About Avadhūtipa, Damarupa and missing links

Damarupa & Avadhūtipa, Treasury of Lives, Sakya Ngor, 1400 - 1499, Rubin Museum of Art

Damarupa, or Ḍamarupa, who is part of the Lamdré (lam ‘bras) transmission of the Sakya school is considered a mahāsiddha, and a student of Khāṇapa, who is considered a student of Virūpa. Khāṇa(pa) is part of the 84 mahāsiddhas, but not Damarupa. Damarupa is instrumental in the upward attribution of the 'Vajra Verses' to Virūpa. The Indian transmission of the “whispered lineage” going down to the Tibetan Drokmi lotsāva (992? - d.1043/1072) is said to have reached him going progressively back in time via Gayadhara (10-11th century), Avadhūtipa, Damarupa, the Lamdré Khāṇapa and the Lamdré Virūpa. Five of the 'Vajra Verses' are said to have been brought out from Oḍḍiyāna by Lamdré Khāṇapa later on[1].

From: Taking the Result as the Path (Cyrus R. Stearns, Tibetan Classics 4)

For clarity, and if that wasn't clear until now, I myself belong to the category of sentient beings with afflictions and impure appearances.

In Taking the Result as the Path (Cyrus R. Stearns, Tibetan Classics 4), the “Vajra Verses” of Lamdré Virūpa are attributed to a Virūpa having lived in the 7-8th century). Compare with Gayadhara’s lifetime (10-11th century) and with the trio Lamdré Avadhūtipa, Damarupa and Lamdré Khāṇapa to fill up a gap of 300 years… Lamdré Avadhūtipa and Damarupa carry a heavy responsibility in maintaining the lineage uninterrupted, but since it is a “whispered lineage”, there is a lot of leeway for instructions through visions, dreams, travels to Oddiyana , heavenly ascents etc. Frankly we don’t know where or when the “Vajra Verses” were written, but it’s safe to assume their final version in Tibetan translation dates at the earliest from the time of Sachen Nyingpo and his sons (12th-13th century), which is already quite a bit closer to the Virūpa of the Amṛtasiddhi.

Gayadhara and Damarupa (detail HA352)

Do we know Lamdré Avadhūtipa and Damarupa from other sources than Sakya literature? Representations of this duo seem to date from the 15th-16th century onwards. Nothing in Mahāsiddha hagiographies. Even the website The Treasury of Lives can’t do better than to publish a thangka with the both of them (see above).

I was hoping to discover more about Damarupa’s life from the website Maṇḍalas Life, but nothing there either. I haven’t looked into Tibetan sources, apart from TBRC not listing him as an author. The Sakya Research Center mentions three works (13th-16th century) in which Damarupa is mentioned[3]. I admit it’s not a thorough search, but I have a hunch it may not be worth the effort. Drop me a line if you know more about Damarupa in more ancient settings. The best bet is Taranatha's Life of Krsnacarya-Kāṇha (David Templeman, LTWA, 1989), where Damarupa seems to have been inspired by a certain Dhumapa (p. 53-54), but that hagiography dates from the 16th century. 

Lamdré Avadhūtipa, top right (detail HA352)
Vajradhara, Nairātmyā and Lamdré Khāṇapa at the right

Next step is to look into Lamdré Avadhūtipa, who at least must have met or seen Damarupa to receive the transmission. There are mixed results. Dīpamkara Śrījnāna Atiśa (982-1054) is said to have studied with a tantric yogi Avadhūtipa from the age of 11 years onwards, and during 7 years, studying Madhyamaka and Tantric practices.

“ Historical information for Avadhūtipa is elusive in that there are at least four individuals with this name in works preserved in the Tibetan Tengyur. Tibetan historians writing after the fourteenth century also provide varied accounts of his life and his relationship to Atiśa. therefore limit the references about Avadhūtipa and his teachings to works written by Atiśa, the early Kadampa biographies of Atiśa, and the early Kadampa commentaries on Atiśa’s Middle Way.” Jewels of the Middle Way: The Madhyamaka Legacy of Atisa and His Early Tibetan Followers, James B. Apple

From this Avadhūtipa, Atiśa received “the special instruction (upadeśa) of apratiṣṭhita [madhyamaka] darśana”[5]. So this one shared the same view as "Advayavajra Avadhūtipa". They seem pretty close.

“In another work translated while in India, Atiśa’s Open Basket of Jewels directly cites Avadhūtipa three times. The first citation emphasizes the nondifference between gnosis and the dharmadhātu, the second citation advocates practicing the vehicle of secret mantra and attaining Mahāmudrā, and the third citation prescribes not judging others while continuously meditating on emptiness. As we shall see, the nondifference between gnosis and the dharmadhātu (the realm of reality) will be a major source of controversy between Atiśa and his students trained in Tibet.” (Jewels of the Middle Way)

James B. Apple published fragments of translations from Atiśa’s Open Basket of Jewels in his article Atiśa’s Open Basket of Jewels: A Middle Way Vision in Late Phase Indian Vajrayāna, 2010. Atiśa’s Avadhūtipa seems to be the “Advayavajra Avadhūtipa” who met Śrī Śabaripāda.

“My lama, the great venerable [one], the lord of yogis, Avadhūtipa[6] [Nāropa?!], with previously acquired supernatural cognition, had a vision and heard [Nāgārjuna’s] teaching, seeing him while dwelling on Śrī-Parvata. A disciple of the Ārya, the Venerable Nāgābodhi, who is renowned as Śrī Śabaripāda, also always listened to the dharma.”

This small passage of Atiśa could well have led to the many spin-offs about Maitripa and Śrī Śabaripāda. Avadhūtipa is not really a name and can simply design anyone living like an avadhūta. Any association with Lamdré Avadhūtipa? We find yet another (?) Avadhūtipa in the Kālacakra milieu.

“Kālacakrapāda the Elder had many students, among whom were three known as Kālacakrapāda the Younger: Avadhūtipa, Śrībhadrabodhi and Nālandāpa; also Nāropa, Sādhuputra, Ratnakaragupta, Mokṣakaragupta, Vinayākaramati, Siṃhadhvaya and Anantajaya.” (Kalacakra.org)

Avadhūtipa is also sometimes said to be another name of Maitripa/Advayavajra, and Marpa is said to have met with Avadhūtipa.

“Mar pa is said to meet him again during his second, and last, journey to India, when Nāropa was in the practice and unavailable.656 At that time, Maitripa was in the charnel ground of the Mountain Blazing like Fire, in the east of India. The text states that it was at that time that Maitrepa–called Avadhūtipa–accepted Mar pa as his disciple; he gave him the same transmissions as before and induced in him profound meditation experiences. 656 Tāranātha & Templeman, 11-13.” (A Lineage in Time : The Vicissitudes of the rNgog pa bka’ brgyud from the 11th through 19th centuries, Cécile Ducher, 2019, p. 182)

I looked in the English translation of Tāranātha’s The Seven Instruction Lineages, but the name “Avadhūtipa” is not to be found there on the indicated pages. I believe Padma Karpo[7] does mention it, but the name given to Maitrīpa by Śavaripa was “Advayavajra Avadhūtipa”. So it may not be the same individual as Lamdré Avadhūtipa. A more likely candidate would be an Avadhūtipa in Nepal, whose disciples hung out with members of the Bharo clan. This Avadhūtipa is also called “Paiṇḍapātika the Great” (bsod nyoms pa), a kṣatriya native from Eastern Bengal (BA p. 390-391), specialised in Vajravārāhī (phag mo gzhung drug)[8]. That was in the 11th century. But we would still have only Damarupa and Lamdré Khāṇapa to bridge the gap with Lamdré Virūpa from the 7-8th century. “Paiṇḍapātika the Great” or one of his students could make a likely candidate for Lamdré Avadhūtipa. Interestingly, texts on Kālacakra have been written both by Kālacakrapāda (many) and by Paiṇḍapātika (one).

Atiśa’s and Marpa’s Avadhūtipa seems to correspond more or less to Advayavajra/Maitripa. But does Lamdré Avadhūtipa, especially when he’s associated with Damarupa? There also is the story of Gayadhara impersonating Maitrīpa, pretending to be Maitrīpa to 'Gos Khug pa Lhas-btsas (11th), a student of Atiśa, while trying to sell instructions to him (Luminous Lives, Cyrus R. Stearns, p. 95[9]). If hagiographs themselves give away this sort of information, we better be careful. Who can trust Gayadhara? Or according to Tāranātha (1575-1634), who can trust "the silly Tibetans"? 

"After that, the Tibetans, when recounting the story of the debate with Śāntipa, give the meaning quite incorrectly and in Aryadeśa there are not even any oral accounts of it. The following is said about Tibet—“Bhotā Svana Bāktya Sāmaya Coteka Siddhi Sādhaka Kya,” which means, “What the Tibetans say is like the sounds of dogs barking, or like the sound of a Siddha or Sādhaka who has abandoned his vows". One should know how the common lies of the silly Tibetans have been thus compiled." The Seven Instruction Lineages

Gayadhara and Drokmi (detail HA18330)

What to do with Damarupa? Frankly the Lamdré lineage looks quite “interrupted” to me, if it has to go all the way back to Lamdré Kāṇhapa[10] and to his guru, Lamdré Virūpa, in the 7-8th century. Iconographically Damarupa & Avadhūtipa could be brothers and they even look a lot like Virūpa, but the gap… the gap. Especially with interdisciplinary projects like the Haṭhayoga Project, academics specializing in Tibetan matters really ought to look more seriously into ways of dating Tibetan texts and considering apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, revelations and their attributions, because otherwise anything attributed to a 7-8th century Virūpa, a Padmasambhava (or rather his or king Trisong Detsen’s “direct students” or “translators”) etc. in Tibetan materials would always or often predate Indian, Chinese, Nepalese, Mongolian etc. materials.

Lamdré lineage going all the way back to Lamdré Virūpa (HA352)

***

[1] The Life of Mahasiddha Virūpa, Lama Choedak Yuthok, Sakya Losal Choe Dzong, Canberra, Australia.

[3] sna tshogs thob pa'i gsan yig [2007] (557) lam 'bras lam gsan yig [2007] (139), attributed to 'phags pa blo gros rgyal mtshan/ (1235–1280)

bde stong mchog gi sgra sgrog Da ru pa gong dkar lam 'bras bla brgyud [dig], attributed to theg chen chos rje kun dga' bkra shis/ (1349–1425)

DA ma ru pa gong dkar ba rnam thar I_B1 [xyl] (38a) attributed to rgya ston byang chub dbang rgyal/ (1470–ca. 1540/50s)

Also: David Templeman, Taranatha's Life of Krsnacarya-Kāṇha, Library of Tibetan Works & Archives (1989)

"[Dhumapa] also performed the ācārya's offices and also took the time to beat the drum known as a pataha and to blow the various musical instruments. He became known as Dhumapa due to the sound of the music he made. It is said that by meditation on the yoga of Vajranairātma, he was able to attain the very highest state, and that supported by the Hevajra Tantra he attained siddhahood." (p. 53-54) 

[5] Colophon to the Sūtrasamuccayasañcayārtha, from Jewels of the Middle Way

[6] James Apple adds the note : "Jo bo rje’i gsung ’bum (806.18) adds nā ro pa". The original text seems to mention only Avadhūtipa. This needs to be looked into further.

[7] Pad ma dkar po 1527-1592) in his 'Brug pa'i chos 'byung.

[8] Passed on to lDong ngar ba, who bestowed it on Paiṇḍapātika junior, that we know from the Bharo clan, where he was a house priest.

[9] “At that point, Lord Gayadhara was staying in Gro mo. They met on the banks of a river and ['Gos, Lo tsa ba] asked about his story. [Gayadhara] replied, "I am the Victor Maitrīpa." Since he was expert in Dharma and also had great oral instructions, ['Gos Lo tsa ba] was pleased, and invited him. On the path as they traveled to Tibet, the translator heard the news that all the Mon people from before were waiting along all the paths, saying, "All those we said were ghosts passing by last year were a Tibetan translator carrying much gold. He invited a paṇḍita, and is returning."

When the translator and his attendant discussed it, [Se] Shes rab smon lam, who was a disciple of Mgos, said, "If the masters, the translator and the paṇḍita, do not live it would be like the eyes of all Tibetans being blinded at the same moment. I will go impersonating the master." The translator and Se both exchanged clothes. It is said that the translator escaped by impersonating a beggar, and that Se escaped without being killed due to the force of his devotion to the master and his fine awakening of the enlightenment mind.

In general, there has been no one in Tibet except Se Shes rab smon able to sacrifice his life for the sake of the master. So it has been stated.

When the translator and the paṇḍita reached Tibet, they met all the previous disciples of Lord Gayadhara in 'Go yul, and [it was revealed] that he was not the Son of the Victors, Maitripa. Mgos said, "The master has lied to me." The lord replied, "Don't you want the Dharma? I am more expert in the Dharma than Maitrīpa." And Mgos was also extremely pleased with the Dharma.”

[10] “The dating of Kṛṣṇācārya is full of problems, few of which are capable of a final resolution. According to the Western tradition the Buddha's Parinirvāṇa was approx. 560 B.C. According to the Tibetan tradition it was 948-947 B.C. (See Roerich, G. The Blue Annals p.22). According to the Tibetan reckoning Kṛṣṇācārya’s birth was approx. 475 A.D. which is far too early to be consistent with the internal references in this text,_e.g. the consecration of Somapurī . If the Western dating were adopted (and the Tibetans certainly do not) this would bring his birth to about 1060 A.D. which is a more workable date, but still not consistent with the dating of certain internal references such as the aforementioned Somapuri consecration, King Devapala, the fact that Maitrīpa (n. 178) is said to be a rebirth of Kṛṣṇācārya (n. 179) and that Maitripa's dates are 1007/1010-1085 A.D. See Snellgrove, D.L. The Hevajra Tantra, Pt.I, p.13, n.4.” David Templeman, Taranatha's Life of Krsnacarya-Kāṇha, Library of Tibetan Works & Archives (1989)

L'Inconcevable bipartite

Comme vu précédemment, l’enseignement emblématique de la lignée Sakya est le Cycle du chemin et du fruit (T. lam ‘bras), qui consiste en 9 sections (T. lam skor dgu), dont la première est justement la section du Chemin et du fruit. Les neuf autres sont des instructions qui remontent ou qui sont attribués à des maîtres indiens. La première instruction du cycle est L’Inconcevable (S. Acintyādvaya T. bsam mi khyab) de Kuddāla(pāda). Ce texte a depuis toujours été considéré comme le principal des huit cycles.[1] La traduction tibétaine de ce texte comporte 130 versets, contrairement à l’original en sanscrit qui en compte 124. Selon le « Volume noir » (T. pod nag ma) du 15ème patriarche de Sakya, Seunam Gyeltsen (bla ma dam pa Bsod nams rgyal mtshan 1312-75), Drogmi (993-1077) aurait uniquement reçu L’Inconcevable de Bhikṣu Vīravajra/ Prajñedraruci.[2] Selon Ronald Davidson, seul L'Inconcevable (S. Acintyādvayakramopadeśa) est authentiquement indien, tandis que les sept autres sections, sont des textes « gris » qui auraient été composés au Tibet tout en étant attribués à des maîtres Indiens.[3] Selon Davidson, ces textes "profondement tibétains" et qui s'inscrivent très clairement dans la classe des vidyādhara ont été composés au Tibet par des tibétains, principalement sous la direction de Sachen Nyingpo (Sa chen kun dga' snying po 1092-1158) et de son fils Drakpa Gyeltsen, qui « se donnaient beaucoup de mal à les faire passer pour des œuvres indiens authentiques »[4].

Il était apparemment traditionnel de n’enseigner que L’Inconcevable, quand il est impossible de donner le cycle Lamdré dans son entiereté.[5] L’Inconcevable est également inclus dans le Cycle des six sections du Coeur (T. snying po skor drug)[6], ainsi que dans les Huit démonstrations du mystère (S. Guhyādi-aṣṭasiddhi-saṅgraha T. gsang ba grub pa la sogs pa’i grub pa sde brgyad, disponible en version romanisé sur Digital Sanskrit Buddhist Canon) .[7] Son auteur, Kuddāla/Koṭalipa, aurait[8] encore une autre œuvre qui lui est attribuée : le Sahajānanta-svabhāva-nāma (DG 3528). En dehors de cela, c’est un personnage quasiment inconnu, à part légendairement comme un des 84 mahāsiddhas. Dans les Vies des 84 mahāsiddha, il est présenté comme un contemporain de Ratnākaraśānti (T. rin chen 'byung gnas zhi ba), un des professeurs de Maitrīpa. L’Inconcevable lui-même comporte des éléments qui le situent en effet certainement pas avant cette époque. Maitrīpa est celui qui avait redécouvert deux traités attribués à Maitreya, parmi lesquels le Ratnagotravibhāga/Mahāyānottaratantra-Śāstra qui traite de la nature de Bouddha et du « gène » du mahāyāna (S. gotra). A la même époque on voit apparaître l’Hymne au Dharmadhātu (traduction française) (version en tibétain Wylie) attribué à Nāgārjuna, qui va également dans le sens d’un « gène de Bouddha ». L’Hymne au Dharmadhātu reste cependant le cadre du Mahāyāna, mais un Mahāyāna que l’on sent tout proche des sadhānas tantriques. Il mentionne d’ailleurs un « mahāyoga » (Hymne, verset 97) qui est l’activité éveillée pour le bien des êtres, à la façon d’un Samantabhadra bodhisattva.

Le texte de L’Inconcevable (traduction française du tibétain) (version en tibétain Wylie) commence en suivant le cadre de l’Hymne au Dharmadhātu, mais quand est abordé le « gène du Bouddha », on bascule soudainement (à partir de verset 86 de L’Inconcevable) dans le mahāyoga tantrique, et l’on ressent une forte influence shivaïste. On fait allusion au barratage de l’océan de lait (L'Inconcevable, verset 95) et à l’'authentique Seigneur suprême (S. parameśvara) sans second (L'Inconcevable, verset 109), on enseigne le mantra So-Haṁ, l’édification d’un corps parfait (T. grub pa'i gzugs S. siddharūpa) et immortel, le rêve des siddhas. Mais avant tout, les termes « lucidité » (S. prajñā) et « intuition » (S. jñāna), la quintessence de l’intelligence, prennent un sens tout à fait différent et deviennent synonyme du Fluide sans-mort (S. amṛta, soma) et de la Sève vitale (S. rasa), la substance de vie qui anime l’univers. Étant devenu égal au soma mythologique, c’est de la part d’êtres mythologiques qu’il sera reçu au cours de rituels d’offrandes et dans le cadre d’une consécration, qui porte des caractéristiques du mouvement Kaula.

Quand Drakpa Gyeltsen (grags pa rgyal mtshan 12-13ème)[9] écrit sur le ravissement de Zur po che shakya 'byung gnas (10-11ème s.) en recevant L'Inconcevable de Drogmi (affirmant du même coup l’origine, réelle ou non, de ce texte). Il lui fait dire : « Le sūtra de Māyājāla[10] et le sems phyogs de ce vieillard ont été bien enrichis. »[10] Cette phrase contient beaucoup de renseignements, sans doute trop… Elle a pour but d’affirmer la jonction entre le mahāyoga tantrique et les instructions de la « Section de la Conscience » (T. sems sde), désormais connu sous le nom de la Grande complétude (T. rdozgs chen), et cela dès le 10-11ème siècle. Du même coup, cette phrase affirme la conformité de L’Inconcevable bipartite de Kuddāla et le Dzogchen bipartite. Remarquons qu’il est simultanément considéré comme un élément essentiel, et peut-être le plus auhentiquement indien, du cycle sakyapa du Chemin et du Fruit. L’anecdote qui encadre la phrase de Zourpoché, rappelle que Zourpoché avait reçu cette transmission de Drogmi. Les écoles sakyapa et nyingmapa se rejoignent sur le contenu bipartite de L’Inconcevable, et notamment sur la deuxième partie mahāyogatantrique. Ce texte est alors considéré comme une authentification indienne du mahāyoga, que Zourpoché connaissait déjà. Ce n’est pas le contenu du texte qui est "enrichissant", mais son origine indienne authentifiée. Le contenu n’aborde que sommairement les thèses mahāyogatantriques. Pour ce qui est de la première partie plutôt « sems phyogs », elle est très conforme à la thèse de l’Hymne au dharmadhātu (apparu au 10ème siècle) que L’Inconcevable semble suivre de près, à par la bifurcation sur le mahāyoga, là ou l’Hymne s’engage dans les niveaux spirituels des bodhisattvas et l’émanation de mondes purs. Il me semble, sans en avoir des preuves, que L’Inconcevable ait été rédigé après l’Hymne au dharmadhātu, soit au 10-11ème siècle. Il me semble encore, que le commentaire des Distiques de Saraha composé par Advayavajra/Maitrīpa est en dialogue, entre autres, avec L’Inconcevable bipartite, et que Maitrīpa essaie d’intégrer en les réinterprétant les éléments mahāyogatantriques dans un nouveau cadre qui transcende les sūtra et les tantras (la troisième voie). 

Il est alors possible que cette proximité de la vue de Maitrīpa soit une des raisons de l’éloignement de Geu Khougpa, également disciple d’Atiśa, de ceux qui étaient plus proche d’une vue davantage mahāyogatantrique, où le yoga prend la place des perfections dans les Dispositifs (S. upāya).

MàJ161012 : une nouvelle traduction anglaise de l'Inconcevable est disponible sur Budismo Sakya. Elle a été faite par Acharya Lama Migmar Tseten et Loppon Kunga Namdrol.

---

Illustration : La fontaine de jouvence de Lucas Cranach

[1] Stearns, Luminous Lives, p. 211
[2] Stearns, p. 37
[3] Tibetan renaissance: Tantric Buddhism in the rebirth of Tibetan culture par Ronald M. Davidson p. 195 "Any assessment of these eight subsidiary practices must indicate, as I have tried to do, that with one exception (Acintyddvayakramopadeia), they have no attested Indic text. The authors of the works¡ªprincipally Drakpa Gyeltsen take great pains to identify these works with well-known Indie materials. Yet their attempts are called into question by the observable discontinuity between these specific works and their putative antecedents. Their textual bases, therefore, are fundamentally Tibetan, a reality obscured by the consistent attempt to posit them as Indie texts with Indie tides in the printed version of the Yet-low Book. These works represent a disparate variety of content, running the gamut from the fundamentals of esoteric Buddhism to the most advanced instruction in sexual practice and ultimate reality. Their sources are quite varied as well. They came to Drokmi from a range of informants: two (2 and 3) from Viravajra, perhaps three (5?, 6, 7) from Gayadhara, and one each from Ratna-vajra (1), Amoghavajra (4), and Prajnagupta (8). Their content reveals a clear movement toward homogenization in the vortex of the Sakya institution, for they are consistently capped with instruction in the bodies of the Buddha, and many of them are filled out with a ground (gzhi) / path (lam) / result ('bras bu) structure. Indeed, the movement toward homogenization is often explicit in consideration of the "eight subsidiary practices," and as Gungru Sherap Zang-po pointed out, the Lamdre authors consistendy stated that these eight clarify that which is not otherwise clear in the Lamdre and supplement that which is in need of augmentation."
[4] Davidson, p. 203
[5] Luminous Lives, p. 212
[6] 1. Dohākoṣagīti (T. do ha mdzod kyi glu DG 2224), les Distiques de Saraha
2. Caturmudrāniścaya (T. phyag rgya bzhi rjes su bstan pa DG 2225) de Nāgārjunagarbha
3. Cittavarana vircodhana-nama-prakarana/ Cittavishuddhiprakarana (T. sems kyi sgrib pa rnam par sbyong ba zhes bya ba’i rab tu byed pa otani beijing: 2669) de Āryadeva
4. Prajñājñānaprakāśa (T. shes rab ye shes gsal ba DG 2226) de Devākaracandra/ Śūnyatāsamādhi (disciple de Maitrīpa)
5. Sthitisamuccaya (T. gnas pas bdsus pa DG 2227) de Sahajavajra (disciple de Maitrīpa)
6. Acintyakramopadeśa (T. bsam gyis mi khyab pa’i man ngag DG 2228), traduit par Kśemāṇkura (T. bde ba’i myu gu) et Geu Khougpa
[7] Edité par Samdhong Rinpoché et Vrajvallabh Dwivedi, Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, Varanasi, 1987. 1. Guhyasiddhiḥ (T. gsang ba grub pa) de Padmavajra, 2. Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhiḥ (T. thabs dang shes rab rnam par gtan la dbab pa grub pa) d’Anaṅgavajra, 3. Jñānasiddhiḥ (T. ye shes grub pa) d’Indrabhūti, 4. Advayasiddhiḥ (T. gnyis su med grub pa’i sgrub thabs) de Yoginī Lakṣmīṅkarā, 5. Vyaktabhāvānugatatattvasiddhiḥ (T. de kho na nyid grub pa) de Yoginī Cintā, 6. Sahajasiddhiḥ (T. lhan gcig skyes grub) de Dombī Heruka, 7. Advayavivaraṇaprajñopāyaviniścayasiddhiḥ (T. de Padmavajra), 8. Acintyādvayakramopadeśaḥ (T. bsam gyis mi khyab pa’i rim pa’i man ngag) de Kuddāla.
[8] Buddha’s Lions, James B. Robinson
[9] Auteur des Chroniques des maîtres indiens.
[10] A po’i mdo rgyu ‘phrul sems phyogs nor du btang*/