Ō. 33, Tō. 388), the Ratnamālā (Ō.
34, Tō. 389), and the Mahāsamaya (Ō. 35, Tō. 390). In the second vāk sub-
subdivision, there are the Mahābala (Ō. 36, Tō. 391), the Jñānaguhya (Ō. 37, Tō.
392), the Jñānamālā (Ō. 38, Tō. 393), the Jñānajvala (Ō. 39, Tō. 394), the
Candramālā (Ō. 40, Tō. 395), the Ratnajvala (Ō. 41, Tō. 396), the Sūryacakra (Ō.
42, Tō. 397), and the Jñānarāja (Ō. 43, Tō. 398). In the third kāya sub-
subdivision, there are the Vajraḍākaguhya (Ō. 44, Tō. 399), the Jvalāgniguhya (Ō.
45, Tō. 400), the Amṛtaguhya (Ō. 46, Tō. 401), the Śmaśānālaṃkāra (Ō. 47, Tō.
402), the Vajrarāja (Ō. 48, Tō. 403), the Jñānāśaya (Ō. 49, Tō. 404), the
Rāgarāja (Ō. 50, Tō. 405), and the Ḍākinīsaṃvara (Ō. 51, Tō. 406). In the fourth
‘emanated’ sub-subdivision, there are the Agnimālā (Ō. 54, Tō. 407), the
Ḍākinīguhyajvala (Ō. 52, Tō. 408), the Vajrabhairavavidāraṇa (Ō. 53, Tō. 409),
the Mahābalajñānarāja (Ō. 56, Tō. 410), the Vajrasiddhajālasaṃvara (Ō. 55, Tō.
411), the Sarvatathāgatacitta-garbhārtha (Tō. 412), the Cakrasaṃvaratantrarāja-
adbhuta-śmaśānālaṃkāra (Ō. 57, Tō. 413), the Anāvila (Ō. 58, Tō. 414), and the
Sambarakhasama (Ō. 59, Tō. 415). As to the fourth subdivision, there is the
Vajramahākālakrodhanātharahasyasiddhi-bhava (Ō. 62, Tō. 416).
25
Yogaratnamālā 49b: ḍai vihāyasagamane dhātur atra vikalpitaḥ. sarvākāśacarī
siddhir ḍākinīti (Snellgrove 1959, 2: 142).
26
It is the case of words such as Nepali ḍāknu and Bengali ḍākā ‘to call’, Bengali
ḍāk and Hindi ḍāknā, ḍaknā ‘shout, to shout’.
27
Erroneously Milāpā in Pandey 1990.
28
The text has been read in the manuscript as oḍḍini | vajrayoginī by Tucci , udinī
vajrayoginī by Lévi, and uḍḍinī | vajrayoginī by Pandey. Tucci (1930: 220 n. 8)
proposes the identification of this tantric yoginī of Uḍḍiyāna (Oḍḍini vajrayoginī)
with Lakṣmīkarā (Lakṣmīṅkarā) the disciple of the King of Uḍḍiyāna Indrabhūti;
Lévi (1930–32: 418, 427) conjectures of a Vajrayoginī from Uḍḍiyāna, and
suggests a better reading Uḍḍiyānī for Udinī.
29
The Saṃvarārṇavatantra could be identified with either the
Ḍākārṇavamahāyoginītantrarāja (mKha’ ’gro rgya mtsho chen po rnal ’byor ma,
Ō. 19, Tō. 372), or the Saṃvarodaya (bDe mchog ’byung ba, Ō. 20, Tō. 373). As
per Alexis Sanderson (1995 in English 2002: 52–53), the Saṃvarārṇavatantra
was the Buddhist scriptural source accrediting a Śaiva method for preserving the
correct form of the mantra, the letter-by-letter ‘extraction’ (uddhāra).
30
As a matter of fact, Herbert Guenther (1968b: 215–16) has already pointed out
126 TILOPĀ II
that the Sanskrit word kāya is a name for a dynamic process, for a structure of
experience, rather than a thing. In view of this, it is also worth remembering that
Tibetan language distinguishes between lus as a mere ‘organismic being’
(Guenther 1963a: 135), and sku, expressing ‘the idea of existence in an almost
Parmenidian sense’ (Guenther 1966: 143–44).
31
As explained by Raniero Gnoli (1956: 29), ‘in ordinary life each of these mental
states is manifested and accompanied by three elements, causes (kāraṇa), effects
(kārya), and concomitant elements (sahacara). The causes are the facts, images,
etc., by which it is manifested, the effects the physical reactions caused by it, and
the concomitant elements the accessory mental states accompanying it. The same
causes, etc., when represented on the stage or described in poetry, do not arouse
the corresponding sentiment, but make manifest (vyañj) a form of consciousness
different from it, aesthetic pleasure or rasa’.
III — WHO, WHEN, AND WHERE
And if the lineage of oral instruction became the

sine qua non of siddha esoterism, then for
Tibetans—and probably Indians as well—the
shorter the lineage was between Vajradhara and
the Tibetan translator, the less corrupted the
system must be (Davidson 2005: 142).
W e have no information of Tilopā’s time until the sixteenth

century, when dBang phyug rgyal mtshan (ν 15.2)―followed by
lHa btsun (ξ 9.2)―gave it. Unfortunately we do not know from
which sources or by which calculation dBang phyug rgyal mtshan was able
to date Tilopā’s birth to the Earth-Male-Mouse year (sa pho byi ba’i lo), at
dawn on the second day of the month of December (rgyal gyi zla ba). On
the other hand, from a historical viewpoint, we are obliged to admit that it
is matter of a realistic date, at least for a conjecture.
According to the Tibetan computation of time and general historical
considerations, this year can be either 928 or 988. Whichever may be the
case, since the dating of Tilopā hinges mainly on that of his disciple
Nāropā, the problem is to ascertain whether the latter’s lifespan was 956–
1040 (Singh 1967; Snellgrove and Skorupski 1980: 90 n. 16; Wylie 1982),
or 1016‒1100 (Guenther 1963b). If we accept the former hypothesis, the
years 988–1069 proposed by Herbert Guenther for Tilopā’s time should be
anticipated of a sixty-year cycle to 928–1009, in the order of two
generations before his fellow citizen the royal prince Atiśa―
Tilopā Nāropā Atiśa

c. 928 – c. 1009 c. 956 – c. 1040 c. 982 – c. 1054
127
128 TILOPĀ III
Consequently, Tilopā would have been about one generation younger than
the Candra king Śrīcandra―
IMPERIAL PĀLAS KAMBOJA PĀLAS BENGAL CANDRAS ARAKAN CANDRAS

(Gauḍa) (Priyaṅgu) (Vikramapura) (Vesālī)
Rājyapāla Śrīcandra Siṃhataingcandra

(r. c. 932 – c. 967) (r. c. 925 – c. 975) (r. c. 935 – c. 951)
Culataingcandra
(r. c. 951 – c. 957)
Gopāla II Nārāyaṇapāla Amyasu
(r. c. 967 – c. 987) (r. c. 967–?) (r. c. 957 – c. 964)
Kalyāṇacandra Pe Phyu
Vigrahapāla II Nayapāla (r. c. 975 – c. 1000) (r. c. 964 – c. 994)
(r. c. 987 – c. 992)
Mahīpāla I Laḍahacandra
(r. c. 992 – c. 1042) (r. c. 1000 – 1020)
Nevertheless, due to Śrīcandra’s political relevance in northeastern India

since the first quarter of the tenth century, in a broad sense we can subsume
Tilopā’s time under the latter’s time.
According to the Tibetan hagiographies, Tilopā’s native land is in
eastern India (rGya gar shar phyogs), in Bengal (Bhaṃ ga la, ν, ξ). When
mentioned, the region (yul) is Zahor (β, ε, θ, μ), where the Brahmaputra
River (Bram ze gtsang ma, η) flows. He would have been born in the town
(grong khyer) of Dzako (β, θ), Dzago (η, λ, ν, ξ), Dzāgo (μ), ’Dzago (κ), or
’Jhago (ι).
Sahor
It is difficult to get to any certainty in the controversial identification of the
Bengali region (yul) of Zahor, where Atiśa too was from. We read in fact in
the Deb ther sngon po (216.1; BA 241) that Atiśa (Jo bo rje) was born in
the great district (yul ’khor : rāṣṭra, MVy 5509) that Indians call Sahor
(rgya gar ba rnams Sa hor zhes zer), and Tibetans Zahor (bod rnams Za
hor zhes ’don). We can reasonably take Zahor as the Tibetan perception
and subsequent written rendering of |sahor| or |ʃahɐr|, an Indic name of
Persian origin for ‘city’ (Chattopadhyaya 1967: 61–63). Albeit a common
WHO, WHEN, AND WHERE 129
noun in the beginning, we are familiar with a great variety of toponyms

coming from dedicated common nouns, so that a city can develop in the
usage into the City.
Nag tsho Lo tsā ba Tshul khrims rgyal ba (1011–1064), who led an
official mission to invite Atiśa in Tibet, opens his ‘Hymn to Atiśa in Eighty
Verses’ (Jo bo rje’i bstod pa pa brgyad cu pa; Eimer 1989: 25) with an
interesting sketch of Sahor:
shar phyogs Za hor yul mchog na || de In the marvellous country of Sahor in

na grong khyer chen po yod || Bi kra ma the east is a great city, Vikramapura:
ni pu ra yin || de yi dbus na rgyal po’i the royal palace is in its centre, a very
khab || pho brang shin tu yangs pa yod || spacious mansion, called Golden
gSer gyi rgyal mtshan can zhes bya ||... Bannered (*Suvarṇa-dhvajavat)...
This region occupied by the Brahmaputra River (η 17.1: Bram ze gtsang

mas ’dzin pa’i yul) finds a confused identification with Harikela in Kun
dga’ rin chen, and a clearer one in dBang phyug rgyal mtshan:
Kun dga’ rin chen dBang phyug rgyal mtshan

Za hor gyi grong khyer Ha ri ka zhes shar phyogs kyi rgyud Bha ga la’i yul
bya bar... (μ 44.1). Ha ri ki la Za hor... (ν 52.4).
The above pieces of information adds two pivotal points in the location of
Harikela to the above list of three, namely, (1) it was in the eastermost
India; (2) it was reachable by sea, and thus endowed with a coast and at
least a sea-port; (3) it included the internal region of Śrīhaṭṭa; (4) its main
floodplain was the Brahmaputra-Jamunā; (5) in the mid-eleventh century
(Nag tsho Lo tsā ba’s time) its capital was Vikramapura, which is to be
located in the current Munshiganj District of the Dhaka Division.
Now, if we take into account that ecology, archaeology and ethnology
deem current Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Cachar, Mizoram, Sylhet,
Tripura, Chittagong and Arakan as parts of a single territorial unit
(Qanungo 1988: 31), Harikela could have embraced the coastal area
towards Arakan, from Chittagong to Noakhali and Comilla Districts, as
well as a portion of Tripura. More in detail, the geographical focus of
Harikela would agree in every aspect with the position of Chittagong and
some portions of the Chittagong Hill Tracts.
In actual fact, whereas the geographical focus of Sahor/Harikela is
Chittagong and some portions of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, its political
130 TILOPĀ III
centre seems to have shifted westwards by the time of Trailokyacandra’s

‘good fortune under the royal umbrella insignia of the king of Harikela’
(Bogra copperplate, v. 5). In all probability, it is because of the expansion
of the Harikela rulers and their Candra de facto successors over wider and
inner areas of Bengal that, while Vaṅga, Samataṭa, and Harikela were still
perceived as distinct regions in the eight century (Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa 22:
232–33), Harikela is one with Vaṅga in Hemacandra’s twelfth-century eyes
(Abhidhānacintāmaṇi 957).
*Jagāõ
At first glance, the toponym Jago seems even more obscure than Sahor. We
know from Tāranātha that Tilopā was from Caṭighawo (bKa’ babs bdun
ldan 422.1: Ca ṭi gha bo zhes bya ba’i grong khyer; SIL 45), where the
celebrated Piṇḍa Vihāra was situated (rGya gar Chos ’byung 190.2: Tsa ṭi
gha bo’i grong khyer gyi gtsug lag khang Piṇ ḍa bi ha ra; THBI 254–55).
Inasmuch the site has been identified with the current Chittagong at least
since Schiefner’s time (1869), Tāranātha’s Caṭighawo corresponds to the
region to the south of Tripura and north of Arakan. Also known as Ramma
(Skt ramya), the Beautiful Land, it was the place of the Paṇḍita Vihāra, as
we read in Das (1898: 24) on the basis of the eighteenth-century Sum pa
mkhan po’s Chos ’byung dpag bsam ljon bzang (tsa ṭi gā ba’i grong khyer
gyi paṇ ḍi ta bi ha ra zhes pa’i gtsug lag khang).
Regarding the controversial origin of the toponym, the European
Chittagong, like the current Bengali forms Caṭṭagrām, Cāṭigā/Caṭgā, as
well as the Chinese name Jidagang (吉大港) appear to have come, through
a later Brahmanical Sanskritization Cāṭigrāma, from Middle Indo-Aryan
Caṭigāõ.1 If we compare the Tibetan rendering in the Marpan tradition with
Tāranātha’s Caṭighawo, we observe that, while Tāranātha relies on a more
regular rendering of the toponym, Mar pa seems to provide indirect
evidence of its alteration in the eleventh-century common parlance.
Speculatively, the first element of Jago could be in fact the result of
apocope of the last vowel of caṭi, followed by lenition and fall of /ṭ/, with
sounding of /c/ for anticipatory assimilation to the following /g/ of gāõ—
MIA caṭigāõ > caṭ(i)gāõ > caṭgāõ > ca(ḍ)gāõ > cagāõ > jagāõ : Tib. jago.
Were we not taking in due account how deeply was the influence of Arakan
rooted in Harikela, certainly it would be difficult for us to accept this

Middle Indo-Aryan toponym as a deformed version, or a parallel of the
Arakanese Tsit-ta-gaung (cit-taut-gauṃ), meaning ‘War should never be
fought’. This euphemistic place name would have been inscribed by a king
of Arakan at the place of current Chittagong around 952–953 (Qanungo
1988: 113–19; Harder 2011: 10–12). As we read in the Arakanese
chronicles (Phayre 1844: 36),
...the ninth sovereign of this race is named Tsu-la-taing Tsan-daya

[Culataingcandra], who succeeded to the throne in the year 313 [of the
Arakan era = 951 CE]. In the year 315 [953] he went on an expedition to
Bengal (called Thu-ra-Tan) and set up a stone pillar as a trophy at the
place since called Tset-ta-goung, or as commonly written Chittagong,
alluding, this history states, to a remark of the king’s, (who abandoned his
conquest at the request of his nobles) that to make war was improper.
Thus, when the Candra dynasty of Vikramapura was under Śrīcandra, and
Tilopā would have been about twenty-four years old, the conquest of
current Chittagong by the Arakanese Candra king of Vesālī could have had
greater consequences on Tilopā’s native land. In spite of this, apart from
the present-day toponym, this Arakanese annexation was short-lived
because Culataingcandra died drowned in the sixth year of his reign (957).
The First Years

As a sort of birth certificate, Mar pa describes the Brahmanical family of
Tilopā thus:
In a city called *Jagāõ, in the country of Sahor in eastern India, there lived
the three, the brāhmaṇa gSal ba, his father, the brāhmaṇī gSal ldan ma, his
mother, and the brāhmaṇī gSal ba’i sgron ma, his sister (β 11.4).
The three names are regularly attested, with minor variants for the elder
sister of Tilopā―gSal ba’i sgron ma (β), gSal sgron (η, θ), gSal sgron ma
(ι)―as long as the beginning of the fourteenth century. Then, whereas
Tilopā’s sister is referred to as ‘one daughter’ (bu mo gcig) by Mon rtse pa
(κ), and she is not even mentioned by gTsang smyon and his contemporary
132 TILOPĀ III
Kun dga’ rin chen (λ, μ), the names of both sister and mother are
mentioned, albeit exchanged, by dBang phyug rgyal mtshan (ν) and his
fellow student lHa btsun (ξ).
Since the aryanization of Bengal in the fifth and sixth centuries, a series
of rites (saṃskāra) according to the Vedic tradition sanctified almost every
stage of a man’s life, from conception in the mother’s womb
(garbhādhāna) onwards (R.C. Majumdar 1971: 440–54). To be noted,
there is indirect reference in the Marpan tradition to the puṃsavana, the
ceremony to ensure the birth of a male progeny, and the nāmadheya, the
ceremony of naming the child on the tenth or twelfth day after birth
(Manusmṛti 2.29–30):
As no son had come yet, they worshipped with offerings and prayers all
the sacred receptacles, both Buddhist and non-Buddhist ones. Eventually a
son was born and, at that very moment, a light (’od) pervaded Bengal:
because of that, he was given the name gSal ’od (β 11.4–5).
The element gsal ba that the four names have in common seems to play the
distinctive function of a family name (gotra): also Tilopā’s mother must
have changed to her husband’s gotra and name at the time of their marriage
(gotrāntara)―
FATHER MOTHER ELDER SISTER SON
gSal ba gSal ldan ma gSal ba’i sgron ma gSal ’od β

” ” gSal sgron (ma) ” η, θ, ι
” ” bu mo gcig ” κ
” ” — ” λ, μ
” gSal ba’i sgron ma gSal ldan ma gSal (ba’i) ’od ν, ξ
The Tibetan gsal ba, in the wide sense of ‘being clear, clarify, clarity,
luminosity’, according to the Mahāvyutpatti can be for the Sanskrit photic
terms dyutiḥ (3040), prakaṭaḥ (9393), prabhāsvarā (451), prasannaḥ
(7295), and vyaktaḥ (2898). With the intention of speculating as to the
family of Tilopā, it seems reasonable to conjecture that one of the above
words could be consistent with it. A route we can try to reduce the range of
possibilities passes through the sister’s name that occurs, albeit in different
context, in two titles of the bsTan ’gyur, the Śrī-cakraśambara-
maṇḍalopāyikāratna-pradīpoddyota (dPal ’khor lo bde mchog gi dkyil
’khor gyi cho ga rin po che rab tu gsal ba’i sgron ma, Ō. 2161, Tō. 1444)
by Kambalapā, and the Tattvacaturupadeśaprasannadīpa (TCUP, De kho

na nyid bzhi pa’i man ngag gsal ba’i sgron ma, Ō. 2371, Tō. 1242) by
Tilopā himself. Now, if the name of Tilopā’s family can be found out of the
two, dyutiḥ and prasannaḥ, we see on the basis of MVy 3040, that Skt
dyutiḥ would be translated not only by Tib. gsal ba, but also by gsal ba’i
’od. Consequently, if the Tibetan name of Tilopā’s father could reasonably
translate *Dyuti, the name of the mother could have been *Dyutimatī on
account of the occurrence of the word in the Bhadrakalpikāsūtra (Ō. 762,
Tō. 94), as indicated by Lokesh Chandra (1959 s.v. gsal ldan), rather than
*Kāśī (Das 1902 s.v. gsal ldan ma). Finally, while the name of the sister
could have been *Pradīpoddyotā on the basis of the above mentioned
bsTan ’gyur occurrence in Kambalapā’s text, for the name received by
Tilopā at the time of his birth, a conjectural *Dyotitaprabha (cf. MW s.v.
dyoti) appears feasible.
Following the steps of Mar pa’s narrative, after the birth, a brahmin
soothsayer (mtshan mkhan : vaipañcika) was invited and consulted
according to the use. His answer emphasizing the spiritual dignity of the
infant occurs with minor variants in all the Marpan tradition (β 12.1):
As for him, whether a god, a nāga, a tree spirit (gnod sbyin : yakṣa), or
Whether a buddha, I do not understand what he is.
Anyhow, protect this great being with care!
With strong analogy with the Lives of Buddha, the parents would have
resolved to seclude him from the outer world (β 12.1–13.4):
After some time they were taking care of him as ordered, the father went
out and only the two, mother and son, were in. A veil of shade covered
them, and the mother looked at it. Many women had come into view,
bearing the signs of ugliness, blowing from their mouths, lame and
walking with the support of sticks. As the mother was wondering if they
were demons, and whether her child would die, the women spoke:
Even if you nourish him with care, deathless

Places do not exist anywhere!
So they said. The mother asked, ‘In that case, what is to be done for his
benefit?’ At that they spoke again, ‘O child!’
Herd buffalo and learn scriptures.

134 TILOPĀ III
The prediction of the ḍākinī will come.
Having so spoken, it is said that they vanished with no traces.

After that, when he was grown up, he was allowed to act in that way.
Once more, while he was herding buffalo, the same women as before
appeared to him and asked about his country, his parents, and so forth.
The boy said in reply:
My country is *Jagāõ in the east.

My father is Brāhmaṇa *Dyuti (gSal ba).
My mother is Brāhmaṇī *Dyutimatī (gSal ldan ma).
My sister is Brāhmaṇī *Pradīpoddyotā (gSal sgron).
I am Brāhmaṇa *Dyotitaprabha (gSal ’od).

This tree is an Aquilaria (sha pa).2
I have learnt reading and practise the true Dharma.
For a living, I herd buffalo.
So he said, and those women replied pretending to be angry, ‘O boy, you

do not know it!’
Your country is Uḍḍiyāna, in the west,

Your father is Cakraśaṃvara,
Your mother is Vajravarāhī,
Your sister is the ḍākiṇī bDe ster ma.
You are Pantsapana,

The buffalo to herd are not animals:
In the forest of the tree of awakening
Herd continuously the buffalo of experience!
So they spoke. In response, the boy said, ‘I do not know how to herd that!’
‘Go to the charnel ground of Salabheraha! The guru will teach you’.
Such would have been the ḍākinīs’ revelation (mkha’ ’gros lung bstan), as
the chapter is titled in β. The first challenge posed by this narrative is the
very word ḍākinīs. In point of fact, they are described by Mar pa as ‘many
women’ (bud med ... mang po) when they approached Tilopā’s mother, and
‘the same women as before’ (sngar gyi bud med de) when they revealed to
Tilopā his spiritual pedigree. Admittedly, these women appeared so
repellent that the mother had suspected they were demons (’dre), but
nothing else: just the two, Enter Ghost and Exit Ghost, seem to instill a
moderate sense of shadowy mystery. Albeit without any positive evidence,
we might speculate that they looked so repugnant in the eyes of the mother
as she was a lady of Brahmanical caste. Conversely, the women who
intruded into the courtyard of her house, and later appeared in front of the
boy, might have belonged to the aboriginal tribes, even today settled in the
current Chittagong Hill Tracts. Even more than now, in the tenth century
they were unaffected by aryanization, and their demon-like habits and
physical appearance find a genuine illustration in the terracotta placques at
Paharpur:
The sense of humour of the Paharpur artist finds expression in the

delineation of the picturesque and less developed races of men inhabiting
the outlying regions of Bengal. The Śabaras, who are aboriginals of the
vast jungle tracts in the central part of the country, must have been
familiar to the dwellers of the plain in Bengal, and with their arboreal
habits and hunting propensities they formed a favourite subject for the
terracotta artist. Their quaint apparel consists of a cuirass for the breast, a
leaf apron hardly sufficient to cover their shame: while they had quivers at
their back (from which they are sometimes shown as drawing arrows) and
bows in hand. In several plaques the Śabara male is shown as a bearded
figure wearing boots. [...] The Śabara female is depicted as clad in a
simple garland of leaves across her shoulder and a string of leaves round
her waist. [...] She is often depicted as wielding a bow or as holding a
child and a dagger in her hands or as carrying in her hand a deer [...] or
other wild animal, no doubt hunted by the Śabara and providing these
denizens of the forest with their customary meal. The coiffure of the
Śabarī is neatly delineated and the ear-ornaments, apparently of jungle
leaves and flowers are well-drawn. The necklace of beads and guñjā seeds
[Abrus precatorius] with which the aboriginal woman loves to decorate
her body are not forgotten, and in one instance even a scarf (possibly a
bark garment) is shown across the breast and arm, although at the waist
appears only the usual apron of leaves. The Śabarī is also known as
wielding the bow in one plaque and holding a dagger in one hand and
suckling her infant in other plaques... (Dikshit 1938: 64–65).
Unquestionably a ḍākinī is predicted to the young Tilopā: her name occurs

in the Tibetan hagiographies as bDe ster ma (β, η, θ, ι, κ, λ, ν, ξ), the ‘Bliss-
Bestowing-One’, which may possibly be for Indic *Sukhapradā. A
peculiarity of our source β, a sort of narrative lectio difficilior, is worth
noticing here: what in Mar pa’s account of the prediction has it that the
136 TILOPĀ III
many women declared ‘Your sister is the ḍākiṇī *Sukhapradā (sring mo

mkha’ ’gro bDe ster ma)’, in the later sources with the same account only
one woman came into view and said ‘Your sister am I, etc.’ (sring mo nga
ni..., η 25.4, ι 16.2, κ 26.2, λ A 24.6 B 100.3, ν 29.1, ξ 14.2; nga ni sring
mo..., θ 55.6).
As to the name Paṇ tsa pa na, Paṇ tsha pa na (β), Pan tsa ka (η), Pan
tsa pa na (θ, ι, κ), Panytsa pa na (λ, ν, ξ), we can infer from the contextual
occurrences that it is for both a place and a personal name. So is Tilopā
called in the first prediction by the same women as before, i.e. the many
women in Chittagong, or by the ḍākinī *Sukhapradā himself (khyod rang
Pan tsa pa na yin, ‘You are the One from...’). Then Tilopā will introduce
himself with that very designation when at the presence of the ḍākinīs in
Uḍḍiyāna (bdag ni Pan tsa pa na yin, ‘I am the One from...’). Besides, the
same designation (Panytsa pa na) is confirmed by Tilopā as the author of
the Śrī-Saṃvaropadeśamukhakarṇaparamparācintāmaṇi (SUMKPC) when
he alludes to himself.
As a place, Pantsapana was undoubtedly an important trade centre in
eastern Bengal (shar phyogs Bha ga la’i brgyud Paṇ tsha pa na’i tshong
’dus, β 14.3). Further evidence is provided by rDo rje mdzes ’od (θ 70.5),
who seems to explain Pantsapana as the ‘market of the group of five
leaders’ (Pan tsa pa na ded dpon lnga tshogs pa’i tshong dus), undoubtedly
referring to a district magistrate (viṣayapati) with the above described
board of four local notables to assist him (adhiṣṭhānādhikaraṇa): an
administrative centre regularly in the main town of the district
(viṣayādhikaraṇa). If this is the case, *Pañcāpaṇa as a toponym meaning
‘The Five’s Market’ (pañca-āpaṇa)’, and *Pāñcāpaṇa as a personal name
for ‘The One from Pañcāpaṇa’, could be a practicable conjecture for the
Indic original of Tib. Pan tsa pa na.
Since the most important trade centre of inner eastern Bengal at
Tilopā’s time was Śrīhaṭṭa, a toponym with the word haṭṭa, corresponding
to Tib. tshong ’dus (MVy 5532) ‘market’, we might dare an identification of
*Pañcāpaṇa with Śrīhaṭṭa (Sylhet), the prosperous district market town of
northern Harikela that had come under the Candra sway about 930, as we
infer from the location in current Sylhet Division of the Paschimbhag
copperplate of Śrīcandra (Chaudhury 1966; Sircar 1967–68).
The Apprenticeship
In the bsTan ’gyur there is a work by Tilopā himself which contains
information about his gurus, the Ṣaḍdharmopadeśa (ṢDhU, Chos drug gi
man ngag Ō. 4630, Tō. 2330; Torricelli 1996). This brief text concerns six
yogic doctrines (chos drug : ṣaḍdharma), traditionally rubricated as (1) the
yogas of the inner heat (gtum mo : caṇḍālī), (2) illusory body (sgyu lus :
māyākāya), (3) dream (rmi lam : svapna), (4) luminosity (’od gsal :
prabhāsvara), along with (5) the yoga of the intermediate existence
between death and new birth (bar do : antarābhava), and (6) the ejection of
the conscious principle (’pho ba : saṃkrānti). Tilopā would have passed
them on to Nāropā, and Mar pa translated into Tibetan.
The Ṣaḍdharmopadeśa assigns the oral instructions on the six doctrines
(dharma) to four gurus, viz. Caryāpā (Tsā rya pa), Kambalapā (La ba pa),
Nāgārjuna (Nā gār dzu na), and Sukhasiddhi (Su kha sid dhi). These forms
of instruction can be traced back to what Tibetans label ‘the four
transmissions’ (bka’ babs bzhi), that is to say four lineages of masters along
which they finally came down to Tilopā. The term bka’ babs refer to the
condition of descent (babs) of an authoritative word, whether of command
or permission (bka’). It may signify the descent itself, as well as the content
of the authoritative word, the person uttering it, or the addressed person: in
all cases, it retains a decidedly dynamic connotation (Torricelli 1993).
Scholars are inevitably faced with the problem of these four distinct
transmissions, because ‘unfortunately Tibetan sources differ considerably
as to the lineage and content of each of these currents’ (Gene Smith 2001:
41).
In point of fact the problem is twofold, the identity of Tilopā’s direct or
indirect masters, and the teachings he was indebted to each of them. A
preliminary overall inspection of our hagiographic sources is sufficient to
assess the latter problem as far from any satisfactory solution: the material
appears too incoherent, too riddled with discrepancies to construe with real
precision. However, when we come to the bka’ babs bzhi masters, we have
a relatively good chance of bringing the terms of the problem at least into
focus.
In a cultural context where the transmitted doctrine typically passes
through an unbroken lineage of gurus (guruparamparā), and the lineage
almost coincides with the person, an acceptable understanding of Tilopā
cannot but come through that of the masters of these four bka’ babs. On the
138 TILOPĀ III
other hand, identifying the single persons implies to extract them from their
hagiographic time, and make an effort to regain a convincing place within a
more chronological one: to do that, only the context can substantiate
consistent details. Elizabeth English (2002: 9) has more than one reason to
warn that trying to ‘date authors according to the testimony of transmission
lineages, [is] a risky enterprise that Per Kvaerne describes as
“methodological error” (1977: 6)’; an enterprise, we must admit, that is
further ‘problematized by instances of individuals receiving multiple
lineages’ (Davidson 2002a: 46), as the case of Tilopā is.
In spite of this, something can still be done: even if not all the masters
are really recognizable, there are some who can be acceptably identified, as
for example Tilopā or Nāropā are. In light of the complex onomastics, if the
first difficulty is that most of the masters have multiple esoteric names, the
second is that we cannot say how many persons bear the same name in the
lineages. The main method we have at our disposal is based on the so-
called points d’appui (Snellgrove 1959, 1: 14), namely, to approach the
very person putting together a contextual grid made of datable kings
celebrated in inscriptions, in manuscript colophons, and so forth. In my
experience, the most common trap one risks falling into is imagining a
guruparamparā as a genealogical tree, where the presence of a member’s
name logically puts the ancestors in a past computable in terms of
biological generations.
Caryāpā
The name occurs as Tsāryapa in the bsTan ’gyur xylograph editions (N, Q,
D, C) of the Ṣaḍdharmopadeśa, and as Tsarya(pa) in β, θ, ι, λ, ν, ξ; besides,
λ, ν, and ξ attest also the form Nag po spyod pa. While Tsāryapa could be
an abbreviated transliteration of the title ācārya-pāda, ‘venerable ācārya’,
Tsaryapa is possibly the transliteration of carya- or caryā-pāda, ‘venerable
ascetic’, referring to one doing ascetic practice (caryā : spyod pa), as it is
translated in Tibetan (spyod pa pa). The problem of which title is connected
with the name Kṛṣṇa (Nag po) has been competently illustrated by
Tāranātha himself in his ‘Story of Kāṇha’s Complete Liberation’ (Kahna
pa’i rnam thar), composed when he was fifty-eight years old (1632):
Although Kṛṣṇācārya (Kṛṣṇa ā tsā rya) is another name for this ācārya,
there are many others bearing the name Kṛṣṇa (Kṛṣṇa pa). Being this
ācārya Kāṇhācārya (Kahnā tsā rya), that is the Black Ācārya (slob dpon
nag po), also Kṛṣṇācārya (Kṛṣṇā tsā rya pa) is for Black Ācārya. If caryā-
pā(da) (tsa rya pa) is affixed to the brief Kāṇha and Kṛṣṇa, they will
become Kāṇha-caryā-pā(da) (Kahna tsa rya pa), and Kṛṣṇa-caryā-pā(da)
(Kṛṣṇa tsa rya pa), or the Black Ascetic (nag po spyod pa pa). He is also
known as Caryācārya-pā(da) (Tsa ryā tsā rya pa) or the Ascetic Ācārya
(slob dpon spyod pa pa), as well as Caryāvajra (Tsa rya ba dzra) or the
Vajra of Ascetic Practice (spyod pa’i rdo rje), and Ācārya Caryādhari-
pā(da) (Ā tsā rya Tsa rya dha ri pa), or the Ācārya Lord of the Ascetic
Practice (slob dpon spyod ’chang dbang po). These are all names by
which he is known (Kahna pa’i rnam thar 266.3–5; cf. TLKK 5–6).
However, the two epithets Black Ācārya (Slob dpon nag po) and Black
Ascetic (Nag po spyod pa pa) would refer to a Kṛṣṇa (Nag po), or
Kṛṣṇapā(da) (Nag po pa), otherwise known as Kāṇhupā in Prākrit, and
Kāṇha in Apabhraṃśa (Shahidullah 1928: 25; Tagare 1948: 20). Again
Tāranātha:
Now, Kṛṣṇa (Nag po) is a name with many meanings, but it is really
Kāṇha (Kahna) that is the most extraordinary name of this ācārya. He is
also known as Kāṇhācārya (Kahnā tsā rya). In common parlance (’phal
skad du) he is known as Kāṇhipa (Kahni pa) (Kahna pa’i rnam thar
265.3–4; TLKK 4).
According to Tāranātha, this Kṛṣṇācārya would have been born as a

brahmin in the east of India in the current Odisha (O ru bi sha), a part of
the kingdom of Gauḍa (Gau ra), quite close to Bengal (Bhang ga la dang
cungs zad nye ba’i phyogs), and would have taken full monastic vows at
Nālandā (Kahna pa’i rnam thar 266.5–267.5; TLKK 6–7). The same source
(291.4; TLKK 31) informs us that he would have performed at the behest of
the King of Rāḍhā the consecration rite (rab gnas mdzad : supratiṣṭha) at a
temple of Somapurī (yul Ra dha’i rgyal pos gsol ba btab nas So ma pu ri’i
lha khang zhig la rab gnas mdzad). Notably, Tāranātha specifies (291.4–5)
that it was matter of the old Somapurī (’di So ma pu ri rnying pa yin), and
not the new one, i.e. the Trikuṭaka Vihāra (phyis byung ba Tsha ba gsum
gyi gtsug lag khang ni So ma pu ri gsar pa ste): due to the above
considerations about the founding of Somapurī and Trikuṭaka in light of the
reverse kings’ order in Tāranātha’s compilation, we are encouraged to see
Kāṇha/Kṛṣṇācārya as roughly contemporary with Dharmapāla (r. c. 775–c.
812).
140 TILOPĀ III
Reasonably, this second quarter of the eighth to early-ninth-century

disciple of the siddha Haḍipā, alias Jālandharapā, about whom Tāranātha
gives a detailed account in both the bKa’ babs bdun ldan and the Kahna
pa’i rnam thar, cannot be the Cāryapā or Caryāpā mentioned in the
Ṣaḍdharmopadeśa. Tilopā’s guru must in fact have been active
approximately one century after the time of the renowned mahāsiddha,
even though he bore the same title―ācārya or caryāpāda―in the very
same tradition (āmnāya) of ascetic observances (caryā), as well as in the
practice (caryā) of Cakrasaṃvara (Templeman 1989: xi–xiii): a practice
including to sing songs on the practice itself, the caryāpadas or caryāgītis
(Templeman 1983: 117 n. 169), the former name as literary texts, the latter
as songs.
For the purposes of this study, it is interesting to notice that a Kṛṣṇa
(Kāhna) who claims himself a Jālandharapā’s disciple―we do not know
whether direct or not―sings in a caryāgīti that he was a Kāpālika yogin
who had entered the ‘city of the body’ spending his time there as in a
sameness of shapes.3 At the end of the same song poetically alluding to the
Kāpālika practice by means of strong metaphors, he concludes that, doing
that very way, he had become a Kāpālika (11.5: Kāhna bhaia kapālī =
Kṛṣṇaḥ bhūtaḥ kapālī). As a Kāpālika is he portrayed also by Tāranātha
who quotes a prediction from the Kālacakra tradition (Kahna pa’i rnam
thar 265.1; TLKK 4): with a staff (kha ṭwāṃ ga = khri shing : kaṭvāṅga),
sometimes topped with a skull, wearing ornaments of human bone (rus
rgyan : asthyābharaṇa), holding a small double-headed drum (cang te’u :
ḍamaruka), in general made from skulls, as well as a liquor vessel (chang
snod : madyakumbha), presumably also for food, that was a skull cup
(Templeman 1989: 109–110).
Out of Kāṇha/Kṛṣṇācārya’s six main disciples, the eminent position of
the Mahāsiddha Bhadrapāda (bZang po’i zhabs in the bKa’ babs bdun ldan
420.5) is undisputable in the eyes of Tāranātha. This Kāṇha/Kṛṣṇācārya’s
‘best of all disciples’ (slob ma kun gyi mchog), as we read in the Kahna
pa’i rnam thar (313.5; TLKK 55), would have been a prince by the name of
Bhadra of the southeastern coastal kingdom of Kaliṅga (Ka ling ka). His
other name, already attested in the bKa’ babs bdun ldan (SIL 44), would
have been Guhyapā(da), namely the Secret Man (gSang ba pha) or the
Hidden Yogin (sBas pa’i rnal ’byor pa), due to his reluctance to exhibit
any distinctive mark of spiritual attainment (Kahna pa’i rnam thar 314.5–
6; TLKK 56). He would have been remembered as the author of various
treatises (bstan bcos : śāstra) on Cakrasaṃvara, as well as of a few
commentaries (dgongs ’grel) on Hevajra (Kahna pa’i rnam thar 318.1;

TLKK 59), as for example the Hevajravyākhyāvivaraṇa (Ō. 2312, Tō.
1182).
The closest disciple of Bhadrapā/Guhyapā would have been Antarapā
(An ta ra pa), also known as Antarācārya (An ta rā tsā rya) or the Middle
Ācārya (Bar ma slob dpon), but his real name would have been
Vijayarakṣita (rNam rgyal srung ba), also known honorifically as
Vijayapāda (rNam rgyal zhabs; Kahna pa’i rnam thar 332.1; TLKK 74).
When Tāranātha testifies that ‘this ācārya worked for the welfare of beings
mainly on the basis of Cakrasaṃvara, and was the root guru (rtsa ba’i bla
ma) of the siddha Tilopā’ (Kahna pa’i rnam thar 334.5; cf. TLKK 77), he is
endorsing what had been already asserted by ’Gos Lo tsā ba:
... Tilopā, a disciple of Vijayapāda (rNam rgyal zhabs kyi slob ma Tilli
pa), the last of many lineages of teachers (bla ma brgyud pa mang po’i
mthar gnas pa) of Cakrasaṃvara ... (Deb ther sngon po 672.3; BA 764).
It must be said that this Middle Ācārya cannot be identified―as I

erroneously did (1993: 185; 1995: 66 n. 16)―with Kṛṣṇācārya the Younger
(Nag po spyod pa chung ba; THBI 268; SIL 44; Templeman 1989: 83, 87),
because Tāranātha clearly affirms in his bKa’ babs bdun ldan (421.2; cf.
SIL 44) that ‘the ācārya Bhadrapā (Bha dra pa) taught Antarapā (An tar
pa), and he taught the one also known as Kṛṣṇācārya the Younger (Nag po
spyod pa chung ba)’. In addition, this Kṛṣṇācārya the Younger may well be
identified with the ācārya known as Balin, or Balyācārya, active in the late
tenth–early eleventh century, as we read in the Deb ther sngon po (329.6;
BA 372):
... Balin Ācārya (Ba liṃ ā tsa rya), a contemporary (dus mtshungs pa) of
Śrī Nāropā, who was also known as Kṛṣṇapāda the Younger (Nag po
zhabs chung ba zhes kyang bya ba) ...
We can thus sketch the following line of gurus, that matches with the above
represented transmission lineage of Cakrasaṃvara in the Deb ther sngon po
(336.1–4; BA 380)—
142 TILOPĀ III
Haḍipā/Jālandharapā
|
Kāṇha/Kṛṣṇācārya
|
Bhadrapā/Guhyapā
|
Antarapā/Antarācārya/Caryāpā/Vijayarakṣita/Vijayapāda
|
|
Tilopā
Balin Ācārya
The occasion of the first contact between Tilopā as a young brahmin

student (bram ze’i khye’u : māṇavaka, MVy 3846) and the holder of the
lineage inaugurated by Kāṇha/Kṛṣṇācārya is reported only by Mar pa (β
13.4–5):
There is in fact a southern charnel ground called Salabheraha, that had

been blessed by Maheśvara (dBang phyug chen po). The brāhmaṇa
student arrived there just when a gaṇacakra of Buddhist and non-Buddhist
ḍākinīs was being celebrated, and he received instructions (gdams pa :
avavāda) from Caryāpā.
Kambalapā
Occurring in Tibetan sources as La ba pa (ṢḌhU, β, γ, η, θ, ι, κ, λ, ν, ξ), La
va pa (β), and Lva ba pa (μ), the name of that siddha derives from Tib. lva
ba or la ba for Skt kambala (MVy 5859), the woollen blanket he was
famous for wearing as his only clothes and property. On the authority of the
tantric Āryadeva’s Caryāmelāpakapradīpa (sPyod bsdus sgron me = Spyod
pa bsdus pa’i sgron ma, Ō. 2668, Tō. 1803), Tāranātha mentions
Kambalapā (Kam pa la pa) with Padmavajra as initiators (khungs su mdzad
pa), seemingly of the Yogottaratantras (rGya gar chos ’byung 103.2; THBI
152).
We are informed in the same book (178.6–179.1; THBI 240–41) that,
roughly speaking (’ol spyi tsam du), the great ācārya Kambalapā (Lva va
pā), Indrabhūti the Middle (In dra bhū ti bar pa), Kukurāja (Ku ku rā dza),
the ācārya Saroruhavajra (mTsho skyes rdo rje), and Lalitavajra (La li ta ba
dzra) were contemporaries (dus mnyam). Moreover, we read in Tāranātha’s

fourth chapter of the bKa’ babs bdun ldan (408.4–5; SIL 36) on the
instruction lineage of luminosity that the siddha Haḍipā/Jālandharapā
would have requested to the two, Kambalapā and his disciple Indrabhūti the
Middle, instructions on luminosity and great bliss. We can piece together
from the same chapter the following guruparamparā that, to begin with
Haḍipā/Jālandharapā, matches with the above one of Caryāpā—
Paramāśva
(rTa mchog)
|
Vīṇāpāda
(Bi nā pa/Pi vaṃ zhabs)
|
Vilasyavajrā alias Yoginī Cintā
(Bi lā sya ba dzra/sGeg mo rdo rje)
(rNal ’byor ma Cin to)
|
Vajraghaṇṭāpā alias Śrīmatigarbha
(rDo rje dril bu pa)
(Blo gros snying po’i dpal)
|
Indrabhūti II Kambalapā
(In dra bhū ti bar pa) (Lva ba pa)
| |
Haḍipā/Jālandharapā
(Dza lan dha ri pa)
|
Kāṇha/Kṛṣṇācārya
|
Bhadrapā/Guhyapā
|
Antarapā/Antarācārya/Caryāpā/Vijayarakṣita/Vijayapāda
|
Tilopā
Although, as per ’Gos Lo tsā ba, Kambalapā cannot but be the king
Indrabhūti himself (Deb ther sngon po 320.7–321.2; BA 362–63), i.e.
Indrabhūti II (Snellgrove 1959, 1: 12–13), whatever it may have been, the
encounter with Haḍipā/Jālandharapā, the guru of the late-eighth-century
144 TILOPĀ III
Kāṇha/Kṛṣṇācārya, and the instruction Kambalapā granted to him would

assign Lavapa/Kambalapā to the second half of the same century. If this is
not the case of a homonym, as it seems, there would be a span of about two
centuries to cover since Kambalapā’s time until that of Tilopā, and a
personal contact between the two appears hardly realistic. Nonetheless,
after reporting Tilopā’s encounter-cum-instruction with Caryāpā, Mar pa
goes on without any interruption (β 13.5):
The great ācārya Kambalapā sang:
At the street corner of a great town,

I had been sleeping for twelve years when
I attained the perfection of mahāmudrā!
After these words, he [Tilopā] received the instruction of luminosity.
What kind of encounter are we supposed to imagine? Among the proposed

solutions to this question, the first one in chronological order seems to
emerge from rGyal thang pa (η 40.3), who states that Tilopā’s paramparā
(brgyud) would have been ‘blessed’ (byin gyis rlabs) by the great ācārya
Kambalapā (La ba pa), thus implying: no matter whether personally or not.
Another solution is proposed by rDo rje mdzes ’od (θ 68.5–6),
according to whom Tilopā would have met Lalitavajra (Rol pa rdo rje),
who granted him those Hevajratantra-based instructions of luminosity and
intermediate existence, ‘belonging to the lineage that comes from’ the great
ācārya Kambalapā (slob dpon La ba pa chen po nas brgyud pa’i rgyud).
Certainly, the time gap cannot be covered by Lalitavajra neither,
considering that Tāranātha takes also this siddha as ‘roughly contemporary’
with Kambalapā; but the interesting hint is here that it would be matter of
someone contemporary with Tilopā, someone who was the holder of the
paramparā of Kambalapā at Tilopā’s time.
According to dBang phyug rgyal mtshan (ν 49.2–3), it was in order to
avoid incorrect perceptions of himself that Tilopā would have acted as if he
had heard the authoritative words (bka’ gsan pa’i tshul bstan pa) on
luminosity and the nondual tantras from Indrabhūti, that is to say the
disciple of Kambalapā, in turn, of the woman selling liquor Bhinasavajra,
of Ḍombīheruka, of Virūpā. Again, for the same reason as above we have
to leave out the possibility of a personal connection. Nevertheless, the
verbal expression bka’ gsan pa confirms what was already implied by rDo
rje mdzes ’od: in point of fact, listening to (gsan pa) authoritative words
(bka’) does not necessarily imply any bodily presence of their author. If this
is the case, a more consistent reading of Mar pa’s passage would be that the
young brāhmaṇa student was introduced to the siddha Lavapa/Kambalapā
from the lips of Caryāpā. Being the latter, as we have seen, in a paramparā
that includes both Kambalapā and Kṛṣṇācārya, he could well have sung or
quoted the above caryāgīti, and grant to Tilopā the relevant instructions.
Nāgārjuna
From a merely historical viewpoint, the Nāgārjuna associated with Tilopā
cannot be the Mādhyamika philosopher of the second century CE.4 Nor can
he be the early-seventh-century master already pointed out by Benoytosh
Bhattacharyya (1928: xlv–xlvi, cvi–cviii), and probably corresponding with
the ‘metallurgist’ Nāgārjuna mixed with the original Mādhyamika
Nāgārjuna in the master that Xuanzang is reporting of (White 1997: 165).
We read in the Shamsher Manuscript of a Nāgārjuna predicted
(vyākṛta) by the Buddha (Śākyasiṃha), after the institution of the maṇḍala
of Dharmadhātu in the south of India (α vv. 11b–14):
dakṣiṇāpathadeśe’smin pattane In this southern region, in the town of

Karahāṭake || (11b) Karahāṭaka;
brāhmaṇasya kule janma pitā born in a brāhmaṇa family; Trivikrama the
cāsya Trivikramaḥ | mātā Sāvitrī father; the mother, Sāvitrī by name:
nāmāsya vyākṛtād aparaṃ matam considered as later than the one [here]
|| (12) predicted,
Dāmodareti vikhyāto bhikṣutve generally known as Dāmodara; as Śākyamitra
Śākyamitrakam | nāmāparaṃ Rat- when a monk; with another name when
namater anugrahavidhau sthitaḥ || devoted to the rite for gaining the grace of
(13) Ratnamati;
āhvā Advayavajreti Vajrayoginy- with the name Advayavajra when blessed by
adhiṣṭhitaḥ | Sarahaḥ siddhi- Vajrayoginī; Saraha should have been
bhaktena tadanugrāhako bhavet gracious with him for his devotion to the
(14) accomplishment.
A Tibetan text on the lineage stemming from Saraha (bla ma brgyud pa’i
rim pa, LGR; Passavanti 2008), preserved in the Tucci Tibetan Fund of the
IsIAO Library (no. 1095), opens a late twelfth-century anonymous
collection of six commentaries on Saraha’s dohās, the Ū phyogs gzigs par
146 TILOPĀ III
zhu’ | dpal sa ra ha’i mdo ha’i grel pa lags.5 Curiously, both rGyal thang
pa (η) and the author of the IsIAO Manuscript, albeit strongly dependent on
a source close or common to the Shamsher Manuscript (α), seem to neglect
the above vyākṛtād aparaṃ matam introducing a siddha supposedly later
(aparam matam) than the Nāgārjuna predicted (vyākṛtād).6 As a
consequence, both sources erroneously identify this Nāgārjuna with
Dāmodara, Śākyamitra, Advayavajra, whereas the three last names must be
referred to the Martabodha/Maitrīgupta/Maitrīpā(da) contemporary with
Atiśa:
(α) rGyal thang pa IsIAO Ms.

(11b) lho phyogs Bhe ta’i yul du | Ka ra lho phyogs Bhe ta’i tshong dus kyi
ha te zhes bya ba’i grong khyer du nang du
(12) yab rgyal rigs Krig kra ma zhes bya bram ze’i rigs su ’khrungs ste | yab
ba dang | yum ’Gri he ste zhes pa bram ze Krig gra ya zhes bya ba
gnyis la sras gcig byung ba dang | dang | yum Gha ti zhes bya ba
nam mkha’ la Klu sgrub ces sgra gnyis kyi sras su ltam pa’i dus su |
byung bar gyur to || nam mkha’ la Na ga ’dzu na zhes
bya ba’i sgra grags par gyurd do ||
(13) khyim na gnas pa’i ming Dha mo pha mas Dha mo dha ra zhes bya
dha ra | dge slong gi ming Shā kya bar btags | rab tu byung ba’i mying
bshes gnyen zhes bya ba de | slob ni Shag kya’i bshes gnyen | byang
dpon chen po Blo gros rin chen se Rin cen blo gros kyis rjes su
gyis | rims kyis pa’i snod du dbang bzung ba’i dus kyi
skur nas |
(14) gsang mtshan gNyis med rdo rje ming gNyis med rdo rje’o (LGR
zhes bya bar btags shes kyang 5a8–b2).
gsung ngo (η 12b3–5).
As we have seen, this tantric master Nāgārjuna occurs in the lineage of

Saraha ever since the earliest of our sources, the Shamsher Manuscript (α),
in the first guruparaṃparā of the āmnāya of amanasikāra—
Saraha
|
Nāgārjuna
|
Śabara
We read in the Deb ther sngon po (745.5; BA 841), on the authority of the
master of rGyal thang pa (η), namely rGod tshang pa mGon po rdo rje, that
Saraha was the promoter of mahāmudrā as the eminent path in the teaching
of Śākyamuni. Its context is that of the completion stage (utpannakrama or
niṣpannakrama : rdzogs rim), that is, the sets of meditative practices and
experiences relevant with the three highest tantric abhiṣekas (mchog dbang
gsum). In particular, while the six doctrines (ṣaḍdharma : chos drug) are
associated with the guhyābhiṣeka (gsang dbang), and the great bliss
(mahāsukha : bde ba chen po) with the prajñājñānābhiṣeka (shes rab ye
shes kyi dbang), mahāmudrā is related with the caturthābhiṣeka (dbang
bzhi pa).
Born in Odisha (O ḍi bi sha) as Brāhmaṇa Rāhula (sGra gcan ’dzin),
says Tāranātha in the bKa’ babs bdun ldan (362.5–365.2; SIL 2–3), he
would have been instructed on nonduality by a lower caste arrowsmith’s
daughter by means of the symbol of the arrow she was making. After that,
he would have roamed with her as his tantric consort, performing yogottara
practices in charnel grounds, celebrating gaṇacakras, and singing spiritual
songs. Since he would earn his living by doing the work of an arrowsmith,
he was famed as Saraha.7 His nonconformist behaviour would have
exposed him to censure, but he proved his innocence by expounding his
experience in the form of dohās, firstly to the people, secondly to the
queen, and thirdly to the king himself.8
Regarding his time, whereas Bhattacharyya’s chronology (1928: xliii-
xlv, cxvi-cxvii) assigns to Saraha the years around 633, and Shahidullah
(1928: 31) ‘vers 1000’, Rahula Sankrityayan (1934: 226) places him ‘au
milieu du VIIIe siècle’, and Dowman (1985: 71–72) agrees with the latter’s
conclusion, placing Saraha ‘in the second half of the eighth century and the
beginning of the ninth’. We can see that almost all the tentative datings of
Saraha depend on the time of the Pāla king mentioned by the Tibetan
sources, be it the case of Ratnapāla (Shahidullah 1928), or Dharmapāla
(Sankrityayan 1934, and Dowman 1985). In the source studied by Guenther
the name of a King Mahāpāla occurs, but Guenther is right in assuming that
such reference is not so consistent, not only for the variety of Pāla names
occurring in other texts, but also for the reason that ‘these names are as
common in the Indian setting as are Jones and Smith in English’.
Moreover, since ‘king is an administrative title [...] this Mahāpāla may well
have been a city magistrate’ (Guenther 1968a: 7–8; 1993: 7).
We are on a better ground in dating this master when we compare his
position in lineages of traditions parallel to that of mahāmudrā. In fact, if
the Sarahas mentioned in the lineages of Guhyasamāja and mahāmudrā are
148 TILOPĀ III
the same person, we might consider the guruparamparā of the

Guhyasamāja as reported in the Deb ther sngon po (318.2–5; BA 359–
60)—
King Indrabhūti of Uḍḍiyāna

|
a nāgayoginī
(Klu las gyur pa’i rnal ’byor ma zhig)
|
King Visukalpa of South India
|
Brāhmaṇa Saraha
|
Ācārya Nāgārjuna
We do not know whether this Indrabhūti was the master of

Padmasambhava (Tucci 1949: 232), or of Dhanarakṣita, in turn master of
Padmasambhava (Dowman 1985: 233). In both cases the time of this ‘great
king of Uḍḍiyāna’ (O ḍi ya ṇa’i rgyal po chen po Indra bhū ti) would have
been not much earlier than that of Padmasambhava himself, who was a
contemporary of the Tibetan ruler Khri srong lde btsan, in turn
contemporary with Dharmapāla (c. 775–c. 812), and somehow involved in
the affair of the bSam yas monastery around 780. If this Indrabhūti’s time
was the second half of the eighth century, the time of Saraha and this
Nāgārjuna could have been between the mid-eighth and the mid-ninth
century.
Now, if we consider again the guruparamparā of mahāmudrā, we see
that the holders of Saraha’s tradition in India were Śabarapāda (Ri khrod
zhabs), ‘father and son’ (de’i lugs ’dzin pa rGya gar na rje Ri khrod zhabs
yab sras; Deb ther sngon po 745.5–6; BA 841). Then, our author goes on
(746.1; BA 842), it is the son Maitrīpāda the one who got the tradition of
Śabarapāda the Father, or Śrī Śabareśvara (Sha ba ri dbang phyug),
establishing his disciples on the path of mahāmudrā, and spreading them all
over the world. As it seems, two transmissions or generations after Saraha,
there would have been the time of Maitrīpāda or Śabarapāda the Son, to be
identified with Dāmodara, Martabodha, Śākyamitra, Maitrīgupta,
Advayavajra, and a contemporary of Atiśa, thus covering the eleventh
century―
Brāhmaṇa Saraha
|
Śabarapāda I
|
Dāmodara / Martabodha / Śākyamitra / Maitrīgupta / Advayavajra / Maitrīpāda /
Śabarapāda II
According to Tāranātha (bKa’ babs bdun ldan 365.2; SIL 8), between the
two, Rāhula/Saraha and Śabarapāda I (the father), or Śabareśvara, or Saraha
II (the younger), the name of Nāgārjuna (Klu sgrub) should be inserted
(de’i [Saraha’s] slob ma ni slob dpon Klu sgrub yin)—
Brāhmaṇa Rāhula/Saraha I
|
Nāgārjuna
|
Śabarapāda I/Saraha II
|
Lūyīpāda Dāmodara/Martabodha/Śākyamitra/Maitrīgupta/
Advayavajra/Maitrīpāda/Śabarapāda II
It must be pointed out that, in Tāranātha’s account, the disciple of

Rāhula/Saraha and teacher of Śabarapāda I / Saraha II is portrayed as both
the Mādhyamika master who would have received the
Śatasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā from the nāgas and a tantric master, which is
hardly consistent historically speaking. Bhattacharyya (1928: xlv-xlvi) had
already observed that ‘Tibetan sources have hopelessly mixed up together
the accounts’ of the two Nāgārjunas. Again for historical reasons, it is
difficult that the early mid-ninth-century tantric Nāgārjuna disciple of
Saraha could be Tilopā’s guru. Rather, it would be matter of another
Nāgārjuna, who must have flourished in the first half of the tenth century.
It is more probable that this fourth Nāgārjuna could be identified with
the Gujarati ‘alchemist’ mentioned by the Persian polymath Abū Rayḥān
al-Bīrūnī (973–1048) who visited India around 1030 (Tucci 1930: 213;
Naudou 1968: 85–86); we read in his Kitāb ul-Hind:
A famous representative of this art [rasaśāstra] was Nāgārjuna, a native

of the fort Daihak, near Somanāth. He excelled in it, and composed a book
150 TILOPĀ III
which contains the substance of the whole literature on this subject, and is
very rare. He lived a hundred years before our time (Sachau 1910, 1: 189).
Mar pa, describing Tilopā’s quasi-missed encounter with this possibly

fourth Nāgārjuna, since the latter was among the disembodied spirits called
‘scent eaters’ (dri za : gandharva)―that is, he had just died―introduces us
to Nāgārjuna’s disciple Mātaṅgīpā (β 13.5–7):
As he was in search of Nāgārjuna, in that charnel ground there was the

yogin practicing ascetic observance (brtul zhugs spyod pa : vratin)
Mātaṅgīpā, who was meditating in a shelter of straw. He spoke,
‘Nāgārjuna went away to teach the doctrine to the king of gandharvas. O
great being, I have been sent to welcome you’. Offering maṇḍalas to
Mātaṅgīpā, he consulted him. In response, the latter manifested the actual
maṇḍala of Śrīguhyasamāja (dPal gsang ba ’dus pa) and gave him the
consecration. Due to Mātaṅgīpā’s explanation (bshad pa) of its tantra, he
perceived the being in itself of thinking activity (sems kyi ngo bo :
cittasvabhāva).
rGyal thang pa (η 39.4–6) confirms that Mātaṅgīpā was a disciple of

Nāgārjuna; then he adds that he was born in the land of Tike (’khrungs pa’i
yul Ti ke), and describes him as a cowboy (ba glang ’tsho) when Nāgārjuna
took him as his disciple. Subsequently, he would have become a great
yogin who had attained the supreme perfection of mahāmudrā (phyag rgya
chen po mchog gi dngos grub rnyes pa’i rnal ’byor pa chen po gcig byung).
Kun dga’ rin chen, in his ‘Stories of the Masters of the Lineages of the
Four Transmissions’ (bKa’ babs bzhi’i brgyud pa’i bla ma rnams kyi rnam
thar, μ 1–41), says that Mātaṅgīpā had been provided with the instructions
of Nāgārjuna (Klu sgrub kyi gdams pa), and all the transmitted instructions
(rjes su gdams pa mtha’ dag). He would have practiced (sgrub pa mdzad)
in a shelter of straw (spyil po : tṛṇakuṭī(ra), MVy 5545) for elephants or
outcast people (ma taṃ gyi):9 whence his name (...las mtshan du gsol ba
yin). In the same passage we are also informed that he would have taken
Tilopā as his disciple (μ 26.5–27.2). In the ‘Story of the Venerable Tilopā,
Being the Flow of Four Consecrations’ (rJe btsun ti lo pa’i rnam thar
dbang bzhi’i chu rgyun), Kun dga’ rin chen narrates the meeting between
Mātaṅgīpā and Tilopā in terms very similar to those in Mar pa’s account (μ
43.4–44.1), but he adds a location, the southern charnel ground of the
‘Terrifying Laughter’ (lho phyogs ’Jigs byed bzhad pa’i dur khrod).
dBang phyug rgyal mtshan describes only the encounter of Mātaṅgīpā
with Tilopā (ν 50.4–52.3); however, albeit in a different context―after his

stay in Uḍḍiyāna―both place and occasion are mentioned: the former
would have been the charnel ground to the south of India called
Samabirava ‘Terrifying Laughter’ (Sa ma bi ra va ’Jigs byed bzhad pa),
that had been blessed by Maheśvara (bCom ldan ’das dBang phyug chen
pos byin gyis brlabs pa’i gnas); as to the latter, it would have been during a
gaṇacakra of ḍākinīs on an holy day (dus bzang la ḍā ki ma rnams tshogs
kyi ’khor lo). Soaked with a second-hand Kāpālika taste leaning towards
the macabre, dBang phyug rgyal mtshan’s narrative is worth enjoying:
A multitude of corpses there: some scattered all over, some heaped

together, and some impaled on top of stakes like raised banners; a mess of
all kinds of arms, legs, heads, and fingers, toes, ears, noses, and so forth,
complete and incomplete. From one side, where headless zombies (ro
langs : vetāla) were longing for flesh wavering with raised hands, seven
blazing jackals raising their jaws to the maws, the limbs, and the
backbones, produced weeping pain and fear. While ogres (sha za : piśāca)
and demons (srin po : rākṣasa) flickered here and there talking impudent
nonsense, and terrible birds frolicked fluttering back and forth, widows
and intimates out of control beat their breasts, pulled out the hair, and
rolled on the ground. Every spot all around was filled by the smoke and
flames of revered funeral pyres (bsreg khang) and burnt offerings (gsur).
Sorrow on the lower path of the three human births, non-attachment on
the middle, and great bliss on the highest one: the three have been
properly fixed. In the middle of that great crematory ground, in the finest
hut of leaves, like a heap of gems and emeralds, the lord of yoga
Mātaṅgīpā practicing ascetic observance (brtul zhugs spyod pa : vratin)...
Where Tilopā Met His First Gurus

While Caryāpā would have connected Tilopā with the first and the second
bka’ babs, that is the instructions-cum-lineage of both Kāṇha/Kṛṣṇācārya
and Lavapa/Kambalapā, Mātaṅgīpā would have done the same with the
third bka’ babs from Nāgārjuna.
The sources describing the encounter of the young Tilopā with these
two gurus clearly points at the same place. In the case of Mar pa, the spot is
described first for Caryāpā, then we are told that Mātaṅgīpā was practicing
in that charnel ground (dur khrod de na); in the case of Kun dga’ rin chen
and dBang phyug rgyal mtshan, it is on the occasion of the meeting with
152 TILOPĀ III
Mātaṅgīpā:
Mar pa Kun dga’ rin chen dBang phyug rgyal mtshan

lho phyogs kyi rgyud nas lho phyogs ’Jigs byed rGya gar lho phyogs kyi
Sa la bhe ‹ha› ra zhes bya bzhad pa’i dur khrod du rgyud bCom ldan ’das
ba dBang phyug chen slob dpon spyod pa’i rdo dBang phyug chen pos
pos byin gyis rlabs pa’i rje Ma taṃ gi’i spyil po byin gyis brlabs pa’i gnas
dur khrod yod de | der na bzhugs pa dang mjal ’dod pa’i yon tan mtha’
phyi nang gi mkha’ ’gro (μ 43.4). dag phun sum tshogs pa |
ma rnams kyi tshogs kyi Sa ma bi ra wa ’Jigs byed
’khor lo bskor ba’i tshe bzhad pa zhes bya ba’i dur
(β 13.4). khrod chen por dus bzang
la ḍā ki ma rnams kyi
tshogs kyi ’khor lo yang
dag par bskor zhing ... (ν
50.4–51.1).
The earliest and most concrete piece of information to start with is that he
went to the south (β, μ, ν), most likely the south of India (ν). Being
allegedly blessed by Maheśvara (β, ν), i.e. Śiva, we can assume that the
charnel ground was associated with Śaiva ascetics, but probably with
Buddhist siddhas too, as we can infer from the fact that the ḍākinīs, namely
the yoginīs participating in the gaṇacakra, were of both Śaiva and Bauddha
traditions (β, ν).
Remarkably, in the above examined compilation from Virūpā, the
Uḍḍiyānaśrīyogayoginīsvayambhūtasambhogaśmaśānakalpa (UYYSSŚK),
a specific siddha-cum-lineage is attributed to each of the eight charnel
grounds as they are conceived in the maṇḍalas of the Yoginītantras
(Davidson 2002b: 104–105). In spite of any appeal to scientific prudence, it
sounds at least fascinating to be ‘informed’ by Virūpā that
...the southwestern (lho nub) charnel ground, called Terrible Laughter (Ha
ha sgrogs), [related to the northeastern (!) quarter by the form of Śiva
named] Īśāna (dBang ldan), a place with a perimeter of six yojanas, and
four yojanas wide, appearing like ten million white lotuses, was blessed
(byin gyis brlabs : adhiṣṭhita) by Śrī Parama Kṛṣṇapāda (dPal mchog Nag
po zhabs). [...] As for the yogins (rnal ’byor pa), there are the yogin
Suvarṇavarṇa (gSer mdog), the son of a powerful brāhmaṇa, [and so
forth]; as for the yoginīs (rnal ’byor ma), there are *Vaktrakrodhā (bZhin
khro ma), and so forth. They follow the two Tantrahṛdayas (rgyud snying
po gnyis), with the tantra of Hayagrīva (rTa mchog gi rgyud), and
commemorate (rjes su dran par byed) Śrī Kṛṣṇapāda (UYYSSŚK D SHA

112b6–113a2).
Back down to earth, we observe that the name of the charnel ground where
Tilopā met his first gurus occurs twice in Mar pa as Salabheraha (β 13.3)
and Salabhera (β 13.4), with a ha added in dbu can script below the line,
and a mark above the line after bhe, to emend the word to Salabhehara. On
the basis of this Tibetan editorial amendment in the manuscript, I had
interpreted bheraha/bhe‹ha›ra as erratic renderings for Skt vihāra, and sala
for Skt śāla/sāla ‘enclosure, fence, tree’ (1995: 62 n. 5, 66 n. 15). But the
above occurrences in Kun dga’ rin chen (μ) and dBang phyug rgyal mtshan
(ν), has years later induced me to be more suspicious of that Tibetan
emendation, and to reconsider my ensuing conjectural interpretation.
In point of fact, also dBang phyug rgyal mtshan refers to a gaṇacakra of
ḍākinīs which was celebrated in a charnel ground ‘blessed by Maheśvara’
in the south of India. As we have seen, the second description sounds di
maniera, but dBang phyug rgyal mtshan affixes to the obscure Indic
toponym Samabirava the Tibetan ’Jigs byed bzhad pa, ‘terrifying’ (’jigs
byed) ‘laughter’ (bzhad pa), which confirms Kun dga’ rin chen’s location.
Looking for an Indic equivalence, bhairava (MVy 7177 s.v. ’jigs), or bhīma
(MVy 3584 s.v. ’jigs byed), but also virava ‘roaring’, could be for ’jigs
byed, i.e. Śiva, whereas hāsa (MVy 4286 s.v. bzhad ldan ma), or hāsya
(MVy 5040 s.v. bzhad gad) could be for bzhad pa. Now, if we take into
account two other Tibetan expressions for laughter, ha ha rgod pa (AŚĀ)
and ha ha sgrogs (UYYSSŚK) are also attested as the name of one of the
eight charnel grounds in the maṇḍalas, we might conclude that dBang
phyug rgyal mtshan identifies the charnel ground that he calls Samabirawa
with Aṭṭahāsa.
AŚĀ Ha ha rgod pa
UYYSSŚK Ha ha sgrogs
β Sa la bhe ra ha
β Sa la bhe ha ra
μ ’Jigs byed bzhad pa
ν Sa ma bi ra wa ’Jigs byed bzhad pa
bhairava Aṭṭahāsa
Following this footpath, we have found at least some basis to conjecture

that the second part of the toponym Sala-bheraha might be more
154 TILOPĀ III
compatible with bhairava than with vihāra. As for the first element, both
sala and sama could be acceptable, because of the not rare confusion
between the Tibetan dbu med syllables la and ma—
la
ma
We have seen that the majority of the above maṇḍala-based texts on the
charnel grounds position Aṭṭahāsa in northeastern India. In actual fact, a
place with this name would have been convincingly identified as the
current village of Attahas in Labhpur (Labpur), in the Birbhum District of
the Bardhaman (Burdwan) Division of West Bengal (Sircar 1973: 57 n.,
82). On the other hand, as per Virūpā, Mar pa, Kun dga’ rin chen, and
dBang phyug rgyal mtshan, Aṭṭahāsa is to be found in the southwest
(UYYSSŚK) or in the south (β, μ, ν). Also Tāranātha in his ‘Life of
Kṛṣṇācārya/Kāṇha’ locates Aṭṭahāsa in the south: more exactly, in Trilinga,
the southern Telugu country which takes its name from the three śivaliṅgas
it contains, viz. (1) at Kaleśvara (kalakaleśvaratīrtha), the present-day
Kaleshwaram in the state of Telangana, (2) at Śrīśaila (Srisailam) in the
Kurnool District of Andhra Pradesh, and (3) at Drākśarāma (Draksharama)
in the East Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh (R.C. Majumdar ed. 1966:
373; TLKK 122). We are told by Tāranātha that the king of the land of
Trilinga (yul Tri ling ga’i rgyal po) once made an offering to Kṛṣṇācārya
and his attendants:
... phyogs de dang nye ba’i dur khrod ... they went to Terrible Laughter (Ha
Aṭṭa{ṭṭa} ha sa ste Ha ha sgrog par ha sgrog pa), which is the nearby
byon | der tshogs kyi ’khor lo’i spyod charnel ground of Aṭṭahāsa: a
pa yun ring du mdzad | (Kahna pa’i gaṇacakra was celebrated there for a
rnam thar 288.3–4) long time (cf. TLKK 28).
It must be said that Śrīśaila is a site particularly blessed by Maheśvara, in

the words of Mar pa and dBang phyug rgyal mtshan: ‘arguably the greatest
holy site (pīṭha) for every type of siddha, both Buddhist and Hindu, in all of
southern India’ (Linrothe 2006: 125). Lying on a flat 450 metre-high top of
the Nallamalai, or Nallamala Range, this ‘sacred’ (śrī) ‘mountain’ (śaila) is
on the right side of the Kṛṣṇa River, that enters the Nallamala Hills at
current Somasila in the Mahbubnagar District, and flows through a deep
gorge along the hill range till it reaches Nagarjunasagar in the Guntur
District of Andhra Pradesh. The place has been variously called as Śrīśaila,
Śrīparvata, Śrīgiri, or Śrīnāga (Parabrahma Sastry 1990: 4), but the
occurrence of inscriptions at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa―about ninety-six km distant
as the crow flies―pointing at it as Śrīparvata (Siripavate Vijayapuriya-
puva-disā-bhāge... ‘On Śrīparvata, to the east of Vijayapurī...’ Inscription F
l. 2; Vogel 1929–30: 22–23), suggests that the sacred mountain is not a
mountain, but rather a range, to be identified with the whole Nallamalas.
As a matter of fact, the toponym Nāgārjunakoṇḍa, that is to say the
‘hill’ (Tel. koṇḍa) of Nāgārjuna, is a medieval one, as in the third to fourth-
century inscriptions the town-cum-valley was called Vijayapurī: possibly
from Vijaya Sātakarṇi, the Sātavāhana founder of the town which was
discovered in 1926. Nāgārjunakoṇḍa, before being transformed in the
Sixties of the last century into a colossal water reservoir (Nagarjunasagar),
was a valley of about twenty-three km2, closed on one side by the Kṛṣṇa
River, and by the last hilly offshots of the Nallamalas, or ‘black’ (Tel. nalla
: Skt kṛṣṇa) ‘hills’ (Tel. mala : Skt parvata), on the other three sides.
In the Prākrit inscriptions of the Ikṣvāku kings, the town of Vijayapurī
is always mentioned together with Śrīparvata (Siriparvate Vijayapure),
which emerges without a doubt the ancient name of the range. In this sense,
skipping any discussion of its location as reported in detail by Arion Roşu
(1969: 39–49), to decide whether Śrīparvata is Śrīśaila (Sircar 1973;
Dowman 1985; Linrothe 2006) or Nāgārjunakoṇḍa (Dutt 1931) could be
questionable, because the reverse is not true, as for instance when affirming
that the U.S.A. are America: in actual fact it would be more accurate to say
that the two places, Nāgārjunakoṇḍa and Śrīśaila, are on Śrīparvata.
In the Shamsher Manuscript we read (α 1.4 v. 22) that the siddha-to-be
Śabara or Śabareśvara had taken the two mountains Manobhaṅga and
Cittaviśrāma as his abode for practice (Manobhaṅga-Cittaviśrāmau
caryāsthānaṃ vivecitam), living there as a Śabara, i.e. like the tribal people
of the forest (ākṛtiṃ Śabarasyāsau dadhan nivasati sma saḥ). Noticeably
the IsIAO text reminds us of the Shamsher Manuscript, in that both open
with the Buddha going to the south, and instituting the maṇḍala of
Dharmadhātu, albeit sligtly different as to the orientation. More to the
point, just as in the Shamsher Manuscript (α 6.3), Maitrī(gupta / Maitrīpāda
/ Maitrīpā) / Advayavajra is sent in a dream to the two southern mountains,
where the lord of Śabaras or Śabareśvara had his abode (Tatz 1987: 701–
707), thus is it repeated a couple of centuries later in this Tibetan text, but
with a noteworthy detail here, that the two, Cittaviśrāma (Sems ngal gso
156 TILOPĀ III
bar byed pa) and Manobhaṅga (Yid pham pa), are clearly located on the
Śrīparvata (dPal gyi ri), that is to say on the current Nallamala Range:
Shamsher Ms. IsIAO Ms.

... punar api svapne gaditaṃ gaccha kye paṇ bi ṭa Me tri ba khyod ’di nas lho
tvaṃ kulaputra dakṣiṇāpathe phyogs dPal gyi ri zhes bya ba la | Seṃs
Manobhaṅga-Cittaviśrāmau parvatau ngal so bar byed pa dang | yid phaṃ bar
tatra Śabareśvaras tiṣṭhati... (Tucci gyurd pa zhes bya ba’i ri yod kyis der
1930: 222; Lévi 1930–32: 424; song gcig dang | de na dpal sha ba ri pa ri
Pandey 1990: 11). khrod dbang phyug zhabs zhes bya ba
bzhugs pa ... (LGR 8a5–6).
The two hills are linked in the IsIAO Manuscript with two bodhisattvas,
their two emanations, and with two different lineages respectively. We read
in fact (LGR 2b1–9) that the Buddha appointed the bodhisattvas Mañjuśrī
and Avalokiteśvara as holders of two lineages: the former would have held
spiritual sway over the lineage of the gradual (rim gyis pa) path to
liberation, and the latter over the lineage of the instantaneous one (cig car
ba). Then, whereas Mañjuśrī would have appeared on the Cittaviśrāma as
Ratnamati (Blo gros rin chen), Avalokiteśvara would have arrived on the
scene of the Manobhaṅga Hill as Mahāsukhanātha Śrī Hayagrīva (Bde chen
mgon po dpal rTa mgrin). Besides, whereas the bodhisattva of Cittaviśrāma
would have transmitted his gradualist teaching to the ācārya Nāgārjuna, his
fellow of Manobhaṅga would have instructed the great brāhmaṇa Saraha in
the instantaneous path.
In the light of the foregoing, it is not at all unreasonable to relate
Cittaviśrāma with current Nāgārjunakoṇḍa, clearly referable to the activity
of the second-century Nāgārjuna, the Mahāyāna friend of a Sātavāhana
king (Dutt 1931). Likewise, we could identify the Manobhaṅga Hill with
Śrīśaila: as if the Vajrayāna discourse (Śrīśaila) were distant a few days on
foot from the Mahāyāna one (Nāgārjunakoṇḍa). That being so, it may be
worth mentioning that the earliest epigraph we know from Śrīśaila is an
early-seventh-century small label inscription on the rocky floor towards the
Śāraṅgadhara Maṭha, where a person of eminent yogic powers, a
Paramātmā Sarasa (Sa ra sa pa ra ma tma) is mentioned, whose prefixing
word sarasa could suggest his commitment with alchemy, in Sanskrit
rasāyana or rasaśāstra (Parabrahma Sastry 1990: 30–31, 51).
Already a famous centre of tantric worship since at least the first half of
the seventh century, Śrīśaila is a crucial Śaiva seat to this day. Not only it
has been celebrated as one of the eight secret places sacred to Śiva, but also
the divine phallus (śiva-liṅga) there enshrined, the Mallikārjuna-liṅgam, is
believed to be a self-emanated one (svayaṃbhū-liṅga), and one of the
twelve radiance signs (jyotir-liṅga) of the god. In the same way, Śrīśaila is
one of the eighteen Śakta sacred sites (pīṭha), seeing that the form of
Mahākālī consort (śakti) of Mallikārjuna, Bhramarāmbā as we read in the
Aṣṭādaśaśaktipīṭhastotra (2a), is claimed as one of the eighteen Śaktis.
We know that Śrīśaila was a crucial Kāpālika base since at least the
eighth century. Later, towards the end of the tenth century, the supremacy
passed to the Kālāmukhas, an offshoot of the Pāśupatas, and then to the
Vīraśaivas by about the fourteenth century (Lorenzen 1972: 51–52). A
visual evidence of those ash-smeared ascetics’ at Śrīśaila can be found on
the surrounding walls (prākāra) enclosing the two temples of Mallikārjuna
and Bhramarāmbā, built in the fifteenth century on an earlier foundation
(Shaw 1997; Linrothe 2006). This added prākāra has been decorated in the
early sixteenth century with crouds of siddhas’ images:
Solitary or in groups, within extended narratives or in lineage paramparās

[...], it is not an exaggeration to suggest that siddhas dominate the prākāra
wall [...]. The sheer variety of siddha images on the prākāra wall tempts
one to believe the artists knew them firsthand (Linrothe 2006: 127).
This firsthand familiarity, due to the time of the images, would explain why
a great part of the carved siddhas’ sectarian affiliation recognized so far are
Pāśupatas with gourd-shaped bags, possibly for ashes, and the liṅga-bearers
Vīraśaivas, who were dominant in the fourteenth century. But another
prominent presence among the identified siddha images is that of the split-
earred (kānpaṭhā) Nāth (nātha) siddhas, whose traditional lineage includes
Jālandhara (Linrothe 2006: 128 ff.), that is to say Haḍipā/Jālandharapā, the
guru of the Kāpālika Kāṇha/Kṛṣṇācārya. As to the Kāpālikas, Richard
Shaw (1997: 163) reports of a personal communication of Dr
Venkataramayya (13 July 1995):
In an excavation at Srisailam in 1989 to 1990 Telugu University

discovered an underground passage below a math at Vibudhimatha
Sikharesvaram, which led to a small chamber as big as a table, five feet by
four feet, with a low ceiling. This was thought to have been used for
Kapalika ritual purposes. It is now destroyed.
158 TILOPĀ III
The pilgrimages to great sacred places (tīrthayātrā) like Śrīśaila had, and
still have, a regular calendar based on the traditionally celebrated propitious
periods. Above all, the thirteenth night of the Phālguna month (February–
March) of every year was celebrated as the great Night of Śiva (mahā-
Śivarātri): the holiest occasion for an exceedingly congested religious
festival (Roşu 1969: 32), but also for authentic, semi-authentic, and false
ascetics to convene there from all directions of the Indian oecumene, and
exchange their first-hand inner experience, yoga techniques, as well as
practical tips. At night, all fires at the border of the forest, every dark corner
in the permanent or temporary resorts (śālā) girdling the sacred area, could
be the shelter of dubious pilgrims, beggars, sleeping devout families,
barking dogs, as well as of long-haired yogins and yoginīs in more isolated
spots, improvising their songs about the practice on unanimously known
melodies.
As it seems, we are here coming across a possible exception to the
above denounced impenetrability of the toponymy of the maṇḍala-oriented
charnel grounds. It may well be here the case of the southeastern śmaśāna,
variously known in the relevant literature as Lakṣmīvana (bKra shis mchog,
SUT, VS), Lakṣmīvat (La kṣ‹m›i can, AŚ2), Śrīvana (dPal gyi nags, AŚĀ),
and Śrīnāyaka (dPal ’dren, UYYSSŚK). As a matter of fact, the first element
śrī/lakṣmī of the toponym, as well as the above three occurrences of vana
‘forest’, could lead one to find a workable correspondence on the current
maps with Śrīśaila, as this remote place is still covered with dense forests
where tigers, crocodiles, and other wild animals live, and the few humans
inhabiting there belong to the hunter-gatherer aboriginal tribes.
Sukhasiddhi
The name occurs as Sukhasiddhi (Su kha siddhi) in the Ṣaḍdharmopadeśa:
as such, provided that the verse in the bsTan ’gyur be not a later
interpolation, Tilopā himself would have referred to the female guru of his
fourth bka’ babs by this very name. Subsequently, in the hagiographic
sources, the individuality of that woman is shrouded in a sort of nominal
mist, through which we can hardly distinguish the tradition (āmnāya) she
was a representative of. We find in fact *Subhaginī or *Subhagā (sKal ba
bzang mo, β, θ, ι, κ, μ; cf. BA 844), *Samantabhadrī Yoginī (Kun tu bzang
mo’i rnal ’byor ma, λ, ξ), Sumatī *Samantabhadrī (Su ma ti Kun tu bzang
mo, η, λ, ν, ξ), Sumatī (Su ma ti Blo gros bzang mo, μ; Su ma ti, ν), Śrīmatī
(dPal gyi blo gros ma, μ), as well as Sister Lakṣmīṅkarā (lCam Legs ‹s›min
kā ra, μ); sometimes she is generically referred to by the epithet ‘ḍākinī’ (β
15.5, θ 69.2, ι 17.6, μ 12.1).10
With regard to the tradition, we read in the Deb ther sngon po (343.7–
344.1; BA 390) that the so-called Six Texts of Vārāhī (Phag mo gzhung
drug), based in particular on the Saṃvarārṇavatantra (sDom pa rgya
mtsho’i rgyud), with their blessings (byin rlabs), textual commentaries
(gzhung gi bshad pa), and meditative procedures (nyams len gyi rim pa)
arrived to most of the yogins of Tibet. Whereas the Saṃvarārṇavatantra
can be identified with the above mentioned Ḍākārṇava-mahāyoginī-
tantrarāja (Ō. 19, Tō. 372), or the Saṃvarodaya (Ō. 20, Tō. 373), the Phag
mo gzhung drug includes six sādhana texts (Ō. 2259–64, Tō. 1551–56).
One of them, the Chinnamuṇḍavajravārāhī-sādhana (rDo rje phag mo dbu
bcad ma’i sgrub thabs, Ō. 2262, Tō. 1554), is authored by Devī Śrīmatī
(lha mo dPal gyi blo gros ma).11
In the same point, ’Gos Lo tsā ba indirectly does credit to the
guruparamparā of the Saṃvarārṇava as attested in the Shamsher
Manuscript, informing us that the sister of Indrabhūti (In dra bud dhi’i
lcam), Devī Śrīmatī (lHa mo dPal mo), bestowed the method (lugs) based
on the Saṃvarārṇavatantra to the Venerable Virūpā (rje btsun Bi ru pa),
and the latter in turn bestowed it to the one famed as the Great Avadhūtipā
(A ba dhu tī pa chen po), or Great Paiṇḍapātika (bSod snyoms pa chen po),
that is Dāmodara/Maitrīgupta/Advayavajra I (Tucci 1930: 214, 222 n. 3).
Besides, according to the same source (Deb ther sngon po 640.5; BA
731; cf. THBI 214n), also the Shangs pa bKa’ brgyud pa master Khyung po
rnal ’byor, in his somewhat implausibly long life (978/990–1127, corrected
by Kapstein 2005 to c. 1050–1127), would have met a ḍākinī Sukhasiddhi
disciple of a Virūpā (Bi rū pa’i slob ma mkha’ ’gro ma Su kha sid dhi
mjal): clearly a Virūpā and a Sukhasiddhi active in the eleventh century
(Dowman 1985: 52)―
Shamsher Ms. Deb ther sngon po

amanasikāra Saṃvarārṇava Phag mo gzhung drug Khyung po rnal
lineage lineage lineage ’byor’s account
(Lūyīpāda)
|
Kukurīpāda
|
Indrabhūtipā Indrabhūtipāda
| |
160 TILOPĀ III
Uḍḍinī Vajrayoginī Lakṣmīkarā Śrīmatī

| | |
| Virupāpāda Virūpā
| | |
Tilopā | |
| | |
Nāropā | |
| | |
Advayavajra Paiṇḍapātika I Avadhūtipā I / Paiṇḍapātika I Virūpā
|
Sukhasiddhi
As observed above, this plethora of synonyms and quasi-synonyms allows

us to distinguish the forest but not the single tree; so we cannot identify the
woman who was the guru who connected Tilopā to the fourth bka’ babs,
nor resolve if he was instructed by the same Sukhasiddhi disciple of a later
Virūpā.
In point of fact, the few data dig up from the above discussed material
could be recapitulated into the following eight points: (1) there was only
one King Indrabhūti brother of Lakṣmīṅkarā and one Lakṣmīṅkarā sister of
King Indrabhūti, possibly much younger; (2) this Indrabhūti was labelled
by Tāranātha as Indrabhūti II; (3) Indrabhūti II was contemporary with
Kambalapā, if not the same person; (4) Kambalapā and/or Indrabhūti II
instructed Haḍipā/Jālandharapā; (5) Haḍipā/Jālandharapā was the guru of
Kāṇha; (6) Kāṇha was a contemporay of Dharmapāla (c. 775–c. 812); (7)
Kambalapā, Indrabhūti II, Haḍipā/Jālandharapā, and Lakṣmīṅkarā were
contemporaries; (8) Lakṣmīṅkarā would have instructed a Virūpā. Now, if
Kāṇha’s time was possibly between the mid-eighth and the first quarter of
the ninth century, we can deduce that, while the time of Kambalapā,
Indrabhūti II, Haḍipā/Jālandharapā, and Lakṣmīṅkarā would have beeen
between the second quarter and the end of the eighth century, the time of
this Virūpā must have been between the mid-eighth and the first quarter of
the ninth century.
Even though the historical person is unidentified, the woman who
approached Tilopā in the monastery where he was studying has even
another name in addition to Sukhasiddhi, and so forth, *Sukhapradā (bDe
ster ma), who is qualified as a ḍākiṇī in the prediction to Tilopā, and as his
sister when he was among the ḍākinīs in Uḍḍiyāna. She is sketched by Mar
pa’s pen in an acceptably realistic way, and the narrative is supported by
some historical evidence (β 13.7–14.3):
Thereafter, in a temple (lha khang), while he was reading from a copy of

the Aṣṭasāhasrikā (brGyad stong pa) of his maternal uncle, a woman
came and asked him, ‘Do you understand its meaning?’ ‘I do not’, he
answered. She said, ‘Well, I will explain it!’ and explained him the
meaning of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā. Then, she gave him the consecration of
Hevajra and Cakrasaṃvara, and explained their tantras. ‘This is the
thought (dgongs pa : abhiprāya) of Lūyīpāda. Meditate like this!’ she
ordered. ‘But my uncle does not let me meditate this way’, he replied. She
said, ‘Fasten the volumes of the Śatasāhasrikā (brGya stong pa) with a
rope, throw them from the door of the monastery into the water, act like a
madman: meditate in this way! My blessings will prevent the volumes of
the Śatasāhasrikā (brGya stong pa) from being damaged’. He did as he
was told, and the volumes of the Śatasāhasrikā remained undamaged, but
he was scolded as a madman (smyo) and was beaten. Then, he
familiarized himself with the two meditative stages (rim pa gnyis :
dvikrama), core of all paths that shed light on the nondual thinking
activity (thugs gnyis su med pa : advayacitta) of those who have well
gone (bde bar gshegs pa : sugata).
Where Tilopā Met the Ḍākinī

In the above passage both brGyad stong pa and brGya stong pa occur: the
former being a short form for Shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa brgyad stong
pa (Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā, Ō. 734, Tō. 12), and the latter for Shes
rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa stong phrag brgya pa (Śatasāhasrikā-
prajñāpāramitā, Ō. 730, Tō. 8). Possibly, the first brgyad occurrence is a
mistake for the subsequent three brgya-s, but we might also imagine Tilopā
as actually reading the Prajñāpāramitā in ‘Eight Thousand Lines’ (brGyad
stong pa) when the woman approached him; subsequently, the latter would
have pointed at the Prajñāpāramitā in ‘Hundred Thousand Lines’ (brGya
stong pa), indirectly retorting at the more conservative will of Tilopā’s
uncle.
In point of fact, if we consider that the Tibetan translation (bKa’ ’gyur)
of the Śatasāhasrikā consists of fourteen big volumes in the xylographic
Peking Qianlong edition, and twelve in the sDe dge edition, we can fathom
the bulk and the weight of the original Sanskrit manuscripts with their
wooden covers. As it is still current in Newar and Tibetan Buddhist
traditions, sizeable works like the Śatasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā were
162 TILOPĀ III
generally kept either in a dedicated library or in a shrine of the monastery.

Like a sketch by Hokusai or a cartoon of the Punch, we cannot but see the
skit of a young man tugging his load with a rope through the yard, hardly
trailing under the eyes of astonished monks out of the doors of the
monastery, and then pushing it into the omnipresent water: no doubt a
radical action, but an incisive coup de théâtre as well.
We know from Tāranātha that Dharmapāla had established about fifty
endowments for the support of religious institutions (chos gzhi), of which
thirty-five were for the study of the Prajñāpāramitā (rGya gar chos ’byung
203.3–4; THBI 274). Seemingly, the monastery where we find Tilopā after
his Kāpālika tour to the south, must have been one of the thirty-five that
still enjoyed Dharmapāla’s endowment, and his maternal uncle (zhang po :
mātula)―an abbot (mkhan po : upādhyāya) in all the sources―would have
been the head of one of them. Not supported by other evidence, rDo rje
mdzes ’od points at Tilopā’s uncle as the elder monk (gnas brtan :
sthavira), the Prince (gzhon nu : kumāra) Candraprabha, or Candraprabha-
kumāra (zhang po gnas brtan Zla ’od gzhon nu, θ 82.5–6).
As regards the monastery Tilopā’s uncle was the abbot of, we have
some pieces of information in the second section of the rnam thars in the
Marpan tradition, concerning Tilopā’s fame as Cakrasaṃvara’s emanation.
To begin with, as we know from Mar pa, the place would be in Bengal
(rGya gar shar phyogs), but we can see how disorientating the sources are
on its exact position, even if they provide the reader with the names of the
nearby river (chu bo), the connected charnel ground (dur khrod), and the
locality (gnas gzhi η, κ, λ, ν, ξ, or gnas ι) that gives the name to the
‘seclusion’ (dgon pa):12
β 26.3–4 rGya gar shar phyogs Na du ka ta’i ’gram | chu bo Kha su’i
rtsa | dur khrod rMa sha’i tshal | dgon pa Mya ngan med pa
bya yod...
η 52.3–4 dur khrod rMa sha’i tshal na | gnas gzhi Mya ngan med pa’i
dgon pa zhes pa na...
θ 82.1–2 chu bo Sa la na di dang Du la kṣe tra’i dur khrod ’Bar ba
’dzin rtsa ba’i gtsug lag khang na | Mya ngan med pa’i tshal
du...
ι 36.5–6 Du la ke du’i ’gram | dur khrod sMag sha’i rtsar | gnas Mya
ngan med pa’i tshal na...
κ 43.1 Du lang khye tra’i gram dur khrod sMan sha’i rtsa na gnas
gzhi Mya ngan med pa’i tshal zhes bya ba na...
λ A 39.4 B 114.5–6 Du la khye tra’i ’gram | dur khrod rMa sha’i rtsa | gnas gzhi
Mya ngan med pa’i ’gram na...

ν 112.4–5 chu bo Du la khye ṭa’i ’gram dur khrod rMa sha’i rtsa na
gnas gzhi Mya ngan med pa’i tshal na...
ξ 61.5–6 chu bo du la khye tra’i ’gram | dur khrod rma sha’i rtsa |
gnas gzhi mya ngan med pa’i tshal na...
Mentioning two rivers, Nadukata and Khasu, Mar pa appears the most
meticulous informant. As per mere assonance, the former river he alludes to
might be identified with the current Dakatia River in the Noakhali District
of Bangladesh; in addition, being the Nadukata either ‘near to’, or a
‘channel of’ the Khasu River (chu bo Kha su’i rtsa), in both cases, the latter
river might possibly be the Meghnā. Another hopeless conjecture starting
from a possible assonance with Khasu might identify it with the current
river Kosī (Kauśikī), in northern Bengal. To crown it all, rDo rje mdzes ’od
(θ) introduces the river Salanadi, that cannot but remind the Salandi
(Salanadi) River of Odisha, a tributary of the Baitrani (Baitarani). The same
author introduces also Dulakṣetra, albeit ambiguously, as it is not quite
clear if it is matter of a river or a charnel ground, but the later sources have
unanimously Dulakṣetra as a river.
Also the name of the charnel ground gives us no help. We can only
observe that it is mentioned by Mar pa and rGyal thang pa as *Maṣavana or
*Maṣodyāna (rMa sha’i tshal, β, η), the Grove or Garden of Red Beans
(ma sha : māṣa; cf. māṣaka, MVy 9265). Then, with the exception of rDo
rje mdzes ’od, the name occurs as rMa sha’i rtsa, with minor variants in
rma (smag ι, sman κ), and the word tshal regularly metamorphoses into
rtsa (ι, κ, λ, ν, ξ). Fortunately, regarding the location of the seclusion (dgon
pa), we are on a less slippery ground. In all sources the name is Aśoka
(Mya ngan med pa). Probably it was in a grove of aśoka trees (mya ngan
med pa’i tshal na).13 It is worth noticing that among the many names of this
important tree, we find also piṇḍa (MW s.v. piṇḍī-puṣpa), that cannot but
suggest a different reading of the celebrated Piṇḍa Vihāra (Piṇ ḍa bi ha ra)
connected with Tilopā in *Jagāõ/Chittagong (rGya gar chos ’byung 190.2;
THBI 254–55).
Seemingly there is not a sign of this important monastery in the area of
current Chittagong. Qanungo (1988: 105) quotes what a ‘renowned
Buddhist scholar and a native of Chittagong’, Rai S.C. Das Bahadur, wrote
after a thorough but unsuccessful search for the location of the ruins of the
monastery:
164 TILOPĀ III
I tried to trace the site of Paṇḍit Vihāra in that town [Chittagong] but
without success [...] In the modern town of Chittagong [...] there is an old
mosque situated on an eminence. I always suspected that this old mosque
[? Jame Mosque] must have been built by the early Mahamedan
conquerors on the site and ruins of the Paṇḍit Vihāra of old, because it
was the invariable practice of the Moslem conquerors to at once convert a
vihāra into a mosque to mark their triumph over the Buddhists [...] In the
year 1904 on the hill adjoining the older mosque, a stone Buddha was
unearthed by the P.W. Department while levelling a piece of ground for
building an outhouse [...] It seems to me that this image [now preserved at
the Buddhist temple in the city] must have once belonged to the Paṇḍit
Vihāra.
The Received Doctrines

In a verse that occurs with minor variants in much of the relevant
hagiographic literature, when Tilopā was asked who his guru was, he
would have referred to the siddhas Nāgārjuna, Caryāpā, Kambalapā, and
the ḍakinī *Subhaginī (sKal ba bzang mo) as his ‘human’ gurus (β 15.5):14
nga la mi yi bla ma yod || As to the human gurus I have,

Klu sgrub Tsa rya La ba pa || Nāgārjuna, Caryāpā, Kambalapā,
sKal ba bzang mo bdag gi ni || *Subhaginī are my
bka’ babs bzhi yi bla ma yin || Gurus of the four transmissions.
Mar pa (loc. cit.) attributes paternity only to four of the six intructions dealt
with in the Ṣaḍdharmopadeśa—
Mar pa (β)
GURU TANTRA YOGA
Caryāpā svapna
Kambalapā prabhāsvara
Nāgārjuna Guhyasamāja māyākāya
*Subhaginī Hevajra and Cakrasaṃvara caṇḍālī
rGyal thang pa (η 17.4–5) gives a different version in the ninth verse of the
hymn in praise of Tilopā, and mentions Ḍeṅgipā (lDing gi pa), Karṇaripā
(Kar rna pa), Mātaṅgīpā (Ma tang gi), and Kambalapā (La ba pa) as the
gurus of the four transmissions (bka’ bzhi bla ma). The chapter containing
an explanation of this verse has the following lineages (η 32.7–40.4)—
rGyal thang pa (η)

Vajrapāṇi Sumatī
| Samantabhadrī
Saraha Yoginī
| |
Lūyīpāda Thang lo pa
(Lo i pa) (Thang lo) Ratnamati Vajrapāṇi
| | | |
Dārikāpā *Parṇa Nāgārjuna Ḍombīheruka
(Dha ri ka pa) (Shing lo) (Klu sgrub) (Ḍom bi he ru ka)
| | | |
Ḍeṅgipā Karṇaripā Mātaṅgīpā Kambalapā
The instructions relevant to each lineage are connected with the generation
stage (bskyed rim : utpattikrama), and the completion stage (rdzogs rim :
utpannakrama or niṣpannakrama) of the practice—
rGyal thang pa (η)

GURU TANTRA YOGA
(utpattikrama) (utpannakrama)
Ḍeṅgipā Catuḥpiṭha saṃkrānti and parakāyapraveśa
Karṇaripā Mahāmāya svapna and māyākāya
Mātaṅgīpā Cakrasaṃvara mahāmudrā and yuganaddha
Kambalapā Hevajra prabhāsvara and caṇḍālī
rDo rje mdzes ’od (θ 66.1–69.5) indicates six lines of transmission, two
non-human or buddhas’ (sangs rgyas kyi rgyud pa), and four human or
siddhas’ (grub thob kyi rgyud pa). The first two are aural transmissions
beyond words (snyan rgyud yi ge med pa) received directly from the ḍākinī
Vajrayoginī in Uḍḍiyāna, and the various tantric cycles received from the
bodhisattva Vajrapāṇi in the charnel ground of Ki ri me dpung ’bar ba in
the eastern India. For the human gurus of Tilopā, the author indicates four
different lineages with relevant teachings. Inexplicably, Tilopā would have
met Nāgārjuna in Varendra ‘to the south’ (lho phyogs Bha len tar),
Lalitavajra (Rol pa’i rdo rje) of the lineage of Kambalapā (La ba ba chen
po nas brgyud pa), Caryāpā/Vijayapāda (rNam par rgyal ba) of the lineage
of Lūyīpāda (Lu hi pa nas brgyud pa), Śabareśvara (Ri khrod dbang phyug)
of the lineage of Saraha (Sa ra ha nas brgyud pa), and the ḍākinī
*Subhaginī (sKal ba bzang mo). These would be the four siddhas’
166 TILOPĀ III
transmissions, but rDo rje mzes ’od does not identify Vijayapāda as
Caryāpā, because he notes that ‘according to some, there should be also a
transmission from Ācārya Caryāpā’ (yang la la dag gis slob dpon Tsa rya
pa las [...] bka’ babs ces kyang bzhed do)—
rDo rje mdzes ’od (θ)

GURU TANTRA YOGA
Nāgārjuna Guhyasamāja māyākāya and prabhāsvara
Lalitavajra Hevajra antarābhava and prabhāsvara
Vijayapāda Cakrasaṃvara
Śabareśvara mahāmudrā
Ḍākinī *Subhaginī Ḍākārṇava karmamudrā, saṃkranti and antarābhava
Caryāpā Cakrasaṃvara hetu-mārga-phala and caṇḍālī
While U rgyan pa (ι 23.2–3) goes no further than mentioning Caryāpā,

Nāgārjuna, Kambalapā, and *Subhaginī without associating them with any
teaching, the order emerging from Mon rtse pa’s account of the four bka’
babs (κ1) conforms in terms of lineages to the tradition previously attested
in η, the only variant being the addition of Indrabhūti after Kambalapā—
Mon rtse pa (κ1)

Vajrapāṇi
| Sumatī Samantabhadrī
Saraha | Vajrapāṇi
| Thang lo pa |
Lūyīpāda Ratnamati | Ḍombīheruka
| | *Parṇa |
Dārikāpā Nāgārjuna (Shing lo pa) Kambalapā
| | | |
Ḍeṅgipā Mātaṅgīpā Karṇaripā Indrabhūti
On the contrary, the arrangement of the teachings is completely different—
Mon rtse pa (κ1)

GURU TANTRA YOGA
Ḍeṅgipā mahāmudrā
Mātaṅgīpā pitṛ-tantra
Karṇaripā mātṛ-tantra svapna
Indrabhūti prabhāsvara
The same author, in the Ti lo shes rab bzang po’i rnam par thar (κ2 32.3–
7), sets out the information contained in Mar pa once again—
Mon rtse pa (κ2)

GURU YOGA
Caryāpā svapna
Nāgārjuna māyākāya
*Subhaginī caṇḍālī
The apparent intention of gTsang smyon He ru ka (λ A 30.3–6 B 105.6–

106.2), and of lHa btsun (ξ 22.1–4) who closely complies with his guru,
was to complete and integrate the Ṣaḍdharmopadeśa and β—
gTsang smyon He ru ka (λ) and lHa btsun (ξ)

GURU YOGA
Caryāpā caṇḍālī and svapna
Nāgārjuna māyākāya
Sumati Samantabhadrī saṃkrānti and antarābhava
In the text on Tilopā’s predecessors, Kun dga’ rin chen (μ 11.1–12.3) links
Tilopā with Nāgārjuna, Caryāpā, Kambalapā, and *Subhaginī; then he goes
on to reconstruct the lineages—

Vajradhara Vajradhara Vajradhara Vajradhara
| | | |
Indrabhūti Jñānaḍākinī Vajrapāṇi Vajrapāṇi
| | | |
Nāgāyoginī Caryāpā Ḍombīheruka Anaṅgavajra
| | |
| | |
Visukalpa Bhinasavajra Padmavajra
| | |
Saraha Kambalapā Ḍākinī *Subhaginī
|
Nāgārjuna
|
Mātaṅgīpā
168 TILOPĀ III

GURU TANTRA YOGA
Mātaṅgīpā Guhyasamāja, Pañcakrama, and Catuḥpiṭha saṃkrānti
Caryāpā Mahāmāyā māyākāya
Kambalapā several tantras prabhāsvara
Ḍākinī *Subhaginī Hevajra caṇḍālī
dBang phyug rgyal mtshan (ν 47.5–50.3), seems to reconcile some of the

discrepancies, at least in terms of lineages, between the information
contained in ṢDhU, β, θ, ι, κ2, λ, μ, ξ on the one hand, and that in η and κ1
on the other. In fact he distinguishes between two lines of transmission, an
ordinary transmission (thun mongs kyi bka’ babs), consistent with rGyal
thang pa’s account, and an extraordinary one (thun mongs ma yin pa’i bka’
babs) consistent with Mar pa, and so forth. Such distinction would imply
the ordinary transmissions to have been the historical ones, while the latter
were received by Tilopā spiritually: whether by deeper insight, or
indirectly, via an acquired esoteric connection. This is the case of
Nāgārjuna with Mātaṅgīpā, as we have already known from Mar pa’s
account. Conversely, Caryāpā with the king or minister Ḍeṅgipā in the first
bka’ babs, Sumatī Samantabhadrī with Karṇaripā in the third, and
Kambalapā with the king Indrabhūti in the fourth―these other three bonds
appear much less clear, and anything but historically tenable—

thun mongs kyi bka’ babs
Vajrapāṇi Ratnamati Sumatī Samantabhadrī Virūpā
| | | |
Saraha Nāgārjuna Thang lo pa Ḍombīheruka
| | | |
Lūyīpāda Mātaṅgīpā *Parṇa (Shing lo pa) Bhinasavajra
| | |
Dārikāpā Karṇaripā Kambalapā
| |
Ḍeṅgipā Indrabhūti

GURU TANTRA YOGA
Ḍeṅgipā mahāmudrā
Mātaṅgīpā pitṛ-tantra
Karṇaripā mātṛ-tantra
Indrabhūti advaita-tantra prabhāsvara

thun mongs ma yin pa’i bka’ babs
GURU TANTRA YOGA
Caryāpā caṇḍālī and svapna
Nāgārjuna pitṛ-tantra māyākāya
Kambalapā advaita-tantra prabhāsvara
Sumati Samantabhadrī mātṛ-tantra saṃkrānti and antarābhava
In conclusion, the association between the gurus of the four bka’ babs with
the six dharmas, when it occurs, would suggest the following order of
concordance—
ṢDhU β, κ2 θ λ, ν, ξ, μ
caṇḍālī Caryāpā ḍākinī Caryāpā Caryāpā ḍākinī
māyākāya Nāgārjuna Nāgārjuna Nāgārjuna Nāgārjuna Caryāpā
svapna Kambalapā Caryāpā Caryāpā
prabhāsvara Nāgārjuna Kambalapā Nāgārjuna Kambalapā Kambalapā
antarābhava ḍākinī ḍākinī ḍākinī
saṃkrānti ḍākinī ḍākinī ḍākinī Nāgārjuna
The order immediately prompts a number of reflections. If we may assume

that water is purer at the spring, there should be some proportion as well
between the reliability of information and its closeness to the origin: as a
result, the earliest and thus most authoritative sources should be ṢDhU and
β. The trouble is that contradictions are already present there; indeed, the
discrepancies among more recent sources seem to derive from the
inconsistencies in these two. This is all the more disconcerting when we
consider that both would be connected with the figure of Mar pa, in one
case as translator (ṢDhU), in the other as author (β).
The Practice
A new radical turn is nearly upon Tilopā’s life, and a new revelation (lung
bstan pa : vyākaraṇa) marks it. In Mar pa it was the woman, namely his
spiritual sister the yoginī called Ḍākinī *Sukhapradā (bDe ster ma), who
imparted it to Tilopā after the sketch with the Prajñāpāramitā (β 14.3–4):
170 TILOPĀ III
Crossing Bengal (Bha ga la) to the east,

In the market place of *Pañcāpaṇa,
There is the prostitute Bharima (Bha ri) with her retinue:
If you follow it as her servant, you will be purified;
You will complete your practice and attain perfection!
Conversely, rGyal thang pa, Kun dga’ rin chen, and dBang phyug rgyal
mtshan have it that the same prediction came from Mātaṅgīpā. We read for
example in rGyal thang pa (η 39.6–7) that, once blessed Tilopā, Mātaṅgīpā
would have predicted, to be exact commanded, to perform religious
practices ‘as if he were a local sesame grinder’ (yul ’di’i til brdung pa’i
tshul gyis): whence his name, glosses rGyal thang pa.
With regard to the prostitute (smad ’tshong ma), whose name occurs in
the sources as Bharima/Bhari (β), or Dharima/Dharimo/Dhari (μ, ν), we
know almost nothing. We have scant pieces of information on the town
where the courtesan lived, and where Tilopā spent a part of his life: the
market town that Mar pa and rDo rje mdzes ’od have referred to as
Pañcāpaṇa (β 14.3, θ 70.5) is described by Kun dga’ rin chen and dBang
phyug rgyal mtshan as blessed by a king Ud ma skyes pa / dBu ma ke sa ra
(*Umākesara?), and easy to reach:
Kun dga’ rin chen dBang phyug rgyal mtshan

sprul pa’i rgyal po Ud ma skyes pas sngon ra dza dBu ma ke sa ra zhes bya
byin gyis brlabs shing rang bzhin gyis ba’i sprul pa’i rgyal pos byin gyis
sgrub thag nye ba de’i tshong dus su brlabs pa’i gnas rang bzhin gyis sgrub
smad ’tshong ma Dha ri zhes bya ba thag nye zhing lam sgrod par nye ste |
yod... (μ 44.1–2). grong khyer de’i dbus na ’dod pa’i yon
tan lhun gyis grub pa’i tshong ’dus
chen po zhig yod la | de na smad
tshong ma Dha ri ma ’khor mang po
dang ldan pa yod... (ν 52.4–53.1).
After the prediction, Mar pa informs us that Tilopā went to *Pañcāpaṇa,

and did two jobs (β 14.4):
In the night-time he would do the work of inviting and accompanying men

into Bharima’s. During the day, he worked as sesame miller (til ’bru ba),
and that is why he is known as Tilopā (Ti lo pa) in the language of India,
and as the Sesame oil keeper (Til bsrungs zhabs : Tailikapāda) in Tibetan.
After that, he and Bharima went to the charnel ground called Kereli.
There they took delight in the practice of the secret mantras (gsang ba
sngags : guhyamantra) and performed it to its completion.
Following that, while scattering (’phro) sesame seeds (til ’bru) in the
above-mentioned market place, he attained the perfection close to the
sublime mahāmudrā.
At that moment, the people of the town had different visions of him:
some saw flames blazing (me dpung ’bar ba) from him, while others saw
his bone ornaments blazing (rus rgyan la me ’bar ba). The people asked
for instruction. At this, ‘O followers, may the innate reality that arose in
my intellect enter your hearts!’ so he uttered, and they were immediately
liberated.
After that, as the king of that country surrounded by his retinue came
riding an elephant to pay his respect, both that brāhmaṇa student and
Bharima raised an adamantine song (rdo rje’i mgur : vajragīti) with a loud
Brahmā voice:...
The Tibetan version of this ‘Adamantine Song of Sesame Oil’ or

*Tilatailavajragīti (TVG) can be found not only in Mar pa’s account (β
15.1–4) but also in those by rDo rje mdzes ’od (θ 69.6–70.5) and dBang
phyug rgyal mtshan (ν 63.3–64.2).
Among the Ḍākinīs of Uḍḍiyāna

A third prediction―the last one―inaugurates a new period in the life of
Tilopā. This kind of caesura marks in the sources the beginning of the
chapter narrating how he overpowered (zil gyis mnan) the ḍākinīs and
received the doctrine in Uḍḍiyāna. Once again, Mar pa narrates that the
same women (bud med rnams) approached him and said (β 15.6–16.1):
As for the aural transmission beyond words,

The stainless ḍākinī has it:
You have to obtain the threefold wish-fulfilling gem!
‘I am not able to do that’ Tilopā protested, but the women replied:
In the Fragrant Shelter (gandhola < gandhakuṭī?) of Uḍḍiyāna,

Having prediction and commitments,
172 TILOPĀ III
If one has obtained them, one so blessed will be able!
‘How should I do?’ he asked. ‘Take a crystal ladder, a jewelled bridge,

and a stem of burdock, then go to Uḍḍiyāna!’ So they predicted. Since his
father had no difficulty in obtaining those things, he took them and left.
As we will see later, these three wish-fulfilling gems (yid bzhin nor bu
rnam gsum) were regarded as gems related to body, speech, and mind (sku
gsung thugs); namely, the general wish-fulfilling gem (thun mong yid bzhin
nor bu) of the body, the commitments’ gem (dam tshig yid bzhin nor bu) of
the speech, and the one of the natural state (gnas lugs yid bzhin nor bu) of
the mind.
Along with Vladimir Propp’s study of the narrative structure in
folktales (1928), we can see the father of Tilopā as embodying the character
of the donor, the one providing the hero with the magical object for the
quest, in this case a crystal ladder (shel gyi skas ka), a jewelled bridge (rin
po che’i zam pa), and a stem of burdock (rtsa byi bzung). In all sources,
this is the last time we find Tilopā’s father mentioned. Narratively, the
brāhmaṇa *Dyuti (gSal ba) disappears when his function ceases, i.e. as
soon as the hero receives the needed magical agent. From a biographical
viewpoint, we may assume that he did not survive much longer, because we
will find Tilopā’s brāhmaṇī mother in other episodes as a Buddhist nun.
In Mar pa’s pedagogic design, the reader is supposed to visualise a sort
of maṇḍala. What follows mirrors indeed the scheme of a threefold
maṇḍala, consistent with the three Buddha bodies in the above discussed
trikāya perspective (β 16.1–4):
Meanwhile, the one known as the Jñānaḍākinī of the dharmakāya was

residing as a queen (rgyal mo) in the pavilion (gtsug lag khang) of the
Fragrant Shelter in the western country of Uḍḍiyāna. She was in a sphere
beyond duality, in a state of uninterrupted contemplation, not resting on
anything.
Near to her there were those called Pañcakulaḍākinīs of the
sambhogakāya. They were keeping the three precious wish-fulfilling gems
hidden in a bejewelled palace (pho brang): they had locked it with an
inviolable lock (lcags), had sealed it with seven seals (rgya) and
surrounded it with a redoubt (mkhar), a trench (’obs), and strong walls
(lcags ri). So they dwelt there as ministers (blon po).
Near to them there were the devouring (za byed) Karmaḍākinīs of the
nirmāṇakāya, who grant supernatural powers to those who have faith and
motivation, but destroy and devour those who have no faith and whose
commitments are imperfect. So they stayed there as gatekeepers (sgo ma).
Buddha bodies acting ḍākinīs role in the maṇḍala

dharmakāya jñānaḍākinī queen
(chos sku) (ye shes kyi mkha’ ’gro ma) (rgyal mo)
sambhogakāya pañcakulaḍākinīs ministers
(longs sku) (rigs lnga’i mkha’ ’gro ma) (blon po)
nirmāṇakāya karmaḍākinīs gatekeepers
(sprul sku) (las kyi mkha’ ’gro ma) (sgo ma)
Mar pa’s text could be enjoyed as a dramatic maṇḍala, and the reader’s
entering it (maṇḍalapraveśa) would correspond to his following the
narrative trace of the hero’s entrance into the maṇḍala of Vajravārāhī (β),
or Jñānaḍākinī (β), or Bhagavatī Yoginī (η), or else Vajrayoginī (η, θ, ι, κ,
λ, μ, ν, ξ). Being the consort of Cakrasaṃvara, she is imagined in union
with him, but the maṇḍala to enter liturgically and yogically is here a mise-
en-scène. As observed by English (2002: 27), the cult of Vajrayoginī ‘has
no scriptural corpus of its own, but borrows from the scriptural tradition of
Cakrasaṃvara’. That is why the relevant maṇḍala and sādhanas are adapted
from the Cakrasaṃvara corpus. With a sādhana in the form of a play, it is
matter here of the maṇḍala of Vajrayoginī that becomes the correspondent
maṇḍala of Cakrasaṃvara as soon as Tilopā comes in (β 16.4–19.6):
Then that brāhmaṇa student arrived in front of the pavilion of the Fragrant
Shelter in the western country of Uḍḍiyāna. The nirmāṇakāya-
karmaḍākinīs, with demonic voices or rough thundering sounds, spoke
thus:
We, the nirmāṇakāya-karmaḍākinīs,

Enjoy human flesh and are blood thirsty!
Then they set in motion, and the brāhmaṇa student:
Despite many more frightening ḍākinīs,

My hairs would not tremble!
After these words, thanks to his practice in the ascetic discipline of

intrinsic vision (rig pa), he overpowered them. Being motionless in his
body, indomitable in speech, and unhesitating in the mind, he cast a fixed
174 TILOPĀ III
gaze (lta stangs) upon the ḍākinīs until they fell down senseless.
Recovered from their faint, they spoke:
Alas! Like as moths which are lost at the lamp,

We wished to eat you, but we have been destroyed.
Sublime one, do whatever you like with us!
At that, the brāhmaṇa student said, ‘Let me go inside!’ but the ḍākinīs
replied:
We are like servants, with little power.

If we do not ask the ministers,
Our flesh will be eaten and our blood will be drunk.
Noble one, consider it!
Then, they entrusted to the sambhogakāya-ḍākinīs. The latter said, ‘We

will rescue you who have been inferior to him in the ascetic practice. So
let him come in!’ Then, the brāhmaṇa student put the jewel bridge over
the trench, raised the crystal ladder on the wall, and opened the door with
the stem of burdock. Once he was inside, the ministers said:
With frightening body and frightening word,

Wielding weapons of fear as well,
The sambhogakāya-pañcagotraḍākinīs
Enjoy flesh and are blood thirsty!
After these words, the brāhmaṇa student replied:
Despite many more frightening ḍākinīs,

My hair pores would not waver!
Having so declared, he cast a fixed gaze upon them till they fell down
senseless. ‘Let me go inside!’ he said, but the ḍākinīs replied:
We are like ministers, with little power.

If we do not ask to the queen herself,
We will be punished.
Noble one, consider it!
So, after they had supplicated the dharmakāya-ḍākinī, the boy went in.
The dharmakāya-jñānaḍākinī was there surrounded, on her right and left,
by myriad heroes (dpa’ bo) and heroines (dpa’ mo). As the brāhmaṇa
student did not pay homage to her, the assembly said:
This one, to the all buddhas’

Mother, to the Bhagavatī,
Does not shows respect. Why not to smash him?
They were about to smash him when the dharmakāya-ḍākinī spoke to her
retinue:
This is the all buddhas’

Father Cakraśaṃvara.
Even if a rain of thunderbolts fell from the sky,
How could it be for the victory?
Thus she spoke.

Then, pretending not to know that in spite of his form the boy
(khye’u) was Cakrasaṃvara, the assembly asked him, ‘Who sent you?
Who are you? What do you want?’ The brāhmaṇa student replied:
I am *Pāñcāpaṇa,
My sister *Sukhapradā sent me.
View (lta), practice (spyod), fruit (’bras bu), commitments, and
The gems of the three bodies: I came here to have them.
Those in the assembly, uttering a scornful laughter and mimicking him,

spoke with one voice:
The blind looks but cannot see the forms;

The deaf listens but cannot hear the sounds;
The dumb speaks but the meaning is not understood.
No truth is there in those deceived by Māra (bDud)!
So they said and the Ācārya replied:
When fault has come to its end, false words

Are not spoken: there would be no cause.
No matter of Māra: in a ḍākinī is the truth!
After that, the jñānaḍākinī caused three preciously jewelled symbols

(brda’) to appear: a small icon (tsa ka li) for the body, seed syllables (yig
176 TILOPĀ III
’bru) for the speech, and symbolic implements (phyag mtshan) for the
mind. The brāhmaṇa student spoke:
From the secret treasure of the body, as appearance and emptiness,

I request the wish-fulfilling gem, the common one.
From the secret treasure of the speech, as ineffable,

I request the wish-fulfilling gem, the commitments one.
From the secret treasure of the mind, as nonconceptual,

I request the wish-fulfilling gem of the natural state (gnas lugs).
At that, the jñānaḍākinī spoke:
As for the general wish-fulfilling gem,

One needs the key of predictions and experience:
Who did not get such predictions cannot open.
As for the commitments’ wish-fulfilling gem,

One needs the key of the profound aural transmission:
Who has not the antidotes (gnyen po) cannot open.
As for the reality wish-fulfilling gem,

One needs the key of the profound insight:
Who has no comprehension (rtogs pa) cannot open.
After these words, the brāhmaṇa student replied:
The secret word of the ḍākinī is a mind vow (sdom),

Torch of gnosis dispelling the darkness of ignorance.
Self referential awareness, self born, self radiant:
I possess the key of predictions and experience.
When nothing is conceived any longer,

Thinking as such (sems nyid) is the self-liberated dharmakāya.
Self-liberation (rang grol) arises in the mahāmudrā:
I possess the key of self liberation in commitments.
Contemplating (dmigs pa) without any mentation (yid la mi byed), and

Where not the slightest trace of recollection (dran pa) will arise,
Is the being of thinking; the dharmakāya is the being of phenomena:
I possess the key to go through (nyams) vision (mthong ba).
After these words, the ḍākinīs of both the sambhogakāya and the
nirmāṇakāya of the jñānaḍākinī in one voice joined to raise this song:
Our only father, o Bhagavat!

Tilopā Buddha, o Protector of beings!
Cakrasaṃvara, o Great Bliss!
We offer you the three wish-fulfilling gems!
After they had uttered that, they explained the root tantra of Cakrasaṃvara
in fifty-one chapters and, together with the tantra, they gave him its aural
transmission.
Then, the jñānaḍākinī spoke, ‘If you want to attain my body, be
assiduous in the generation stage. As to my speech, be assiduous in the
heart mantra (snying po). As to my mind, be assiduous in the mahāmudrā
of the completion stage. Go to the seclusion of Cūḍāmaṇi (gTsug gi nor
bu’i dgon pa) and take care of the three, Nāropā (Na ro), Riripā (Ri ri) and
Kasoripā (Ka so ri)!’ Having so spoken, the noblest of ladies (gtso mo)
disappeared.
He was named Tilopā Prajñābhadra (Te lo Shes rab bzang po). He
spoke:
I am like a bird in the sky,

A bird of illuminative thinking which flew up:
Without difficulty, Prajñābhadra is migrating!
As he said that, the ḍākinīs of both the sambhogakāya and the

nirmāṇakāya spoke:
You, sublime one, why so?

We supplicate you to remain for our benefit.
Having so supplicated, Tilopā replied:
As the noblest of ladies herself predicted,

For the benefit of worthy vessels (snod ldan), as a yogin, I
Am going to the seclusion of Cūḍāmaṇi.
The name of the seclusion occurs in the sources as gTsug gi nor bu’i dgon
pa (β, η, θ, ι, κ, λ, μ, ν, ξ), gTsug gi dgon pa (η, ι), and gTsug phud spra
178 TILOPĀ III
bha (ζ): gtsug, like gtsug phud (Skt cūḍā), means ‘crown, crest, head,
summit’; spra bha, probably for spra ba, would be for ‘ornament’. In Mar
pa there is also mention of an Aroga Vihāra of the seclusion of Cūḍāmaṇi
(β 20.2–3: gTsug gi nor bu’i dgon pa A ro ga’i gtsug lag khang), where a
ro ga’i is conjectural (a ro na’i cod.), from Skt aroga ‘painless’. Moreover,
we know from rGyal thang pa that it was in Sahor to the east (η 21a4: shar
Za hor gTsug gi dgon pa).15
A clue to locate that seclusion can be found in the sixth-century
Gunaighar copperplate grant of Vainyagupta issued from Krīpura, probably
in current Comilla District. In it, besides the royal residence, we read of a
town of Cūḍāmaṇi (l. 28; Bhattacharyya 1930; R.C. Majumdar 1971: 340).
The inscription in fact, demarcating the low lands (talabhūmi) granted to a
vihāra, refers to the channel (jolā for joḍa) between the seaport and the
town of Cūḍāmaṇi as their eastern limit (Cūḍāmaṇi-nagaraśrī-nauyogayor
maddhye jolā, l. 28). According to Dinesh Chandra Bhattacharyya (1930:
52–53), not only Krīpura, but also the granted lands were situated near the
find place of the plate, namely in the current Comilla District.
While Tilopā Prajñābhadra was on his way back from Uḍḍiyāna to the
Healty (a ro ga) Pavilion (gtsug lag khang : vihāra) of the seclusion of
Cūḍāmaṇi, we are told that a ninefold doctrine of incorporeal ḍākinīs was
bestowed upon him from the space element. As it is known to the student
of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, the nine root verses of these ‘Doctrines of the
Incorporeal Adamantine Ḍākinīs’ (rDo rje mkha’ ’gro ma lus med pa’i
chos : Vajraḍākinīniṣkāya-dharma, VḌNDh) represent one of the greatest
legacies in the bKa’ brgyud tradition.
Back from Uḍḍiyāna

Consistent with his pedagogic strategy, Mar pa distinguishes two different
narrative focuses in Tilopā’s training, namely how he received his human
transmissions, and how he showed himself as one without human gurus; the
latter being posited in a sort of spiritual crescendo after, and in
consequence of his journey to Uḍḍiyāna (β 20.3–4):
nga la mi yi bla ma med || I have no human guru.

bla ma thams cad mkhyen pa yin. My guru is the Omniscent one (Sarvajña)!
We have here another peculiarity of our source β, an additional case of

lectio difficilior in fabula: in fact, the later hagiographic tradition re-
inverted the order and had it that, when asked the name of his masters,
Tilopā would have given the above quoted answer (η 33.3, θ 66.3, ι 23.2, κ
32.4–5, λ A 30.4 B 105.6–7, ν 48.1, ξ 22.2), but that gave rise to general
incomprehension and incredulity: realizing the risks involved in this
sceptical response, he would have thought better to link himself to the
previously discussed four lines of human transmission.
After reading in the seventh verse of rGyal thang pa’s hymn that Tilopā
received the teachings from the ḍākinī, he is celebrated in the following
verse to dwell in the great charnel ground of Kyi ri ‘Blazing Mass of Fire’
(Kyi ri me dpung ’bar ba yi dur khrod chen po’i gnas der bzhugs), where
he saw Vajradhara and became one with him (rDo rje ’chang dang zhal
mjal nas dbyer med gyur pa). As we read in rGyal thang pa’s explanation
of this root verse (η 31.6–32.7), followed almost word by word by dBang
phyug rgyal mtshan (ν 45.3–47.5), Prajñābhadra (Shes rab bzang po) went
to the holy site (gnas mchog) of the great charnel ground called Ki ri (or Ke
ri) ‘Blazing Mass of Fire’ (me dpung ’bar ba). As he remained there
attending to experience and realization (nyams dang rtogs pa skyong), he
saw in reality and in visions the sambhogakāya of the sixth Buddha,
Vajradhara (Sangs rgyas longs sku drug pa rDo rje ’chang dngos dang zhal
mjal). Now, it happened that light radiated (’od ’phros) from the body,
speech, and mind of Vajradhara, and it was absorbed (thim pa) in the body,
speech, and mind of Tilopā. In an instant, as Vajradhara’s sambhogakāya
was radiating from Tilopā’s mind (Tilli pa’i thugs kha nas rDo rje ’chang
’phros), out of that radiance, the Buddha (Vajradhara) himself radiated on
Tilopā (’phros nas Sangs rgyas nyid kyis Tilli pa la), expounding all the
secret mantras of the Vajrayāna (rdo rje theg pa’i gsang sngags kun
gsungs), bestowing all consecrations (dbang kun bskur), and then blessing
him (byin gyis brlabs pa). After that, rGyal thang pa and dBang phyug
rgyal mtshan allude to the plethora of qualities (yon tan), knowledge
(mkhyen pa), magical power (mthu stobs), and abilities (nus pa) that Tilopā
found himself endowed with.
180 TILOPĀ III
Tilopā’s Manifestations
To begin with Mar pa, the hagiographies report that Tilopā showed himself
in various ways. In particular, there are eight episodes in which we are told
how he overpowered a yogin, how he converted a tīrthika, a magician, a
woman selling liquor, a singer, a butcher, a materialist denying the law of
cause and effect, and a sorcerer. In addition to Mar pa (β), the same
episodes occur in rGyal thang pa (η), rDo rje mdzes ’od (θ), U rgyan pa (ι),
Mon rtse pa (κ), gTsang smyon He ru ka (λ), dBang phyug rgyal mtshan
(ν), and lHa btsun (ξ). From a narratological viewpoint, the core of each
episode is a dramatic opposition: it culminates in the protagonist’s triumph,
the conversion of the antagonist, and the instruction to the new disciple. As
to these eight instructions, we can read them in two Tilopan texts preserved
in Tibetan translation, the Acintyamahāmudrā (AMM), and the
*Aṣṭaguhyārthāvavāda (AGAA).
Tilopā would have met and instructed these individuals in eight
different places. The final picture we have is that of the ‘slow homecoming’
of a fully accomplished tantric adept who, at the time of his departure from
Uḍḍiyāna, had declared in obedience to the order of the ḍākinī where he
was heading: Cūḍāmaṇi, for the benefit of worthy disciples, Nāropā, and
the latter’s disciples Riripā, and Kasoripā.
Regarding the sequence of the episodes in the hagiographies, lHa btsun
(ξ) follows rGyal thang pa (η), U rgyan pa (ι), Mon rtse pa (κ), gTsang
smyon He ru ka (λ), and dBang phyug rgyal mtshan (ν), but also rDo rje
mdzes ’od (θ), with the exception of an inversion between episodes 3 and 4.
Strangely enough, apart from the first four episodes and the last one, Mar
pa’s arrangement (β) does not go with those in the later hagiographies, the
order of episodes 5, 6, 7 having been inverted: also here our source β shows
another lectio difficilior in fabula, which is worth noticing—
β η θ ι κ λ ν ξ
the yogin 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
the tīrthika 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
the magician 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3
the liquor-selling woman 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4
the singer 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
the butcher 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
the materialist 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
the sorcerer 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Since Tilopā is the first historical guru of the tradition passing via Mar pa,
one would have expected that the arrangement of the eight conversion
episodes in the later Marpan tradition followed the same sequence as that of
β. Logically, some new facts appear to have intervened in the period
between the second half of the eleventh century (the time of β) and the
thirteenth-century innovation (the time of η, θ, and ι): new facts whereby a
different arrangement of the episodes was established, and it was still
accepted in the second half of the fifteenth century (the time of κ), in 1494
(the time of λ), in 1523 (the time of ν), and in 1550 (the time of ξ).
Possibly, a fact representing the cause for this innovation could be
found in that set of supplementary instructions―and information―Ras
chung would have collected in India and Nepal by order of Mi la ras pa at
the beginning of the twelfth century: as we will see in more detail further, a
fact which was the basis of both textual traditions, the bDe mchog snyan
brgyud and the Ras chung snyan brgyud (Deb ther sngon po 382.3–6, BA
437–38).
In all hagiographies the episode of the contest with the yogin is the first
of eight to occur. As we know from the outlines in the second chapter, Mar
pa and other sources containing this episode narrate it immediately after
Tilopā’s stay in Uḍḍiyāna (β, ι, κ, λ). Moreover, we are told that Tilopā was
found in the north-western charnel ground of Jālandhara (’Bar ba ’dzin, θ,
λ, ν, ξ), a sacred site which was a traditional stopover for the siddhas and
the yogins going to―or coming from―Uḍḍiyāna.
According to Tāranātha, between the region of Jālandhara and
Uḍḍiyāna (yul Dza lan dha ra nas O rgyan gyi bar la) it was said to be one
hundred and twenty yojanas (dpag tshad brgya dang nyi shu yod skad), and
the siddha Kṛṣṇa (Kahna) would have covered that distance in one or two
days (Kahna pa’i rnam thar 274.4; TLKK 13). We find here mentioned
another possible site in our maps of the eight charnel grounds at the
margins of the maṇḍalas in the Cakrasaṃvara tradition, the charnel ground
of Vajrajvāla/*Jvālapariveṣakāpāla/Jvālavana: in fact, this śmaśāna can be
identified with the Śakta pīṭha of Jālandhara, or Jālandharagiri, Jālandhra,
Jālaśaila, and it can be located at Jvālāmukhī in the Kangra District of
Himachal Pradesh (Law 1954: 86; Sircar 1973: 86; Shastri 2009).
Many aspects of these episodes sound fictional, to begin with the
surplus of miracles performed therein. On the whole, the narratives reveal a
human, all too human rhetorical propensity for flaunting powers, better if
circled by mystery. However, in this particular case, it is also matter of the
182 TILOPĀ III
Indian medieval background where magic and power were the two sides of
the same coin. As it has been very sensibly observed by Davidson, the
cultural expressions of the Indian feudal system typify the double process
of apotheosis of kingship and feudalization of divinity; that is to say, ‘a
king could just as easily reformulate his image in favor of the model of
Śiva, who was, after all, represented as a killer divinity with a permanent
erection’ (Davidson 2002b: 90).
In addition, we can infer from the siddha hagiographic tradition and
folklore that magic contests and wizards’ duels were decidedly popular in
Tilopā’s cultural milieu. A fascinating case is the Song of Mānikacandra
(Mānikcandra rājār Gān) that belongs to a widespread oral tradition of
Bengal dating back at least to the twelfth century (Sen 1920: 14–15).
Western scholars have access to the story of king Mānikacandra, his queen
Maynā (Maynāmati), and the latter’s son Gopīcandra through the studies on
three relevant ballads published by George Grierson (1878, 1885).
We read therein of the queen Maynāmati, a disciple of the powerful
siddha Haḍipā/Jālandharapā, chasing the messenger of the king of death
who had taken away the life of Mānikacandra (vv. 95–144, Grierson 1878:
72–74). With a rhythm and humour that reminds the magic duel between
Merlin and Madam Mim in the Disneyan movie adaptation of The Sword in
the Stone, the fugitive transforms himself into various animals in order to
escape from Maynāmati, but the terrible queen takes each time a new shape
to capture him.
It is possible to shed some light on the circumstances of Tilopā’s
instruction to the yogin and the others through a synoptic reading of the
relevant passages in the above material. Moreover, we can tentatively elicit
from the hagiographic sources and the colophons of AMM some fragments
of information about these eight unknown disciples, viz. their status in
society, where they faced Tilopā, the names they took once converted, their
names after enlightenment, and the places of their subsequent spiritual
practice.
With the Yogin

The preamble to the episode of the instruction to the yogin (rnal ’byor pa la
gdams pa, AMM I) has some similarity with the legend on the origins of the
*Caturaśītisiddhapravṛtti (Kapstein 2000). We read in fact that there was a
king in southern India (β) whose Tibetan name was Me tog gling pa (θ), or
Zla ba seng ge (ν); only the colophons of AMM I and lHa btsun (ξ) refer to
him as the king of Gaurīśvarī (Go ri shva ri’i rgyal po).

Whichever may be his name and identity, he loved his mother dearly:
always obedient, he would do anything to please her. The king asked his
mother what root of virtue she liked best and which virtuous act he would
then perform for her spiritual sake. The queen mother requested him that
jewelled maṇḍalas be erected, and a great gaṇacakra celebrated. With the
intention of fulfilling his mother’s wish, the king invited from four corners
of the country all the savants and the meditators (ku su lu). In Mar pa (β)
the latter term occurs as ku sa li, from Skt kuśalin in the sense of virtuous
ascetic (BHS), while the later hagiographic tradition has ku su lu (η, ι, κ, λ,
ν, ξ) in the same episode: it refers to an unconventional ascetic life-style in
which yoga practice was so preeminent that the only other actions to fulfil
were associated with the mere physical necessities (Nālandā Translation
Committee 1982: xxix). At the fixed date they arrived; the paṇḍitas
performed the site purification ritual (β), and maṇḍalas were raised
according to each tradition (η, ι, κ, λ, ν, ξ). In order that a yogin of supreme
power would preside over the gathering, the most powerful yogin was
asked to be the leader of that gaṇacakra (tshogs dpon : gaṇanāyaka), no
other else being able to match him. That yogin, called ’Gran zla med pa
(β), or ’Gran zla med pa Nus thogs med (η), or Nus pa thogs med (η), sat on
the throne.
An old woman bearing all the signs of ugliness came before the
assembly and asked who would preside over the gaṇacakra. The yogin
replied: ‘I will’. ‘You shall not! My brother will’ said the woman angrily.
She was asked where he was. ‘He lives in a charnel ground called ’Bar ba
’dzin (θ, λ, ν, ξ, Jālandhara)’ she answered. The yogin wanted to engage in
a contest with him and ordered to return with him. A colorful picture of our
siddha occurs here (θ, λ, ν, ξ): when Tilopā was fetched from Jālandhara for
the great gaṇacakra, he was found
...swinging from the hair of a horse’s tail which was suspended from the
little toes of corpses piled on the branch of a tree. He was blue of
appearance, with blood-shot eyes, wearing cotton undergarments
(Gyaltsen 1990: 46).
Once arrived, Tilopā sat on a throne in front of the yogin, and the two
began the competition. According to the sources, albeit discrepancies of
little relevance, the two contenders were initially well matched, but in the
course of the contest Tilopā gradually overpowered the challenger. First,
184 TILOPĀ III
they debated about the topics of valid cognition (tshad ma : pramāṇa) and
the scriptural tradition (lung : āgama). After that, each of them drew a
maṇḍala in the sky and tried to destroy the other’s by means of wind and
rain. Next, they summoned up the corpses from the charnel ground, each of
them carrying a corpse on his back. The corpses were then transformed into
offering substances for the gaṇacakra (mchod rdzas), and taken back to the
charnel ground. Then, they rode lions and ran a race over the surface of the
sun and the moon. Tilopā made sun and moon fall down to the ground, and
rode over them on a lion’s back. At last, he turned himself inside out and
conjured up a maṇḍala with a charnel ground for every single hair of his.
He conjured up a tree in each of them and, on every tree, he played in a
cross-legged posture. As the yogin was not able to match this, ‘That is
wonderful!’ he exclaimed, ‘Where does such a miracle come from? Where
does this wonder-working man come from?’ Tilopā is said to have
answered with a song, a part of which is common to all sources:
Having understood the meaning (don rtogs, don dam rtogs pa), the yogin
Tilopā is beyond any efforts (’bad rtsol kun dang bral) in whatever he
does!
Once conquered his faith, Tilopā would have sung to him about the
inconceivable intrinsic being (rang bzhin bsam gyis mi khyab pa, AMM I).
The powerful yogin, thenceforth named Nus ldan Blo gros or simply
Blo gros, i.e. Mati, as stated in all sources would still live in Uḍḍiyāna in a
deathless state.
Noun Phrases for the Yogin

β ’Gran zla med pa → Nus ldan blo gros;
η ’Gran zla med pa Nus pa thogs med → byang chub sems dpa’ Blo
gros;
θ rnal ’byor pa Nus ldan → rnal ’byor pa Nus ldan blo gros;
ι Nus chen rab ldan → byang chub sems dpa’ Blo gros;
κ rnal ’byor pa Nus pa dang ldan pa → de bzhin gshegs pa Blo gros;
λ rnal ’byor pa Nus ldan blo gros;
ν rnal ’byor pa Nus pa thogs med → rnal ’byor pa Nus ldan blo gros
→ byang chub Blo gros;
ξ rnal ’byor pa Nus ldan blo gros;
AMM I rnal ’byor pa;
AGAA I rnal ’byor pa Nus ldan blo gros.
With the Tīrthika

Only Mar pa and dBang phyug rgyal mtshan locate the episode of the
conversion and instruction to the tīrthika (mu stegs pa la gdams pa, AMM
V) at the Nālandā Mahāvihāra (β, ν); no reference in the other sources, apart
from the colophon of AMM V and lHa btsun (ξ) who mention a town called
*Mallamaṇi (Gyad kyi nor bu grong khyer). However, Mar pa and the later
authors have it that this non-Buddhist teacher (mu stegs pa’i ston pa)
expected that all Buddhists (nang) and non-Buddhists (phyi) would rise in
his presence; if they did not, they had to face him in a contest in both
debate (brtsad pa) and in powers (nus pa).
As Tilopā did not pay homage to him, a contest between the two had to
take place at the presence of the king, with all Buddhists and non-Buddhists
savants gathered there. The prize at stake was that the doctrine of the
winner would be accepted by the other. Once more Tilopā was unmatched
in both knowledge and magic. After a first angry and amazed reaction of
the loser, Tilopā sang about the inconceivable being of phenomena, or
dharmatā (chos nyid bsam gyis mi khyab pa, AMM V), and all those present
at the contest were liberated.
The tīrthika, named Nag po dge ba, was thenceforth called Yogin Nag
po (pa), then Bodhisattva dGe ba, or simply Nag po, Kṛṣṇa.
Noun Phrases for the Tīrthika

β mu stegs pa’i ston pa grub thob cig → Nag po dge ba;
η mu stegs kyi ston pa | paṇ ḍi ta mkhas shing nus pa che ba zhig →
rnal ’byor pa Nag po → byang chub sems dpa’ dGe ba;
θ mu stegs kyi ston pa gcig → rnal ’byor pa Nag po dge ba;
ι mu stegs kyi paṇ ḍi ta | mkhas shing nus pa che ba → rnal ’byor pa
Nus ldan Nag po pa → byang chub sems dpa’ dGe ba;
κ mu stegs pa’i paṇ ḍi ta mkhas pa nus pa dang ldan pa → rnal ’byor
pa Nag po;
λ mu stegs kyi kyi paṇ ḍi ta mkhas shing nus pa che ba → rnal ’byor pa
Nag po dge ba;
ν mu stegs kyi paṇ ḍi ta Nag po → rnal ’byor pa Nag po dge ba →
byang chub dGe ba;
ξ mu stegs kyi paṇ ḍi ta mkhas shing nus pa che ba → mu stegs mthu
can Nag po dge ba;
AMM V mu stegs pa;
AGAA II rnal ’byor pa Nag po dge ba.
186 TILOPĀ III
According to all sources, he would continue to live in the charnel ground of

Śītavana (dur khrod bSil ba’i tshal), or ‘Cool Sandalwood’, near Nālandā.
The site has been described by a Tibetan monk pilgrim who visited it in
1234, Chag Lo tsā ba Chos rje dpal (Chag lo tsā ba chos rje dpal gyi rnam
thar 7, 120.4–9; Roerich 1959: 85):
The great cemetery Śītavana is situated in a treeless clearing inside a large

forest to the north-west of Nālandā. In this forest there were numerous
venomous snakes with spotted bodies and black heads, of the size of a
man’s thigh. The top of thickets (in the forest) used to shake and emit a
cracking noise when these snakes moved about. The Dharmasvāmin said
that he was frightened on seeing a black bear.
With the Magician

The circumstance of the instruction to the magician (sgyu ma mkhan la
gdams pa, AMM VIII) is a war, an illusory one. Some further detail is
provided by rDo rje mdzes ’od (θ), according to whom it would have been
matter of a conflict between the king of So sa gling (*Śoṣadvīpa ?) and the
magician Rakṣadeva (rgyal po So sa gling pa dang sgyu ma mkhan Rakṣa
de wa). Conversely, dBang phyug rgyal mtshan (ν) refers to the mahārāja
of a country to the east of Vajrāsana, i.e. Bodhgayā (rGya gar rDo rje gdan
gyi shar gyi yul phyogs gcig na rgyal po chen po zhig), and in AMM VIII
mention is made of a famous town (grong khyer grags pa). As the king
would have found himself in conflict with the magician, the former’s
kingdom was attacked by an illusory army emanated by the latter. Since the
king did not know it was just magic, he was alarmed.
A woman bearing the signs of ugliness came to his assembled ministers
and asked ‘Who will command your army?’ When she was informed that
such a one would do it, ‘That one will not be able to do it: my brother will!’
she replied. As they asked where her brother was, she said (β 22.5–6):
In a charnel ground, one league far from here, there is an Aquilaria tree
(shing sha pa), my brother has fixed the tail of a horse on it; then, he has
tied the legs and the hands of a corpse to that tail. He is there, hanging on
that corpse, and swinging.
When the woman repeated to the king what she had said to the ministers,
the king sent someone to check: things were just as she had described.
Tilopā took the field and magically destroyed that illusory army. Once
taken captive, the magician was converted and instructed on the

inconceivable given thing (dngos po bsam gyis mi khyab pa, AMM VIII).
Thenceforth named Slu byed bden smra, Slu byed smras pa, or Yogin
Slu byed, then Bodhisattva bDen par smra ba, or else simply Slu byed, in
all sources he would continue to live in the charnel ground of Aṭṭahāsa.
Noun Phrases for the Magician

β sgyu ma mkhan zhig → Slu byed bden smra;
η sgyu ma mkhan zhig → rnal ’byor pa Slu byed → byang chub sems
dpa’ bDen par smra ba;
θ sgyu ma mkhan Rakṣa de wa → rnal ’byor pa Slu byed bden smra;
ι sgyu ma mkhan zhig → rnal ’byor pa Slu byed → byang chub sems
dpa’ bDen par smra ba;
κ sgyu ma mkhan → rnal ’byor pa Slu byed;
λ sgyu ma mkhan zhig → rnal ’byor pa Slu byed smras pa;
ν sgyu ma mkhan zhig → rnal ’byor pa Slu byed smra ba → byang
chub bDen par smra ba;
ξ sgyu ma mkhan zhig → Slu byed smras pa;
AMM VIII sgyu ma mkhan;
AGAA III sgyu ma mkhan → bDen par smra ba.
With the Liquor-Selling Woman

The fourth episode in Mar pa’s arrangement tells us about a liquor-selling
woman (chang ’tshong ma : śauṇḍikī, MVy 3778). As such, she must have
had at least two defects in one to brāhmaṇas’ eyes: not only the sole status
recognized to her gender was as a member of the family of her father, and
then of her husband (R.C. Majumdar 1971: 455), but also she belonged to a
low-caste family of distillers and sellers of liquor (śauṇḍika). Furthermore,
as observed by Weber (1921: 46), some castes were considered ‘déclassés’
in the social rank order of the brāhmaṇa system when women participated
in selling in the stores and, more in general, the cooperation of women in
economic pursuits was considered ‘specifically plebeian’.
Consistent with the Kāpālika-like aesthetics of the scandalous conduct,
in the siddhas’ propensity to get into disreputable company, the plebeian
liquor-selling woman already comes into view in tantric songs on the
practice. As a matter of fact, in a caryāgīti by the siddha Virūpā
(Caryāgītikośa 3.1; Kvaerne 1977: 81–86; Davidson 2002b: 258–59), a
liquor-selling woman (śuṇḍinī : chang ma), figuratively alluding to the
central energy channel (avadhūtī), is described as producing spirituous
188 TILOPĀ III
liquor (vāruṇī : chu bdag), i.e. the seminal essence, or spirit of awakening
(bodhicitta), by means of neither yeast (cikkaṇa : phabs) nor shredded bark
(Late MIA vakka : Skt valka, but Tib. rtsi, ‘juice’).16
In the role of one of the eight dramatis personae that Tilopā would
have met and converted, the status of this kind of woman was perceived as
so low that the liquor-selling woman (chang ’tshong ma) turns in later
sources into a prostitute (smad ’tshong ma, ξ, AMM III).
The occasion and the scenario are reminiscent of the well-known
miraculous drinking episode of Virūpā, as it can be found in the relevant
hagiographic material, to begin with Abhayadatta’s Caturaśītisiddha-
pravṛtti, and in the iconography of that siddha (Davidson 2002b: 259, 403).
In fact, whereas Virūpā stops the sun in its path lest he should settle the bill
to the liquor-selling woman for what he was gulping down, Tilopā drank all
the liquor under different forms, viz. a monkey and a cat (β), a cat only (η),
a cat and several yogins (θ), a beggar (λ), a monkey and a rat (ν), and a rat
only (ξ). Deprived of her own merchandise, the woman burst into tears.
‘What is wrong with you?’ people asked, and she told the story (lo rgyus).
‘Supplicate that yogin for your sake!’ people suggested. Weeping, the
woman approached Tilopā supplicating him to be accepted as a disciple,
and in a moment all the pots were again filled with liquor. Then, as Tilopā
sang about the inconceivable great bliss (bsam gyis mi khyab pa bde ba
chen po, AMM III), all were liberated.
Thenceforth named Nyi ’od sgron ma, or Yoginī Nyi ma ’od, then
Bodhisattva sGron ma ’dzin pa, all sources agree that the liquor-selling
woman would still live in the charnel ground of So sa gling.
Noun Phrases for the Liquor-Selling Woman

β chang ’tshong ma zhig → Nyi ’od sgron ma;
η chang ’tshong ma dregs pa can zhig → rnal ’byor ma Nyi ma ’od →
byang chub sems dpa’ sGron ma ’dzin pa;
θ chang ’tshong ma → Nyi ’od sgron ma → rnal ’byor ma Nyi ma’i
’od;
ι chang ’tshong ma dregs pa can zhig → rnal ’byor ma Nyi ma’i ’od
→ byang chub sems dpa’ sGron ma ’dzin pa;
κ chang ’tshong ma shin tu dregs pa che ba zhig → rnal ’byor ma Nyi
ma ’od → sems dpa’ sGron ma ’dzin pa;
λ chang ’tshong ma dregs pa can zhig → grub pa thob pa’i rnal ’byor
ma Nyi ’od sgron ma;
ν chang ’tshong ma dregs pa can zhig → grub pa thob pa’i rnal ’byor
ma Nyi ’od sgron ma → byang chub sGron ’dzin;
ξ chang ’tshong ma dregs pa can zhig → rnal ’byor ma Nyi ’od sgron
ma;
AMM III smad ’tshong ma;
AGAA IV chang ’tshong ma → Nyi ’od sgron ma.
With the Singer

No magic is there in the episode of Tilopā’s instruction to the singer (glu
mkhan la gdams pa, AMM IV). The opposition between the two, followed
by the conversion of the latter, is based in this case on art, namely on
musical ability. We are told that Tilopā once found a skillful singer sitting
in the marketplace of another country and sang a song before him. The
singer took it as a challenge, and the two started a musical competition,
needless to say, with the victory of Tilopā and the conversion of the singer,
who was then instructed on the inconceivable music (rol mo bsam gyis mi
khyab pa, AMM IV).
Since that time the singer was named dByangs ldan lkugs pa, Yogin
Nus pa can, then Bodhisattva Nyi zla ’dzin pa, Yogin lKugs pa (Skt mūka,
or mūrkha), then Bodhisattva dByangs dang ldan pa, or simply dByangs
ldan, or else Nyi zla ’dzin. He would continue to live in Nagara (Na ga ra,
β, θ, ι, λ, ν, ξ, AMM IV), or in the town of I mi tsi li (η), or else I mi ci ka li
(κ).
As to the toponym Nagara, we find mention in the Nālandā copperplate
inscription of Dharmapāla of a Nagara Bhukti in current Bihar, ‘identified
with modern Patna, which as a division includes the district of Gayā even
now’ (P.N. Bhattacharyya 1935–36: 291; cf. Law 1954: 240).
Noun Phrases for the Singer

β glu mkhan mkhas pa zhig → dByangs ldan lkugs pa;
η glu mkhan dregs pa can zhig → rnal ’byor pa Nus pa can → byang
chub sems dpa’ Nyi zla ’dzin pa;
θ glu mkhan mkhas pa zhig → dByangs ldan lkugs pa → rnal ’byor pa
dByangs ldan;
ι glu mkhas par grags pa thob pa zhig → rnal ’byor pa lKugs pa →
byang chub sems dpa’ dByangs dang ldan pa;
κ glu mkhan dregs pa can zhig → rnal ’byor pa Nus pa can → byang
chub sems dpa’ Nyi zla ’dzin;
λ glu mkhan mkhas pa dregs pa can zhig → grub pa thob pa’i rnal
’byor pa dByangs ldan lkug pa;
ν glu mkhan dregs pa can zhig → thugs sras grub pa thob pa’i rnal
’byor pa dByangs ldan lkugs pa → byang chub Nyi zla;
190 TILOPĀ III
ξ glu mkhan mkhas pa dregs pa can zhig → rnal ’byor pa dByangs ldan
lkugs pa;
AMM IV glu mkhan;
AGAA IV glu mkhan dByangs skyong → dByangs ldan lkug pa.
With the Butcher

The instruction to the butcher (shan pa la gdams pa, AMM VI) comes after
Tilopā had induced remorse at slaughter in a man who used to kill and cook
a lot of young animals for his son. One day he would have magically
transformed the meat that the man was cooking into the child’s legs, arms,
and head. When the traumatized parent promised not to kill any longer,
Tilopā revived the son, and instructed the father on the inconceivable act of
killing (gsod pa’i sbyor ba bsam gyis mi khyab pa, AMM VI).
The butcher was since then named bDe byed dga’ ba, or Yogin bDe
byed, then Bodhisattva dGa’ ba, or simply bDe byed, or else Dzi na, i.e.
Jina. He would continue to live in the ‘land of rākṣasas’ (Srin po’i gling, β,
κ Srin mo’i gling, η, θ, ι, λ, ν), which we could reasonably identify with
Arakan on the basis of its accepted etymon from rākṣasa, reinterpreted in
later sources as a ‘barbarous and ruthless town’ (rigs ngan gtum po’i grong
khyer, ξ, AMM VI).
Noun Phrases for the Butcher

β shan pa zhig → bDe byed dga’ ba;
η srog chags mang po bsad cing bu smad gso ba zhig → rnal ’byor pa
bDe byed → byang chub sems dpa’ dGa’ ba;
θ shan pa zhig → rnal ’byor pa bDe byed dga’ ba;
ι shan pa zhig → rnal ’byor pa bDe byed → byang chub sems dpa’
dGa’ ba;
κ mi gcig → rnal ’byor pa bDe byed → de bzhin gshegs pa bDe byed;
λ sgrog chags mang po bsad nas kho rang gi bu smad gso ba zhig →
grub pa thob pa’i rnal ’byor pa bDe byed dga’ ba;
ν shan pa zhig → grub pa thob pa’i rnal ’byor pa bDe byed dga’ ba →
byang chub dga’ ba;
ξ srog chags mang po bsad nas kho rang gi bu smad gso ba zhig →
smin zhing grol ba’i rnal ’byor pa bDe byed dga’ ba;
AMM VI shan pa;
AGAA VI shan pa Dzi na.
With the Materialist

According to Indian epistemology, knowledge (pramā) can be gained via
some different sources (pramāṇa), to begin with immediate perception
(pratyakṣa): whereas the sense-based cognition is unanimously accepted,
other pramāṇas―inference (anumāna), verbal authority (śabda), analogy
(upamāna), postulation from circumstances (arthāpatti), and negative proof
(anupalabdhi)―are acknowledged only by certain schools. Far from being
mere hedonists, the Cārvakas or Lokāyatas were materialist philosophers
who admitted only perception as a source of valid cognition, and thus they
rejected any other pramāṇa. Together with the Bauddhas and the Jainas, the
Lokāyatas are labelled nāstikas because they deny (na-asti ‘there is not’)
any authority to the Vedas as a source of valid knowledge. But, in contrast
with Bauddhas, Jainas, as well as with all ‘orthodox’ systems (āstika), they
also refute any demonstrability of the law of karma, in se void of any
merely empirical basis (Tucci 1923–29).
In the episode of the conversion and instruction to the denier of the
fruits of actions (las ’bras med par ’dod pa), we are told that a Lokāyata
(rgyang phan pa, β, θ, λ, ν, ξ) denying the law of cause and fruit (rgyu
’bras : hetuphala) had declared that there are neither virtuous nor evil
actions. A Buddhist savant rebutted it with arguments like ‘If you eat you
are full, if not, you are hungry’ (bza’ rgyu zos na ’grangs ma zos na ltog, η
17a4), and so forth. According to Mar pa (β), Tilopā would have been
entrusted as judge of the debate between the two, and his verdict would
have been for the law of causality. As maintained by later hagiographies (η,
θ, ι, κ, λ, ν, ξ), the verdict itself in aid of the Buddhist view would have
induced the Materialist to debate also with Tilopā. In both cases, since the
only source of valid cognition accepted by a Lokāyata was first-hand
perception (pratyakṣa), the Materialist would have coherently insisted that
he could not see in person (dngos su mthong ba med, β, dngos su ma
mthong, η, θ, κ, λ) any causality.17
According to the sources, Tilopā would have manifested to the
Materialist both the gods and the hells. In a heavenly abode (lha gnas) there
was a goddess who was alone (zla med), and the Materialist asked her why.
‘There is a certain tīrthika practising virtue: I am his consort’ she answered.
Tilopā would have taken him again, and the two went to the hells: many
copper pots were there, and something to be boiled in each of them, but in
one there was nothing. When the Materialist asked what was therein, Tilopā
would have answered, ‘All the tīrthikas denying virtuous and evil actions
192 TILOPĀ III
(mu stegs pa las dge sdig med zer ba) are boiled there’. The shocked
Materialist, reifying what he had perceived, would have said (β 25.3–4):
For the evil produced by actions,

The hells surround one’s own mind.
For the virtue produced by actions,
The higher realms surround one’s own mind.
Tilopā replied with a response song (lan mgur) revealing his view:
If there is attachment (chags), go to charnel grounds.

If in trouble (rgud), rise the victory banner (rgyal mtshan).
Notions (rnam par rtog pa) are concrete patterns (sprul sku):
As for me, I showed nothing (ngas ni bstan pa ci yang med).
After these words, Tilopā sang about the inconceivable variety (sna tshogs
bsam gyis mi khyab pa, AMM VII).
The Materialist, named Jinabodhi (Dzi na byang chub) in most sources,
or Nag po me drangs ye shes (or ma drang) would continue to live in the
south of India on Śrīparvata (lho phyogs dPal gyi ri).
Noun Phrases for the Materialist

β rgyu ’bras la bkur ba ’debs pa’i rgyang phan pa → Dzi na byang
chub;
η rgyu ’bras med par ’dod pa | phyi pa’i paṇ ḍi ta chen po zhig → rnal
’byor pa Dzi na → byang chub sems dpa’ Byang chub chen po;
θ mu stegs rgyang phan gyi lta ba ’dzin pa zhig → rnal ’byor pa Dzi na
→ Dzi na byang chub;
ι las ’bras [...] med par ’dod pa → rnal ’byor pa Dzi na → byang chub
sems dpa’ Byang chub;
κ las rgyu ’bras [...] med par ’dod pa phyi pa mu stegs pa’i paṇ ḍi ta
zhig → rnal ’byor pa Dzi na → Byang chub chen po;
λ mu stegs rgyang ’phen pa’i lta ba ’dzin pa zhig → grub pa thob pa’i
rnal ’byor pa Ji na byang chub;
ν las rgyu ’bras khas mi len pa’i mu stegs rgyang phan pa’i lta ba ’dzin
pa’i mu stegs kyi paṇ ḍi ta zhig → thugs sras grub pa thob pa’i rnal
’byor ba Dzi na byang chub → Byang chub chen po;
ξ mu stegs rgyang ’phan gyi lta ba ’dzin pa zhig → smin zhing grol ba’i
rnal ’byor pa Dzi na byang chub;
AMM VII rig byed mkhan po;
AGAA VII Nag po me drangs ye shes → mu stegs ston pa Ma drang.
With the Sorcerer

Tilopā would have encountered and converted the sorcerer (mthu mkhan, β,
η, mthu bo che, θ, ι, κ, λ, ν, ξ, AMM II) in the ‘town of Nagara’ (grong
khyer Na ga ra, η, κ), the city (nagara) above identified as Pāṭaliputra
(Patna). We are told that a powerful sorcerer used to bewitch and kill
everybody. When Tilopā saw that the time for subduing him had come, the
two entered into a contest of killing (bcad ’gran pa). Tilopā overcame the
other and gained his promise to cease bewitching. Then, as he sang about
the inconceivable exalted activities (phrin las bsam gyis mi khyab pa), all
were liberated.
The sorcerer, named Nyi i mi, or Nyi ma, then Yogin Nyi zla, or Yogin
Nyi ma ’dzin pa, would continue to live in Ki mi tsi ki li (β), or I mi tsun
dha’i gling (θ, λ, ν, ξ, AMM II), or else Yi mi li tsi ki li (ι). Curiously, A mi
tsi ka li occurs as the name of the converted one in AGAA VIII.
Noun Phrases for the Sorcerer

β mthu mkhan zhig → Nyi i mi;
η mthu mkhan dregs pa can zhig → rnal ’byor pa bKugs pa → byang
chub sems dpa’ dByangs dang ldan pa;
θ mthu bo che Nyi ma → rnal ’byor pa Nyi zla;
ι mthu bo che zhig → rnal ’byor pa Nyi ma ’dzin pa → byang chub
sems dpa’ Zla ba’i ’od;
κ mthu che ba’i nus pa can → rnal ’byor pa lKug pa → de bzhin
gshegs pa dByangs dang ldan pa;
λ mthu bo che Nyi ma → grub pa thob pa’i rnal ’byor pa Nyi zla;
ν mthu bo che Nyi ma → rnal ’byor pa Nyi zla → byang chub
dByangs dang ldan pa;
ξ mthu bo che Nyi ma → smin zhing grol ba’i rnal ’byor pa Nyi zla;
AMM II mthu can;
AGAA VIII nus pa mkhan → A mi tsi ka li.
Tilopā’s Apotheosis
In the narration subsequent to Tilopā’s ‘slow homecoming’, the
hagiographies describe his threefold apotheosis, first as a manifestation of
Śaṃvara (section 2), then as Śaṃvara himself (section 3), and eventually as
the aggregation of the bodies of all the buddhas of the three times (section
4). Notably, in the first two stages he wears the monastic garb while in the
194 TILOPĀ III
last one he is again a siddha in his underwear.
As a Manifestation of Śaṃvara
We are informed that Tilopā took monastic vows (rab tu byung :
pravrajita) in the Aśoka Vihāra (β 26.3: dgon pa Mya ngan med pa). Given
that aśoka ‘painless’ is synonymous with aroga, we can reasonably identify
this vihāra with the above mentioned Aroga Vihāra of the seclusion of
Cūḍāmaṇi (β 20.2–3: gTsug gi nor bu’i dgon pa A ro ga’i gtsug lag khang).
In the vihāra there were both his maternal uncle and mother. The latter,
the Brāhmaṇī *Dyutimatī (gSal ldan ma) when married with Tilopā’s father
the Brāhmaṇa *Dyuti (gSal ba), had become a nun (btsun ma) presumably
after her husband’s death. Both had a pre-eminent position in the vihāra,
abbot (mkhan : upādhyāya) and ācārya respectively. The name given to the
fully ordained bhikṣu (dge slong) would have been *Kālapā (Ka la pa, β, η,
θ, ι, κ2, ν), the ‘Black One’, or *Kāpāla (Ka pa la, λ, ξ), possibly by reason
of his previous Kāpālika background. In Mar pa’s words (β 26.3–27.1):
While the others were engaged in the three wheels of religious duties
(’khor gsum), instead of undergoing his spiritual practices (chos spyod),
he would kill lots of locusts (cha ga), piling up their heads on one side and
their bodies on the other. All became involved in blaming him.
Meanwhile, there were those in charge of the proctor master of discipline
(dge skos), ‘Let us have a conference!’ they proposed, and the proctor
said, ‘Gather in general the religious persons (chos pa), in particular the
monks (btsun pa), and most particularly those of the seclusion of Aśoka’.
The controversy (brgal ba) was arranged, and the king of the country
spoke to him: ‘How is that you, apparently a monk (btsun), kill insects?
Where is your land, who are your abbot (mkhan) and teacher (slob)’?
Having so asked, the latter answered in song:
In the Aśoka Vihāra

My uncle and mother are abbot and teacher.
I am the monk Tilopā.
Millions of aeons ago, I
Went to a hundred buddha-fields.
Nāgārjuna, Āryadeva, and
The Buddha: with them did I speak.
I saw the thousand buddhas as well.
I have not killed any sentient being!
After these words, it is told that the locusts began to buzz and flew away.
At that all believed, and he was famed as a manifestation of Śaṃvara.
As Śaṃvara Himself
In the third section, where he is asserted to be Cakraśaṃvara himself, we
are told, still following Mar pa’s account (β 27.1–6), that
...in east India, those who came for alms (bsod snyoms), while
approaching, used to step in a decent way, their eyes looking at a distance
of a yoke (gnya’ shing), intoning melodious mantric verses (sngags kyi
tshig bcad) and, while leaving, they used to chant auspicious verses (shis
pa) for having taken what had been given (sbyin len). As they were
venerated by people for that, the king of the country invited all them.
They were welcomed within, then the king said, ‘For having taken what
has been given, everyone of you has to recite verses not in contradiction
with the words of grammarians (sgra mkhan), nor with valid cognition
(tshad ma : pramāṇa), scriptural tradition (lung), esoteric instructions
(man ngag : upadeśa), experiences (nyams myong : anubhava) and the
comprehension (rtogs pa) of those having a clear understanding (rtog pa
can rnams)’. So he said, and all exhibited themselves, one by one, without
contradiction with the other. When it was the turn of Ācārya Tilopā, he
recited without contradiction with all the others. At the end, the king
interrogated him about those verses and their meaning:
I have neither father nor mother:

I am Cakraśaṃvara, Śambara.
I have neither abbot nor master:
I am the self-born Buddha.
I have neither grammar nor valid cognition:
Logic came up by itself.
As to the body, speech, and mind of Śaṃvara,
They are one with my body, speech and mind.
I go into the great bliss!
Having so sung, he was celebrated as Śaṃvara himself.

196 TILOPĀ III
No Longer Monk: Tilopā and Nāropā

Before the third step of Tilopā’s apotheosis, another tile is to be inserted in
this diachronic mosaic, so as to see again Tilopā as a half-naked yogin.
FIGURE 3 Manuscript image of Tilopā (late 15th century).

Detail of rGyal thang pa’s rJe btsun chen po tilli pa’i rnam par thar pa, fol. 1b
It is matter of the episode narrated most probably at the very beginning of

the twelfth century in the *Caturaśītisiddhapravṛtti (δ). We are told therein
that the great scholar (mkhas pa) Tilopā was the officiating court priest
(mchod gnas) of the king of Viṣṇunagara,18 with a subsidy of five hundred
measures (zho : karṣa) of gold every day.
When he became disturbed by teaching the doctrine (chos ’chad :
dharmadeśanā) to a numberless circle of students and by other offices, he
thought, ‘A life such as mine is meaningless: what shall I do? (bdag gi skye
ba ’di ’dra ba’i don med pas ci zhig bya)’. Again and again his followers
had prevented him from running away, but one day he cast aside his
monastic garb (chos gos : cīvara) and dressed just a piece of sewing. He
wrote a farewell message, ‘I will not return again (nga da mi log pa). Do
not come after me (klog tu ma ’ong)’, and left it at home. He secretely
quitted at night and settled down in the charnel ground out of the town of
Kāñcīpura (? Kan tsi ra).19 While begging food for alms (zas bsod snyoms
blangs)―we are not told how long later―he met Nāropā, and the latter
lived ten years begging food for alms and offering it to his guru.
More than the above problematic toponyms, it is noteworthy here that
Tilopā would have quit his position as court priest before meeting Nāropā.
As to the latter, while we read in δ that he was son of low-caste liquor
seller, and that he would have earned his living by gathering and selling
wood before meeting Tilopā, the sources within the Marpan tradition have
it that also Nāropā would have resigned his position.
As observed by Davidson (2005: 44), Nāropā was ‘a figure around
whom so much hagiography has been wrapped that it scarcely seems
possible to find room for a real person’. It would be matter of a process of
depersonalization characteristic of the Buddhist hagiographic genre
(Davidson 2002b: 93), in this case ascribable to the bKa’ brgyud
hagiographers. Such a process brings about several questions, decidedly
more questions than answers. The details of the problem have been
summarized by Davidson (2005: 45) as follows:
Because of their inattention to evidence, Tibetan hagiographers disagree

on his location, family, early career, and the majority of other details.
Many Tibetans incorrectly locate him in Kashmir, while others accurately
place him in Bengal; some say he was a Brahman, others that he was a
prince, and one Indian source—the version found in the compendium
attributed to Abhayadatta—indicates that he was from a low-caste family
of liquor sellers (śauṇḍika).
In the hagiography of Nāropā compiled by lHa btsun (ξ1) and translated by

Guenther (1963b), we find some ‘information’ about the chronology of
Nāropā’s curriculum: as it has already been the case of Tilopā, this piece of
information comes from dBang phyug rgyal mtshan (ν). In this case as
well, we have no idea how reliable the referred data are, but we can build
up a feasible chronological scenario with them. To do that, by sketching a
concordance of Mar pa’s account of Nāropā (β) with dBang phyug rgyal
mtshan’s (ν) and lHa btsun’s (ξ1) hagiographies, we can depict the
following curriculum:
198 TILOPĀ III
β ν, ξ1 (cf. Guenther 1963b)

Once born, he received the name Born in 956 (me pho ’brug gi lo, ν
Samantabhadra (Kun tu bzang po). 175.3; ξ1 63.2), he received the name
Samantabhadra.
He went to Uḍḍiyāna to study as At eleven he went to Kashmir to
the lay disciple (dge bsnyen : upāsaka) study. Ordained lay disciple with the
Gaganagarbha (Nam mkha’i snying po). name Gaganagarbha by the abbot
Gaganakīrti (Nam mkha’i grags pa), he
spent three years in Kashmir (966–
969).
Back home with nineteen among Back home with thirteen scholars
scholars and students (slob ma paṇ ḍi ta for further study, he spent three years in
bcu dgu khrid nas yul du byon) for this way (969–972).
further study.
He was forced to marry Vimalā At seventeen he was forced to
(Dri med ma), then divorced. marry Vimalā, then divorced after eight
years of marriage (972–980).
He went to Nandanavana (dGa’ At twenty-five, he went to
ba’i tshal, MVy 4194), and was Nandanavana (dGa’ ba’i tshal, ν 194.5;
ordained novice (dge tshul : śramaṇera) Ānandārama in Guenther). Ordained
with the name Jñānasiddhi (Ye shes novice with the name Buddhajñāna
dngos grub) by the abbot Buddhaśaraṇa (Sangs rgyas ye shes) by the abbot
(Sangs rgyas skyabs) and the ācārya Buddhaśaraṇa and the ācārya
Jñānaprabha (Ye shes ’od). Jñānaprabha, he spent three years there
(980–983).
In the region (gnas gzhi) of Pūrṇa At twenty-eight he went to Pūrṇa in
(Pur sna), he was ordained monk (dge Kashmir (Kha che’i Pur ṇa ν 195.2; ξ1
slong : bhikṣu) with the name 74.9). Ordained monk with the name
Dharmadhvaja (Chos kyi rgyal mtshan) Dharmadhvaja by the abbot
by the abbot Dharmaguru (Chos kyi bla Dharmaguru, the ācārya Dharmajñāna,
ma), the ceremony master (las kyi slob and the interviewer mentor
dpon : *karmācārya) Dharmabodhi Dharmabodhi, he spent three years
(Chos kyi byang chub), and the there (983–986).
interviewer mentor (gsang ste ston pa :
raho ’nuśāsaka)20 Dharmajñāna (Chos
kyi ye shes).
He receives as a legacy from the Then he went to Phullahari (Phu la
above abbot and ācāryas (in Pūrṇa) the ha ri), where he was famous as the
seclusion of Phullahari (Phu lā par ba Elder Śāsanadhara (bsTan pa ’dzin pa);
ta). he spent six years there (986–992).
He left for Nālandā to presiede over He left for Nālandā to presiede over
the department at the northern gate as a the department at the northern gate as a
gatekeeper (sgo srung : dvārapāla) gatekeeper after the death of Jetari (Dze
after the death of Ākaravajra (’Byung ta ri). He became abbot of Nālandā and
gnas rdo rje). Then, he was conferred was conferred the name Abhayakīrti: he
the name Scholar Abhayakīrti (Paṇ ḍi spent eight years there (992–1000).
ta ’Jigs med grags pa).
Once resigned his post, he looked Once resigned his post, he looked
for Tilopā. for Tilopā.
At eighty-five, in 1040 (lcags pho
’brug gi lo | dgung lo brgyad cu rtsa
lnga bzhes pa’i tshe, ν 311.4–5; ξ1 142),
he died at Phullahari.
On the basis of the referred―and inferred―dates, here rectified from

Guenther’s translation (1963b) of the hagiography of Nāropā compiled by
lHa btsun, we can conjecture that Nāropā would have met Tilopā around
1000: approximately, when the former was forty-five, and the latter about
seventy.
With regard to the sources, if we try to elicit Nāropā’s curriculum
previous to meeting his guru―birthplace, family, study, wife, monastic and
academic career―the birthplace is certainly the most problematic point.
We see that Mar pa and Kun dga’ rin chen locate Nāropā’s birthplace in
Kashmir (yul rGya gar nub phyogs Kha che Shri na ga ra, β 29.2; ’khrungs
pa’i yul Kha che, μ 50.4); Abhayadatta in eastern India (rGya gar shar
phyogs, δ N LU 24b2, G LU 34b4); rGyal thang pa in Bengal, albeit ‘in the
south of India’ (rGya gar lho phyogs, η 60.4–5); whereas rDo rje mdzes
’od mentions only the region and the town (Shrī na ga ra’i grong khyer
’Dzam bu, θ 86.6), U rgyan pa, Mon rtse pa, gTsang smyon He ru ka,
dBang phyug rgyal mtshan, and lHa btsun place it in Bengal (rGya gar
shar phyogs Bha gha la, ι 53.1–2; κ 47.1; λ A 44.2 B 119.2; ν 169.5; ξ1 59–
60). Was Nāropā born in the west (β, μ) or in the east (δ, η, ι, κ, λ, ν, ξ 1)? A
reasonable solution might be the one indirectly suggested by sGam po pa,
who asserts that Nāropā was born ‘in a kṣatriya family of the west’ (nub
phyogs kyi rgyal rigs, ε 5.1), that is to say, his parents could have been
from Kashmir, but they did not necessarily lived there.
While the town, albeit unidentified, unanimously occurs in the sources
as Jambu (’Dzam bu, β, η, θ, ι, κ, λ, ν, ξ1), the question is whether the
region was Śrīnagara (β, θ, ι, κ, λ, ν, ξ1), Nagara (η), or Śalaputra (Sā la pu
tra, δ). It has been suggested above that Nagara could point to a territorial
division (bhukti), the capital of which would be Pāṭaliputra, or current
Patna in Bihar (P.N. Bhattacharyya 1935–36; Law 1954: 240). More in
200 TILOPĀ III
detail, as observed by Sircar (1971: 248),
...from the inscriptions of the Pālas, we come to know of the existence of

two bhuktis or provinces in Bihar, viz. Śrīnagara-bhukti and Tīra-bhukti.
The word tīra refers to the banks of the Ganges. Tīra-bhukti is the same as
the modern Tirhut Division and apparently indicated parts of Bihar lying
to the north of that river. The expression Śrī-nagara meaning ‘the
illustrious city,’ i.e., the city par excellence, referred to the celebrated
ancient city of Pāṭaliputra (of which the modern representative is Pāṭnā
derived from Sanskrit pattana or township) and the Śrīnagara-bhukti no
doubt included the districts of South Bihar having their administrative
headquarters at the above city.
Even today, out of the nine divisions of Bihar, the divison of Purnia or
Purnea (Pūrṇiā) includes the districts of Purnia (founded by the East India
Company in 1770), Katihar, Araria, and Kishanganj, which cover the north-
eastern part of the state. It is also the name of the headquarters of the
district and the division itself. It must be noted that one of the blocks of the
Purnia District is called Śrinagar.
Commonly known through Tibetan tradition as Phullahari, the toponym
has been elucidated by Mar pa (β 31.3–4) as Phullāparvata, Me tog gi ri,
and Phullā-ri, namely the Indic, the Tibetan, and the Indic-Tibetan patois
version respectively of the same place. According to Ramesh Chandra
Majumdar, Phullahari is to be found in eastern Magadha, that is in current
Bihar, ‘probably somewhere near Monghyr’ (1971: 525). As a matter of
fact, already Mar pa indirectly locates Phullahari in Pūrṇa (β 31.2–4):
...de nas sangs rgyas kyi bstan pa la ’jug ...Then as he deemed an incomplete
la bsnyen par ma rdzogs pa ’dis mi monastic ordination not good for the
yong snyam nas gnas gzhi Pur snar | Buddha’s teachings, he took the full
mkhan po Chos kyi bla ma | las kyi slob monastic vows in the region of Pūrṇa
dpon Chos kyi byang chub | gsang ste with the abbot Dharmaguru, the master
ston pa Chos kyi ye shes la bsnyen of the ceremony Dharmabodhi, and the
rdzogs byas to || interviewer mentor Dharmajñāna.
dge slong Chos kyi rgyal mtshan du He was named Dharmadhvaja [as] an
btags | der chos kyang mang zhig bshad ordained monk. On that occasion, many
do || doctrines were also explained.
mkhan po la sogs pa rnams kyi zhal nas The abbot and the others spoke, ‘Stay
bdag cag ma shi bar la ’dir sdod la chos here until our death and teach the
shod | shi nas shul bya dgos gsungs pa doctrine. When we die you should take
la | [this seat as] a legacy’. He replied:
rGya gar skad du Phu lā par ba ta | Bod ‘Phullāparvata in Indic, in Tibetan the
skad du | Me tog gi ri | Phu la ri | zhes Mountain of Blooms, [or] Mount
pa brda’ ’dres pa ste de la sgom par Phullā: so are the words confused. I
zhus pas request to meditate there.’
ci bde bar mdzod gsungs nas Phu la rir ‘Do as you like!’ they responded. Then
bzhugs so || he dwelt at Mount Phullā.
Thanks to Davidson (2002b: 317, 412–13; 2005: 144–45) a confirmation of

this Bihari location has been found in Nag tsho Lo tsā ba’s report included
in the rNal ’byor byang chub seng ge’i dris lan by Grags pa rgyal mtshan
(1147–1216): we read therein that the seclusion of Phullahari was located
to the southeast from Magadha (Ma ga dha nas ... shar lhor), that is from
the current districts of Gaya and Patna in Bihar.
Again, an eye witness’ description of Phullahari can be found in the
reported autobiographical account of the pilgrimage in India that Chag Lo
tsā ba Chos rje dpal (Dharmasvāmin, 1197–1264) did in 1234–36. This
account is included in the Chag lo tsā ba chos rje dpal gyi rnam thar by his
disciple Chos dpal dar byang:
[The Dharmasvāmin] said that ‘Nāropa’s hermitage (sgrub gnas :

siddhasthāna) Phulahari was situated in a forest north of Nālandā (Phu la
ha ri ni Na landra’i byang phyogs kyi nags khrod cig na), a tumbled down
straw hut with three crooked doors, surrounded by numerous huts, without
an encircling wall, and that even now some people used to stay there’
(Chag lo tsā ba chos rje dpal gyi rnam thar 7, 120.1–4; Roerich 1959:
85).
With regard to the academic position Nāropā would have held before
meeting Tilopā, we have an indirect proof in the Shamsher Manuscript (α)
where we read that Advayavajra, alias Maitrīpāda or Śabarapāda II studied
for twenty years in the presence of Nāropā the treatises of valid cognition,
Mādhyamika, and Pāramitānaya (viṃśativarṣaparyantaṃ Nāropādasamīpe
pramāṇa-mādhyamika-pārimitānayādi-śāstraṃ21 śrutam).
As we have seen in the second chapter, Vibhūticandra translated
Tilopā’s Gurusādhana (GS, Ō. 5014) while living at Ding ri. Then,
possibly on the basis of anedoctal information he got in the ’Bri gung bKa’
brgyud milieu during his first stay in Tibet (1204–14), he composed in the
Ding ri period this ‘Circumstances of the Outer Sādhana’ (ζ, Phyi sgrub
kyis rten ’brel : *Bāhyasādhanasaṃyoga). In order to put Tilopā’s
Gurusādhana within a hagiographic and anecdotal context, Vibhūticandra
202 TILOPĀ III
introduces the reader to what Tilopā would have said to Nāropā―here

Abhayakīrti (’Jigs med grags pa)―at the moment of their first encounter:
The prince (rgyal sras) Nāropā, due to the seven syllables (yi ge bdun pa)
sādhana,22 received a incorporeal ḍākinī’s prediction. He went eastwards
[from Nālandā] in search of the guru. ‘Have you heard about a siddha, the
guru called Tilopā?’ he asked. ‘Of a guru called Tilopā we have never
heard, but everywhere there is a beggar (sprang po) called Tilopā’, he was
answered.
At the gate of the vihāra called Cūḍāmaṇi (gTsug phud spra bha =
gTsug gi nor bu), there was a ragged cotton clad yogin (ras gha ’ja’ ra
gyon pa’i dzo ki), bloodshot eyed, acting loose and easy. He had taken
five alive fish, and was frying them in the kitchen of the monastic
community. The members of that community rebuked him: ‘You! We
don’t like. Don’t do that!’ they said. As soon as he snapped the fingers,
the fish entered in a large copper water container (chu zangs), alive and
moving quickly.
Thereafter, having tought ‘No doubt he is Tilopā’, he offered a
maṇḍala to him, and asked for the profound oral instructions. At first,
staring him with fixed eyes, spoke thus, ‘If you want to actualize in this
life [the condition of] a perfect buddha (rdzogs pa’i sang rgyas :
saṃbuddha), ...
Tilopā’s Ultimate Apotheosis

In the Marpan tradition the end of Tilopā’s story depicts our siddha as the
aggregation of the bodies of all the buddhas of the three times. We are told
that a King Siṃhacandra (Seng ge zla ba) had invited many siddhas and
asked them to perform consecration ceremonies. Tilopā would have caused
a maṇḍala of coloured powder to appear in the space. As the king and the
people had perceived him in different ways during the ceremony, Tilopā
would have raised a song:
I am Hevajra (Kye’i rdo rje) in the body,

Mahāmāyā (Ma hā mā ya) in the speech,
Cakraśaṃvara (bDe mchog ’khor lo) in the mind,
Guhyasamāja (gSang ba ’dus pa) in the aggregates and elements,
Kṛṣṇayamāri (dGra rgyud nag po) in the limbs,
Vajrabhairava (rDo rje ’jigs byed) in the subtler parts of the body,
The buddhas of the three times in the hairs.
Having so sung, Tilopā was celebrated as the aggregation of the bodies of

all the buddhas.
FIGURE 4 Mural image of Tilopā (15th century).

sKu ’bum, 4th floor, Gyantse, Central Tibet
Notes to the Third Chapter
1
Cf. Bengali caṭi ‘tavern, inn’ (Biswas and Sengupta 1968, s.v.), and Skt grāma-
‘village’ : Pāli and Pkt gāma-, Assamese and Nepali gāũ, Bengali and Oṛiyā gā,
Bihārī dialects and Hindi gāw (Turner 1931, s.v. gāũ).
2
The Tib. term sha pa is for the a ga ru or a ka ru tree (Bod rgya), that is the
Aquilaria (MW s.v. agaru), a tropical tree of the Thymelaeaceae producing a dark
resinous heartwood known as agarwood or aloeswood.
204 TILOPĀ III
3
Caryāgītikośa 11.2: Kāṇha kāpālī yogī pa ṭha acāre | deha naarī biharae
ekākāre = kṛṣṇa-kapālī praviṣṭaḥ pracāreṇa | deha-nagare viharati ekākāreṇa;
Dasgupta 1946: 66; Kvaerne 1977: 113; Bhayani 1997: 95–96.
4
The Kuchean monk Kumārajīva (Jiumoluoshi 鳩摩羅什, c. 334–c. 413)
composed a biography of this Nāgārjuna, the Longshu pusa zhuan (龍樹菩薩傳,
T.2047; Walleser 1923; Dowman 1985: 117–18).
5
We read in the colophon that its unnamed author claims to be a disciple of a
disciple of Par phu pa Blo gros seng ge, thus active in the first half of the
thirteenth century (Schaeffer 2005: 64–65, 72–73).
6
‘Ce qui suit n’est pas de la prophétie’ (Lévi 1930–32: 426).
7
The name is rendered in Tibetan as mDa’ bsnun, that is the ‘One who has shot
(Skt ha[n] : Tib. bsnun < snun pa) the arrow (BHS sara : Skt śara : Tib. mda’)’.
8
These three are famous as Saraha’s three cycles of dohās (do hā skor gsum),
namely, the Dohākoṣagīti (Ō. 3068, Tō. 2224) or People Dohās in one hundred
and sixty verses, the Dohākoṣopadeśagīti (Ō. 3111, Tō. 2264) or Queen Dohās in
eighty verses, and the Dohākoṣa-nāma-caryāgīti (Ō. 3110, Tō. 2263) or King
Dohās in forty verses.
9
Skt mātaṅgaḥ, MVy 5326 for Tib. gdol pa translating both mātaṅgaḥ and
caṇḍālaḥ, MVy 3868, 3869.
10
From a short account by Kun dga’ rin chen (μ 39.4–40.4) we elicit that a sKal
ba bzang mo would have been disciple of Anaṅgavajra (Yan lag med pa’i rdo rje),
the disciple of Padmavajra. Out of her extant synonyms―Su ma ti Blo gros bzang
mo, dPal gyi Blo gros ma, and lCam Legs min kā ra―the last name points at her
as the sister (lcam) of King Indrabhūti of Uḍḍiyāna. We read in the same source
(μ) that Lakṣmīṅkarā, after paying homage to the mahāsiddha Saroruhavajra, and
adoring him (grub chen mTsho skyes rdo rje la btud cing mos gus byas), would
have had visions (zhal mthong) of buddhas and bodhisattvas, got the relevant
instructions (rjes su bstan pa) and attained siddhi. Her elder brother, who was the
king of *Ramyakṣetra (Nyams dga’ zhing, μ 12.3 passim) in Uḍḍiyāna, gave her in
marriage to the king of Laṅkāpuri, in Uḍḍiyāna as well, whose name was
presumably Jalendra (Robinson 1979: 150–51; Dowman 1985: 229), and she went
there practicing the ascetic conduct of mad women (smyon ma).
11
Of the other five sādhanas, two are by Ākaracandra (sTong nyid ting nge ’dzin,
alias Aka sTong nyid ting ’dzin), a disciple of Avadhūtipā, one by Avadhūtipā
himself, one by Virūpā, and one by *Buddhadatta (Sangs rgyas byin) respectively.
12
The Tibetan term dgon pa translates Skt araṇya (MVy 2991, cf. 1134) and
kāntāra (MVy 5267, cf. 2992, 4646, 6626) in the Mahāvyutpatti, while Lokesh
Chandra (1959, s.v.) records in addition aṭavī and vana. The common meaning of
these words is forest, wilderness: in the broad sense of a secluded place where to
perform spiritual practice far from wordly distractions, but later the word ended by
taking the more institutional meaning of monastery.
13
The Saraca indica L.= Saraca asoca (Roxb.) W. J. de Wilde = Jonesia asoca
Roxb. is an evergreen plant belonging to the Caesalpinioideae subfamily of the
legume family.
14
While β, κ and μ put Nāgārjuna first, followed by Caryāpā, the others invert the
order.
15
This eastern location would already exclude the possibility of identifying this
seclusion with the Buddhist monastery of Cūḍāmaṇi in Nāgapaṭṭaṇam, current
Tamil Nadu, that was demolished by Jesuit missionaries in 1867. Moreover, since
the southern Cūḍāmaṇi Vihāra was built at the time of the Coḷa king Rājarāja (r.
985–1014), it cannot have been the theatre of Tilopā’s activity for chronological
reasons as well.
16
Incidentally, we may infer from this mention to yeast and bark that liquor,
generally made by distillation of rice, molasses, flour, and honey, was also
obtained by a process of fermentation of sugar in a solution, which was caused by
the fine powder of the root of a tree (R.C. Majumdar 1971: 458–59).
17
In point of fact, what appears a stubborn resistance in the hagiographies is the
expression of a philosophical question. The problem is also known to the
European culture since the time of Aristotle’s ‘Sophistical Refutations’ (De
sophisticis elenchis, 5, 167b 21–36; 6, 168b 22–26), and amply discussed in the
thirteenth century by the Scholastic Peter of Spain in his ‘Logical matters’
(Summulae logicales magistri Petri Hispani, 7, 56–57), as well as in Dante
Alighieri’s ‘Monarchy’ (De Monarchia, 3, 5). As in the case of the karmic
causality, it is matter of the logical fallacy of taking as a cause what is not a cause
(τὸ μὴ αἴτιον ὡς αἴτιον, De soph. elenchis, 167b 21), or non causam ut causa in
Dante’s words, but only occasion, extrinsic condition, or mere temporal sequence,
as it is the case expressed by in the formula ‘after this, therefore because of this’
206 TILOPĀ III
(post hoc ergo propter hoc).

18
While we read Bhigunagara (Bhi gu nā ga ra) in the bsTan ’gyur editions of
this account of Tilopā, the account of Nāropā in the same
*Caturaśītisiddhapravṛtti has Viṣṇunagara (Biṣ ṇu na ga ra) for the town where
Nāropā would have sought his guru. Viṣṇunagara, ‘a name on the map of the
siddhas’ India in contemporary southern West Bengal’ (Dowman 1985: 155),
might be for current Bishnupur (Viṣṇupura), in the Bankura District of West
Bengal, not far from Kolkata. It was in the kingdom of Mallabhūmi ruled by the
local dynasty of the Mallas and, since the time of Jagatamalla (994–1007), its
capital as well (Law 1954: 271–72, s.v. Viṣṇupura).
19
Kāñcīpura (Kanchipuram) is the capital of Drāviḍa or Coḷa on the river Palār,
south-west of current Chennai (Madras) in Tamil Nadu.
20
The gsang ste ston pa (raho ’nuśāsakaḥ, MVy 8730) is the interviewer during an
ordination ceremony who inquires whether the candidate has the requisites for
taking the monastic vows. According to the Vinaya there are five ācāryas (slob
dpon): 1) dge tshul gyi slob dpon, 2) gsang ste ston pa’i slob dpon, 3) las kyi slob
dpon, 4) gnas sbyin pa’i slob dpon, and 4) klog gi slob dpon.
21
pramāṇamādhyamika°] Tucci 1930, Pandey 1990 : pramāṇam ādhyātmika°
Lévi 1930–32.
22
The recitation of the seven syllabled mantra―oṃ hrīḥ hā hā hūṃ hūṃ phaṭ―is
the practice of approaching (bsnyen pa) the tutelary deity (iṣṭadevatā : yi dam) of
Cakraśaṃvara.
IV — A TILOPAN BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hermès Trismégiste n’existait pas, Hippocrate

non plus―au sens où l’on pourrait dire que
Balzac existe... (Michel Foucault, 1969, Qu’est-
ce qu’un auteur?).
C
olophons, previous catalogues, and other paratextual approaches are
the main material for a catalogue of titles. The words ascribed to
Tilopā can be found in Indic and Tibetan documents. It is matter of
seventeen texts, which require a preliminary description of their
bibliographic details and cultural background.
Indic Material
Tilopā’s Dohākoṣa is the only Tilopan work survived to this day in its
original language. As a matter of fact, what we know of the Apabhraṃśa
text of Tilopā’s Dohākoṣa (TDK) has been incompletely quoted in an
anonymous Sanskrit commentary (pañjikā) on it, with the title Tillopādasya
dohākoṣapañjikā sārārthapañjikā (TDKP). It was discovered in 1929 by
Prabodh Chandra Bagchi in a Nepali manuscript belonging to the private
collection of Hemarāja Śarmā in Kathmandu and is currently preserved in
the National Archives of Nepal. The Dohākoṣas of Tilopā and Saraha
contained in the manuscript were published in 1935 with their Sanskrit
chāyā, notes, and translation in the Journal of the Department of Letters of
the Calcutta University (Bagchi 1935a), and as an independent book with
the same pagination in the same year (Bagchi 1935b). Then, in 1938, they
207
208 TILOPĀ IV
found their place at no. 25 of the Calcutta Sanskrit Series, but without notes
and translations; under the title of Dohākoṣa: Apabhraṃśa Texts of the
Sahajayāna School, the book included other fragments of Saraha’s songs,
and a Dohākoṣa by Kāṇha (Bagchi 1938).1
Since that time, no other first-hand studies have been done on that
codex unicus, and Tilopā’s stanzas were quoted from Bagchi’s editio
princeps.2 In all probability, this lack of attention to the original from the
late thirties of the last century is partly due to the fact that the National
Archive’s Bṛhatsūcīpatra, at no. 5–104, gives as short title ‘Dohākośa with
Pañjikā’, and the colophon reads ‘Śrī Mahāyogiśvara Bhillo Dohākośa
Pañjikā... nāma samāptaḥ’, because of the ambiguity between bha and ta
in Newari script. Nevertheless, thanks to the providential help of Mr. Nam
Raj Gurung, the general manager of the Kathmandu office of the Nepal
Research Centre, the manuscript edited by Bagchi was identified as the one
catalogued as 5–104, and microfilmed by the Nepal-German Manuscript
Preservation Project under the reel-number A 932/4.
The characters of the Kathmandu Manuscript are written in the
bhujimol variety of the Newari script, interspersed with some akṣaras in the
Kuṭila or Post-Licchavi script (Śākya 1974: 4–5, 16–17). The occurrence of
these graphic archaisms leads to think that the manuscript is a sample of the
early phase of bhujimol, a script which was in use since the eleventh
century (Pal 1985: 233). The second half of that century must have
coincided with the flowering of the Buddhist siddhas’ tradition among the
Newars in the Kathmandu Valley, and the Kathmandu Manuscript seems to
provide evidence of that season. It was in a sense the time of Vajrapāṇi, a
disciple of the siddha Advayavajra (alias Maitrīpā, Śabarapāda II, etc.).
As reported in the eleventh book of the Deb ther sngon po, the early
phase (snga) of diffusion of the mahāmudrā tradition in Tibet depended
somehow on Advayavajra, while his disciple the Indian Vajrapāṇi (rGya
gar Phyag na) gave the main impulse during the intermediate phase (bar).
We read therein that Vajrapāṇi went for ascetic practice (spyod pa la
gshegs), asking for alms in Nepal (Bal por ldom bu mdzad). Then, at the
age of fifty, he would have come to Lalitpur (Ye rang) and settled there (Lo
Bue 1997: 648). When in Lalitpur, in 1066, Vajrapāṇi instructed some
Tibetan scholars, among whom ’Brog Jo sras rdo rje ’bar is to be
remembered (Deb ther sngon po 758.3–4, BA 856). On that occasion, he
would have bestowed on them, inter alia, Saraha’s Dohās Trilogy (rgyal po
dang btsun mo dang dmangs do ha ste gsum mo). At the invitation of the
above mentioned ’Brog Jo sras, Vajrapāṇi and his Kashmiri disciple
A TILOPAN BIBLIOGRAPHY 209
Dharmaśrī sPyan gcig pa went to Tibet too (Deb ther sngon po 761.3, BA
859). Once in gTsang, he would have granted teachings on mahāmudrā to
several Tibetan savants (Deb ther sngon po 759.2–7, BA 857). Then he
would have gone back to Nepal.
The text of the Tillopādasya dohākoṣapañjikā sārārthapañjikā is
contained on folios 2–17 of the manuscript, and it is followed (17v4) by the
commentary to Saraha’s Dohākoṣa, namely the Dohākoṣapañjikā (Do ha
mdzod kyi dka’ ’grel, Ō. 3101, Tō. 2256) by the above mentioned
Advayavajra/Maitrīpā. Folios 1, 6, and 13 are missing. The remnant of this
portion of the manuscript has suffered the most serious mechanical damage
on folios 4 and 11, where an average of 9 and 6/11 akṣaras per line are lost.
In respect of its editio princeps, the manuscript should have been less
damaged when Bagchi studied it in the early thirties of the last century. We
can notice indeed that his edition sometimes reads one or more akṣaras,
especially at the right end of the line. On the other hand, in a number of
cases, Bagchi’s readings, integrations, and emendations are questionable.
His restorations of the lacunae at folio 4 are particularly suspect because
the leaf is broken almost vertically on its right-hand side. As we can infer
from the stanzas at 4r2–3 and 4v3–4, the number of the lost akṣaras should be
between 7 and 11 each line, but Bagchi does not take into account the
extent of the missing portions of text.
Even more problematic is the fact that Bagchi’s edition of the
Tillopādasya dohākoṣapañjikā sārārthapañjikā has two stanzas with
commentary (Bagchi 1938: 63–64, vv. 12, 13). Although inverted, the same
two can be found also in his edition of Advayavajra’s Pañjikā to the
Sarahapādasya Dohākoṣa (Bagchi 1938: 146–47, vv. 106–107; see
Shahidullah 1928: 164, vv. 108–109). The second passage should have
begun on the recto of folio 99 but, as we read in a footnote (loc. cit.), folios
99–101 resulted lost. Hence Bagchi’s restoration of the missing portion of
the Sarahapādasya Dohākoṣapañjikā is based upon two other testimonia,
namely the edition published by Hara Prasād Śāstrī in 1916 (his source A),
and a fragmentary manuscript of the Dohākoṣa in the Darbar Library
(source C). Since the two passages appear almost the same, we would have
been on sufficiently assured ground for speculating on the authorship of the
text and ascribing to Advayavajra also the Tillopādasya dohākoṣapañjikā
sārārthapañjikā. But a scrutiny of the whole manuscript has left little doubt
that what Bagchi edited as folio 6 is actually folio 99, with recto and verso
inverted. The folio is indeed broken off on its left-hand side, and the
foliation (number 6) in the blank around the binding hole is probably by
210 TILOPĀ IV
Bagchi himself. Further evidence of that can be found in the Tibetan

translation of Advayavajra’s Dohākoṣapañjikā, which has the two stanzas,
whereas the Tibetan translation of Tilopā’s Dohākoṣā has not.
Tibetan Material
The sources of Tilopā’s works in Tibetan translation can be classified as
canonical, sectarian, and non-sectarian, namely from the collections of the
bsTan ’gyur, the bDe mchog snyan brgyud with the relevant hagiographic
material, and the gDams ngag mdzod respectively.
bsTan ’gyur
In the tantric section of the bsTan ’gyur, we find the translations of ten
texts ascribed to our siddha in the catalogues, i.e. Cordier 1909–15, Lalou
1933: 186–87, Ōtani (1961), Chattopadhyaya 1972, and Robinson 1979:
299 for the Peking Qianlong xylograph Tanjur, and Tōhoku (1934) for that
of sDe dge. Eight ascribed texts are common to both textual traditions of
the bsTan ’gyur, the sNar thang (N) and Peking Qianlong (Q), as well as
the sDe dge (D) and Co ne (C); here, for our convenience, they are listed in
the order of the former textual tradition:
SŚS Śrī-Sahajaśaṃvarasvādhiṣṭhāna (dPal lhan cig skyes pa’i

bde ba’i mchog bdag byin gyis rlab pa), Cordier rgyud.13.24, Ō. 2193,
(ascribed to Tellopa), Tō. 1471 (ascr. to Tillipa); translator: Mi nyag pa
chen po, alias Sangs rgyas grags pa (*Buddhakīrti, Cordier, Ō.), Me
nyag chen po (Tō.).
TCUP Tattvacaturupadeśaprasannadīpa (De kho na nyid bzhi pa’i

man ngag gsal ba’i sgron ma), Cordier rgyud.21.24; Ō. 2371 (Tellipa);
Tō. 1242 (Tillipa); translator: Ratnaśrī.
TDK Dohākoṣa (Do ha mdzod), Cordier rgyud.47.22; Ō. 3128

(Tailopa); Tō. 2281 (Telopa); translator: dPal rnam par snang mdzad
rdo rje (Vairocanavajra of Kosala, Cordier).
MMU Mahāmudropadeśa (Phyag rgya chen po’i man ngag),

Cordier rgyud.47.26, Ō. 3132 (Tailopa), Tō. 2303 (Tillipa); translator:
unknown.
KBhA Karuṇābhāvanādhiṣṭāna (sNying rje bsgom pa’i byin rlabs),

Cordier rgyud.48.59, Ō. 3227 (Telopa), Tō. 2385 (Telopa); translator:
unknown.
VABNBhK Viṣāntarabāhyanivṛttibhāvanākrama (Phyi nang gi dug sel

gyi rim pa), Cordier rgyud.48.88, Ō. 3256 (Tailo), Tō. 2414 (Tillipa);
translator: unknown. The Sanskrit title in N/Q and D/C is
Viṣāntarabāhyanivṛttibhāvanākrama (Ō., TT, Tō.), but Cordier,
followed by Chattopadhyaya (1972: 8), has Antarabāhyaviṣanivṛttibhā-
vanākrama on the basis of the Tibetan title; moreover, Cordier,
followed by Ō., emends the Tibetan title to Phyi nang gi dug sel gyi
‹bsgom pa’i› rim pa.
ṢDhU Ṣaḍdharmopadeśa (Chos drug gi man ngag), Cordier

rgyud.73.27, Ō. 4630 (Tillipa), Tō. 2330 (Tillipa); translator: Nāropā,
Mar pa lHo brag pa Chos kyi blo gros.
AMM Acintyamahāmudrā (Phyag rgya chen po bsam gyis mi

khyab pa), Cordier rgyud.73.32, Ō. 4635 (Tilopa), Tō. 2305 (Tillipa),
Tō. 2306 (mThu can la gdams pa), Tō. 2307 (Glu mkhan la gdams pa),
Tō. 2308 (Mu stegs la gdams pa), Tō. 2309 (Shan pa la gdams pa), Tō.
2310 (Rig byed mkhan la gdams pa), Tō. 2311 (sGyu ma mkhan la
gdams pa), Tō. 2312 (sMad ’tshong la gdams pa); translator: unknown.
Two texts ascribed to Tilopā are present only in the sNar thang/Peking
Qianlong tradition:
NSV *Nimittasūcanāvyākaraṇa (Pra khrid lung bstan). Cordier

rgyud.73.26, Ō. 4629 (Te lo dus gsum mkhyen pa); translator: unknown.
GS Gurusādhana (Bla ma’i sgrub thabs), Cordier rgyud.84.2, Ō. 5014

(Tilopa); translator: Vibhūticandra, at dPal mkhan pa’i dur khrod in
Ding ri. Cordier, followed by Ō. and Chattopadhyaya (1972: 100), on
the basis of Tibetan, emends the Sanskrit title to Gurusādhana, instead
212 TILOPĀ IV
of Gurunamoloka: ‘Titre mutilé, dont la seconde partie représente sans

doute le débout d’une invocation (namo Lokanāthāya)’.
One text ascribed to Tilopā occurs only in the sDe dge/Co ne tradition:
VḌNDh Śrī-Vajraḍākinīniṣkāyadharma (dPal rDo rje mkha’ ’gro ma

lus med pa’i chos), Tō. 1527 (Telopa); translator: unknown.
A text in both bsTan ’gyur traditions, even though no author is given, is

ascribed to Tilopā in the bDe mchog snyan brgyud and the gDams ngag
mdzod:
SUMKPC Śrī-Saṃvaropadeśamukhakarṇaparamparācintāmaṇi (dPal

sDom pa’i man ngag zhal nas snyan du brgyud pa yid bzhin nor bu),
Cordier rgyud.14.8, Ō. 2238, Tō. 1529; translator: Mar pa Chos kyi blo
gros.
Because of its position in the sDe dge/Co ne bsTan ’gyur, between the
above VḌNDh (Tō. 1527) and SUMKPC (Tō. 1529), another text could be
ascribed to our siddha:
VḌBhDCTSN *Śrī-Vajraḍākinībhāvanādṛṣṭicaryātrayasaṃketanirdeśa (on

the basis of the Skt title of Tō. 2345, dPal rdo rje mkha’ ’gro ma lta
sgom spyod gsum gyi brda bstan pa), Tō. 1528.
bDe mchog snyan brgyud

In a recent reproduction of a sixteenth-century Bhutanese manuscript,
containing a complete edition of the bDe mchog snyan brgyud (bD)
arranged and edited by Kun mkhyen Pad ma dkar po (1527–1592), we find
eight works clearly ascribed to Tilopā:
MMU Mahāmudropadeśa (Phyag rgya chen po’i man ngag), bD

1.1.
AMM Acintyamahāmudrā (Phyag rgya chen po bsam gyis mi

khyab pa), bD 1.2.1–8.
AGAA *Aṣṭaguhyārthāvavāda (Zab mo’i don brgyad kyi gdams

pa), bD 2.1–8.

’khor lo sdom pa’i man ngag snyan du brgyud pa yid bzhin nor bu), bD
4, 4 (NGA): 106–135, corresponding to the anonymous bsTan ’gyur text
titled Śrīsaṃvaropadeśa (dPal sdom pa’i man ngag zhal nas snyan du
brgyud pa yid bzhin nor bu, Ō. 2238, Tō. 1529).
SGMA *Sekagranthamocanāvavāda (dBang mdud ’grol gyi gdams

pa), bD 5.1.
NDhG *Nijadharmatāgīti (Chos nyid gnyug ma’i mgur), bD 5.2.
SŚS Śrī-Sahajaśaṃvarasvādhiṣṭhāna (dPal lhan cig skyes pa’i

bde ba’i mchog bdag byin brlab pa), bD 14; translated by Nāropā and
Mar pa (Nā ro paṇ ḍita’i spyan sngar Mar pa Chos kyi blo gros kyis
bsgyur cing zhus te gtan la phab pa’o).
NSV *Nimittasūcanāvyākaraṇa (Pra khrid lung bstan), bD 54.
Another text, ascribed to Tilopā in the sDe dge/Co ne bsTan ’gyur tradition,
is the incorporeal Vajraḍākinī’s instructions to Tilopā:
VḌNDh Śrī-Vajraḍākinīniṣkāyadharma (dPal rDo rje mkha’ ’gro ma

lus med pa’i chos, bD 45.
Given the paramparā of which Tilopā is the first historical guru in the
Marpan tradition, the position of these texts in the collection, albeit not
many, is so pre-eminent that it calls for some closer details.
We are informed by ’Gos Lo tsā ba (Deb ther sngon po 382.3–6, BA
437–38) that Mi la ras pa had ordered his disciple Ras chung (1084–1161)
to find further spiritual instructions. In fact, out of the nine doctrines
transmitted by the incorporeal ḍākinīs to Tilopā (lus med mkha’ ’gro chos
skor dgu), four were missing in Tibet, but according to Mi la ras pa’s guru
Mar pa, the relevant practices were still taught in India. Ras chung went
there and was instructed by some masters, to begin with Ti phu pa ‘The
One of the Pigeon’ (Skt *Pārāvatapāda). This siddha would have been a
direct disciple of both Nāropā and Maitrīpā (Nā ro dang Mai tri gnyis ka’i
214 TILOPĀ IV
dngos slob Ti pu ba), and―what is noteworthy―he is traditionally

regarded among Tibetans as the embodiment of Mar pa’s son Dar ma mDo
sde: thus we read for example in the fourth chapter of gTsang smyon He ru
ka’s sGra bsgyur mar pa lo tsā’i rnam thar mthong ba don yod (Nālandā
Translation Committee 1982: 156 ff.; Bacot 1937: 56–57, 106).
We read in the Deb ther sngon po that Ras chung brought all the nine
instructions to Mi la ras pa (chos skor dgu po rnams bla ma la phul), who
in turn entrusted another disciple with them, Ngam rdzong ston pa (bla mas
Ngam rdzong ston pa la gnang), or Ngan rdzong ras pa Byang chub rgyal
po (Gene Smith 2001: 41). As the latter arranged also a variety of texts on
the instructions (Ngam rdzong pas de la yig sna yang brtsams shing), this
tradition was called among those who developed from him the ‘Aural
Transmission of Śaṃvara’ (de nas mched pa la bDe mchog snyan brgyud
zer). As for the other tradition from Ras chung himself, it was famed as the
‘Aural Transmission of Ras chung’ among those who developed from him
(Ras chung pa nyid nas gzhan la mched pa la Ras chung snyan brgyud du
grags).
All students of the bKa’ brgyud tradition of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism are
conscious of the role of the collection of the bDe mchog snyan brgyud. In
fact it includes spiritual teachings attributed to the primordial buddha
Vajradhara, to the ḍākinī Vajrayoginī or other ḍākinīs, as well as esoteric
instructions ascribed to famous tantric masters. We find therein Tilopā and
his disciple Nāropā, two disciples of the latter, the Indian Prajñārakṣita (BA
375, 384, THBI 306–7, SIL 49, Naudou 1968: 11, 157, 172) and the Tibetan
Mar pa, the latter’s disciple Mi la ras pa, and his disciples Ngam rdzong
ston pa and Ras chung, with the latter’s disciple Khyung tshang pa; then,
jumping one generation, Zhang Lo tsā ba Byang chub ’od zer, alias Phur ba
skyabs or Grub pa dpal bzang po.
According to the Deb ther sngon po (388.3–390.4; BA 445–48; cf.
gZhung ’brel 1.49b3–50a4, 2.49a5–50a7), Zhang Lo tsā ba was an ordained
monk who ‘proceeded to the Paradise of Heruka’, i.e. he died, in 1237 (me
mo bya’i lo la He ru ka bkod pa’i zhing khams su gshegs). He would have
had seventy teachers who bestowed several kinds of instructions on him. In
particular, as for the aural transmission (snyan brgyud), he received the one
from Ras chung―that is the Ras chung snyan brgyud―from three spiritual
sons (thugs sras) of Khyung tshang pa (1115–1176), viz. Shangs pa Mar
ston Tshul khrims ’byung gnas, dGe sdings pa, and the ācārya rTa sgom.
Then, he received the Aural Transmission according to the system of Ngam
rdzong (Ngan rdzong lugs kyi snyan rgyud)―that is the bDe mchog snyan
brgyud―from a disciple of gNyal pa gsung gcad Nyi ma seng ge. Not yet
satisfied, he went twice to Ma gcig Ang jo, another disciple of Khyung
tshang pa, asking for instructions on that esoteric tradition, but she did not
bestow them on him. Eventually, the third time, she would have imparted
the thorough Aural Transmission of Śaṃvara to him.
Not only Zhang Lo tsā ba is one of the masters directly responsible for
the composition, the arrangement, and the transmission of the bDe mchog
snyan brgyud, but also we owe to him the first introduction to the collection
itself. He wrote in fact for his disciple rBa Dha ra shrī (’Gro mgon lha rje
Dha ra shri) a survey of its contents under the title ‘Introductory Notes by
the Translator of Zhang’ (Zhang lo’i thim yig, Torricelli 2001). As already
noticed, this important short text is to be found at the beginning of the same
manuscript of the bKa’ brgyud scholastic manual containing our
hagiographic source β.
The bDe mchog snyan brgyud was then elaborated in the fifteenth
century by gTsang smyon He ru ka. His disciple rGod tshang ras pa
prepared the xylographic blocks for printing his guru’s arrangement of the
collection at Ras chung phug (Gene Smith 2001: 62). On that occasion, he
wrote a catalogue (dkar chag) titled bDe mchog mkha’ ’gro’i snyan brgyud
kyi dkar chag rin po che’i gter (sNyan brgyud kyi dkar chag). Since no
complete set of the Ras chung phug prints has yet appeared apart from
‘occasional sections printed from the blocks’ (op.cit., Preface), rGod tshang
ras pa’s catalogue does not help so much in itself. In actual fact, as for the
teachings included in the fifteenth–sixteenth century Ras chung phug
edition, it is not always easy to detect from the mere dkar chag which text
is which. It is only thanks to the above mentioned reproduction of the bDe
mchog snyan brgyud that we can cast more light on its composition. The
whole collection is indeed preceded (pp. 1–6) by Pad ma dkar po’s mKha’
’gro snyan brgyud kyi dpe tho (Torricelli 2000).
While Zhang Lo tsā ba’s ‘introductory notes’ (thim yig) have been
written in a more curricular perspective, Pad ma dkar po’s ‘text inventory’
(dpe tho) is decidedly more bibliographical. These two authoritative
documents combined with the scrutiny of the texts actually included, form
the basis for a catalogue of the bDe mchog snyan brgyud (bD, Torricelli
2000). More specifically, we can place Tilopā’s works in the context of an
ascetic curriculum associated with the cycle of Cakraśaṃvara, as it was
arranged in the Marpan lineage.
216 TILOPĀ IV
rNam thar and rNam mgur

Formally, the bKa’ brgyud hagiographic sources above discussed are to be
considered an integral part of the bDe mchog snyan brgyud, as it is stated
by Zhang Lo tsā ba apropos of the first of the three wish-fulfilling gems,
the one of the transmission lineage, or paramparācintāmaṇi (Zh 3.1.1). We
read in fact that, regarding the instructions coming from the uninterrupted
pronouncements of the transmission lineage (brgyud pa’i bka’ ma chad pa
las byung pa), there is the succession of the stories of complete liberation
(rnam thar), from Jñānaḍākinī to the root masters (rtsa ba’i bla ma). Yet,
Pad ma dkar po affirms in his dPe tho (pp. 2–3) that the rnam thars have
not been arranged by the majority of editors (brgyud pa’i rnam thar ni
mang bas ma bkod): a fact, we may infer, conducive to the development of
the bKa’ brgyud hagiographic collections known as ‘golden rosaries’ (gser
’phreng).
We find in that hagiographic material some texts that can be ascribed to
Tilopā himself. Indeed, it is particularly noteworthy that the texts are here
given within the narrative sequence of the rnam thar, roughly speaking, in
a chronological order:
TVG *Tilatailavajragīti (β, θ, ν).
VḌNDh Vajraḍākinīniṣkāyadharma (β, η, θ, ι, κ, λ, ν, ξ), reporting

the nine root verses of the same text.
AMM Acintyamahāmudrā (ξ).
MMU Mahāmudropadeśa (ξ).
NDhG Nijadharmatāgīti (ξ).
GS Gurusādhana (ζ).
gDams ngag mdzod

This text collection compiled by ’Jam mgon Kong sprul Blo gros mtha’ yas
in the nineteenth century (gD) includes four already known titles:
MMU Mahāmudropadeśa (Phyag rgya chen po’i man ngag).
ṢDhU Ṣaḍdharmopadeśa (Chos drug gi man ngag).

sdom pa’i man ngag zhal nas snyan du brgyud pa yid bzhin nor bu).
GS Gurusādhana (Bla ma’i sgrub thabs).
Tilopā and the bKa’ brgyud Curriculum

As it appears in the above mentioned Zhang lo’i thim yig, the basic
structure of an ascetic curriculum associated with Cakraśaṃvara is
threefold.
First, the disciple is supposed to become familiar with the extensive
teaching which is the root of the aural transmission (snyan brgyud kyi rtsa
ba rgyas par bstan pa), viz. the Śaṃvarakhasama (Ō. 59, Tō. 415) and all
the tantras of Cakraśaṃvara (Tō. 368–414; Tucci 1949: 263, Wayman
1962: 234).
Second, he has to know the explanation (don bstan pa) of the above
tantras, which is the Adamantine Verses pronounced by Vajradhara to
Jñānaḍākinī (rDo rje ’chang gis Ye shes mkha’ ’gro ma la gsung pa’i rdo
rje’i tshig rkang), i.e. the Karṇatantravajrayoginī or Karṇatantravajrapada
(KT, bD 3), Tilopā’s ‘Small Text’ (gzhung chung), i.e. the
Saṃvaropadeśamukhakarṇaparamparācintāmaṇi (SUMKPC, bD 4), and
epitomes (mchan) and commentaries (’grel pa) on the above curricular
material. According to Pad ma dkar po’s dpe tho (p. 3), three texts by
Tilopā are styled commentaries (’grel pa) on the above mentioned
Vajradhara’s aural transmission (bD 3), namely the ‘Small Text’
(SUMKPC, bD 4), the ‘Disentaglement from the Knots in Consecration’
(SGMA, bD 5.1), and the ‘Song of the Innate Dharmatā’ (NDhG, bD 5.2).
Third, there are ‘three cycles of gems’ following the study of the above
material (de’i rjes su ’breng ba nor bu skor gsum). As concerns the
teachings included in these three cycles of gems―outer, inner, and
secret―parallel to the above first two points, they fulfill the need for a
218 TILOPĀ IV
complete textual basis to the practices.

Since the Marpan tradition regards the Karṇatantravajrapada as the
paramount explanation of the whole cycle of Cakrasaṃvara, it can be
useful to compare Zhang Lo tsā ba’s outline (Zh) with the
Karṇatantravajrapada (KT), as well as with the sixteenth-century outline
of the latter by Byang chub bzang po, the rDo rje’i tshig rkang gi bsdus
don gab pa mngon byung, or rDo rje’i rkang gi sa bcad gab pa mngon
byung, which can be found in the same scholastic manual (yig cha)
containing our hagiographic source β (375–89; Torricelli 1998b: 414–22).
The wish-fulfilling gem of the transmission lineage, or paramparā-
cintāmaṇi (brgyud pa yid bzhin nor bu, Zh 3.1), is the outer (phyi) or first
level, connected with the nirmāṇakāya, in which doubts are removed (sgro
’dogs gcod pa). It deals with the spiritual characteristics of both the master
who teaches and the disciple who is taught (KT 7–9). Thus Zhang Lo tsā
ba:
[3.1.2] As for the instructions coming from the blessing (byin brlabs :
adhiṣṭhāna) of the transmission lineage, there is the sealing text (rgya
gzhung) of the incorporeal ḍākinīs (VḌNDh). For the utpattikrama
associated with the means, the utpannakrama associated with the insight,
and the mahāmudrā associated with the nondual, there is the ninefold
promulgation of the doctrine (bD 46, 47), to begin with ‘Intrinsic vision:
look with the torch of gnosis!’ [3.1.3] As for those instructions coming
from the exalted activities (’phrin las : samudācāra) of the transmission
lineage, there are the eight yogins possessed with the right characteristics
(rnal ’byor mtshan ldan brgyad), or the sealing text on the eightfold
mahāmudrā (AMM), and its condensed meaning (AGAA)...
According to Pad ma dkar po, Tilopā is the only author in the section
connected with the paramparācintāmaṇi. To him are ascribed the three, the
Gangetic Instruction on the Great Seal (MMU), said to be the essential
instruction (gnad kyi man ngag zer), the eight Inconceivable dohā
compositions (AMM), and the Eight Profound meditation processes
(AGAA).
The wish-fulfilling gem of the maturation path, or vipākamārga-
cintāmaṇi (smin lam yid bzhin nor bu, Zh 3.2), is the inner (nang) or second
level, connected with the sambhogakāya, dealing with the cultivation of the
experience (nyams len). The Karṇatantravajrapada distinguishes two
stages in it, viz. outer (phyi), when the four consecrations into the sixty-
two-deity Cakraśaṃvara-maṇḍala of powdered colours are actually
bestowed, that is liturgically celebrated (KT 10–11); inner (nang), when the
consecrations are granted by means of four symbolic consecrations into the
maṇḍala of minium red-like Vajravārāhī, in particular into the one of
fifteen goddesses (KT 12). We find the same twofold division in the Zhang
lo’i thim yig. The former stage (Zh 3.2.1) is the one connected with the
Father (yab), i.e. Śaṃvara, and the latter (Zh 3.2.2) is the one connected
with the Mother (yum) Vajravārāhī. Being the focus of the Father stage on
the ascetic strategies, or means, and the one of the Mother on the insight,
the Karṇatantravajrapada maintains that the maturation path is complete
when upāya and prajñā begin to coalesce (KT 13): which marks the
opening of the liberation path, that is the secret (gsang) or third level after
the two of the maturation path.
The wish-fulfilling gem of the liberation path, or muktimārgacintāmaṇi
(grol lam yid bzhin nor bu, Zh 3.3), connected with the dharmakāya, deals
with the introduction (ngo sprod) to higher and higher degrees of
coalescence of prajñā and upāya. At this point of the path, the four
consecrations are to be performed according to a transcendent or secret
liturgy. A subtle process of sublimation is in progress. The rite, in fact, is to
be interiorized and integrated in the internal, i.e. corporeal maṇḍala (lus
dkyil), by means of meditation and yoga techniques. Once again, the
Karṇatantravajrapada and Byang chub bzang po help us to identify two
stages within the liberation path, the utpattikrama and the utpannakrama.
As for the utpattikrama, essentially dealing with the Consecration of
the Jar (bum dbang : kalaśābhiṣeka), there is a further twofold division, the
common wish-fulfilling gem (thun mongs yid bzhin nor bu :
sādhāraṇacintāmaṇi), and the wish-fulfilling gem of commitments (dam
tshig yid bzhin nor bu : samayacintāmaṇi).
The sādhāraṇacintāmaṇi (Zh 3.3.1) deals with the meditative practices
to perform (sgom bya) in connection with the Consecration of the Jar, and
the mixing of them as equalization of taste (ro snyoms : samarasa, KT 14–
15a). Apart from preliminaries like taking refuge (skyabs ’gro :
śaraṇagamana), generating the enlightened essence of awakening (sems
bskyed : bodhicittotpāda), and so forth in the function of a general
background, the main practice is subdivided into three parts―King,
Ministers, and Common People―as they are characterized in the
Karṇatantravajrapada, explained by Byang chub bzang po, and glossed by
Kong sprul Blo gros mtha’ yas in his edition of the same text (gD 5.45b).
The King (rgyal po) of the practices is the meditation on the union of
Cakraśaṃvara with Vajravārāhī as the immutable dharmatā, in the
220 TILOPĀ IV
abridged, intermediate, and detailed aspect. The Ministers (blon po) are the
guruyoga (bla ma’i rnal ’byor), the ecstatic concentration (ting nge ’dzin :
samādhi) associated with the Consecration of the Jar, and the meditation
and recitation of Vajrasattva (rdor sems bsgom bzlas). The Common
People (dmangs) are the seven yogas (rnal ’byor bdun : saptayoga), that is
the recollection of the above practices, and their integration with the seven,
eating, dressing, sleeping, circumambulating, muttering, washing, and
offering activities.
The samayacintāmaṇi (Zh 3.3.2) deals with the protections to be
activated (srung bya) in connection with the whole set of four
consecrations. As such, it preludes to the bestowal of the three superior
ones. In fact, we are informed by Kong sprul (loc. cit.), the three
commitments―profound, vast, and nondual―are related to the
Consecration of the Jar for the body, the Secret Consecration (gsang dbang
: guhyābhiṣeka) for the speech, and both the Consecration of the
Knowledge of the ritual partner under the name of Prajñā (sher dbang :
prajñājñānabhiṣeka) and the Fourth Consecration (bzhi pa’i dbang :
caturthābhiṣeka) for the mind (KT 15b).
The utpannakrama, or niṣpannakrama (Zh 3.3.3) deals with the
dharmatā, and it is related to the three superior consecrations into the
corporeal maṇḍala. Labelled as the wish-fulfilling gem of the natural state
(gnas lugs yid bzhin nor bu), it corresponds to the third or secret (gsang)
level, after the above two of the utpattikrama. We can distinguish three
main sets of meditative practices in it, namely the six yogic doctrines (chos
drug : ṣaḍdharma), the great bliss (bde ba chen po : mahāsukha), and the
great seal (phyag rgya chen po : mahāmudrā).
As for the first set of practices, ṣaḍdharma (Zh 3.3.3.1), it is matter of
the six-limbed practice aimed at thorough liberation by means of the upper
door in connection with the guhyābhiṣeka (gsang dbang dang ’brel ba ...
steng sgo rnam grol ba’i chos). These six, not specified in the Zhang lo’i
thim yig, are the above listed (1) caṇḍālī, or self-igniting warmth and bliss
(KT 16–25); (2) māyākāya, or self-liberation from the eight conditions of
this world (KT 26–35), viz. gain, loss, happiness, suffering, fame,
dishonour, blame and praise;3 (3) svapna, or self-cleansing from delusion
(KT 36–41); (4) prabhāsvara, or going beyond darkness (KT 42–49); (5)
saṃkrānti, or the elixir which turns things into gold (KT 50–55); (6)
parakāyapraveśa, or rejecting an external aspect (KT 56–60). The
operational focus of these practices is on the energy channels, the cakras,
and vital air; thus the yogin was supposed to be familiar with the essentials
of the relevant subtle physiology.

Pad ma dkar po (Chos drug bsdus pa’i zin bris, 5b5–6a), dealing with
caṇḍālī, explains how to visualise the three main energy channels (rtsa :
nāḍī) in connection with the four cakras. Avadhūtī (rtsa dbu ma) is
visualized in the middle of the yogin’s hollow body as void, red, radiant,
and straight. Avadhūtī goes from the brahmarandhra (tshangs bu ga) to
four inches below the navel.
To the right and left of the central nāḍī, rasanā (ro ma) and lalanā
(rkyang ma) are visualized. They go from the two nostrils up to the top of
the head and then, down to the lower end of avadhūtī, they turn up entering
into it. Both the right and left nāḍīs coil around the central one as to form
the image of a parasol, or of a wheel (cakra), namely the mahāsukhacakra
(bde chen gyi ’khor lo) at the level of the crown of the head, the
sambhogacakra (longs spyod kyi ’khor lo) at the throat, the dharmacakra
(chos kyi ’khor lo) at the heart, and the nirmāṇacakra (sprul pa’i ’khor lo)
at the navel.
Thirty-two subsidiary nāḍīs radiate downwards from the
mahāsukhacakra, sixteen upwards from the sambhogacakra, eight
downwards from the dharmacakra, and sixty-four upwards from the
nirmāṇacakra. In addition to these 120 coarse nāḍīs (rags pa), lHa btsun
(ξ1, Guenther 1963b: 55, 254) describes those of the heart cakra as
branching out into three (8 x 3 = 24), again into three (24 x 3 = 72), then
into a thousand so that the multitude of the subtle nāḍīs (phra ba) reaches
the total of 72,000.
In the rnam thar of Nāropā compiled by lHa btsun (ξ1, Guenther 1963b:
56, 254–55), the vital airs, or winds (rlung : vāyu) are distiguished into five
root (rtsa ba : mūla), and five branch ones (yan lag : aṅga). Each mūlavāyu
is associated with a buddha family, a colour, an element, a seat, and it
regulates a particular bodily function—
apāna Amoghasiddhi green vāyu anus and sex,

(thur sel) (Don grub) (rlung) defecation and
reproduction;
samāna Ratnasambhava yellow pṛthivī navel,
(me mnyam) (Rin ’byung) (sa) digestion;
prāṇa Akṣobhya blue ap heart,
(srog ’dzin) (Mi skyod pa) (chu) breathing;
udāna Amithābha red tejas throat,
(gyen rgyu) (’Od dpag med) (me) salivating, etc.;
222 TILOPĀ IV
vyāpaka Vairocana white ākāśa head and limbs,

(khyab byed) (rNam snang) (nam mkha’) movement
As for the five aṅgavāyus, (1) caraṇa (rgyu ba) in the eyes is responsible
for sight, (2) in the ears samudācāra (yang dag par rgyu ba) for hearing,
(3) in the nose avicārata (mngon par rgyu ba) for smelling, (4) in the
tongue upacāra (rab tu rgyu ba) for tasting, (5) in the skin and the sex
organs vicaraṇa (shin tu rgyu ba) for sensitivity.
Mahāsukha (Zh 3.3.3.2) deals with the practices related to the lower
door in connection with the prajñājñānābhiṣeka (shes rab ye shes dang
’brel ba mkha’ ’gro’i gsang sgrog pa ’og sgo bde ba chen po). The focus is
on the ḍākinīs’ secret pronouncement (KT 61–79).
Regarding mahāmudrā (Zh 3.3.3.3), it deals with the practices related to
the illumining gnosis in connection with the caturthābhiṣeka, or
śabdābhiṣeka (tshig dbang dang ’brel ba ye shes gsal ’debs par byed pa
phyag rgya chen po). The focus is on citta as the gnosis of the three
buddhakāyas (KT 80–103). The text alluded to by Zhang Lo tsā ba is
Tilopā’s instructions to Nāropā, the Mahāmudropadeśa (bD 1.1).
While the Karṇatantravajrapada goes on teaching the antarābhava (KT
104–123), the Zhang lo’i thim yig lacks any mention of it, and continues
enumerating further instructions on those auxiliary techniques to be
employed on the path (Zh 3.3.3.6). It is matter of semiautonomous
practices, such as seminal control, yantras, prāṇāyāma, homa, and so forth,
aimed in particular at transmuting all activities and performances into
saṃbhāras, and preventing the practitioner from obstacles (KT 124–127).
Following the overall instructions which make up the tantric path (lam),
both vipāka- and muktimārga, the Karṇatantravajrapada concludes by
summarizing (KT 128–139) how the fruit is attained (’bras bu ji ltar thob
tshul), as it is styled by Kong sprul (gD 5.47b).
A Tentative Index of the Tilopan Corpus

It is a fact that ‘neither Hermes not Hippocrates existed in the sense that we
can say Balzac existed’ (Foucault 1969: 123). Another fact is that many
texts associated with a single name could be subsumed under ‘relationships
of homogeneity, filiation, reciprocal explanation, authentification, or of
common utilization’ (ibid.). In addition, since in our case it is a matter of an

esoteric, aural transmission, the perspective is the one of a corpus of words
handed down orally. As such, it is eminently dialogic, like most of the
literatures of ancient wisdom.
Typically, a master did not write but spoke. If a word of that master
exists in written form, it is because someone―the disciple(s)―listened to
his voice, transcribed his words, or reported them to someone else. Those
words were indeed passed on, generation after generation, from a master to
a new adept. Like a snowball growing bigger and bigger as it rolls
downwards, the new adept elaborated and reorganized the instructions
according to his own specific vision, and at the level of the disciple he was
in turn instructing. Therefore, since the context is an oral and esoteric one
with such snowball-like effect, the problems concerning the authorship of
many texts included therein are more delicate than in other genres of
written literature.
Let us consider the case of two texts present in the bDe mchog snyan
brgyud, the former with a superhuman-human authorship, and the latter
with just a human one, namely, the Karṇatantravajrapada and the Phyi
rdul tshon la brten pa bum pa’i dbang bskur rin chen gsal ba’i sgron me.
As to the former (Ō. 4632, Tō. 2338; bD 3; Torricelli 1998b), if the
ādibuddha Vajradhara is said to have granted instructions to the ḍākinī
Vajrayoginī, who in turn would have transmitted it to Tilopā; if the latter
memorized these teachings and handed down to his disciple Nāropā, who in
turn passed on to his disciple Mar pa; if the latter translated and arranged
the teachings in the presence of his guru, a legitimate question would be,
who is the author of the work we have? As for the second text (bD 7), if the
words that Mar pa would have received from Nāropā were set down by
Zhang Lo tsā ba after an interval of four generations, who composed it? In
such cases, it seems more reasonable to say that a text comes from a certain
master, than to assume that it is by him.
In this view, it is noteworthy that, while Cordier (rgyud.73.29) and the
Ōtani catalogue (Ō. 4632) give Nāropā and Mar pa as translators of the
Karṇatantravajrapada, Nāropā is styled also its author in the Tōhoku
catalogue (Tō. 2338). In point of fact, we read in the colophon of this text
that the Tibetan translator Mar pa Chos kyi blo gros translated, edited, and
established it in the presence of Nāropā at Phullahari.
Now, if Tilopā’s gZhung chung is considered a commentary on the
Karṇatantravajrapada, the time of composition of the latter cannot be
subsequent to its commentary. Moreover, if we take into account that
224 TILOPĀ IV
Tilopā would have been instructed by the Jñānaḍākinī in Uḍḍiyāna in all

relevant hagiographic literature, in the chain of the transmission lineage, we
may reasonably conjecture that Vajradhara’s legacy arrived to Nāropā
through the ḍākinī and Tilopā (Torricelli 1998b: 386)―
Vajradhara → x ↔ ḍākinī → x’ ↔ Tilopā → x’’ ↔ Nāropā → x’’’ ↔ Mar pa
Further problem, bibliographies rely on time: an enumerative bibliography

lists in fact the titles of the books according to their time of composition,
that is to say on the biography of the author. That time can be established
on the basis of external or internal evidence: as to the former, it can be
matter of whatever document which could link a text to a date, a period, or
a phase in the life of the author; in the latter, the text itself can include some
autobiographical detail fulfilling the same function.
As for our ‘author’, we have indeed pinpointed in the third chapter
seven phases of his life: (1) the tour to south India, and the apprenticeship
under Caryāpā and Mātaṅgīpā, two yogins who transmitted him the
tradition of Kāṇha/Kṛṣṇācārya, Lavapa/Kambalapā, and Nāgārjuna; (2) the
apprenticeship in *Jagāõ (Chittagong) under the ḍākinī *Sukhapradā who
transmitted to him the view of Lūyīpāda; (3) the practice in
*Pañcāpaṇa/Śrīhaṭṭa (Sylhet) at the service of a prostitute, and his work as
sesame grinder; (4) the trip to Uḍḍiyāna, and the stay with the ḍākinīs who
granted him with the Cakrasaṃvaratantra, and the relevant aural
transmission; (5) the homecoming from Uḍḍiyāna, and the conversion of
seven men and one woman; (6) the full monastic ordination in Harikela at
the Aśoka/Aroga Vihāra managed by his maternal uncle and mother; (7) the
abandonment of the monastic life, and his friendship with Nāropā.
Actually some texts in the rnam thars point to specific phases, places,
and individuals in Tilopā’s life: TVG to Śrīhaṭṭa (phase 3); VḌNDh to
Uḍḍiyāna (phase 4); AMM to the period after Uḍḍiyāna (phase 5); MMU,
NDhG, and GS to Nāropā (phase 7). Other texts might be included on the
basis of the bKa’ brgyud ascetic curriculum, as it is the case of
VḌBhDCTSN, VḌNDh, SUMKPC, and SGMA that describe and explain
teachings received in Uḍḍiyāna (phase 4). In the same way AGAA is linked
to AMM, and to the eight disciples (phase 5). Regrettably, even this kind of
approach does not cover all Tilopā’s titles. What is worse, we have no idea
whether these texts were really composed at the time they refer to: after all,
although the action of Dante’s Divine Comedy be in 1300, we know from
other documents that the poem was composed years later.
We could recapitulate the above records into one table, in every column
of which Tilopā’s texts are arranged in the order of the specific
collection—
Indic N, Q D, C
bD rNam thar gD
Material (Ō.) (Tō)
TDKP SŚS TCUP MMU TVG MMU
(2193) (1242) (1.1)
SUMKPC SŚS AMM VḌNDh ṢDhU
(2238) (1471) (1.2)
TCUP VḌNDh AGAA AMM SUMKPC
(2371) (1527) (2)
TDK VḌBhDCTSN SUMKPC MMU GS
(3128) (1528) (4)
MMU SUMKPC SGMA NDhG
(3132) (1529) (5.1)
KBhA TDK NDhG GS
(3227) (2281) (5.2)
VABNBhK MMU SŚS
(3256) (2303) (14)
NSV AMM VḌNDh
(4629) (2305–2312) (45)
ṢDhU ṢDhU NSV
(4630) (2330) (54)
AMM KBhA
(4635) (2385)
GS VABNBhK
(5014) (2414)
As we can infer from the above table, with the exception of the
hagiographies, the authoritative editors of the sectarian and non-sectarian
collections used thematic and curricular criteria, but not all texts are
included. Likewise, the order of the texts in the canonical collections, albeit
within the range of a generally thematic approach, appear put together on
shuffle. For this reason, whichever way we look for a coherent order of the
texts, be it within a thematic, a curricular, or a biographical perspective, it
would not cover all Tilopan production.
226 TILOPĀ IV
Notes to the Fourth Chapter
1
As to these two texts, Bagchi (1938: i) wrote that ‘The former is entirely new
whereas the second is a very correct and more complete copy of the Dohākoṣa of
Saraha already known’.
2
After Bagchi (1935), some verses have been translated by Dasgupta (1946,
1950), while a complete English translation can be found in N.N. Bhattacharyya
1982 (289–91), and more recently in Jackson 2004 (129–42).
3
Dharmasaṃgraha lxi: aṣṭau lokadharmāḥ || lābho ’lābhaḥ sukhaṃ duḥkhaṃ
yaśo ’yaśo nindā praśaṃsā ceti).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Graeco-Roman Sources
De soph. elenchis = Ἀριστοτέλους Σοφιστικοὶ Ἔλεγχοι (Aristotle’s
Sophistical Refutations). Bekker, A. Immanuel, ed. 1831. Aristoteles Graece
ex recensione Immanuelis Bekkeri edidit Academia Regia Borussica. Berlin:
G. Reimer, 164a–184b.
Aristot. Met. = Ἀριστοτέλους Τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά (Aristotle’s
Metaphysics). Bekker ed. 1831, 980a–1052a.
Aristot. Pol. = Ἀριστοτέλους Πολιτικά (Aristotle’s Politics).
Bekker ed. 1831, 1252a–1342b.
Diod. Bibl. = Διοδώρου Βιβλιοθήκη ἱστορική (Diodorus
Siculus’ Historical Library). Oldfather, Charles Henry, ed. transl. 1935.
Diodorus of Sicily in Twelve Volumes with an English Translation. Vols 4–8.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann.
Plin. Nat. = Plinii Naturalis historia (Pliny the Elder’s
Natural History). Mayhoff, Karl Friedrich Theodor, ed. 1906. C. Plinii
Secundi naturalis historiae libri XXXVII. Lipsia: Teubner.
Plut. Alex. = Πλουτάρχου Ἀλέξανδρος (Plutarch’s
Alexander). Perrin, Bernadotte, ed. transl. 1919. Plutarch’s Lives with an
English Translation. Vol. 7. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press.
London: William Heinemann, 224–439.
Porph. Quaest. Hom. = Porphyrii Quaestionum Homericarum
(Porphyry’s Homeric Questions). Schrader, Hermann-Albert, ed. 1880.
Porphyrii Quaestionum Homericarum ad Iliadem pertinentium reliquias.
Lipsia: Teubner.
Ptol. Geog. = Πτολεμαῖου Γεωγραφικὴ ὑφήγησις (Claudius
Ptolemy’s Geographia). Renou ed. transl. 1925.
Var. Rust. = M. Terenti Varronis De re rustica libri tres
227
228 TILOPĀ
(Marcus Terentius Varro’s Three Books on Agriculture). Hooper, W.D. and

H.B. Ash, eds. 1934. M. Porcius Cato and M. Terentius Varro on Agriculture.
With an English Translation. Loeb Classical Library. London: Heinemann;
Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press.
Verg. Aen. = Publi Vergili Maronis Aeneidos libri duodecim.
Greenough, J.B. ed. 1900. Bucolics, Aeneid, and Georgics of Vergil . Boston:
Ginn and Co.
Indic Sources
Abhidhānacintāmaṇi ― Boehtlingk and Rieu 1847.
Abhisamayālaṃkārāloka ― Vaidya 1960.
Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā ― Vaidya 1960.
Karpūramañjarī ― Konow and Lanman 1901.
Caryāgītikośa ― Bhayani 1997.
Dīpavaṃsa ― Oldenberg 1879.
Dharmasaṃgraha ― Müller et. all. 1885.
Nāṭyaśāstra ― Ghosh and Kumar 2006.
Niṣpannayogāvalī ― Bhattacharyya 1949.
Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa ― Sāstrī 1920–25.
Manusmṛti ― Olivelle 2005.
Mahāvaṃsa ― Geiger 1912.
Milindapañha ― Trenckner 1880.
Yogaratnamālā ― Snellgrove 1959.
Raghuvaṃśa ― Kāle 1922.
Saṃvarodayatantra ― Tsuda 1974.
Hevajratantra ― Snellgrove 1959.
Chinese Sources
Da tang da ci en si san zang fa shi zhuan ― Huili 慧立. Da tang da ci en
si san zang fa shi zhuan 大唐大慈恩寺三藏法師傳 (‘Biography of the
Dharma master Tripiṭaka from the great Cien monastery of the Great Tang’).
Taishō vol. 50 no. 2053.
BIBLIOGRAPHIES 229
Da tang xi yu ji ― Xuanzang 玄奘 and Bianji

辯機. Da tang xi yu ji 大唐西域記 (‘Record of the Regions West of the Great
Tang’). Taishō vol. 51 no. 2087.
Da tang xi yu qiu fa gao seng zhuan ― Yijing 義淨. Da tang xi yu qiu
fa gao seng zhuan 大唐西域求法高僧傳 (‘Account of Eminent Monks who
Sought the Doctrine West of the Great Tang’). Taishō vol. 51 no. 2066.
Fo guo ji ― Faxian 法顯. Fo guo ji
佛國記 (‘Record of the Buddhist Countries’), or Gao seng fa xian zhuan
高僧法顯傳 (‘Account of the Eminent Monk Faxian’). Taishō vol. 51 no.
2085.
Nan hai ji gui nei fa zhuan ― Yijing 義淨. Nan hai ji gui
nei fa zhuan 南海寄歸內法傳 (‘Account of the Inner Law Sent Home from
the South Seas’). Taishō vol. 54 no. 2125.
Tibetan Sources
Kahna pa’i rnam thar ― Jo nang rJe btsun Tā ra nā tha,
Jo nang Tā rā nā tha Kun dga’ snying po. Slob dpon chen po spyod ’chang
dbang po’i rnam thar ngo mtshar snyan pa’i sgra dbyangs.
 Photostat: Five Historical Works of Taranatha (Rgya gar chos ’byuṅ,
Kahna pa’i rnam thar, Bka’ babs bdun gyi rnam thar, O rgyan rnam
thar Rgya gar ma, and Sgrol ma’i rnam thar). Reproduced from
impressions of 19th century Sde-dge blocks from the library of Ri-bo-
che Rje-druṅ of Padma-bkod by Tseten Dorji. Tezu: Tibetan
Nyingmapa Monastery 1974.
 TBRC W1KG10418.
Kun dga’ rin chen (source μ) ― ’Bri gung Chos rje Kun dga’
rin chen. bKa’ rgyud bla ma rnams kyi rnam thar rin chen gser ’phreng.
 Photostat: gSung ’bum. Delhi: Drigung Kargyu Publications 2003,
vol. 1, bKa’ babs bzhi’i brgyud pa’i bla ma rnams kyi rnam thar, 1–
41; rJe btsun ti lo pa’i rnam thar dbang bzhi’i chu rgyun, 41–50.
 TBRC W23892.
bKa’ babs bdun ldan ― Jo nang rJe btsun Tā ra nā tha.
bKa’ babs bdun ldan gyi brgyud pa’i rnam thar ngo mtshar rmad du byung ba
rin po che’i khungs lta bu’i gtam.
230 TILOPĀ
 TBRC W1KG10418.
sGam po pa (source ε) ― sGam po pa bSod nams rin
chen, Dwags po lHa rje, Zla ’od gzhon nu. Tai lo dang nā ro’i rnam thar. In
gSung ’bum.
 Photostat: Khams-gsum chos-kyi rgyal-po dpal-mñam-med sgam-po-
pa ’gro-mgon bsod-nams rin-chen mchog-gi gsuṅ-’bum. Published by
Ven. Khenpo Shedup Tenzin and Lama Thinley Namgyal. Vol. 1.
Kathmandu: Shri Gautam Buddha Vihara 2000, vol. 1, 23–46.
 TBRC W23439.
rGya gar chos ’byung ― Jo nang rJe btsun Tā ra nā tha.
Dam pa’i chos rin po che ’phags pa’i yul du ji ltar dar ba’i tshul gsal bar ston
pa dgos ’dod kun ’byung rgya gar chos ’byung.
 TBRC W1KG10418.
rGyal thang pa (source η) ― rGyal thang pa bDe chen rdo
rje. rJe btsun chen po tilli pa’i rnam par thar pa. In bKa’ brgyud yid bzhin nor
bu yi ’phreng ba.
 Photostat: Dkar brgyud gser ’phreṅ. A thirteenth century collection of
verse hagiographies of the succession of eminent masters of the
’Brug-pa Dkar-brgyud-pa tradition by Rgyal-thaṅ-pa Bde-chen-rdo-
rje. Reproduced from a rare manuscript from the library of the Hemis
Monastery by the 8th Khams-sprul Don-brgyud-ñi-ma. Tashijong,
Palampur: Sungrab Nyamso Gyunphel Parkhang 1973, pp. 16–57, 59–
135.
 TBRC W23436.
Chag lo tsā ba chos rje dpal gyi rnam thar ― Chos dpal dar byang. Chag lo
tsā ba chos rje dpal gyi rnam thar.
 Photostat: Śākya’i dge bsnyen Chos dpal dar dpyang. The Biography
of Chag Lo-tsā-ba Chos rje dpal (Dharmasvāmin). Critically edited
by Champa Thupten Zongtse, with a preface by Gustav Roth. New
Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture 1981.
 TBRC W29250.
Deb ther sngon po ― ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal.
BIBLIOGRAPHIES 231
Bod kyi yul du chos dang chos smra ba ji ltar byung ba’i rim pa deb ther
sngon po.
 Photostat: The Blue Annals completed in A.D. 1478 by Ḥgos-Lotsawa
Gzhon-nu-dpal (1392–1481). Reproduced by Lokesh Chandra from
the collection of Prof. Raghu Vira. New Delhi: International Academy
of Indian Culture 1974.
 TBRC W7494.
gDams ngag mdzod ― ’Jam mgon Kong sprul Blo
gros mtha’ yas. gDams ngag mdzod.
 Photostat: Gdams ṅag mdzod. A treasury of instructions and
techniques for spiritual realization. Compiled by ’Jam-mgon Koṅ-
sprul Blo-gros-mtha’-yas. Reproduced from a xylographic print from
the Dpal-spuṅs blocks. 12 vols. Delhi: N. Lungtok and N. Gyaltsen
1971.
 TBRC W21811.
bDe mchog snyan brgyud ― bDe mchog snyan brgyud nor
bu skor gsum.
 Photostat: Bde mchog sñan brgyud nor bu skor gsum. Collected
ancient instructions for the practice of the orally transmitted
teachings focussing upon Cakrasamvara by various masters of the
tradition. Arranged and edited by the Fourth ’Brug-chen Padma-
dkar-po (1527–1592). Reproduced from a manuscript collection from
Bhutan. 2 vols. Tashijong (Palampur, H.P.): Sungrab Nyamso
Gyunphel Parkhang, Tibetan Craft Community 1985.
 TBRC W23155.
bDe mchog spyi bshad — rGod tshang ras pa sNa tshogs
rang grol. bCom ldan ’das dPal ’Khor lo sdom pa’i spyi bshad theg mchog
bdud rtsi’i dga’ ston ye shes chen po’i sman mchog.
 Photostat: bCom ldan ’das dpal ’Khor lo sdom pa’i spyi bśad theg
mchog bdud rtsi’i dga’ ston ye śes chen pi’i sman mchog. A detailed
explanation of the Cakrasamvara and its history according to the
sñan brgyud transmission by Rgod-tshaṅ-ras-pa Sna-tshogs-raṅ-grol.
Reproduced from prints from the Ras-chuṅ Phug blocks from the
library of Rtogs-ldan Rin-po-che. Bir: D. Tsondru Sengge 1982.
 TBRC W21140.
rDo rje mdzes ’od (source θ) ― rDo rje mdzes ’od. bKa’
brgyud kyi rnam thar chen mo rin po che’i gter mdzod dgos ’dod ’byung gnas.
 Photostat: bKa’ brgyud kyi rnam thar chen mo rin po che’i gter
mdzod dgos ’dod ’byuṅ gnas. A collection of lives of the successive
masters in the transmission lineage of the ’Bri-guṅ Bka’-brgyud-pa
tradition in the Nepal-Tibet borderlands by Rdo-rje-mdzes-’od.
Reproduced from a rare manuscript from Limi Dzing Pegyeling. Bir,
232 TILOPĀ
Kangra: D. Tsondu Senghe 1985.

 TBRC W27600.
Nag tsho Lo tsā ba — Nag tsho Lo tsā ba Tshul
khrims rgyal ba. Jo bo rje’i bstod pa pa brgyad cu pa.
 Eimer 1989.
Nag tsho Lo tsā ba — Nag tsho Lo tsā ba Tshul
khrims rgyal ba rNal ’byor byang chub seng ge’i dris lan. In Sa skya bKa’
’bum, vol. 3, 277–78.
 Sa-skya bKa’-’bum (Bsod Nams Rgya Mtsho 1969)
Chos ’byung ― Bu ston Rin chen grub. bDe
bar gshegs pa’i bstan pa’i gsal byed chos kyi ’byung gnas gsung rab rin po
che’i mdzod. In gSung ’bum, vol. 24 (YA).
 Photostat: The Collected Works of Bu-ston. Edited by Lokesh
Chandra. Śata-piṭaka Series, Indo Asian Literatures. New Delhi:
International Academy of Indian Culture 1965–1971.
 TBRC W22106.
Chos ’byung dpag bsam ljon bzang ― Sum pa mkhan po Ye shes
dpal ’byor. ’Phags yul rgya nag chen po bod dang sog yul du dam pa’i chos
’byung tshul dpag bsam ljon bzang. In gSung ’bum, vol. 1 (KA).
 Photostat: The Collected Works of Sum-pa-mkhan-po. Śata-piṭaka
Series, Indo Asian Literatures. New Delhi: International Academy of
Indian Culture 1975.
 TBRC W29227.
sNyan brgyud kyi dkar chag ― rGod tshang ras pa sNa tshogs
rang grol. bDe mchog mkha’ ’gro’i snyan brgyud kyi dkar chag rin po che’i
gter.
 Photostat: Rare Dkar-brgyud-pa Texts from the Library of Ri-bo-che
Rje-druṅ of Padma-bkod. Comprising a selection of ‘Bde mchog sñan
rgyud’ texts and the rnam thar of Mitrayogin written by Rin-chen-
rgyal-mtshan (’Od-zer-’bar). Reproduced from the original
manuscripts by Tseten Dorji. Tezu, AP: Tibetan Nyingmapa
Monastery 1974, 13–24.
 TBRC W30534.
Pad ma dkar po — Chos drug bsdus pa’i zin bris.
In gSung ’bum, vol. 22 (ZA).
 Photostat: Collected Works (gSung-’bum) of Kun mkhyen Padma dkar
po. Reproduced photographically from prints from the 1920–1928
Gnam ’Brug Se-ba Byaṅ-chub-gliṅ blocks. Darjeeling: Kargyud
Sungrab Nyamso Khang. Vol. 22, 1974, 265–301.
 TBRC W10736.
Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs (HS) ― dPal brtsegs Bod yig dPe
BIBLIOGRAPHIES 233
rnying Zhib ’jug Khang, ed. 2010–12. Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs
bsgrigs. 90 vols, Xining: mTsho sngon Mi rigs dPe skrun khang.
 TBRC W1KG10687-I1KG10692.
Bu ston — Bu ston Rin chen grub. dPal bde mchog ’khor lo sdom pa
’byung ba’i sgrub thabs. In gSung ’bum, vol. 7 (ja), 465–90.
 Photostat: The Collected Works of Bu-ston. edited by Lokesh
Chandra, New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture 1965–
1971.
 TBRC W22106.
Bod rgya — Bod rgya tshig mdzod chen
mo, Beijing 1986.
dBang phyug rgyal mtshan (source ν) ― dBang phyug rgyal mtshan.
rJe btsun chen po ti lo’i rnam par thar pa. In rJe btsun ti lo pa dang nā ro
pa’i rnam thar rin po che.
 Photostat: The Biographies of Tilopā and Naropa by Dbaṅ-phyug-
rgyal-mtshan. Rje btsun Ti lo pa’i rnam par thar pa zab gsal rin chen
gter mdzod bskal bzaṅ yid ’phrog. Mkhas mchog Nā ro Paṇ chen gyi
rnam par thar pa dri med legs bśad bde chen ’brug sgra. Reproduced
from a manuscript from Dzongkhul Monastery in Zangskar.
Darjeeling: Kargyud Sungrab Nyamso Khang 1976, 1–157, 159–311.
 TBRC W1KG8722.
Byang chub bzang po ― rDo rje’i tshig rkang gi bsdus
don gab pa mngon byung. In Byang chub bzang po, ed. bDe mchog mkha’
’gro snyan brgyud, CHA.
 Photostat: Bde mchog mkha’ ’gro sñan rgyud (Ras chuṅ sñan rgyud).
A manuscript collection of orally transmitted precepts focussing upon
the tutelaries Cakrasamvara and Vajravārāhī, representing the yig-
cha compiled by Byaṅ-chub-bzaṅ-po. Reproduced from a rare
manuscript in the library of Apho Rimpoche. Vol. I. New Delhi 1973,
375–89.
 TBRC W24891.
sBa bzhed ― Stein, Rolf A., ed. 1961. Une
chronique ancienne de bSam-yas: sBa-bžed. Paris: Institut des Hautes Études
Chinoises.
Mar pa (source β) ― Mar pa Lo tsā ba, Mar pa
Chos kyi blo gros. rNal ’byor gyi dbang phyug ti lo pa’i lo rgyus; dPal na ro
paṇ chen gyi lo rgyus. In Byang chub bzang po, ed. bDe mchog mkha’ ’gro
snyan brgyud, KHA: brGyud pa yid bzhin nor bu’i rnam par thar pa.
234 TILOPĀ

8–28, 29–62.
 TBRC W24891.
Mahāvyutpatti ― Bye brag tu rtogs par byed pa
chen po. Ogiwara Unrai. 荻原雲來, ed. 1915. Bon-Wa daijiten 梵和大辭典.
Tokyo. Rep. 1959. Tokyo: Sankibō. Revised ed. 1934–1974. Tokyo: Suzuki
Gakujutsu Zaidan.
Mon rtse pa (source κ) ― Mon rtse pa Kun dga’ dpal
ldan. dKar brgyud gser ’phreng.
 Photostat: Dkar brgyud gser ’phreng. A golden rosary of lives of
eminent gurus. Compiled by Mon-rtse-pa Kun-dga’-dpal-ldan and
edited by Kun-dga’-’brug-dpal. Reproduced photographically from
the original Bhotia manuscript with an English introduction.
Smanrtsis Shesrig Spendzod, vol. 3. Leh: Sonam W. Tashigang 1970,
2–23 (κ1), 23–47 (κ2).
 TBRC W30123.
gTsang smyon He ru ka (source λ) ― bDe mchog mkha’ ’gro snyan
brgyud kyi gzhung ’brel sa bcad dang sbrags pa (bDe mchog mkha’ ’gro
snyan rgyud kyi gdams pa yid bzhin nor bu skor gsum).
Two manuscript collections of texts from the yig cha of Gtsang-smyon
He-ru-ka. Reproduced from 16th and 17th century manuscripts
belonging to the Venerable Dookpa Thoosay Rimpoche. Vol. I: The
Biography of Gtsang-smyon by Lha-btsun Rin-chen-rnam-rgyal. The
Bya-btang ’Phrin-las-dpal-’bar Manuscript. Vol. II: The Gra-dkar
Rab-’jam-pa Manuscript. Smanrtsis Shesrig Spendzod, vols 11–12.
Leh: S.W. Tashigangpa 1971. Ms. A: vol. 1, 22–43. Ms. B: vol. 2, 97–
118.
 TBRC W30124.
gTsang smyon He ru ka ― sGra bsgyur mar pa lo tsā’i
rnam thar mthong ba don yod. Varanasi: E. Kalsang 1970.
 TBRC W21718.
Zhang lo’i thim yig ― Zhang Lo tsā ba Grub
pa dpal Byang chub ’od zer. Zhang lo’i thim yig. In Byang chub bzang po, ed.
bDe mchog mkha’ ’gro snyan brgyud, KA: Zhang lo’i thim yig.
1–5.
 TBRC W24891.
BIBLIOGRAPHIES 235
gZhung ’brel ― gTsang smyon He ru ka. bDe

mchog mkha’ ’gro snyan rgyud kyi gzhung ’brel sa gcad dang sbrags pa (Bya
btang ’Phrin las dpal ’bar Manuscript).
Ras chung snyan brgyud ― Ras chung snyan rgyud gsar
ma
 Photostat: Ras chuṅ sñan rgyud gsar ma. The corpus of the Ras chuṅ sñan
rgyud teachings, both extended and immediate transmissions, arranged
into a coherent system of practice by the Third ’Brug-chen ’Jam-dbyaṅs-
chos-kyi-grags-pa (1478–1523). Reproduced on the basis of a manuscript
collection recently received from Gru-gu Chos-rgyal Monastery in
Khams. 2 vols., Tashijong (Palampur, H.P.): Sungrab Nyamso Gyunphel
Parkhang, Tibetan 1985.
 TBRC W1KG1812.
gSan yig ― Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya
mtsho. Zab pa dang rgya che ba’i dam pa’i chos kyi thob yig gang ga’i chu
rgyun (gsan yig). In gSung ’bum, vols 1–4; then in Record of Teachings
Received. The Gsan yig of the Fifth Dalai Lama. 4 vols. Delhi: Nechung and
Lhakhar 1970–71.
 TBRC W1KG825.
 TBRC W30183.
lHa btsun (source ξ) ― lHa btsun Rin chen rnam
rgyal. Sangs rgyas thams cad kyi rnam ’phrul rje btsun ti lo pa’i rnam mgur.
 Photostat: bKa’ brgyud pa Hagiographies. A collection of rnam thar
of eminent masters of Tibetan Buddhism. Compiled and edited by
Khams sprul Don brgyud Nyi ma. Tashijong (Palampur, H.P.):
Sungrab Nyamso Gyunphel Parkhang, 1972, vol. I, 1–75.
 TBRC W20499.
――― (source ξ1) ― lHa btsun Rin chen rnam
rgyal. mKhas grub mnyam med dpal nā ro pa’i rnam par thar pa dri med legs
bshad bde chen ’brug sgra.
 Computer typesetting: rJe btsun Ti lo pa’i rnam mgur dang dpal Nā
ro pa’i rnam thar bsdus pa. Zi lin: mTsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun
khang 1992, 55fll.
 TBRC W28882.
Vajrāsana (source γ) ― rDo rje gdan pa. Grub thob
brgyad cu rtsa bzhi’i gsol ’debs (*Caturaśīti-siddhābhyarthanā). In bsTan
’gyur, rGyud, Ō. 4578, Tō. 3758.
Vibhūticandra (source ζ) ― Bhi bu ti tsan dra. Phyi sgrub
kyis rten ’brel. In bsTan ’gyur, rGyud, Ō. 5015.
Abhayadatta (source δ) ― Mi ’jigs pa sbyin pa, Mi ’jigs
sbyin pa’i dpal, Mi ’jigs pa dpal. Grub thob brgyad cu rtsa bzhi’i rnam thar.
In bsTan ’gyur, rGyud, Ō. 5091.
236 TILOPĀ
U rgyan pa (source ι) ― U rgyan pa Rin chen dpal /

Seng ge dpal. bKa’ brgyud yid bzhin nor bu yi ’phreng ba.
 Photostat: Bka’ brgyud yid b in nor bu yi ’phreṅ ba. A precious rosary
of lives of eminent masters of the ’Bri-guṅ-pa Dkar-brgyud-pa
tradition by Grub-thob O-rgyan-pa Rin-chen-dpal. Reproduced from
a rare manuscript containing three supplemental biographies of
teachers of the Smar-pa Dkar-brgyud-pa tradition from the library of
the Ven. Kangyur Rimpoche. Smanrtsis Shesrig Spendzod, vol. 38.
Leh: S.W. Tashigangpa 1972, 14–52.
 TBRC W23181.
Other Sources
Aune, James Arnt. 2003. An Historical Materialistic Theory of Rhetoric.
American Communication Journal 6(4) Summer.
Bacot, Jacques. 1937. La Vie de Marpa le “Traducteur.” Suivie d’un chapitre de
l’Avadāna de l’oiseau Nīlakaṇṭha. Buddhica. Première série, Mémoires 7.
Paris: Paul Geuthner.
―――ed. transl. 1935a. Dohakoṣa (with Notes and Translation). Journal of the
Department of Letters 28, Calcutta University, 1–180.
―――ed. transl. 1935b. Dohakoṣa with Notes and Translation. Calcutta: Calcutta
University
―――ed. 1938. Dohākoṣa (Apabhraṃśa Texts of the Sahajayāna Schools). Part I
(Texts and Commentaries). Calcutta: Metropolitan Printing and Publishing
House.
Bailey, Greg and Ian Mabbet. 2003. The Sociology of Early Buddhism.
Cambridge: University Press.
Banerji, Rakhal Das. 1910. The Koṭwalipārā Spurious Grant of Samācāra Deva.
Journal and Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal n.s. 6, 429–36.
―――1915. The Pālas of Bengal. Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 5, 43–
113.
Barbieri, Alvaro, ed. 1998. Marco Polo. Milione. Redazione latina del manoscritto
Z. Parma: Fondazione Pietro Bembo–Ugo Guanda Editore.
Barnett, Lionel L. 1925–26. The Mungir Plate of Devapaladeva: Samvat 33.
Epigraphia Indica 18, 304–307.
Barua Bahadur, K.L. 1933. Early History of Kāmarupa. From the Earliest Times
to the End of the Sixteenth Century. Shillong: Author’s Publication.
Basak, Radhagovinda. 1913–14. Rampal Copper-Plate Grant of Srichandradeva.
BIBLIOGRAPHIES 237
―――1919–20a. The Five Damodarpur Copper-Plate Inscriptions of the Gupta

Period. Epigraphia Indica 15, 113–45.
―――1919–20b. The Tipperah Copper-Plate Grant of Lokanatha: the 44th Year.
―――1931–32. Baigram Copper-Plate Inscription of the [Gupta]-Year 128.
―――1934. The History of North-Eastern India. Extending from the foundation
of the Gupta empire to the rise of the Pāla dynasty of Bengal, (c. 320–760
A.D.). Calcutta: The Book Company.
―――1949–50. Madanpur Plate of Srichandra; Year 44. Epigraphia Indica 28,
51–58.
Batavyal, Umes Chandra. 1894. On a new Copper-plate Grant of Dharmapāla.
Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 63, 39–62.
Beal, Samuel, transl. 1884. Si-yu-ki. Buddhist Records of the Western World.
Translated from the Chinese of Hiuen Tsiang (A.D. 629). London: Kegan,
Paul, Trench, Trübner and Co.
―――transl. 1911. The Life of Hiuen-tsiang by the Shaman Hwui Li, With an
introduction containing an account of the works of I-tsing. London: Kegan,
Paul, Trench, Trübner and Co.
Bechert, H. 1991/92/97. The Dating of the Historical Buddha. Die Datierung des
Historischen Buddha. Symposium zur Buddhismusforschung, IV (1988), 1–3.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Bhandarkar, Devadatta Ramakrishna. 1931–32. Mauryan Brahmi Inscription of
Mahasthan. Epigraphia Indica 21, 83–91.
Bhattacharyya, Benoytosh. 1924 (rep. 1985). The Indian Buddhist Iconography:
Mainly based on the Sādhanamāla and Cognate Tāntric Texts of Rituals. New
Delhi: Cosmo Publications.
―――1928. Introduction to Sādhanamālā. Vol. 2. Baroda: Oriental Institute.
―――1949. Niṣpannayogāvalī of Mahāpaṇḍita Abhayākaragupta. Gaekwad’s
Oriental Series 109. Baroda: Oriental Institute.
Bhattacharyya, Dinesh Chandra. 1930. A Newly Discovered Copperplate from
Tippera [The Gunaighar Grant of Vainyagupta: The Year 188 Current (Gupta
Era)]. Indian Historical Quarterly 6, 45–60.
Bhattacharyya, Narendra Nath. 1982. History of the Tantric Religion. A Historical
and Philosophical Study. New Delhi.
Bhattacharyya, Padma Nath. 1913–14. Nidhanpur Copper Plates of
Bhaskaravarman. Epigraphia Indica 12, 65–79.
―――1920. To the East of Samatata (On the Six Countries Mentioned but Not
Visited by Yuan Chwang). Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great
Britain and Ireland 1, 1–19.
―――1935–36. Nalanda Plate of Dharmapaladeva. Epigraphia Indica 23: 290–
92.
238 TILOPĀ
Bhattasali, Nalinikanta. 1914. A Forgotten Kingdom of East Bengal. Journal and

Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal n.s. 10, 85–91.
―――1923–24. Some Image Inscriptions from East Bengal. The Deulbāḍī
Śarvvāṇī Image Inscription of Mahādēvī Prabhāvatī, Queen of Dēva-Khaḍga.
―――1925–26. The Ghugrahati Copper-Plate Inscription of Samachara-Deva.
―――1927. Rohitagiri in the Plate of Sri-Chandra. Indian Historical Quarterly 3,
418.
―――1929. Iconography of Buddhist and Brahmanical sculptures in the Dacca
Museum. Dacca: Dacca Museum Committee.
Bhayani, Harivallabh Chunilal, ed. transl. 1997. Dohā-gīti-kośa of Saraha-pāda (A
Treasury of Songs in the Dohā Mātre) and Caryā-gīti-kośa (A Treasury of the
Caryā Songs of various Siddhas). Restored text, Sanskrit chāyā and
translation. Ahmedabad: Prakrit Text Society.
Biswas, Sailendra and S.C. Sengupta. 1968. Samsad Bengali-English Dictionary.
Calcutta: Sahitya Samsad.
Blair, Carole, transl. 1983. Nietzsche’s Lecture Notes on Rhetoric. Philosophy and
Rhetoric 16, 94–129.
Boehtlingk, Otto and Charles Rieu, eds. 1847. Hemak’andra’s Abhidhāna-
k’intāmaṇi, ein systematisch angeordnetes synonymisches Lexicon. St.
Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Bṛhatsūcīpatra — Parājuli, Buddhisāgara, ed. 1960–74.
Bṛhatsūcīpatram. Nepālarājakīya Vīrapustakālayastha hastalikhita-
pustakānām Bṛhatsūcīpatram. Kathmandu: National Archives.
Burke , Kenneth. 1969. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Burrow, T. and M.B. Emeneau 1961. A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary.
Oxford: Clarendon Press – Oxford University Press.
Chanda, Ramā Prasād. 1911. Dinājpur Pillar Inscription. Journal and Proceedings
of the Asiatic Society of Bengal n.s. 7, 615–20.
Chandra, Lokesh. 1959. Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionary. Based on a close
comparative study of Sanskrit originals and Tibetan translations of several
texts. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture.
Carrithers, Michael. 1983. The Buddha: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford:
University Press.
Chattopadhyaya, Alaka. 1967. Atīśa and Tibet. Life and Works of Dīpaṃkara
Śrījñāna in relation to the History and Religion of Tibet. With Tibetan Sources
translated under Professor Lama Chimpa. Calcutta: Motilal Banarsidass.
―――1972. Catalogue of Indian (Buddhist) Texts in Tibetan Translation, Kanjur
and Tanjur (Alphabetically Rearranged): Vol. 1 Texts (Indian Titles) in
Tanjur. Calcutta: Indo-Tibetan Studies.
BIBLIOGRAPHIES 239
Chaudhury, K.G. 1966. Paśchimbhāg Copper-Plate of Mahārāja Śrīchandradeva

(10th century A.D.). In The Nalinī Kānta Bhaṭṭaśālī Commemoration Volume.
Dhaka: Dhaka Museum, 166–98.
Chimpa, Lama and Alaka Chattopadhyaya, transl. 1970. Tāranātha’s History of
Buddhism in India. Calcutta: K.J. Bagchi & Co.
Chou Yi-Liang. 1945. Tantrism in China. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 8,
241–332.
Chowdhury, A.M. 1967. Dynastic History of Bengal. Dacca: Asiatic Society.
Cordier — Cordier, Palmyir. 1909‒15. Catalogue du
fonds tibétain de la Bibliothèque Nationale, IIème et IIIème parties: Index du
bsTan-ḥgyur (Tibétain 108‒179; 180‒332). Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.
Cunningham, Alexander . 1871. The Ancient Geography of India. I. The Buddhist
period, including the campaigns of Alexander, and the travels of Hwen-
Thsang. London: Trübner.
Dani, Ahmad Hasan. 1961. Chandras of East Bengal in Light of the Newly-
Discovered Inscriptions. Proceedings of Indian History Congress 23(1), 36–
44.
―――1966. Mainamatī Plates of the Candras. Pakistan Archaeology 3, 22–55.
Das, Sarat Chandra. 1898. A Note on the Antiquity of Chittagong, compiled from
the Tibetan works Pagsam Jon-Zaṅ of Sumpa Khan-po and Kāhbab Dun-dan
of Lama Tārā Nātha. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 67, 20–29.
―――1902. A Tibetan-English Dictionary with Sanskrit Synonyms. Revised and
ed. by Graham Sandberg and A. William Heyde. Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat
Book Depôt.
Das Gupta, Charu Chandra. 1961. Paharpur and Its Monuments. Calcutta: Firma
K.L. Mukhopadhyay.
Dasgupta, Paresh Chandra. 1959. Early Terracottas from Chandraketugarh. Lalit
Kalā 6, 45–52.
Dasgupta, Shashibhusan. 1946. Obscure Religious Cults As Background of
Bengali Literature. Calcutta: Calcutta University Press.
―――1974 (1950). An Introduction to Tāntric Buddhism. Berkely: Shambala.
Davidson, Ronald M. 2002a. Reframing Sahaja: Genre, Representation, Ritual
and Lineage. Journal of Indian Philosophy 30, 45–83.
―――2002b. Indian Esoteric Buddhism. Social history of the Tantric movement.
New York: Columbia University Press.
―――2005. Tibetan Renaissance. Tantric Buddhism in the rebirth of Tibetan
culture. New York: Columbia University Press.
Dey, Nundolal. 1899. The Geographical Dictionary of Ancient and Mediaeval
India. With an appendix on modern names of ancient Indian geography.
Calcutta: Newman & Co.
Deyell, John S. 2011. Reinterpretation of a Samatata Coin. The First Numismatic
Depiction of Bodhisattva Manjushri. In Bhandare, Shailendra and Sanjay Garg
240 TILOPĀ
eds. Felicitas: Essays in Numismatics, Epigraphy and History in Honour of

Joe Cribb. Mumbai: Reesha Books International, 101–107.
Dikshit, Kashinath Narayan. 1929–30. Paharpur Copper-Plate Grant of the
[Gupta] Year 159. Epigraphia Indica 20, 59–64.
―――1938. Excavations at Paharpur, Bengal. Memoirs of the Archaeological
Survey of India 55.
Dowman, Keith. 1985. Masters of Mahāmudrā. Songs and Histories of the
Eighty-Four Buddhist Siddhas. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Dryden, John, transl. 1697. Virgil’s Aeneid. New York: P.F. Collier and Son 1909.
Ducasse, Isidore-Lucien, Comte de Lautréamont. 1870. Poésies. 2 vols. Paris:
Librairie Gabrie, Balitout, Questroy et Cie. In Jean-Pierre Goldenstein, Jean-
Pierre, ed. 1992. Lautréamont, les Chants de Maldoror et Isidore Ducasse,
Poésies, Paris: Presses Pocket.
Dutt, Nalinaksha. 1931. Notes on the Nagarjunikonda Inscriptions. The Indian
Historical Quarterly 7(3), 633–53.
Dutt, Sukumar. 1962. Buddhist Monks and Monasteries of India. Their History
and their Contribution to Indian Culture. London: Allen and Unwin.
Eco , Umberto. 1975. Trattato di semiotica generale. Milano: Bompiani.
―――1992. Interpretation and Overinterpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Edgerton, Franklin. 1953. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary.
Vol. 2: Dictionary. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Egyed, Alice. 1984. The Eighty-Four Siddhas. A Tibetan Blockprint from
Mongolia, Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Eimer, Helmut. 1989. Nag tsho Tshul khrims rgyal ba’s Bstod pa brgyad cu pa in
Its Extant Version. Bulletin of Tibetology n.s. 1, 21–38.
Elliot, Henry Miers and John Dowson. 1867. The History of India, as Told by Its
Own Historians. The Muhammadan Period. Edited from the Posthumous
Papers of the Late Sir H. M. Elliot. Vol. I. London: Trübner and Co.
English, Elizabeth. 2002. Vajrayoginī. Her Visualization, Rituals, and Forms. A
Study of the Cult of Vajrayoginī in India. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Farinelli , Franco. 2003. Geografia. Un’introduzione ai modelli del mondo.
Torino: Einaudi.
Fleet, John Faithful. 1888. Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings and their
Successors. Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum 3. Bhandarkar, D.R., rev.,
Chhabra B. and G.S. Gai, eds 1981. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of
India.
Fleming, Benjamin J. 2010. New Copperplate Grant of Śrīcandra (no. 8) from
Bangladesh. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 73, 223–
44.
Flood, Gavin. 2006. The Tantric Body. The Secret Tradition of Hindu Religion.
London–New York: I.B. Tauris.
BIBLIOGRAPHIES 241
Foucault, Michel. 1969. Qu’est-ce qu’un auteur? (lecture at the Collège de France
on 22 February 1969). Bulletin de la Société française de philosophie, 63(3),
73–104; Engl. transl. ‘What Is an Author?’ In Bouchard, Donald F. ed. and
Sherry Simon, transl. Language, Counter-memory, Practice. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press 1977, 113–38.
Fryer, G.E. 1872. Note on an Arakan Coin. Journal of the Asiatic Society of
Bengal 41, 201–203.
Furui, Ryosuke. 2013. The Kotalipada Copperplate Inscription of the Time of
Dvādaśāditya, Year 14. Pratna Samiksha, New Series 4, 89–98.
Geiger, Wilhelm, ed. 1912. The Mahāvaṃsa. London: Pali Text Society.
―――transl. 1912. The Mahāvaṃsa or The Great Chronicle of Ceylon. London:
Oxford University Press.
Gene Smith, Ellis. 2001. Among Tibetan Texts. History and literature of the
Himalayan Plateau. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Ghosh, Gaur Chandra and Abhijit Datta. 2012. A Critical Approach to the Trade
and Commerce in Vanga-Samatata-Harikela during the Early Medieval
Period. Barnolipi 1(6), 37–43.
Ghosh, M.M. transl. and Pushpendra Kumar, ed. 2006. Nāṭyaśāstra of
Bharatamuni. Text with Commentary of Abhinavbhāratī and English
Translation. Delhi: New Bharatiya Book Corporation, 2006, 3 Vols.
Ghosh, Suchandra. 2010–11. The Trans Meghna Region: Making of a Sub-
Regional Identity. Journal of Ancient Indian History 27, 220–31.
Ghoshal, U.N. 1934. Somapura. An ancient Buddhist monastery in Varendri.
Varendra Research Society’s Monographs 5, 27–29.
Gnoli, Raniero. 1956. The Aesthetic Experience according to Abhinavagupta.
Rome: IsMEO.
Gombrich, Richard Francis. 1988, Theravāda Buddhism: A Social History from
Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Gray, David Barton. 2007. The Cakrasamvara Tantra: The Discourse of Śrī
Heruka (Śrīherukābhidhāna). A Study and Annotated Translation. New York:
The American Institute of Buddhist Studies at Columbia University in New
York, Columbia University’s Center for Buddhist Studies, and Tibet House
US.
Grierson, George Abraham. 1878. The Song of Mānik Chandra. Journal of the
Asiatic Society of Bengal 47(1), 135–238.
―――1885. Two Versions of the Song of Gopī Chand. Edited and Translated.
Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 54(1), 35–55.
Griffiths, Arlo. 2015. Three More Sanskrit Inscriptions of Arakan: New
Perspectives on Its Name, Dynastic History, and Buddhist Culture in the First
Millennium. The Journal of Burma Studies 19(2), 281–340.
Grünwedel, Albert. 1916. Die Geschichten der vier und achtzig Zauberers aus
dem Tibetischen übersetz. Leipzig: Baessler Archiv.
242 TILOPĀ
Guenther, Herbert V. 1963a. Indian Buddhist Thought in Tibetan

Pespective―Infinite Transcendence versus Finiteness. In Eliade, Mircea et al.,
eds. History of Religions 3(1). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 83
ff.; then in Guenther 1977.
―――1963b. The Life and Teachings of Nāropa. Translated from the original
Tibetan with a Philosophical Commentary based on the Oral Transmission.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
―――1966. Some Aspects of Tibetan Religious Thought. In Eliade, Mircea et
al., eds. History of Religions 6(1), 70 ff.; then in Guenther 1977.
―――1968a. The Royal Song of Saraha. A Study in the History of Buddhist
Thought. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
―――1968b. Tantra and Revelation. In Eliade, Mircea et al., eds. History of
Religions 7(4), 279–301; then in Guenther 1977.
―――1977. Tibetan Buddhism in Western Perspective. Collected articles of
Herbert V. Guenther. Emeryville: Dharma Publishing.
―――1993. Ecstatic Spontaneity. Saraha's Three Cycles of Dohā. Nanzan
Studies in Asian Religion 4. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press
Gupta, Kamala Kanta. 1979. Two Mainamati Copper Plate Inscriptions of the
Khadga and Early Deva Times. Bangladesh Archaeology 1, 141–143.
Gutman, Pamela. 1976. Ancient Arakan, with special reference to its cultural
history between the 5th and the 11th centuries. PhD thesis. Canberra:
Australian National University.
Gyaltsen, Khenpo Könchog, transl. and Victoria Huckenpahler, ed. 1990. The
Great Kagyu Masters. The Golden Lineage Treasury. Ithaca, New York:
Snow Lion Publications.
Hacker, Paul. 1965. Dharma im Hinduismus. Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft
und Religionwissenschaft 49, 93–106; Engl. transl. Donald R. Davis. 2006.
Dharma in Hinduism. Journal of Indian Philosophy 34(5), 479–96.
Harder, Hans. 2011. Sufism and Saint Veneration in Contemporary Bangladesh.
The Maijbhandaris of Chittagong. London and New York: Routledge.
Heras, H. 1928. The Royal Patrons of the University of Nalanda. Journal of the
Bihar and Orissa Research Society 14, 1–23.
Huber, Toni. 1990. Where exactly are Cāritra, Devikoṭa and Himavat? A sacred
geography controversy and the development of Tantric Buddhist pilgrimage
sites in Tibet. Kailash 16(3–4), 121–64.
Hudson, Bob. 2005. Ancient Geography and Recent Archaeology: Dhanyawadi,
Vesali and Mrauk-u. In The Forgotten Kingdom of Arakan. History Workshop
(November 2005). Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University.
Hultzsch, E. 1886. The Bhagalpur Plate of Narayanapala. Indian Antiquary 15,
304–10.
Huntington, Susan L. 1984. The Pāla-Sena Schools of Sculpture. Leiden: Brill.
Islam, Shariful. 2011. Koṭālipāḍā Copper Plate of Dvādaśāditya. Journal of the
BIBLIOGRAPHIES 243
Asiatic Society 53(4), 71–82.

Islam, Shariful and Sayeeda Nasrin. 2014. A Fresh Assessment of Gopacandra in
the Light of Numismatic Evidence. Journal of the Asiatic Society of
Bangladesh (Hum.) 59(1), 31–37.
Islam, Shariful. 2016. A Fresh Assessment of Kantideva in the Light of Newly
Discovered Coins. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh (Hum.) 61(1),
39–47.
Jackson, Roger R. 2004. Tantric Treasures: Three Collections of Mystical Verse
from Buddhist India. London: Oxford University Press.
Ji Xianlin 季羡林 et al., eds 1985. Da tang xi yu ji jiaozhu 大唐西域記校注.
Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.
Johnston, Edward H. 1944. Some Sanskrit Inscriptions of Arakan. Bulletin of the
School of Oriental and African Studies 11, 357–85.
Joyce, James A. 1939. Finnegans Wake. London: Faber and Faber.
Kajiyama, Yūichi. 1965. Controversy between the Sākāra- and Nirākāra-vādins of
the Yogāchāra School. Some Materials. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū 14:
418–29; then in Kajiyama, Yūichi. 2005. Studies in Buddhist Philosophy:
Selected Papers. Kyoto: Rinsen, 389–400.
Kāle, Moreshwar Rāmacandra, ed. transl. 1922. The Raghuvamśa of Kālidāsa.
With the Commentary (the Sanjīvinī) of Mallinātha. Cantos I–X. Edited with a
literal translation into English, copious notes in Sanskrit and English and
various readings, etc. Bombay: Gopal Narayen.
Kapstein, Matthew T. 2000. King Kuñji’s Banquet. In White, David Gordon, ed.
2000. Tantra in Practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
―――2005. Chronological Conundrums in the Life of Khyung po rnal ’byor:
Hagiography and Historical Time. Journal of the International Association of
Tibetan Studies 1, 1–14.
―――2006. An Inexhaustible Treasury of Verse: The Literary Legacy of the
Mahāsiddhas. In Linrothe, R. ed. 2006. Holy Madness: Portraits of Tantric
Siddhas. New York: Rubin Museum of Art.
―――2009. Buddhism between Tibet and China. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Khetsun Sangpo (mKhas btsun bzang po). 1973–90. rGya bod mkhas grub rim
byon gyi rnam thar phyogs bsgrigs (Biographical Dictionary of Tibet and
Tibetan Buddhism). 12 vols. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and
Archives.
Kielhorn, Lorenz Franz. 1888. A Buddhist Stone-Inscription from Ghosrawa.
Indian Antiquary 17, 307.
―――1894. Badal Pillar Inscription of the Time of Narayanapala. Epigraphia
Indica 2, 160–67.
―――1896–97. Khalimpur Plate of Dharmapaladeva. Epigraphia Indica 4, 243–
54.
Konow, Sten, ed. and Ch. R. Lanman, transl. 1901. Rāja-çekhara’s Karpūra-
244 TILOPĀ
mañjarī. A Drama by the Indian Poet Rājaçekhara (about 900 A.D.). The
Harvard Oriental Series, vol. 4. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kossak, Steven M. and Jane Casey Singer, J. 1998. Sacred Visions: Early
paintings from Central Tibet. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Kuwayama, Shoshin. 1991. L’inscription du Gaṇeśa de Gardez et la chronologie
des Turki-Ṣāhi. Journal Asiatique 279, 267–87.
Kvaerne, Per. 1977. An Anthology of Buddhist Tantric Songs: A Study of the
Caryāgīti. Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi II Hist.-Filos. Klasse Skrifter Ny
Serie, no. 14. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget; n.ed. Bangkok: White Orchid Press
1986.
Lahiri, Latika, transl. 1986. Chinese Monks in India. Biography of Eminent Monks
who went to the Western World in Search of the Law during the Great T’ang
Dynasty by I-ching. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Lalou, Marcelle 1933. Répertoire du Tanǰur d’après le Catalogue de P. Cordier.
Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale.
―――1953. Les Textes bouddhiques au temps du Roi Khri-sroṅ-lde-bcan.
Journal Asiatique 241(3), 313–53.
Lamotte, Étienne. 1958. Histoire du bouddhisme indien. Des origines à l’ère Śaka.
Louvain: Institut Orientaliste de l’Université Catholique de Louvain.
Laskar, Ganga Mohan. 1906. Ashrafpur Copper-Plate Grants of Devakhaḍga.
Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 1, 85–91.
Law, Bimala Churn. 1954. Historical Geography of Ancient India. Paris: Société
Asiatique; n.ed. 1976. Delhi: Ess Ess Publications.
Legge, James, transl. 1886. A Record of Buddhist Kingsdoms. Being an Account
by the Chinese Monk Fâ-hien of His Travels in India and Ceylon (A.D. 399–
414) in Search of the Buddhist Books of Discipline. Translated and annotated
with a Corean recension of the Chinese text. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Lévi, Sylvain. 1905. Le Népal. Étude historique d’un royaume hindou. Vol. 1.
Paris: Ernest Leroux Éditeur.
―――1930–32. Un nouveau document sur le bouddhisme de basse époque dans
l’Inde. Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies 6, 417–29.
Lewis, Todd T. 1996. A Chronology of Newar-Tibetan Relations in the
Kathmandu Valley. In Lienhard, Siegfried, ed. Change and Continuity.
Studies in the Nepalese Culture of the Kathmandu Valley. Torino: Edizioni
dell’Orso 1996, 149–66.
Linrothe, Rob, ed. 2006. Holy Madness: Portraits of Tantric Siddhas. New York:
Rubin Museum of Art.
―――2006. Siddhas and Śrīśailam, Where All Wise People Go. In Linrothe, ed.
2006.
Lo Bue, Erberto F. 1997. The Role of Newar Scholars in Transmitting the Indian
Buddhist Heritage to Tibet (c. 750 – c. 1200). In Samten Karmay and Philippe
Sagant, eds 1997. Les Habitants du toit du monde. Nanterre: Société
BIBLIOGRAPHIES 245
d’ethnologie, 629–58.
Locke, John K. 1985. Buddhist Monasteries of Nepal. Kathmandu: Sahayogi
Press.
Lorenzen, David N. 1972. The Kāpālikas and Kālāmukhas: Two Lost Śaivite
Sects. University of California Press; second revised edition: Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass 1991.
Luce, Gordon H. and Bo-Hmu Ba Shin. 1969. Old Burma–Early Pagán. Vol. I:
Text. New York: J. J. Augustin.
Majumdar, Nani Gopal. 1926. Nālandā Copper-Plate of Devapāladeva. Varendra
Research Society’s Monographs 1, 1–31.
―――1929. Inscriptions of Bengal. Vol. III. Rajshahi: The Varendra Research
Society.
―――1933–34. Irda Copper-Plate of the Kamboja King Nayanapaladeva.
―――1935–36. Mallasarul Copper-Plate of Vijayasena. Epigraphia Indica 23,
155–61.
Majumdar, Ramesh Chandra. 1923. The Date of the Khaḍga Dynasty of Bengal.
Journal and Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal n.s. 19, 375–79.
―――1924. The Early History of Bengal. Dacca: University of Dacca.
―――1925–26. The Gwalior Prasasti of the Gurjara-Pratihara King Bhoja.
―――1942. Chittagong Copper-Plate of Kantideva. Epigraphia Indica 26, 313–
18.
―――1943. History of Bengal. Vol. I. Dacca.
―――ed. 1966. The History and Culture of the Indian People. Vol. 5: The
Struggle for Empire. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.
―――1971. History of Ancient Bengal. Calcutta: G. Bharadwaj.
Mallmann, Marie-Thérèse de. 1969. Notes d’iconographie tântrique. IV. A propos
de Vajravārāhī. Arts Asiatiques 20, 21–40.
―――1975. Introduction à l’iconographie du Tântrisme bouddhique.
Bibliothèque du centre de recherches sur l'Asie Centrale et la Haute Asie, vol.
1. Paris: Librairie Adrien-Maisonneuve.
Medhurst, Walter Henry. 1842–43. Chinese and English Dictionary. Containing
all the words in the Chinese imperial dictionary, arranged according to the
radicals. Batavia: Parapattan.
Meisezahl, Richard O. 1967. Die Göttin Vajravārāhī. Eine ikonographische Studie
nach einem Sādhana-text von Advayavajra. Sonderabdruck aus Oriens 18–19.
Leiden: E.J Brill.
Mills, E.M. 1993. A Copper Plate from the Reign of Śrīcandra (Bangladesh
National Museum Accession Number 77.1478). South Asian Studies 9, 77–86.
Mitchiner, Michael. 2000. The Land of Water. Coinage and History of Bangladesh
and later Arakan circa 300 BC to the present day. Sanderstead, London:
246 TILOPĀ
Hawkins.
Mitra, Rajendralal. 1882. Sanskrit Buddhist Literature of Nepal. Calcutta: Asiatic
Society of Bengal.
―――1885. On a Copper Plate Inscription from Dacca. Proceedings of the
Asiatic Society of Bengal, 49–52.
Monier-Williams, Monier. 1899. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Morrison, Barrie M. 1970. Political Centres and Cultural Regions in Early
Bengal. The Association for Asian Studies: Monographs and Papers, no. 25.
Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Max Müller, Friedrich, H. Wenzel and Kenjiu Kasawara, eds. 1885. The Dharma-
samgraha: An Ancient Collection of Buddhist Technical Terms. Oxford:
Oxford University Press; repr. Varanasi: Pilgrims Publishing, 2005.
Nālandā Translation Committee, transl. 1982. The Life of Marpa the Translator.
Boston: Shambhala.
Nasir, Noman. 2016. Coins of King Kāntideva of Harikela Kingdom. Journal of
Northeast Researches 7, 20–26
Nasir, Noman and Nicholas Rhodes. 2010. A Hoard of Coins of the Candra
Dynasty of Arakan. Pratna Samiksha n.s. I, 155–61.
Naudou, Jean. 1968. Les Bouddhistes Kaśmīriens au Moyen Âge. Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France.
Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. 1873–74. Rhetorik. In Nietzsche, F.W. 1922.
Gesammelte Werke. Vol. 5. München: Musarion Verlag, 287–319.
―――1887. Zur Genealogie der Moral, Eine Streitschrift. Leipzig: Verlag von C.
G. Neumann.
Obermiller, Eugene E., transl. 1932. History of Buddhism in India and Tibet by
Bu-ston. Part 2. Heidelberg: Harrassowitz.
Oldenberg, Hermann, ed. transl. 1879. The Dīpavaṃsa. An Ancient Buddhist
Historical Record. London-Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate.
Olivelle, Patrick, ed. transl. 2005. Manu’s Code of Law. A critical edition and
translation of the Mānava-Dharmaśāstra. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ōtani — Suzuki, Taisetz Teitaro, ed. 1961. The Tibetan
Tripitaka. Peking edition. Reprinted under the supervision of the Otani
University, Kyoto. Catalogue and Index. Tokyo-Kyoto: Tibetan Tripitaka
Research Institute.
Pal, Pratapaditya. 1985. Art of Nepal: A Catalogue of the Los Angeles County
Museum of Art Collection.
Pandey, Janardan, ed. 1990. Amanasikārakramaḥ. Dhīḥ 10, 8–12.
Parabrahma Sastry, P.V. 1990. Srisailam, Its History and Cult. Srisaila: Srisaila
Devasthanam Publications.
Pargiter, F.E. 1910. Three Copper-Plate Grants from East Bengal. Indian
Antiquary 39, 193–216.
BIBLIOGRAPHIES 247
―――1911. The Ghāgrāhāṭi (Koṭwālipāṛā) Grant and Three Other Copper-Plate

Grants. Journal and Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal n.s. 7, 474–
502.
Passavanti, Marco. 2008. The Bla ma brgyud pa’i rim pa: A Thirteenth-Century
Work on the Dohā Lineage of Saraha. In Almogi, O. ed. Contributions to
Tibetan Buddhist Literature. Halle: International Institute for Tibetan and
Buddhist Studies 2008, 435–89.
Paul, Pramode Lal. 1939. The early History of Bengal (From the Earliest Times to
the Muslim Conquest). Calcutta: Indian Research Institute.
Peirce , Charles S. 1931–58. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. 8
volumes (vols 1–6, Hartshorne, C. and P. Weiss, eds, vols 7–8, Burks, A.W.,
ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Petech, Luciano. 1984. Mediaeval History of Nepal. Rome: IsMEO.
Phayre, Arthur P. 1844. On the History of Arakan. Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society of Bengal 145, 23–52.
Propp, Vladimir Jakovlevič. 1928. Morfologiia skazki. Leningrad. Engl. transl.
Morphology of the Folktale. Bloomington: Indiana University Research
Center, 1958.
Qanungo, Suniti Bhushan. 1988. A History of Chittagong. Vol. I. From Ancient
Times Down to 1761. Chittagong: Dipankar Qanungo.
Rajaguru, Satyanarayan. 1963. Jayarampur Copper Plate Inscription of the Time
of Gopacandra. Orissa Historical Research Journal 11(4), 206–33.
Reclus, Élisée. 1876–1894. Nouvelle géographie universelle: la Terre et les
hommes. Paris: Librairie Hachette. Engl. transl. A.H. Keane. The Earth and its
Inhabitants: The Universal Geography. Vol. 8. India and Indo-China.
London: J.S. Virtue & Co.
Renou, Louis, ed. transl. 1925, La Géographie de Ptolémée. L’Inde (VII, 1–4).
Texte établi. Paris: Champion.
Reu, Pandit Bisheshwar Nath. 1933. History of the Rāshṭrakūṭas (Rāṭhōḍas).
From the beginning to the migration of Rao Siha towards Marwar. Jodhpur:
The Archaeological Department.
Rhys Davids, T.W. transl. 1894. The Questions of King Milinda. Part II. Sacred
Books of the East 36. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, Peter A. 2007. The Biographies of Rechungpa: The evolution of a Tibetan
hagiography. London–New York: Routledge.
Robinson, James B. 1979. Buddha’s Lions. The Lives of the Eighty-Four Siddhas.
“Caturaśīti-siddha-pravṛtti” by Abhayadatta. Translated into Tibetan as
“Grub thob brgyad cu rtsa bzhi’i lo rgyus” by sMon-grub Shes-rab. Berkeley:
Dharma Publishing.
Roerich, George N., transl. 1949. The Blue Annals by ’Gos Lotsawa. Calcutta:
Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal. Reprint 1979, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
―――transl. 1959. Biography of Dharmasvāmin (Chag lo-tsā-ba Chos-rje-dpal)
248 TILOPĀ
a Tibetan Monk Pilgrim. Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute.

Roşu, Arion. 1969. A la recherche d’un tīrtha énigmatique du Dekkan médiéval.
Bulletin de l’École Française d’Extrême Orient 55, 23–57.
Śākya, Hemarāj. 1974. Nepāla lipi-prakāśa. Kathmandu: Royal Academy.
Sachau, Edward C. 1910. Alberuni’s India. An Account of the Religion,
Philosophy, Literature, Geography, Chronology, Astronomy, Customs, Laws
and Astrology of India about A.D. 1030. An English Edition, with Notes and
Indices. 2 vols. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. 1910.
Sanderson, Alexis. 2009. The Śaiva Age. The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism
during the Early Medieval Period. In Einoo, Shingo, ed. 2009. Genesis and
Development of Tantrism. Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture.
Sankrityayan, Rahula (Bhikṣu Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana). 1934. Recherches
bouddhiques. Journal Asiatique, Oct.-Déc., 195–230.
Sarao, Karam Tej. 1990. Urban Centres and Urbanization as Reflected in the Pāli
Vinaya and Sutta Piṭakas. Delhi: Vidyanidhi.
Sāstrī, T. Gaṇapati, ed. 1920–25. The Ārya-mañjuśrīmūlakalpa. Part I (1920), Part
II (1922), Part III (1925). Trivandrum: The Superintendent Government Press.
Sastri, Haraprasadh. 1915–16. The Susunia Rock Inscription of Chandravarman.
Epigraphia Indica 13, 133.
Sastri, Hirananda. 1924. The Nalanda Copper-Plate of Devapaladeva. Epigraphia
Indica 17, 310–27.
―――1942. Nalanda and its Epigraphic Material. Memoirs of the Archaeological
Survey of India 66. Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.
Schaeffer, Kurtis R. 2000. The Religious Career of Vairocanavajra. A Twelfth
century Indian Buddhist master from Dakṣiṇa Kośala. Journal of Indian
Philosophy 28(4), 361–84.
―――2005. Dreaming the Great Brahmin. Tibetan Traditions of the Buddhist
Poet-Saint Saraha. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schiefner, Franz Anton. 1869. Tāranātha’s Geschichte des Buddhismus in Indien.
St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Schmid, Toni. 1958. The Eighty-Five Siddhas. Reports from the scientific
expedition to the North-Western provinces of China under the leadership of
Dr. Sven Hedin. Sino-Swedish Expedition, no. 42. Stockholm: Statens
Etnografiska Museum.
Schoff, Wilfred H., transl. 1912. The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea. Travel and
Trade in the Indian Ocean by a Merchant of the First Century. Translated
from the Greek and annotated by Wilfred H. Schoff. New York: Longmans,
Green and Co.
Sempa Dorje (Sems dpa’ rDo rje), Acharya, ed. Hindi transl. 1979.
Abhayadattaśrī (Slob dpon Mi ’jigs sbyin). Caurāsī Siddhoṃ kā Vṛttānta
(Grub thob brgyad cu rtsa bzhi’i lo rgyus). Sarnath: Central Institute of
Higher Tibetan Studies.
BIBLIOGRAPHIES 249
Sen, Prabhas Chandra. 1929. Mahasthan and its Environs (With a map and
illustrations). Varendra Research Society’s Monographs 2.
Sen, Dinesh Chandra. 1920. The Folk-Literature of Bengal. Being Lectures
delivered to the Calcutta University in 1917, as Ramtanu Lahiri Research
Fellow in the History of Bengali Language and Literature. Calcutta:
University of Calcutta.
Shahidullah, Mohammed. 1928. Les chants mystiques de Kāṇha et de Saraha. Les
Dohā-koṣa (en apabhraṃśa, avec les versions tibétaines) et les Caryā (en
vieux-bengali). Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve.
Shastri, Lobsang. 2009 Jalandhara in the Eyes of Tibetan and Trans-Himalayan
Pilgrims. Tibet Journal 34(2), 3–33.
Śāstrī, Hara Prasād, ed. 1916. Hājār bacharēr purāṇa Bāṅgālā bhāṣāy Baudha
gān ō dōhā (‘Buddhist Songs and Couplets in the Bengali Language a
Thousand Years Old’). Calcutta: Vaṅgīya Sāhitya Pariṣat Series no. 55.
Shaw, Richard. 1997. Srisailam: Centre of the Siddhas. South Asian Studies 13,
161–78.
Singh, Bireshwar Prasād. 1967. Nāropa, his Life and Activities. Journal of the
Bihar Research Society 53, 117–129.
Sircar, Dinesh Chandra. 1947. The Kailan Copper-plate of king Śrīdhāraṇa Rāta of
Samataṭa. Indian Historical Quarterly 23, 221–41.
―――1949–50. Epigraphic notes: 3. Madanpur Plate of Śrīcandra, Year 46.
―――1951. Copper-Plate Inscription of King Bhavadeva of Devaparvata.
Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal – Letters 17, 83–94.
―――1957–58. Inscriptions of the Chandras of Arakan. Epigraphia Indica 32,
103–109.
―――1959–60a. Dhulla Plate of Srichandra. Epigraphia Indica 33, 134–40.
―――1959–60b. Bhaturya Inscription of Rajyapala. Epigraphia Indica 33, 150–
54.
―――1961. Note on Nesarika Grant of Govinda III: Saka 727. Epigraphia Indica
34, 123–40.
―――1967–68. Pashimbhag Plate of Srichandra, Year 5. Epigraphia Indica 37,
289–304.
―――1971. Studies in the Geography of Ancient and Medieval India. Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass, second edition.
―――1973. The Śākta Pīṭhas. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, second revised
edition.
―――1979. Some Epigraphical Records of the Medieval Period from Eastern
India. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications.
Snellgrove, David L. 1959. The Hevajra Tantra. A Critical Study. Part 1:
Introduction and Translation. Part 2: Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts. London:
Oxford University Press.
250 TILOPĀ
Snellgrove, David L. and Tadeusz Skorupski. 1980. The Cultural Heritage of

Ladakh. 2: Zangskar and the Cave Temples of Ladakh. New Delhi: Vikas
Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.
Stearns, Cyrus. 1996. The Life and Tibetan Legacy of the Indian Mahāpaṇḍita
Vibhūticandra. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies
19, 127–171.
―――2001. Luminous Lives. The Story of the Early Masters of the Lam ’bras
Tradition in Tibet. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Tagare, Ganesh Vasudev. 1948. Historical Grammar of Apabhraṃśa. Poona
(Delhi 1987).
Taishō — Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎, Watanabe
Kaikyoku 渡辺海旭 et al. eds 1924–32. Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō
大正新脩大藏經. 100 vols (revised version of the Chinese Buddhist canon
compiled during the Taishō era, 1912–26, with its Japanese commentaries).
Tokyo: Taishō Issaikyō Kankōkai.
Takakusu, Junjirō, transl. 1896. A Record of the Buddhist Religion as Practised in
India and the Malay Archipelago (A.D. 651–695) by I-tsing. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Tatz, Mark. 1987. The Life of the Siddha-Philosopher Maitrīgupta. Journal of the
American Oriental Society 107, 695–711.
Templeman, David, transl. 1983. Tāranātha’s bKa’ babs bdun ldan. The Seven
Instruction Lineages by Jo nang Tāranātha. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan
Works and Archives.
―――1989. Tāranātha’s Life of Kṛṣṇācārya/Kāṇha. Dharamsala: Library of
Tibetan Works and Archives.
―――2010. ‘South of the Border’: Tāranātha’s Perceptions of India. Tibet
Journal Special Issue, 231–42.
Tibetan Tripitaka — Suzuki, Daisetz Teitaro, ed. 1955–61. The
Tibetan Tripitaka. Peking edition. Reprinted under the supervision of the
Otani University, Kyoto. Vols 1–45 Bkaḥ-ḥgyur. Vols 46–150 Bstan-ḥgyur.
Vol. 151 Dkar-chag. Vols 152–164 Extra (Btsoṅ Kha Pa / Lcaṅ Skya). Vol.
165–168 Catalogue. Tokyo-Kyoto: Tibetan Tripitaka Research Institute.
Tibskrit — Martin, Dan. 2011. Tibskrit Philology. ed.
Alexander Cherniak. On-line edition.
Tiso, Francis and Fabrizio Torricelli, ed. transl. 1991. The Tibetan Text of
Tilopa’s Mahāmudropadeśa. East and West 41(1–4), 205–229.
Tōhoku — Ui, Hakuju and Munetada Suzuki, Yenshō
Kanakura and Tōkan Tada, eds 1934. A Complete Catalogue of the Tibetan
Buddhist Canons (Bkaḥ-ḥgyur and Bstan-ḥgyur). Sendai: Tōhoku Imperial
University.
Torricelli, Fabrizio. 1993. Chos drug and bKa’-babs bzhi: Material for a
Biography of the Siddha Tilopa. East and West 43, 185–98.
BIBLIOGRAPHIES 251
―――1996. The Tibetan Text of Tilopa’s Ṣaḍdharmopadeśa. East and West

46(1–2), 145–166.
―――1998a. A Thirteenth Century Tibetan Hymn to the Siddha Tilopa. Tibet
Journal 23(1), 3–17.
―――1998b. The Tibetan Text of the Karṇatantravajrapada. East and West
48(3–4), 385–423.
―――2000. Padma dkar-po’s Arrangement of the bDe-mchog snyan-brgyud.
East and West 50(1–4), 359–386.
―――2001. Zhang Lo-tsā-ba’s Introduction to the Aural Transmission of
Śaṃvara. In Torella, Raffaele, ed. Le parole e i marmi. Studi in onore di
Raniero Gnoli nel suo 70° compleanno. Serie Orientale Roma 92. Roma:
Istituto italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente.
―――2007. The Tibetan Text of Tilopa’s Acintyamahāmudrā. 1 – The
Instruction to the Yogin. Tibet Journal 32(4), 3–32.
Torricelli, Fabrizio and Sangye T. Naga, ed. transl. 1995. The Life of the
Mahāsiddha Tilopa by Mar pa Chos kyi Blo gros. Dharamsala: Library of
Tibetan Works and Archives.
Trenckner, Vilhelm, ed. 1880. The Milindapañho. Being Dialogues between King
Milinda and the Buddhist Sage Nāgasena. Pali Text Society. London:
Williams and Norgate.
Tsuda, Shinichi, ed. and transl. 1974. The Saṃvarodaya-Tantra. Selected
Chapters. Tokyo: Hokuseido Press.
Tucci , Giuseppe. 1923–29. Linee di una storia del materialismo indiano. Roma.
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Mem. Morali Storiche e Filologiche, V,
17(7), 242–310, VI, 2(10), 667–713; then in Tucci 1971, 49–155.
―――1930. Animadversiones Indicae 6. A Sanskrit biography of the Siddhas and
some questions connected with Nāgārjuna. Journal and Proceedings of the
Asiatic Society of Bengal 26, 125–60; then in Tucci 1971, 209–24.
―――1933. Indo-tibetica II. Rin c’en bzaṅ po e la rinascita del Buddhismo nel
Tibet intorno al Mille. Roma: Reale Accademia d’Italia.
―――1935. Indo-tibetica III. I templi del Tibet centrale ed il loro simbolismo
artistico. Parte II: Tsaparang. Roma: Reale Accademia d’Italia.
―――1940. The Travels of Tibetan Pilgrims in the Swat Valley. Calcutta. Then
in Tucci 1971: 369–418.
―――1949. Tibetan Painted Scrolls. Roma: Libreria dello Stato.
―――1955–56. The Symbolism of the Temple of bSam-yas. East and West 6,
279–81.
―――1971. Opera minora. Università di Roma. Studi orientali pubblicati a cura
della Scuola Orientale, Vol. VI. Roma: Giovanni Bardi Editore.
Turner, Ralph Lilley. 1931. A Comparative and Etymological Dictionary of the
Nepali Language. London: Kegan Paul.
Vaidya, P.L., ed. 1960. Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā with Harībhadra’s
252 TILOPĀ
Commentary called ‘Āloka’. Darbhanga: The Mithila Institute of Post-

Graduate Studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning.
Vasu, Nagendranatha. 1895. Susunia Rock Inscription of Candravarman.
Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 177–80.
Vitali, Roberto. 2012. Grub chen U rgyan pa and the Mongols of China. In Vitali,
Roberto, ed. 2012. Studies on the History and Literature of Tibet and the
Himalaya. Kathmandu: Vajra Publications.
Vogel, Jean Philippe. 1929–30. Prakrit Inscriptions from a Buddhist Site at
Nagarjunikonda. Epigraphia Indica 20, 1–37.
Walleser, Max. 1923. The Life of Nāgārjuna from Tibetan and Chinese Sources.
Transl. of the unpublished German original (1922). Asia Major (Hirth
Anniversary volume), 421–55.
Wayman, Alex. 1962. Received Teachings of Tibet and Analysis of the Tantric
Canon. Indo-Asian Studies, Part 1; then in Wayman, Alex. The Buddhist
Tantras: Light on Indo-Tibetan Esotericism. London: Kegan Paul
International 1973, 225–239.
―――1977. Yoga of the Guhyasamājatantra. The Arcane Lore of Forty Verses:
A Buddhist Tantra Commentary. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Weber, Maximilian Karl Emil. 1921. Die Wirtschaftsethik der Weltreligionen.
Hinduismus und Buddhismus. Tübingen; Engl. transl. Hans H. Gerth and Don
Martindale, eds. 1958. The Religion of India: The Sociology of Hinduism and
Buddhism. New York: The Free Press (n.ed. New Delhi: Munshiram
Manoharlal 2007).
―――1922. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Engl. transl. Henderson, Alexander
Morell and Talcott Parsons 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic
Organization. New York: Oxford University Press.
White, David Gordon. 1997. The Alchemical Body: Siddha Traditions in Medieval
India. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wicks, Robert S. 1992. Money, Markets, and Trade in Early Southeast Asia. The
development of indigenous monetary systems to AD 1400. Ithaca: Cornell
Southeast Asia Program Publications.
Wilkins, Charles. 1798. A Royal Grant of Land Engraved on a Copper Plate,
bearing date Twenty-Three Years before Christ, and discovered among the
Ruins at Mongueer. Asiatick Researches, or Transactions of the Society
Instituted in Bengal for Inquiring into the History and Antiquities, the Arts,
Sciences, and Literature of Asia. 1(3), 123–130.
Wylie, Turrel V. 1982. Dating the Death of Nāropa. In Indological and Buddhist
Studies. Volume in Honour of Prof. J.W. de Jong on His Sixtieth Birthday.
Canberra, 687–92.
Yeasmin, Alea and M. Nazrul Islam. 2011. Changing Trends of Channel Pattern
of the Ganges-Padma River. International Journal of Geomatics and
Geosciences 2(2), 669–75.
INDEX
*Aṣṭaguhyārthāvavāda; 223; 261 *Sukhapradā; 167; 199; 211; 217; 275

*Bāhyasādhanasaṃyoga; 100; 248 *Tilatailavajragīti; 128; 131; 137; 213;
*Bāhyasiddhipratītyasamutpāda; 100 266
*Buddhadatta; 251 *Umākesara; 212
*Caturaśītisiddhapravṛtti (Grub thob *Vaktrakrodhā; 188
brgyad cu rtsa bzhi’i rnam thar); 97; ’Bri gung bKa’ brgyud pa tradition; 102;
98; 226; 240; 252 105; 106; 108; 248
*Dyotitaprabha; 164; 165 ’Bri gung skyob pa ’Jig rten mgon po;
*Dyuti; 164; 165; 214; 238 100; 102; 104; 106
*Dyutimatī; 164; 165; 238 ’Bri khung gling; 101
*Jagāõ ’Bring mtshams; 101
current Chittagong City, BD; 163; ’Brog Jo sras rdo rje ’bar; 257
165; 202; 275 ’Brug chen Kun dga’ dpal ’byor; 87
*Jvālapariveṣakāpāla; 224 ’Brug pa bKa’ brgyud pa tradition; 90;
*Kālapā; 141; 238 106
*Kāpāla; 238 ’Gar Dam pa Chos sdings pa; 106
*Kṣemendrabhadra; 78 ’Gos Lo tsā ba
*Mahāsukhavajra; 141 ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal; 93;
*Maṣavana; 202 99; 114; 174; 177; 196; 262
*Maṣodyāna; 202 ’Jam pa’i dbyangs Rin chen rgyal
*Nijadharmatāgīti; 111; 262 mtshan; 86; 88; 150
*Nimittasūcanāvyākaraṇa; 260; 262 ’Khor lo sdom pa snyan brgyud lugs kyi
*Nirvikalpavajra; 141 dkyil ’khor sdom tshig mun sel sgron
*Pañcāpaṇa; 168; 211; 212; 275 me; 86
*Pāñcāpaṇa; 168 ’Od bZang dpal; 150
*Pārāvatapāda; 262 A pho rin po che Ye shes rang grol; 84
*Parṇa; 204; 206; 209 A wa dhu ti pa Ko brag pa; 151
*Pradīpoddyotā; 164; 165 Abbasid dynasty; 45
*Ramyakṣetra; 251 Abhayadatta, or Abhayadattaśrī, or
*Samantabhadrī Yoginī; 196 Abhayaśrī
*Sekagranthamocanāvavāda; 261 alias Abhayākaragupta; 97; 98; 127;
*Subhagā; 196 143; 231; 241; 244
*Subhaginī; 196; 203; 205; 207; 208 Abhayakīrti; 102; 244; 248
*Sukhacakra; 141 Abhidhānacintāmaṇi; 22; 160
253
254 TILOPĀ
Abhisamayālaṃkārāloka; 31; 39; 42 Assam, IN-AS; 1; 7; 12; 21; 50; 76

Abū Rayḥān al-Bīrūnī; 185 Aṣṭādaśaśaktipīṭhastotra; 194
Abū Zayd Ḥasan; 45 Aṣṭasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā; 31; 199
Ācārya Caryādharipāda; 171 Aṣṭaśmaśāna; 120
Ācāryayogin; 121 Aṣṭaśmaśānākhyāna; 121
Acintyamahāmudrā; 110; 223; 260; 261; Atiśa; 84; 95; 96; 144; 153; 157; 158;
266 159; 180; 183
Advayavajra; 123; 124; 126; 127; 180; Aṭṭahāsa; 120; 121; 122; 189; 190; 191;
183; 184; 192; 196; 198; 247; 256; 230
257; 258 Aulikaras; 71; 117
Afghanistan; 7; 45; 116 Avadhūtipā; 196; 198; 251
Ākaracandra; 251 Avanti; 32
Ākaravajra; 244 Badal inscription; 35; 43
Alexander III of Macedon; xx; xxi; xxii; Bagchi, Prabodh Chandra; 255; 257; 276
4; 5 Baigram inscription; 69
Al-Ḥajjāj bin Yūsuf; 79 Baitarani River; 201
Allahabad inscription; 8; 69 Balabhaṭa; 15; 74
Amanasikāra yathāśrutakrama; 124 Bālaputradeva; 45
Amarakoṣaṭīkākāmadhenu; 152 Balasore (Baleshwar) District, IN-OR;
Amoghaśrī; 127 65; 72
Amoghavarṣa; 44; 50 Balin; 174
Ānanda; 50 Balin Ācārya; 175
Ānandacandra; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 51; Balyācārya; 174
55 Bangālah. See Vaṅgāla
Ānandadeva; 19; 20; 75; 76 Bangarh inscription; 65
Anaṅgavajra; 127; 207; 251 Bangladesh; 1; 14; 42; 49; 50; 65; 72;
Andhra Pradesh, IN-AP; 7; 49; 116; 74; 76; 201
190; 191 Bangladesh National Museum coins; 72;
Aṅga; 64; 67 74
Annam; 81 Bangladesh National Museum
Antarācārya; 174; 175; 177 inscription; 57; 60; 63
Antarapā; 174; 175; 177 Bankura District, IN-WB; 69; 252
Antarmañjari; 152 Bara-Uthan. See Barudhan
Antichak, IN-BR; 80 Bardhaman (Burdwan) District, IN-WB;
Anupamarakṣita; 102 72
Arakan Bardhaman (Burdwan) Division, IN-
current Rakhine, MM; 14; 22; 23; WB; 190
25; 26; 27; 28; 51; 53; 54; 55; 59; Bardhamānapura; 54
76; 160; 161; 162; 234 Barisal Division, BD; 1
Aroga Vihāra; 220; 238; 275 Barudhan, BD; 54; 55
Āryadeva; 176 Bay of Bengal; 1; 14
Āryāmoghapāśasādhana; 152 bDag med ma; 93
Āryasūra; 37 bDe mchog mkha’ ’gro snyan brgyud;
Ashrafpur inscriptions; 15; 16; 17; 74 84; 87; 107
Aśoka Maurya; 7; 68; 238 bDe mchog mkha’ ’gro snyan rgyud kyi
Aśoka Vihāra; 237; 238; 275 gdams pa yid bzhin nor bu skor gsum
INDEX 255
Gra dkar Rab ’jam pa Ms.; 106; 108 Bindurati; 53

bDe mchog mkha’ ’gro snyan rgyud kyi Birbhum District, IN-WB; 190
gzhung ’brel sa gcad dang sbrags pa Biso; 127
Bya btang ’Phrin las dpal ’bar Ms.; bKa’ babs bdun ldan
108 bKa’ babs bdun ldan gyi brgyud pa’i
bDe mchog mkha’ ’gro’i snyan brgyud rnam thar ngo mtshar rmad du
kyi dkar chag rin po che’i gter; 265 byung ba rin po che’i khungs lta bu’i
bDe mchog snyan brgyud; xxv; 85; 88; gtam; 95; 96; 97; 98; 161; 172; 173;
91; 145; 224; 258; 260; 261; 263; 174; 176; 181; 184
264; 265; 273 bKa’ babs bzhi’i brgyud pa’i bla ma
bDe mchog spyi bshad; 145 rnams kyi rnam thar; 186
bDe ster ma; 166; 167; 199; 211 bKa’ brgyud kyi rnam thar chen mo rin
Bengala. See Vaṅgāla po che’i gter mdzod dgos ’dod
Berhampore, IN-WB; 73 ’byung gnas; 104
Bhadra; 14; 173 bKa’ brgyud yid bzhin nor bu yi ’phreng
Bhadradatta; 53 ba; 105
Bhadrakalpikāsūtra; 164 Bla ma Rin chen chos grags; 150
Bhadrapā; 174; 175; 177 Bod kyi lo rgyus rnam thar phyogs
Bhadrapāda; 173 bsgrigs; 87
Bhagalpur City, IN-BR; 80 Bodhicaryāvatāratātparyapañjikāviśeṣa
Bhagalpur District, IN-BR; 80 dyotanī; 152
Bhagalpur inscription; 44 Bogra District, BD; 68; 69
Bhāgyadevī; 65 Bogra inscription; 57; 58; 59; 60; 63;
Bhaṃ ga la. See Vaṅgāla 160
Bharata; 143; 144 Brag dkar rta so; 110
Bharima; 211; 212; 213 Brahmaputra River; 2; 12; 14; 64; 73;
Bhāskaravarman; 11 158; 159
Bhāskavarman; 12 British Museum coins; 72; 74
Bhaṭāghaṭī; 78 bSam yas; 41; 183
Bhattacharyya, Benoytosh; 179; 182; bSod nams rgyal mtshan; 150
184 Bu ston
Bhattacharyya, Dinesh Chandra; 220 Bu ston Rin chen grub; 40; 42; 80;
Bhattacharyya, Narendra Nath; 277 115; 120
Bhaturiya inscription; 49 Buddhabodhisattvasiddhānām āmnāya;
Bhavadeva; 19; 20; 53; 75; 76; 77 123
Bhavanātha; 17 Buddhaguhya; 112
Bhigunagara; 252 Buddhagupta; 70
Bhinasavajra; 178; 207; 209 Buddhajñāna; 243
Bhoja; 32; 33 Buddhapurāṇa; 78
Bianji; 70 Buddhaśaraṇa; 243
Bidyadhari River; 68 Buddhaśrī; 101
Bihar Sharif inscription; 39 Budhagupta; 71
Bihar, IN-BR; 1; 5; 11; 34; 35; 40; 45; Bya btang pa bDe legs rin chen; 150
49; 58; 67; 69; 73; 80; 152; 233; 245; Byams pa gser mchog ’Od zer dpal; 90;
246; 247 151
Bikrampur; 63 Byang chub bzang po
256 TILOPĀ
Bo dhi bha dra; 86; 87; 88; 89; 90; 160; 166
91; 93; 150; 268; 269; 270 Chittagong inscription; 53
bZang po chos grub; 150 Chos ’byung; 40; 42
Cachar Chos ’byung dpag bsam ljon bzang; 161
current Cachar District, IN-AS; 160 Chos dpal dar byang; 247
Cakrāyudha; 34; 79 Chos drug bsdus pa’i zin bris; 271
Campā; 22 Chos grags dpal bzang po; 90; 151
Campārṇa, or Campāraṇa Chos kyi grags pa
current Champa (Campā), IN-BR; Ba ri Lo tsā ba Chos kyi grags pa;
97; 152 95; 152
Candella dynasty; 51; 63 Cittaviśrāma; 116; 123; 124; 192; 193
Candra dynasty of Arakan; 23; 24; 25; Coḷa dynasty; 252
27; 28; 51; 54; 55; 59; 81; 162 Comilla City, BD; 10; 15; 17; 18; 58;
Candra dynasty of Bengal; 23; 51; 56; 61; 74
57; 58; 59; 60; 61; 62; 63; 64; 113; Comilla District, BD; 10; 17; 160; 220
158; 160; 162; 168 Comilla Division, BD; 14
Candradvīpa; 60 Coromandel Coast; 7
Candragupta Maurya; xxii Cūḍāmaṇi town; 220
Candraprabha; 200 Cūḍāmaṇi Vihāra; 219; 220; 223; 238;
Cāritra; 123 248; 251; 252
Cārvaka school; 234 Culataingcandra; 52; 53; 158; 162
Caryācāryapāda; 171 Da tang da ci en si san zang fa shi
Caryāgītikośa; 231; 250 zhuan; 36
Caryāmelāpakapradīpa; 176 Da tang xi yu ji; 9; 12; 36; 70
Caryāpā; 128; 169; 170; 172; 175; 176; Da tang xi yu qiu fa gao seng zhuan; 9;
177; 178; 179; 187; 203; 205; 207; 18; 21; 31; 70
208; 209; 210; 251; 274 Ḍākārṇavamahāyoginītantrarāja; 154
Cāryapā; 172 Ḍākārṇava-mahāyoginī-tantrarāja; 196
Caryāvajra; 171 Dakatia River; 18; 201
Caṭigāõ Dakṣiṇa-Rāḍhā; 69
current Chittagong City, BD; 64; 161 Dāmodara; 123; 124; 179; 180; 183;
Caṭighawo; 161 184; 196
Chag Lo tsā ba Chos rje dpal; 229; 247 Damodarpur inscription; 69
Chag lo tsā ba chos rje dpal gyi rnam Danmolidi. See Tāmraliptī
thar; 229; 247 Dantidurga; 32; 78
Chāḷukya dynasty; 11; 78 Daomolidi. See Tāmraliptī
Chaṇḍīmuḍā Peak; 18 Dārikāpā; 146; 204; 206; 209
Chandra, Lokesh; 164; 251 Das, Sarat Chandra; 161
Chandraketugarh, IN-WB; 68 Dasgupta, Shashibhusan; 277
Chang’an; 69; 70 Ḍavāka; 69
China; 7; 13; 25; 45; 70 Davidson, Ronald M.; 36; 112; 153;
Chinnamuṇḍavajravārāhīsādhana; 196 225; 241; 247
Chittagong City, BD; 23; 54; 64; 160; dBang phyug rgyal mtshan; 109; 136;
161; 162; 167; 202; 275 147; 157; 159; 163; 178; 186; 187;
Chittagong District, BD; 54; 55; 160 189; 190; 191; 208; 209; 210; 211;
Chittagong Division, BD; 1; 53; 54; 76; 212; 213; 221; 222; 223; 228; 230;
INDEX 257
241; 245 Dhulla inscription; 57; 60; 63

Deb ther sngon po; 93; 99; 105; 114; Dhūmasthala; 105
145; 158; 174; 175; 177; 181; 182; Dhyāyīpā; 127
183; 196; 197; 224; 256; 262; 263; Dilīpa; 59
264 Dinajpur District, BD; 65; 69
Ḍeṅgipā; 146; 148; 203; 204; 206; 209 Ding ri; 101; 248; 260
Deulbari inscription; 15; 16; 74 Ding ri glang ’khor; 102
Deva dynasty; 15; 19; 26; 27; 61 Ḍiṅgara; 125; 127
Devakhaḍga; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 74 Dīpavaṃsa; 68
Devapāla; 35; 43; 44; 45; 46; 48; 50; 56; dKar brgyud gser ’phreng; 106
58; 61; 66; 80 dKar chag ldan dkar ma; 112
Devaparvata; 18; 19; 20; 26; 54; 60; 61; Dohākoṣa; 250; 255; 257; 258; 259; 277
64 Dohākoṣagīti; 250
Devī Śrīmatī; 196 Dohākoṣa-nāma-caryāgīti; 250
Devīkoṭa; 123 Dohākoṣapañjikā; 257
Deyell, John S.; 16; 17; 74 Dohākoṣopadeśagīti; 250
Dha ra shrī Ḍombīheruka; 178; 204; 206; 207; 209
rDa ra shrī; 150; 264 Dowman, Keith; 182
Dhaka City, BD; 15; 22; 74 dPal bde mchog ’khor lo sdom pa
Dhaka District, BD; 11 ’byung ba’i sgrub thabs; 120
Dhaka Division, BD; 1; 19; 63; 160 dPal mkhan pa’i dur khrod; 260
Dhaka inscription; 62; 64; 66 dPal na ro paṇ chen gyi lo rgyus; 84
Dhammāsoka; 68 Drākśarāma
Dhanadatta; 53 current Draksharama, IN-AP; 190
Dhanarakṣita; 183 Durjaya. See Prāgjyotiṣapura
Dhaññavatī. See Dhanyawadi Dus zhabs pa Rin chen rgya mtsho; 150
Dhānyakaṭaka; 116; 124 Dutt, Sukumar; 35
Dhānyavatī. See Dhanyawadi Dvādaśāditya; 10; 72
Dhanyawadi; 23; 24; 25; 28; 51; 77 Dvangcandra; 25; 28
Dharaṇīndrabhadra; 78 Dwags po bKa’ brgyud pa tradition; 107
Dharima; 136; 137; 212 East Godavari District, IN-AP; 190
Dharmabodhi; 243; 246 Eastern Jin dynasty; 9
Dharmadhvaja; 243; 246 English, Elizabeth; 169; 215
Dharmāditya; 10; 73 Faxian; 9; 13; 69; 70; 116; 117
Dharmaguru; 243; 246 Fleming, Benjamin; 57
Dharmajñāna; 243; 246 Fo guo ji; 9; 70
Dharmakirtī; 28 Fort Daihak; 185
Dharmakīrti; 28 Gaganagarbha; 243
Dharmapāla; 20; 30; 31; 33; 34; 35; 39; Gaṅgā City; 5; 7; 68
40; 41; 42; 43; 48; 79; 172; 182; 183; Gaṅgā River; xxi; 1; 5; 8; 13; 41; 67; 73;
198; 200; 233 80; 140; 245
Dharmasaṃgraha; 277 Gangarídai; xxii; 4; 5; 7
Dharmaśrī sPyan gcig pa; 257 Gángē Basíleion; 5; 74
Dharmavijaya; 27 Gao seng fa xian zhuan; 70
Dhṛticandra; 25 Gauḍa
Dhruva Dhārāvarṣa; 34 current Gaur, IN-WB; 4; 11; 12; 44;
258 TILOPĀ
62; 64; 65; 66; 67; 68; 96; 97; 171 Gurjara-Pratīhāra dynasty; 31; 32; 44;
Gauḍas; 62; 64 50
Gaya District, IN-BR; 45 Guruguhyasiddhi; 102
gDams ngag mdzod; xxv; 98; 258; 260; Gurusādhana; 102; 248; 260; 266; 267
266 Gurusiddhi; 102
Gene Smith, Ellis; 84; 85; 94 Gutman, Pamela; 25
Ghosrawa inscription; 45 Gwalior inscription; 32; 33; 34; 79
gLing ras pa Padma rdo rje; 103 Gyaltsen, Khenpo Könchog; 104
Glo bo Lo tsā ba Shes rab rin chen; 101 gZhung ’brel
gNas rnying pa rGyal mtshan rin chen; bDe mchog mkha’ ’gro snyan brgyud
150 kyi gzhung ’brel sa bcad dang sbrags
Gnoli, Raniero; 155 pa, bDe mchog mkha’ ’gro snyan
Gomatī River rgyud kyi gdams pa yid bzhin nor bu
current Gumti River; 18 skor gsum; 107; 264
Gopacandra; 10; 11; 20; 72 gZi brjid rgyal mtshan; 150
Gopāla; 29; 30; 31; 33; 34; 40; 56 Haḍipā; 172; 175; 176; 177; 194; 198;
Gopāla II; 63; 64; 66; 67 225
Gopalganj District, BD; 11; 72 Haribhadra; 31; 39; 42
Gopicandra; 78 Haricandra; 28
Gopīcandra; 225 Harikela; 4; 21; 22; 53; 54; 59; 60; 61;
Gorkhā District, NP; 15 62; 63; 64; 159; 160; 162; 168; 275
Govinda III; 20; 34 Harṣavardhana; 11; 12; 14; 15; 36; 71
Grags pa rgyal mtshan; 150 Hemacandra; 160
Gray, David Barton; 118; 143 Hevajratantra; 153; 178
Grierson, George Abraham; 225 Hevajravyākhyāvivaraṇa; 174
Gro bo lung; 89 Hugli River; 13
Grub thob brgyad cu rtsa bzhi’i gsol Huili; 36; 37
’debs; 94 Hūṇas; 10; 44; 71; 72; 117
gSan yig Ikṣvāku dynasty; 192
Zab pa dang rgya che ba’i dam pa’i Imperial Gupta dynasty; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11;
chos kyi thob yig gang ga’i chu 35; 36; 69; 70; 71; 72; 112; 117
rgyun (gsan yig); 98 Imperial Pāla dynasty; 20; 29; 31; 34;
gTsang; 101; 152; 257 35; 40; 44; 45; 48; 50; 56; 58; 59;
gTsang pa rGya ras Ye shes rdo rje; 103 60; 61; 62; 64; 65; 66; 95
gTsang smyon He ru ka Indrabhūti; 145; 154; 176; 177; 178;
gTsang smyon He ru ka Sangs rgyas 182; 183; 196; 198; 206; 207; 209;
rgyal mtshan; 106; 109; 110; 134; 210; 251
145; 147; 207; 222; 223; 245; 263; Indrabhūtipā; 126; 197
264 Indrabhūtipāda; 125; 126; 197
Guangzhou; 70 Indrabodhi; 102
Guenther, Herbert V.; 154; 157; 182 Indradatta; 78
Guhyapā; 173; 174; 175; 177 Indus River; xxii; 7; 49; 79
Gujarat, IN-GJ; 7; 50 Irda inscription; 65
Gunaighar inscription; 10; 72; 73; 220 Jackson, Roger R.; 277
Guntur District, IN-AP; 116; 191 Jagaddala Mahāvihāra; 100; 152
Guravamiśra; 48; 49 Jagatamalla; 252
INDEX 259
Jago; 148; 160; 161 176; 177; 178; 187; 198; 203; 204;
Jairampur inscription; 72 205; 206; 207; 208; 209; 210; 275
Jālandhara Kamboja Pāla dynasty; 62; 64; 65; 66
current Jvālāmukhī, IN-HP; 105; Kambojas; 44; 50; 60; 61; 62; 64; 65; 66
224; 227 Kanauj City, IN-UP; 11; 20; 27; 31; 33;
Jālandharagiri; 225 34; 36; 48; 78; 79
Jālandharapā; 146; 172; 175; 176; 177; Kāñcīpura; 241; 252
194; 198; 225 Kangra District, IN-HP; 225
Jālandhra; 225 Kangyur Rimpoche; 106
Jālaśaila; 225 Kāṇha; 117; 170; 171; 172; 173; 175;
Jalendra; 251 177; 187; 190; 194; 198; 250; 256;
Jambu; 245 274
Jamunā River; 2; 67; 159 Kāṇhācārya; 171
Jātakhaḍga; 15; 19 Kāṇhipa; 171
Jayapāla; 44; 48; 66 Kāṇhupā; 171
Jayatuṅgavarṣa; 17 Kāntideva; 53; 54; 55; 59
Jessore, BD; 74 Kānyakubja. See Kanauj City, IN-UP
Jetari; 244 Kāpālika tradition; 119; 172; 173; 186;
Jharkhand, IN-JH; 1; 49; 69 194; 200; 231; 238
Jiaozhi; 81 Karahāṭaka; 179
Jinarakṣita; 42 Karatoyā River; 68; 73; 80
Jñānaprabha; 243 Kārkoṭa dynasty; 78
Jñānasiddhi; 243 Karmānta
Jñānaśrīmitra; 124 current Baḍkāmtā (Barkamta), BD;
Jñānavālī; 124 15; 16
Jo bo rje’i bstod pa pa brgyad cu pa; Karnaphuli River; 2
159 Karṇaripā; 148; 203; 204; 206; 209; 210
Johnston, Edward H.; 23; 25; 51; 53; 76 Karṇasuvarṇa; 11; 12; 73
Jvālavana; 121; 224 Karṇatantravajrapada; 267; 269; 270;
Kahalgaon City, IN-BR; 80 272; 273; 274
Kahna pa’i rnam thar Karṇatantravajrayoginī; 267
Slob dpon chen po spyod ’chang Karpūramañjarī; 22; 54
dbang po’i rnam thar ngo mtshar Karṭrpura; 69
snyan pa’i sgra dbyangs; 170; 171; Karuṇābhāvanādhiṣṭāna; 259
172; 173; 174; 191; 224 Kashmir; 50; 92; 101; 241; 243; 244
Kailan inscription; 17; 61; 75 Kasoripā; 219; 223
Kaiser Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana; 83 Kathmandu; 83; 101; 153; 255; 256
Kāḷachuri dynasty; 51; 63 Kathmandu Manuscript; 256
Kaladan River; 23; 25 Kauśikī River
Kālāmukha tradition; 194 Kosi; 73; 201
Kaleśvara Kedāramiśra; 44; 48
current Kaleshwaram, IN-TG; 190 Kelisahar, BD; 54
Kaliṅga; 173 Khaḍga dynasty; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19;
Kalyāṇacandra; 62; 64; 66 31; 74
Kāmarūpa; 11; 12; 44; 64; 69; 74 Khaḍgodyama; 15; 19
Kambalapā; 114; 128; 145; 164; 169; Khalimpur inscription; 30; 79
260 TILOPĀ
Khasarpaṇa; 124 Kuñji; 98

Khetsun Sangpo; 144 Kūrmapāda; 146
Khīrā River. See Kṣīrodā River Kurnool District, IN-AP; 190
Khīrnai River. See Kṣīrodā River Kuṣāṇa dynasty; 7
Khri srong lde btsan; 41; 183 Kvaerne, Per; 170
Khulna Division, BD; 1 Laḍahacandra; 62
Khyung po rnal ’byor; 197 Lakṣmīkarā; 125; 126; 154; 197
Khyung tshang pa Ye shes bla ma; 85; Lakṣmīṅkarā; 154; 196; 198; 251
88; 89; 90; 107; 109; 263; 264 Lakṣmīvana; 120; 122; 195
Kitāb ul-Hind; 185 Lakṣmīvat; 122; 195
Ko brag pa bSod nams rgyal mtshan; Lalambi Forest; 60
101 Lalitacandra; 28; 29; 78
Koki; 20; 21; 53 Lalitāditya Muktapīḍa; 78
Kolkata, IN-WB; 68; 252 Lalitavajra; 128; 176; 178; 205
Kong sprul Lalitpur; 257
Kong sprul Blo gros mtha’ yas; 98; Lalmai Hills, BD; 45; 58; 61; 62
266; 270; 273 Laṃkā; 68
Koṭālipāḍā Laṅkāpuri; 251
current Kotalipara; 11 Later Gupta dynasty; 11; 14
Kotalipara inscriptions; 72 Lavapa; 148; 177; 179; 187; 275
Kovihāra Paṇḍita; 128 lHa btsun
Krīpura; 10; 72; 220 lHa btsun Rin chen rnam rgyal; 110;
Kṛṣṇa; 32; 145; 170; 171; 172; 224 138; 147; 157; 163; 207; 222; 223;
Kṛṣṇa River; 191; 192 226; 228; 241; 242; 244; 245; 271
Kṛṣṇācārya; 145; 146; 170; 171; 173; lHo brag; 89
174; 175; 177; 179; 187; 194; 275 lHo dGon gsar kha’i Bla ma bDe legs
Kṛṣṇapāda; 171; 175; 188 pa; 150
Kṛṣṇaśikharin; 62 Līlāvajra; 128
Kṣīrodā River; 18; 60; 61 Lohitya River. See Brahmaputra River
Kukurāja; 176 Lokanātha; 17; 75
Kukurīpāda; 125; 126; 197 Lokāyata school; 234; 235
Kumāragupta I Longshu pusa zhuan; 250
Śakrāditya; 70; 71 Lūyīpāda; 117; 125; 126; 145; 146; 184;
Kumāragupta II Kramāditya; 71 197; 199; 204; 205; 206; 209; 275
Kumāragupta III; 71 Ma gcig Ang jo; 85; 88; 107; 150; 264
Kumārajīva; 250 Madanpur inscription; 57; 60; 63
Kun dga’ dar po Madhyāntika; 50
Ā nan da da ya; 86; 87; 150 Magadha; 5; 11; 40; 41; 51; 67; 78; 246;
Kun dga’ dpal ’byor; 86 247
Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan; 101 Mahābhārata; 73
Kun dga’ rin chen Mahāmudropadeśa; 111; 259; 261; 266;
’Bri gung Chos rje Kun dga’ rin 272
chen; 108; 135; 159; 163; 186; 187; Mahānandā River; 73
189; 190; 207; 208; 211; 212; 244; Mahāpāla; 182
251 Mahāsenagupta; 11
Kun ldan ras ma; 150 Mahasthan; 68
INDEX 261
Mahātaingcandra; 52 238; 239; 241; 244; 246; 262; 263;

Mahāvaṃsa; 68 273; 274
Mahāvīra; 26 Mar ston Tshul khrims ’byung gnas;
Mahāvyutpatti 150; 264
Bye brag tu rtogs par byed pa chen Martabodha; 124; 180; 183; 184
po; 76; 164; 251 Mātaṅgīpā; 128; 136; 137; 148; 185;
Mahbubnagar District, IN-TG; 191 186; 187; 203; 204; 206; 207; 208;
Mahendrapāla; 48; 51 209; 211; 274
Mahīpāla I; 56 Maukhari dynasty; 11
Mahīṣānanasādhana; 152 Maurya dynasty; xxii; 5; 7; 8; 68
Mainamati Hills; 18; 26; 27; 76 Maynā; 225
Mainamati inscriptions; 19; 61; 62; 64; Maynāmati; 225
74; 75 mDo sde
Maitrīgupta; 84; 124; 180; 183; 184; Dar ma mDo sde; 89; 93; 94; 141;
192; 196 263
Maitrīpā; 180; 192; 256; 257; 262 Meghalaya; 160
Maitrīpāda; 145; 180; 183; 184; 192; Meghnā River; 2; 10; 14; 15; 201
247 Mi bskyod rdo rje; 90
Majumdar, Ramesh Chandra; 53; 64; 65; Mi la ras pa; 85; 88; 89; 90; 93; 99; 103;
72; 73; 79; 246 104; 107; 110; 224; 262; 263
Malabar; 96 Mi mnyam bzang po; 102
Mālava; 32; 71 Midnapore District; 69
Malaya Mountains; 61 Mihira Bhoja; 44; 51
Maldah District, IN-WB; 30; 68 Mihirakula; 71; 117
Maldives, MV; 46 Milindapañha; 7
Mallasārul inscription; 72; 73 Mizoram, IN-MZ; 76; 160
Malwa; 32; 71 mKha’ ’gro snyan brgyud kyi dpe tho;
Mandasor inscriptions; 71; 117 265
Mānikacandra; 225 mNga’ ris; 101
Mānikcandra rājār Gān; 225 Mon rtse pa
Manipur; 76; 160 Mon rtse pa Kun dga’ dpal ldan;
Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa; 22; 160 106; 133; 147; 163; 206; 207; 222;
Manobhaṅga; 116; 123; 124; 192; 193 223; 245
Manusmṛti; 30; 163 Moulvibazar District, BD; 60
Mānyakheṭa Mrauk U (Mrohaung) inscriptions; 23;
current Malkhed, IN-KA; 50 28; 51; 53; 55
Mar pa Mudgagiri
Mar pa Lo tsā ba, Mar pa Chos kyi current Munger (Monghyr), IN-BR;
blo gros; 85; 88; 89; 90; 93; 94; 99; 34; 73
102; 103; 104; 107; 128; 140; 141; Muhammad Bin Qasim; 79
142; 143; 144; 145; 147; 151; 161; Muḥammad ibn Bakhtyār Khaljī; 100
162; 164; 166; 167; 169; 175; 178; Munger inscription; 35; 44; 48
179; 185; 186; 187; 189; 190; 191; Munshiganj District, BD; 63; 160
199; 200; 201; 202; 203; 206; 209; Murshidabad District, IN-WB; 73
211; 212; 213; 214; 215; 220; 221; Myanmar, MM; 7; 22; 52; 76
222; 223; 224; 226; 228; 231; 235; Nāf River; 22; 23; 77
262 TILOPĀ
Nag tsho Lo tsā ba Ngan rdzong ras pa Byang chub

Nag tsho Lo tsā ba Tshul khrims rgyal po; 263
rgyal ba; 159; 160; 247 Nirākāra school; 124
Nāgabhaṭa I; 32; 79 Niṣpannayogāvalī; 143
Nāgabhaṭa II; 33; 34 Nīticandra; 24; 25
Nāgadeva; 73 Noakhali District, BD; 10; 160; 201
Nagaland; 76; 160 Nyi ’og; 20; 76
Nagara; 233; 236; 245 O ḍi bi sha. See Odisha
Nagara Bhukti; 233 Odantapuri. See Uddaṇḍapura
Nagarahāra; 45 Mahāvihāra
Nāgārjuna; 37; 102; 114; 123; 126; 145; Odisha, IN-OR; 1; 20; 44; 49; 50; 65;
169; 179; 180; 181; 183; 184; 185; 72; 152; 171; 181; 201
186; 187; 191; 193; 203; 204; 205; Oṛiśā. See Odisha
206; 207; 209; 210; 238; 250; 251; Pad ma dkar po; 261; 265; 266; 267;
275 268; 271
Nāgārjunakoṇḍa; 191; 192; 193 Padmā River; 1; 2; 14; 67
Nagarjunakonda inscription; 8 Padmasambhava; 183
Nagarjunasagar; 191 Padmavajra; 176; 207; 251
Nāla village; 9 Padmāvalī; 124
Nālandā District; 39 Paharpur inscriptions; 42; 69
Nalanda inscription; 39; 45; 76; 233 Paharpur, BD; 80; 166
Nālandā Mahāvihāra; 9; 14; 35; 36; 38; Paiṇḍapātika; 125; 126; 127; 196; 198
39; 40; 45; 71; 79; 96; 124; 171; 228; Pakistan; 116
229; 244; 247; 248 Pāla dynasty; 78; 182
Nalanda seal; 70; 72 Palār River; 252
Nallamala Range; 191; 192 Palíbothra; xxii
Nan hai ji gui nei fa zhuan; 9; 37; 70 Pantsapana; 166; 168
Nandanavana; 243 Par phu pa Blo gros seng ge; 250
Narasiṃhagupta Bālāditya; 70; 71; 117 Paschimbhag inscription; 60; 61; 64;
Nārāyaṇapāla; 35; 43; 44; 48; 65; 66 168
Nāropā; 85; 88; 89; 90; 91; 92; 100; 102; Pāśupata tradition; 194
103; 104; 107; 124; 126; 140; 141; Pāṭaliputra
142; 146; 150; 157; 169; 170; 175; current Patna; xxii; 5; 8; 236; 245
198; 219; 223; 241; 244; 247; 248; Pāṭaliputta; 5; 69
252; 262; 263; 271; 272; 273; 274; Patna; 5; 233; 236; 245; 247
275 Pauṇḍras
Nātha dynasty; 15; 17; 18 Pauṇḍrakas; 12; 73
Nātha tradition; 194 Periplus Maris Erythraei; 7
Nāṭyaśāstra; 143 Phag mo gru pa rDo rje rgyal po; 103
Navyāvakāśikā Bhukti; 10; 73 Phag mo gzhung drug; 196; 197
Nayapāla; 65; 66; 95 Phulahari; 247
Nayasena; 73 Phullā; 247
Nepal, NP; 15; 49; 69; 101; 224; 256 Phullahari; 244; 246; 247; 274
Nesarika inscription; 20 Phullāparvata; 246; 247
Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho; 98 Phullāri; 246
Ngam rdzong ston pa Phyi rdul tshon la brten pa bum pa’i
INDEX 263
dbang bskur rin chen gsal ba’i sgron Rājagṛha; 5; 9

me; 273 Rājarājabhaṭṭa; 15; 18; 19; 31
Piṇḍa Vihāra; 161; 202 Rājaśekhara; 22; 54
Piṇḍīkṛtasādhanapañjikā; 152 Rājataraṅgiṇī; 75
Polo, Marco; xxiii; 80; 81 Rajgir; 5
Pradyotacandra; 145 Rajmahal Hills; 67
Prāgjyotiṣa. See Kāmarūpa Rajshahi District, BD; 35; 49; 69
Prāgjyotiṣapura Rajshahi Division, BD; 1; 42; 69; 74
current Guwahati, IN-AS; 12 Rājyapāla; 44; 48; 49; 63; 65
Prajñābhadra; 134; 141; 142; 147; 219; Rāmapāla; 78; 152
220; 221 Ramkot; 26
Prajñārakṣita; 263 Rampal inscription; 57; 60; 63
Prakāśa-nāma-śrīhevajrasādhana; 144 Ramu, BD; 23; 26
Prásioi; 5 Rangpur Division, BD; 1; 69
Pratīhāra dynasty; 33; 34; 45; 48; 51; 63 Rarh; 69
Priyaṅgu; 65; 66 Ras chung
Propp, Vladimir Jakovlevič; 214 Ras chung rDo rje grags pa; 89; 90;
Ptolemy; 5; 77 110; 224; 262; 263; 264
Pu rang; 101 Ras chung bKa’ brgyud pa tradition; 106
Pudgalavādin school; 124 Ras chung phug; 265
Puṇḍra; 4; 73 Ras chung snyan brgyud; 107; 108; 145;
Puṇḍranagara 224; 264
current Mahasthangarh, BD; 12; 68; Rāṣṭrakūṭa dynasty; 20; 31; 32; 34; 44;
80 45; 48; 49; 50; 79
Puṇḍravardhana; 8; 12; 31; 69; 73; 100; Rāta dynasty; 15; 17; 18; 19; 61
124 Ratnākaraśānti; 124
Puṇḍravardhanapura. See Puṇḍranagara Ratnapāla; 182
Punjab, IN-PB; 44 Ratnarakṣita; 101; 152
Purempura; 26; 77 rDo rje mdzes ’od; 131; 141; 147; 168;
Pūrṇa; 243; 244; 246 178; 179; 200; 201; 202; 204; 205;
Pūrṇacandra; 57; 58 212; 213; 222; 223; 230; 245
Purnea; 246 rDo rje’i rkang gi sa bcad gab pa
Purnia; 246 mngon byung; 268
Pūrugupta Prakāśāditya; 71 rDo rje’i tshig rkang gi bsdus don gab
Pyu city-states, MM; 27 pa mngon byung; 268
Qanungo, Suniti Bhushan; 54; 202 rDza ri bSam gtan gling; 109
Ra Sher snang pa Reclus, Jacques Élisée; 67
Rin chen Grags; 90 rGod tshang pa mGon po rdo rje; 103;
Rāḍhā; 4; 22; 43; 50; 64; 66; 124; 172 105; 181
Rāgavajra; 124 rGod tshang ras pa
Raghuvaṃśa; 59 rGod tshang ras pa sNa tshogs rang
Rāhula; 181; 184 grol; 145; 264; 265
Rāhulagupta; 144 rGya gar chos ’byung
Rājā Dāhir; 79 Dam pa’i chos rin po che ’phags
Rājabāḍīdāṅga; 73 pa’i yul du ji ltar dar ba’i tshul gsal
Rājagaha; 5 bar ston pa dgos ’dod kun ’byung
264 TILOPĀ
rgya gar chos ’byung; xvii; 20; 22; 161; 163; 220
28; 29; 30; 39; 40; 41; 43; 55; 77; Sākāra school; 124
78; 80; 95; 176; 200; 202 Śākyamitra; 123; 124; 179; 180; 183;
rGyal thang pa 184
rGyal thang pa bDe chen rdo rje; Śākyaśrībhadra; 100; 101
102; 103; 129; 147; 178; 180; 181; Salabheraha; 166; 175; 189
185; 202; 203; 204; 208; 211; 212; Salanadi River; 201
220; 221; 222; 223; 245 Śalaputra; 245
Ri khrod dbang phyug; 104 Samācāradeva; 10; 20; 72
Riripā; 219; 223 Samantabhadra; 243
rJe btsun chen po ti lo’i rnam par thar Samataṭa; 4; 12; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19;
pa; 109 20; 22; 31; 54; 60; 61; 62; 64; 69;
rJe btsun chen po tilli pa’i rnam par 73; 74; 160
thar pa; 102; 129 Sammatīya school; 124
rJe btsun Grags pa rgyal mtshan; 101 Sampradāyavidhi; 125
rJe btsun ti lo pa’i rnam thar dbang Samudragupta; 8
bzhi’i chu rgyun; 135; 186 Saṃvarārṇavatantra; 154; 196
rJe btsun ti lo’i rnam par thar pa; 136 Saṃvarodaya; 154; 196
rNal ’byor byang chub seng ge’i dris Saṃvarodayatantra; 120
lan; 247 Saṃvaropadeśamukhakarṇaparamparāc
rNal ’byor gyi dbang phyug ti lo pa’i lo intāmaṇi; 168; 260; 261; 267
rgyus; 84; 94; 128; 142 Sanderson, Alexis; 154
rNying ma pa tradition; 108 Sandrókottos; xxii
Roberts, Peter Alan; 84; 85; 90 Sangs rgyas thams cad kyi rnam ’phrul
Rohitāgiri; 57; 58; 61; 62; 81 rje btsun ti lo pa’i rnam mgur; 110;
current Lalmai Hills, BD; 58 138
Rohtas (Rohatās) District, IN-BR; 58 Sankrityayan, Rahula; 182
Roman Empire; 7 Śāntideva; 19; 76
Roşu, Arion; 192 Saptagrāma, IN-WB
Rudrākṣamahātmya; 22 Sātgāon; 74
Rūpacintāmāṇikośa; 22 Saraha; 123; 126; 146; 180; 181; 182;
Rupnarayan River; 13 183; 184; 193; 204; 205; 206; 207;
Śabara; 123; 124; 126; 181; 192 209; 250; 255; 256; 257; 277
Śabaranātha; 126 Sarahapādasya Dohākoṣa; 257
Śabarapāda; 183; 184; 247; 256 Sarahapādasya Dohākoṣapañjikā; 258
Śabaras; 123; 124; 166; 167; 192 Śāraṅgadhara Maṭha; 193
Śabareśvara; 124; 146; 183; 184; 192; Sarasvatī River; 13
205 Saroruhavajra; 176; 251
Ṣaḍaṅgayoga; 102 Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha; 114
Ṣaḍdharmopadeśa; 168; 169; 170; 172; Śāsanadhara; 244
195; 203; 207; 260; 266 Śaśāṅka; 11; 12
Sāgara; 124 Śatasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā; 184; 199;
Sāgaradatta; 124; 126 200
Sahajaśaṃvarasvādhiṣṭhāna; 259; 262 Sātavāhana dynasty; 116; 191; 193
Sahor (Za hor) Śavaripa; 101; 153
Harikela; 137; 140; 158; 159; 160; Sāvitrī; 179
INDEX 265
sBa bzhed; 41 Sovīra; 7

Schiefner, Franz Anton; 161 Sragdharā-stotra-ṭīkā; 42
Se brag sgrub gling; 86 Sri Lanka; 13; 27; 68
Seleucus I Nicator; xxii Śrī Pattana; 27
Sena dynasty; 62; 78 Śrī-cakraśambara-maṇḍalopāyikāratna-
Sengzhe; 18; 19 pradīpoddyota; 164
sGam po pa Śrīcandra; 56; 57; 59; 60; 62; 63; 64; 66;
sGam po pa bSod nams rin chen, 158; 162; 168
Dwags po lHa rje, Zla ’od gzhon nu; Śrīdhāraṇarāta; 17
99; 103; 245 Śrīgiri; 191
sGra bsgyur mar pa lo tsā’i rnam thar Śrīhaṭṭa
mthong ba don yod; 263 current Sylhet, BD; 22; 64; 159; 168;
Shā kya shrī rTogs ldan; 84 275
Sha ra rab ’byams pa Sangs rgyas seng Śrīkāñcanā; 59
ge; 106 Śrīmatī; 196; 197
Shah-i-Bangalah. See Vaṅgāla Śrīmatigarbha; 177
Shahidullah, Mohammed; 118; 182 Śrīnāga; 191
Shamsher Manuscript; 111; 115; 116; Śrīnagara; 245
117; 126; 140; 153; 179; 180; 181; Śrīnagara-bhukti; 245
192; 196; 247 Śrīnātha; 17
Shan Hills, MM; 52 Śrīnāyaka; 122; 195
Shar kha ras chen; 150 Śrīparvata; 191; 192; 236
Ras chen Chos rje Shar ka; 86 Śrīśaila; 191; 192; 193; 194; 195
Shar kha Ras chen current Srisailam, IN-AP; 190
Ras chen Chos rje Shar ka; 87 Śrītaingcandra; 59
Shaw, Richard; 194 Śrītāmrapattana; 27; 55
Siddhārtha Gautama; 6 Śrīvana; 122; 195
Śīlabhadra; 14; 18 Stearns, Cyrus; 100; 102
Śīlāmegha; 27 Strabo; xxiii
Siṃghagaṇḍapatiśuracandra; 51 Sudhanaśrī; 127
Siṃghaśūracandra; 51 Suhma; 4
Siṃghavikramaśūracandra; 51 Sukhasiddhi; 169; 195; 197; 198; 199
Siṃhacandra; 248 Sulaymān; 45; 46; 47; 81
Sindh; 32; 79 Sum pa mkhan po
Śītavana; 229 Sum pa mkhan po Ye shes dpal
Sittwe; 25; 27; 51 ’byor; 161
Skandagupta Vikramāditya; 71 Sumatī; 196
sKyid grong rdzong; 110 Sumatī *Samantabhadrī; 196
Slob dpon sTar sgom; 87 Sumatī Samantabhadrī Yoginī; 204
sMon grub shes rab; 97; 98; 99 Śuṅga dynasty; 7
sNyan brgyud kyi brgyud pa yid bzhin Śūrapāla; 43; 48
nor bu’i phreng ba; 87 Surat; 7
sNyan brgyud kyi dkar chag; 265 Surmā River; 2
Solankī ‘Vallabha’ Kīrtivarman; 78 Susunia Hill inscription; 69
Somapura Mahāvihāra; 42; 80 Suvaṇṇabhūmi; 7
Somapurī; 42; 172 Suvarṇacandra; 58
266 TILOPĀ
Suvarṇadvīpa; 45 Trikuṭaka Vihāra; 42; 43; 172

Suvarṇavarṇa; 188 Trilinga; 190
Svapnohana; 152 Trilocana; 145
Swat River; 116; 117 Tripura, IN-TR; 1; 14; 53; 54; 160; 161
Sylhet City, BD; 64; 168; 275 Trisaṃvaraprabhāmālā; 101; 152
Sylhet Division, BD; 1; 14; 22; 53; 54; Triśaraṇa; 123
60; 160; 168 Trivikrama; 179
Tai lo dang nā ro’i rnam thar; 99 Tsuda, Shinichi; 120
Takkola; 7 Tucci, Giuseppe; 115; 123; 154
Tamalítēs. See Tāmraliptī Turuṣkas; 100; 152
Tāmalithi. See Tāmraliptī Ū phyogs gzigs par zhu’ dpal sa ra ha’i
Tāmalitti. See Tāmraliptī mdo ha’i grel pa lags; 180
Tamluk, IN-WB; 13; 69; 74 U rgyan pa
Tāmraliptī U rgyan pa Rin chen dpal, alias Seng
current Tamluk, IN-WB; 8; 9; 12; ge dpal; 105; 132; 147; 205; 222;
13; 27; 55; 68; 74 223; 245
Tang dynasty; 9; 36; 70; 112 Uddaṇḍapura Mahāvihāra; 39; 40; 41
Tāranātha Uḍḍiyāna; 105; 114; 116; 117; 124; 125;
Jo nang rJe btsun Tā ra nā tha, Jo 129; 130; 131; 132; 136; 137; 139;
nang Tā rā nā tha Kun dga’ snying 141; 148; 154; 166; 167; 182; 183;
po; xvii; 20; 21; 22; 28; 29; 30; 39; 186; 199; 205; 213; 214; 215; 220;
40; 41; 42; 43; 53; 55; 58; 77; 78; 221; 223; 224; 228; 243; 251; 274;
80; 95; 97; 98; 161; 170; 171; 172; 275
173; 174; 176; 178; 181; 184; 190; Uḍḍiyānaśrīyogayoginīsvayambhūtasam
198; 200; 224 bhogaśmaśānakalpa; 121; 188
Tāranātha’s Candras; 28; 29; 55; 56; 78 Udīrṇakhaḍga; 15
Tathāgatagupta; 70 Umāpatideva
Tattvacaturupadeśaprasannadīpa; 164; Umapatidattapāda; 121
259 Umayyad Caliphate; 79
Tatz, Mark; 124 Utkala Kingdom; 44
Te lo pa’i rnam thar; 131; 132 Uttar Pradesh, IN-UP; 11
Templeman, David; 29 Vāgīśvara; 127
Tham Bahil Vainyagupta; 71
Stham Bihar, Bikramaśīla Bihar; Vainyagupta of Krīpura; 10; 71; 72; 220
101; 102; 152 Vairocana
Thang lo pa; 204; 206; 209 Vairocanavajra, Vairocanarakṣita;
Ti lo pa’i rnam thar; 109; 134; 186 95; 151
Ti lo shes rab bzang po’i rnam par thar; Vairocanābhisambodhitantrapiṇḍārtha;
133; 206 112
Tillopādasya dohākoṣapañjikā Vaivartikas; 10
sārārthapañjikā; 140; 255; 257; 258 Vajra; 71
Tīra-bhukti Vajraḍākinībhāvanādṛṣṭicaryātrayasaṃ
current Tirhut Division, IN-BR; 245 ketanirdeśa; 261
Ṭīstā River; 73 Vajraḍākinīniṣkāyadharma; 110; 129;
Trailokyacandra; 59; 60; 61; 62; 63; 64; 130; 131; 132; 134; 135; 137; 139;
160 221; 260; 262; 266
INDEX 267
Vajraghaṇṭāpā; 145; 146; 177 Vimalā; 243

Vajrajvāla; 120; 122; 224 Vīṇāpāda; 176
Vajrapāṇi; 127; 256 Vinayagupta; 127
Vajraśakti; 26 Vindhya Range; 44; 61
Vajrāsana Vīradeva; 19; 45; 76
Bodhgayā; 96; 230 Vīraprabha; 98
Vajrāsana the Great Vīraśaiva tradition; 194
alias Puṇyākaragupta; 95; 96 Virūpā; 121; 179; 188; 190; 196; 197;
Vajrāsana the Middle 198; 209; 231; 232; 251
alias Ratnākaragupta, Sauripāda; 95; Virupāpāda; 125; 126; 197
96; 97; 98 Viṣāntarabāhyanivṛttibhāvanākrama;
Vajravārāhīsādhana; 121 259
Vajrayoginīguruparaṃparā; 124 Viṣṇugupta; 71
Vākpāla; 48; 66 Viṣṇunagara; 240; 252
Vallabhi Viṣṇupura
current Vala, IN-GJ; 38 current Bishnupur, IN-WB; 252
Vaṅga; 4; 7; 8; 10; 11; 13; 15; 19; 22; Visukalpa; 182; 207
31; 33; 60; 62; 64; 72; 73; 160 Wayman, Alex; 144
Vaṅgāla; 20; 21; 28; 29; 60; 64 Weber, Maximilian Karl Emil; 6; 38;
Vardhamāna Bhukti; 10; 65; 73 231
Vardhamānapura West Bengal, IN-WB; 1; 12; 30; 49; 50;
current Bardhaman City, IN-WB; 73 67; 68; 69; 72; 73; 152; 190; 252
Varendra; 4; 12; 42; 66; 100; 205 Xuanzang; 9; 12; 13; 14; 18; 28; 36; 37;
Varman dynasty; 62 50; 70; 71; 73; 74; 116; 179
Vasantapura; 20 Yaśodāsa; 49
Vatsarāja; 33; 34 Yaśodharman; 10; 36; 71; 117
Vesālī; 23; 24; 25; 26; 52; 77; 81; 162 Yaśovarman; 20; 27; 30; 55; 77; 78
Vibhūticandra; 100; 101; 102; 248; 260 Yijing; 9; 18; 21; 28; 31; 37; 70; 75
Vigrahapāla; 48; 66 Yogaratnamālā; 117; 154
Vigrahapāla II; 63; 67 Yogaṣaḍaṅga; 101; 102; 152
Vijaya Sātakarṇi; 191 Yoginī Cintā; 177
Vijayaghoṣa; 127 Yunnan; 81
Vijayapāda; 146; 174; 175; 177; 205 Zhang Lo tsā ba
Vijayapurī; 191; 192 Zhang Lo tsā ba Grub pa dpal Byang
Vijayarakṣita; 174; 175; 177 chub ’od zer; 85; 88; 90; 91; 107;
Vijayasena; 72; 73 150; 152; 263; 264; 265; 268; 272;
Vikramapura; 62; 64; 124; 159; 160; 162 274
Vikramaśīla Mahāvihāra; 39; 41; 78; 80; Zhang lo’i thim yig; 85; 91; 264; 267;
95; 96; 100; 101; 124 269; 270; 272
Vilasyavajrā; 177

2018 Tilopa A Buddhist Yogin of The Tent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2018 Tilopa A Buddhist Yogin of The Tent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2018 Tilopa A Buddhist Yogin of The Tent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TILOPĀ

A BUDDHIST YOGIN OF THE TENTH CENTURY

LIBRARY OF TIBETAN WORKS AND ARCHIVES

Jacques Élisée Reclus

Sante Geronimo Caserio

Fabio Massimo Bardelli

Maps and Illustrations x

The Practice 169

Maps and Illustrations

IN-OR Odisha, India

SUT Saṃvarodayatantra (Ō. 20, Tō. 373)

Le plagiat est nécessaire. Le progrès l’implique

Fame, the great ill, from small beginnings grows:

In 1608, a thirty-four-year-old Tibetan Buddhist monk, Tāranātha (1575–

Here in Tibet, whatever account, no matter whether correct or not, is

Undoubtedly Tāranātha had read neither Vergil nor Dryden’s translation

Be it a practice, a custom, or a legend―in our case, a hagiographic

The meaning of a representation can be nothing but a representation. In

According to Umberto Eco (1975: 101–103), when a process of unlimited

What is the social relevance of this unlimited semiotic process? Is there a

Professor of Classical Philology at the University of Basel, Nietzsche in the

There is obviously no unrhetorical ‘naturalness’ of language to which one

If we dare assess the essence of language as rhetorical, if this is the case, it

question with tradition is that both functions are to be regarded as

...because the barbarians are more servile (doulikṓteroi) in their nature

In actual fact, such an authoritative father of the European ethnocentrism

continuous, homogeneous, and isotropic, i.e. uniform in all orientations

It is my hope that the material collected and discussed in this book be of

MAP 2 Current administrative divisions in the same area

riverrun, past Eve and Adam’s, from swerve of

L abelled by Tibetans as East of India (rGya gar shar phyogs),

MAP 3 Major floodplains

In spite of the earth-moulding process of the waters of this riverine country,

MAP 4 Approximate territorial division of Ancient Bengal

Following the diachronic patterns of dynastic historians within this

Gaṅgā and Pāṭaliputra

values of resourceful merchants, surrounded by new luxuries, and absorbed

and a higher welfare as a consequence.

Puṇḍravardhana, which was controlled by governors (uparika, then

members. This piece of information is corroborated by a later pilgrim-monk

Krīpura, Koṭālipāḍā, and Karṇasuvarṇa

the western bhukti of Vardhamāna and the southern one of Navyāvakāśikā

Bengal After Śaśāṅka

Xuanzang refers to the major portion of northern Bengal, the territory

Imposing ruins of ancient buildings, temples and forts, large tanks

It has been reasonably speculated (Sircar 1971: 149) that Devakhaḍga

found in the Deulbari inscription of the chief consort of Devakhaḍga. Her

Obverse: Within circle surrounded by dots, in the centre a male figure

Śrīdhāraṇarāta found at Kailan, southwest of Comilla (Sircar 1947), that the

We know from Yijing’s Da tang xi yu qiu fa gao seng zhuan (T.2066.8c1;

Xuanzang’s Śīlabhadra would have belonged were the Rātas.

Khaḍgodyama c. 615 – c. 635

Evidence of a late-eighth-century Deva dynasty of kings ruling from the

Gi ri warta this northeastern land

Mu nyang the region including―

Candras of Bengal seem to suggest. Dhanyawadi (Dhaññavatī, Skt

KING’S NAME FURTHER EVIDENCE

1 Mahāvīra 12 600 king of Purempura;