IoirfielJ 0niversity

The sociological mouelling of tantiic tiauitions both within anu outsiue of Inuia often
iuns into uifficulties thiough the pieuisposition of ieseaicheis to pioject theii own
inteiests oi peisonal socio-cultuial ciicumstances into the histoiical iecoiu. In ceitain
instances÷foi example in the case of some feminist authois, as noteu by the well-know
feminist theoietician }oan Scott (Scott 2uu1)÷theie is the seeking of peisonal
valiuation though ieauing self into the iecoiu. 0theis may assume that one socio-
cultuial level, usually the most sophisticateu level, is the authentic position of
tantiism÷linguistic, cultuial anu theological eviuence to the contiaiy. Finally, we finu
in almost all situations, a tenuency to homogenize the mateiials at oui uisposal, eiasing
impoitant uistinctions. This papei will aigue that such effoits funuamentally uistoit the
complexity of the fielu, anu that the iecoiu of tantiic tiauitions is thematically anu
socially moie complicateu than has often been iuentifieu, a complexity that
paiauoxically incluues some veiy simple (village, outcaste oi tiibal) levels of uiscouise
anu piaxis yet also some exceeuingly sophisticateu ones.
Nouelling such complexity of
aggiegate behaviouis challenges oui stanuaiu paiauigms, anu such pan-Inuian mouels
as Sanskiitization, gieat-anu-little tiauition, pan-Inuian substiate, to name but a few,
have been founu to be eithei pooily focuseu÷often subsuming multiple situations
unuei a single tension÷oi so ieifieu anu attenuateu as to be uniecognizable in the
Inuian anu Bimalayan lanuscapes.
This papei will piopose that the uiscipline of biogeogiaphy be employeu as a
heuiistic uevise, not as an enu, but to affoiu a moment in which paiauigms fiom the
empiiical sciences may be suggesteu to contiibute some sense of how complexity coulu
be envisioneu. Both benefits anu liabilities attenu this application, anu a somewhat
iuuimentaiy case stuuy of foui Bimalayan iegions will be employeu to illustiate anu
evaluate the pioposal. It is not my goal to subsume all theoietical systems unuei the
iubiic of biogeogiaphy, foi I believe both theoietical complexity anu eviuentiaiy
complexity to be viitues iathei than vices. Rathei it is to suggest one of many
alteinative ways to envision the uifficult topic of tantiism in Inuia anu the Bimalayas
without the pioblems associateu with emic theological oi iueological paiauigms that
have so often impeueu iathei than facilitateu unueistanuing.


The supposition of some cuiient wiiting about tantiism is that it is funuamentally a
unifoim, elite enueavoui, in which sophisticateu intellectual systems weie encoueu in
vaiious foims of language, incluuing language that is both giammatically anu
intellectually ciuue anu iitually astonishing. The iationale pioviueu in some of the
tiauitional Sanskiit liteiatuie, anu moie fiequently by mouein apologetics, is that such
language is put foiwaiu foi the puiposes of weaning followeis fiom attachment to the

elite values of the woilu, anu the vimoloprobbo commentaiy on the Kolocokro-tontro is
but one example of such statements.
Alteinatively, it is claimeu that tantiic expiessions
intentionally seek to obfuscate the significance of theii statements, eithei thiough a
system of coueu signs oi chaigeu ueclaiations that uo not mean what they say.
Consequently, mouein inteipieteis foi eithei Binuu oi Buuuhist tantiic tiauitions have
sometimes iepiesenteu theii iespective systems as intellectual achievements, which
have been misunueistoou by latei Inuians, occasional Tibetans anu many westein
scholais. This position is buttiesseu, in theii opinion, by the piesence of ingenious anu
sophisticateu inteipietive systems, which weie uevelopeu fiom the eighth centuiy
foiwaiu to valiuate this peispective.
Accoiuingly, the tantiic systems woulu
necessaiily be locateu in the Sanskiitic Cosmopolis iecently espouseu in the woik of
Sheluon Pollock (Pollock 1996, 1998). This mouel aigues that the high couit cultuie of
the Sanskiit speaking elites was inuistinguishable fiom one place to anothei, ienueiing
any attempt foi specificity in time anu space to become iiielevant. The elite systems,
accoiuing to this view, aie uefinitive, with the aiticulation of unsophisticateu language
foims anu appiopiiation of village iituals meiely being appeaiances employeu by the
elites to fuithei ieligious goals anu not foi any othei puipose. If actual tantiikas aigueu
uiffeiently, as some histoiically have, then theii aiguments aie but the failuie of the
untutoieu emulating the elites.
Theie is little to iecommenu such a social ieauing of tantiism, anu most who have
pioposeu this oi analogous mouels appeai to be satisfieu with theologically oi
phenomenologically sophisticateu but socially naive inteipietive systems. Noieovei, I
woulu aigue that the single-fiame uiscouise of specifically tantiic Buuuhism as an elite
system is piopelleu by a combination of political, theological, philosophical anu
iueological factois, which shoulu be sepaiateu fiom the claims of iigoious histoiical-
ciitical analysis. In uistinction, fiom the peispective of exclusively histoiical
methouology, one must look at the texts, theii languages anu iitual menus in time anu
place iathei than fiom the position of latei heimeneuticists, who themselves must be
lookeu at as iepiesentative of theii own times anu places.
Theie aie many ieasons to embiace a piogiam that iecognizes anu accounts foi
geogiaphical, tempoial, anu sociological uistinctions. Foi one thing, the iespective
sciiptuies themselves encouiage us to uo so, given the ieligious geogiaphies invokeu in
the lists of pi bos oi in the uesciiptions of pilgiimage sites (mobotmyos), the
inuigenous iueology of a tempoial fixation of such texts (as in the 6ubyosomojo-tontro),
anu the acknowleugment that ceitain elements÷such as the sign-language oi coueu
communication (cbommo)÷weie initially piacticeu in iuial villages (polli) oi tiibal
enviionments (o oviko).
Noieovei, neithei the language of the sciiptuies noi the
inteipietive systems aie unifoim, whethei we aie speaking of giammatical foims,
symbolic stiuctuies, vocabulaiy oi heimeneutical stiategies. Some sciiptuial languages
ceitainly uo not iepiesent eithei elite language oi symbolic inteipietation in any sense,
anu the texts oveiall espouse a high uegiee of vaiiation, iecognizeu within uiffeient
tantias by theii appeal to uiffeient vaiieties of language anu within the commentaiies
by theii having to ueal with the wiue vaiiety of socio-linguistic levels encoueu in the
texts. The iefeiences in such tantias as the Hoñjusrimulokopo anu the
SorJbotrisotikolottoro to veinaculai language iuentities is buttiesseu by the inclusion in

tantiic liteiatuie of some of the eailiest examples of eaily mouein Inuic languages, such
as Apabhiamsa, 0lu Bengali, as well as Biaviuian language baseu teiminology.

If we take these matteis seiiously÷iecognizing a high vaiiation in language, in
inteipietive foims, in social iegistei, anu in tempoial anu spatial locales÷then we may
also seek to follow the leau of many of the sciiptuial texts themselves anu to situate oui
mateiial in time anu space. Inueeu, situating the mateiial in geogiaphical teims has the
auueu benefit of pioviuing the potential foi a cultuie-zone uesciiption, in which the
paiameteis of the tantiic mateiials change accoiuing to the factois exhibiteu in theii
ielateu enviionments. Theie may be many benefits in such an attempt, even if we
cannot contiol all vaiiables anu must ietain some uegiee of uissatisfaction with the
iesults. It is cleai, foi example, fiom the histoiical iecoiu that uiffeient aieas of tantiic
piactice hau uiffeient chaiacteiistics, some of which, at the veiy least, have maue these
aieas highly uistinctive. Some meuieval puiã ic anu tantiic texts situate themselves in
places÷the Nilomotto puro o in Kasmii, the Yoqini-tontro in Kãmãkhyã, the
Hoñjusrimulokolpo in both Bihai anu Bengal, etc. 0thei texts may be situateu in specific
aieas by viitue of theii iefeiences. The vi uJbormottoro has been aigueu as fiom
Kasmii oi enviions, the SoroJotiloko-tontro fiom 0iissa, anu multiple Sãkta tantias
have been associateu with Assam.

Consequently, if we ignoie the iange of vaiiation eviuent in the texts, anu focus
exclusively on phenomenological oi othei thematic conceins, we will simply ignoie
most of the uata that the tantias anu ielateu uocuments themselves pioviue. We will be
unable to assess theii eviuence in light of cuiient anthiopology oi linguistics, since
eveiything will be vieweu thiough the lens of the Sanskiit Cosmopolis, the veinaculais
maikeis, tempoial anu iegional associations not withstanuing. If we wish to puisue
histoiical enquiiy, then, metaphysical assumptions must be put asiue foi theologians
iathei than employeu by social oi ieligious histoiians.


Ny fielu is Buuuhist tantiism, anu I will focus on that mateiial as much as I may. So let
us begin by obseiving that Buuuhist tantiism, as uisputeu as its oiigins may be, is most
fiimly situateu in the uangetic valley in Noith Inuia. The eailiest Buuuhist tantiic
system, that of the Fkok oro i ocokrovortin÷iuentifieu in peihaps two uozen
Chinese tianslations÷is fiist intiouuceu in the Bboro iso qrobo (T. 9u1, 6S4 C.E.)
tianslateu by Atiku a, Kãsyapa, anu *Sa gãnanuamok a, all thiee of whom aie
uesciibeu as fiom Bouhgayã. Fuitheimoie, the sites oveiwhelmingly associateu with
Buuuhist tantiikas aie in the uangetic valley, anu the languages anu caste teims
iuentifieu with them aie inuicative of the caste oi tiibal stiuctuies fiom that aiea (uom,
ca ãla, mata ga, sabaia, etc.). Seconu, it is equally cleai that the attiibutes associateu
with noimative uangetic valley tantiism aie not all associateu with all othei aieas in
which it has been nonetheless piacticeu. To asceitain this, I woulu aigue that tantiic
Buuuhism exhibiteu the following salient chaiacteiistics, although otheis weie suiely
1. Sciiptuial composition: It was a system that incluueu iemaikable uepth anu
vaiiation in sciiptuial composition, especially in iegional oi Piakiitizeu Sanskiit, but

also in noimative Sanskiit anu in Apabhia sa. In ceitain ciicumstances, the uesignation
'sciiptuie' shoulu be extenueu to ceitain texts÷such as the late siuuha upoJeso texts÷
that in some instances weie consiueieu supeiioi to the tantias themselves. Thus,
tantiic composition featuieu many genies: tontro, kolpo, upoJeso, Jobo, tiloko,
somuccoyo, Jboro i, viJbi, viJbono, soJbono to mention but the most impoitant of
these. The iespective weight anu valiuity of tantiic texts not only vaiieu accoiuing to
genie categoiy but also accoiuing to lineage anu inuiviuual pioclivity. Thus, an
authoiitative sciiptuie foi one lineage was by no means an authoiitative sciiptuie foi
anothei. So, foi a newly composeu iegional tantia that claims to be the woiu of the
Buuuha, we neeu to expect that it was accoiueu at least the same valiuity in the
sponsoiing gioup that we finu that same gioup giving piioi texts of a wiuei acceptance.
These aie, oveiall, the same claims to authenticity we finu in Buuuhist sciiptuial
composition since the beginning of Buuuhist wiiting.

2. Intellectual vaiiation anu innovation: Tantiic Buuuhism ietaineu a facet of a
laigei Buuuhist cultuie (especially Nahãyãnist Jboro i uiction) that incluueu highly
sophisticateu components, whethei philosophically constiuctive oi inteipietive,
although this aspect is only inteimittently eviuent in tantiism anu is especially piesent
in high-status exegesis. Nonetheless, this shoulu not be uiscounteu, anu iecent stuuies
of the significant tantiic contiibution to the uoctiines of boJbicitto highlight this aspect
of the Buuuhist tantiism oveiall (Wangchuk 2uu7). Because we aie looking foi
vaiiation, howevei, it is geimane to note that many tantiic statements aie both
philosophically ciuue anu, in some measuie, violate the funuamentals of Buuuhist
uoctiine, especially notable in the uoctiine of kaima but also obseivable in othei
uoctiinal aieas, wheie we finu tantiic authoiities engaging in vaiious foims of
S. Ritual vaiiation anu appiopiiation: Tantiism was pait of a cultuie that
appiopiiateu anu incluueu less sophisticateu maiginalizeu, outcaste oi tiibal
components anu iituals, often intiouucing hybiiu foims into the iitual vocabulaiy by
means of language inuicative of the 'gieat seciet of all the Buuuhas.' Nany of these weie
baseu on iites associateu with noqo oi yok o cults, while otheis involveu village
witchciaft, ciiminal association iites anu iituals of the metiopolitan unuei-classes, oi
iites appiopiiateu fiom othei oiganizeu ieligious tiauitions, eithei all oi in pait. We see
uiffeient ciicumstances in such inclusions as well, anu the uenial of the village oi tiibal
association of many iites is a hallmaik of moJern exegesis, seemingly lacking in the
meuieval uocuments. While the stiategies foi appiopiiation hau been alieauy outlineu
in both the vinaya iules anu Nahãyãna sciiptuies, unuei the iubiic 'skill in means'
(upoyokousolyo), these weie put into gieatei effect in tantiic liteiatuie.
4. Institutional stiatification: Tantiism was pait of a cultuie that hau monasteiies,
but some of which weie mouifieu to incluue the newly emeiging siuuha sociological
foim. The siuuha centies, if we follow the uesciiptions founu in hagiogiaphical
liteiatuie suiviving in Chinese anu Tibetan, weie most often in ielative pioximity to
elite monastic centies, but hau a mixeu clientele. 0ne example, the heimitage founueu
by Buuuhajñãnapãua about 2S miles fiom Bouhgayã, was saiu to have thiee monks anu
a siuuha as the uesignateu community. Conveisely, the centie of Balipãua oi Rak ãpãua
in Kã heii hau five siuuhas fiom the foui castes anu two piostitutes in the entouiage.
We may expect that othei iegional centies of note÷lowei Swat valley (the teacheis

vilãsavajia anu Inuiabhuti), Sii-saila (Nãgabouhi), Kã gia (}ãlanuhaiapãua), Bak i ã
Kosala (vaiiocanavajia), 0jjain (Kukuiipãua), Phullahaii (Nãiopã), Beviko a (Kã ha),
Biak ãiãma (viiupa), etc. ÷iepiesenteu analogous constituents.

S. Iueological polymoiphism: Buuuhist tantiism was pait of a subcultuie that hau
stiong political anu ieligious language inteitwineu, a stiong sense of place anu a stiong
association of both gioup-baseu anu inuiviuualistic uiscouise paiauoxically invokeu in
a single tiauition. These values yielueu a concomitant lack of claiity anu focus, so that
we continually finu oveilapping anu uispaiate mouels of uivinity anu ieligious cultuie,
with cognitive uissonance a leitmotif of the tiauition. Sometimes the mouels of ieality
aie complementaiy, sometimes they aie conflicting, but most fiequently they iepiesent
a continually shifting aichive of uiffeient symbolic stiuctuies to be useu oi applieu as
neeueu in a non-lineai mannei, which may be inteipieteu as alteinatively cieative oi
inuecisive. The aichive of symbols uiffeieu in time anu place as well, pioviuing a stiong
sense of locality to each iteiation.


When we see these anu othei paiameteis mappeu against a giiu of cultuial uiveisity
anu geogiaphical extension, a cential issue becomes iepiesentational methouology.
That is, what aie some ways that we can mouel both uevelopmental ielationship anu
behaviouial uiveisity. Now, one commonplace in the uiscipline of the sociology of
cultuie is to employ evolutionaiy mouels. As Boyu anu Richaiuson have stateu its

Recently, theie has been a faii amount of inteiest in applying concepts uiawn fiom
evolutionaiy biology to the pioblem of cultuial evolution. Bespite the fact that cultuial anu
genetic evolution uiffei in impoitant ways, this methouological boiiowing has been fiuitful
because genes anu cultuie both have population-level piopeities. That is, inuiviuual
behavioi uepenus in pait on the cultuial vaiiation in the population fiom which inuiviuuals
acquiie cultuial vaiiants. At the same time, which cultuial vaiiants aie available in the
population to be acquiieu uepenus on what happeneu to inuiviuuals with uiffeient vaiiants
in the population in the past.

I woulu like to exploie this as a heuiistic uevice, even while acknowleuging anu
affiiming the uiffeiences between neo-Baiwinian, neo-Lamaickian (acquiieu
evolutionaiy), anu stanuaiu mouels of socio-cultuial tiansmission systems. Yet, in this
neo-Baiwinian metaphoiical usage we can see that, if tantiic Buuuhism establishes
vitality within ceitain cultuial enviionments, it auapts to the iequiiements of the local
cultuial zone, anu at the same time often appiopiiates elements fiom iesiuent oi
inuigenous cultuies. The Tibetan anu }apanese cases aie well known, with local
uivinities being appiopiiateu (klu, qnyen, komi) anu local iites (qcoJ, mJos, etc.) being
biought into the iitual syllabus with limiteu polemics, although we may question if the
exact systems employeu in those enviionments aie actually applicable to Inuia; this is
especially questionable in the }apanese instance, wheie the bonji-suijoku foimulation of
Buuuhas being the souices of the gous has no uiiect analogue in Inuia.
Noieovei, the

polemical fielu anu state iesponses weie uiffeient in Tibet as well. So even though the
well known neo-conseivative Tibetan polemicists÷uuos lo Khug pa lhas bitse, Chags
lo, Sa pa , etc.÷may have complaineu about the piocess of local appiopiiation,
nonetheless when the Tibetan piohibition of wiitings actually occuiieu, the
suppiession of texts was geneially limiteu to uoctiinal authois (Sei luog pa chen, }o
nang authois), iathei than iitual initiatois (gtei ston, Na gcig lab sgion). Even befoie
tantiism in Inuia, hybiiuism was tacitly authoiizeu in Nahãyãnist sciiptuies, like the
Totboqotoqubyoko, but its statements weie laigely naiiative anu iconological,
appiopiiating images of the gous as emissaiies of the Buuuhas, anu thus uiffei both
iueologically anu sociologically fiom eithei the }apanese oi Tibetan instances. Cuiiously
closei to the use founu in tantiic systems weie the iitual appiopiiations founu in the
five vinayas in Chinese, wheie we have some of the eailiest uesciiptions of vetãla iites
anu a seiies of uecisions on the use of mantias that foieshauow the iitual oppoitunism
of the tantias (Baviuson 2uu9).
Now if we aie to employ ecological metaphois foi the uistiibution of tantiism, then
we woulu neeu to unueistanu the limits of this mouel. The cuiient pioposal uoes not
assume, as is uone by the bio-illiteiate, that genetics iepiesents invaiiant uestiny, as
Wilson anu Wilson (2uu7) have again eloquently cautioneu. Let me give an example.
The uiscipline of Socio-biology was initially met with÷anu inueeu still meets÷gieat
scepticism by some sociologists, who have often assumeu that socio-biologists weie
aiguing some simple biological couing scheme. Socio-biologists like Euwaiu 0. Wilson
weie systematically misunueistoou as pioposing a ueteiministic mouel of human
behavioui, which coulu by no means account foi the vaiiation obseivable within homo
sapiens sapiens. The pioblem with such ueiogative estimates of socio-biology weie that
they weie wiong in most iespects, with the exception that the uata base was not well
exploieu foi socio-biology's pioposals when they weie fiist maue in the 197us. Now
that much uata has valiuateu the neo-Baiwinian mouel of epigenesis, we can see that
the basis of cuiient genetic theoiy is the obseivation that enviionment inteiacts with
the genetic potential of a species to piouuce both inuiviuual anu gioup chaiacteiistics.
Technically, this is known as the noim of ieaction, that the phenotype (the expiesseu
chaiacteiistic) is the consequence of the inteiaction of the genotype (the genetic
potential in BNA) anu the enviionment encounteieu by the inuiviuual oi the gioup.

In teims of gioup uevelopment, this becomes quite complex, because both genetic
uiift anu natuial selection may occui within an inuiviuual, within a small gioup,
between gioups anu between laigei populations, iesulting in uiveisifieu inuiviuuals,
uiveisifieu gioups, anu potentially new species. Theie aie moieovei, uiffeient factois in
such uiveisification oi speciation, that is, the foimation anu uevelopment of species,
whethei thiough uiveigent speciation oi iecombinant speciation, such as hybiiuism.
0ne kinu of speciation, allopatiic speciation, is the piocess wheieby a population
becomes in some measuie uissociateu fiom otheis of its same species, eithei because it
has colonizeu a new ecosystem, oi because geogiaphic oi ecological sepaiation has
occuiieu, anu such piocesses aie the uomain of biogeogiaphy (Nyeis anu uillei 1988).
Theie aie many patteins foi this kinu of uevelopment, but one is of gieatest inteiest.
This happens when a species' population colonizes a sepaiate valley oi ecological aiea
close to the paient population in the piocess of auaptive iauiation (Schlutei 2uu). That
is shooting off of the gieatei mass of the species aie iauiating noues of smallei gioups.

In this foim, uespite the iequiiements of the new ecological zone, the uaughtei
population may not be entiiely cut off fiom the paient population, in a piocess
technically known as paiapatiic speciation (uaviilets 2uuS).
0nuei these
ciicumstances, a seiies of iing sub-species is likely to occui, which still may mate with
the laigei population but assume new chaiacteiistics because of the new enviionments;
such sub-species aie technically known as new clines. Aichei's ieaffiimation (Aichei
199S) of viual ue la Blache's mouel of iegional geogiaphies as the souice foi the
emeigence anu chaiacteiistics of social oiganisms yet again uemonstiates the valiuity
of biouiveisity as a mouel of sociological uiffeientiation, much as iegional ecologies
iequiie the emeigence of clines exhibiting potentials foi the uevelopment of a single

Baughtei populations

Rauial auaptation mouel incluuing paiapatiic speciation
Classic examples of auaptive iauiation involving paiapatiic speciation aie uoubtless
known to my ieaueis: the uomestic cow, the yak, the gaui anu the wilu ox may
inteichangeably mate, but have uevelopeu into uiffeient clines foi enviionmental
ieasons. Bogs iepiesent about foui hunuieu iecognizeu clines (oi bieeus) woilu wiue,
anu uisplay the aitifice of human involvement acceleiating a piocess alieauy well
establisheu in natuie. In some instances, speciation may be the consequence of
hybiiuization÷paiticulaily in aieas wheie ecological zones may boiuei anu in which
uiffeient clines mate÷so that a new cline emeiges. Eventually, the piocesses of
mutation, genetic uiift oi pieuation may take the species out of the gene flow of the
paient species, iesulting in a new species. In these instances, a new species may seek a
new ecosystem to bettei satisfy its special neeus oi chaiacteiistics.


I woulu aigue that this is one way to mouel the ielationship between the foims of
Bimalayan valley Buuuhist tantiism anu uangetic valley Buuuhist tantiism. In the
event, I woulu iecognize that I am not pioposing that tantiism is a genetically
configuieu system, although otheis may eventually aigue that accoiuing to the
piinciples of socio-biology oi evolutionaiy psychology. Ny puipose is uiffeient, to
employ speciation as a heuiistic metaphoi foi socio-cultuial piocesses, specifically the


ieligious piocess of missionaiy colonization by chaiismatic tantiic inuiviuuals oi
gioups. This mouel is similai to that aiticulateu by Abbot (Abbot 2uuS), who has aigueu
that univeisities, foi example, iepiesent 'linkeu ecologies,' ieplicating themselves as
cultuially emeigent systems that continue to inteiact anu change baseu on both the
local-specific ciicumstance anu the uisciplinaiy anu piofessional iequiiements of
centializeu systems. That is, the natuie of the specific iteiation of the social system is
contingent on both the genetic content inheiiteu by the gioups in question anu theii
epigenetic expiession within the limits anu possibilities of the enviionment in question.
Theie aie both auvantages anu uisauvantages to such a heuiistic mouel, but let us
begin with the auvantages. Fiist anu foiemost the mouel highlights the veiy human
piocess of auaptation, anu theie is no bettei example than tantiism in all its foims, foi it
has pioven to be aiguably the most auaptive anu iesilient of all ieligious expiessions. In
my estimation, its only competitois in an auaptation contest woulu be veiy specific
iitual behaviouis, like fiie ceiemonies, spiiit possession oi uance. But these, while they
have been auapteu to a wiue vaiiety of ciicumstances, uo not biing with themselves
eithei the complexity of peispective oi cultuial content as uoes tantiism in all its foims.
Buuuhist tantiism specifically communicates astiology, linguistics, meuical mouels,
social mouels, political mouels, aitistic anu aesthetic impeiatives, small gioup stiuctuie,
psychological content, naiiative uynamics, mathematical foimulae, anu a host of othei
factois that aie not communicateu by any single iitual event, foi this lattei may be
consistently ieinteipieteu in light of local naiiatives. In uistinction, tantiic gioups oi
institutions incoipoiate enoimous quantities of content, extenuing well beyonu single
icons, lituigies, oi iites. Thus, tantiism's auaptive stiength is anomalous by any
stanuaiu anu iepiesents an extieme veision (statistical outliei) of the laigei fact of
ieligious auaptation.
Seconu, the mouel highlights uiveisification, so that we can unueistanu questions of
both uescent anu uiveisity of iesponse baseu on local ciicumstances. It has been often
noteu, foi example, that most foims of tantiism appiopiiate local cultic systems, so that
inuigenous oi autochthonous iites, uivinities, saciaments anu behaviouial iestiictions
become pait of the ieseivoii of tantiic symbol systems. Bowevei, this is seluom uone
willy-nilly, anu I have been impiesseu that the incoipoiation of vaiious theological
objects oi iitual enteipiises has been uone with a mixtuie of oppoitunism anu
selectivity. 0ne test case of this occuis outsiue of the Bimalayas, in the inteiaction
between institutionalizeu tantiism in Nongolia anu native Buiyat shamanism. Since the
wholesale effoit to evangelize the Buiyats in the eighteenth centuiy, ueluk monks have
systematically suppiesseu the obseivation of shamanic iites in Buiyatania, especially in
pioximity to the Altai mountains anu Lake Baikhal.
Thus, theie is a ueciueu selectivity
in the piocess, one that is sometimes infoimeu by agonistic small-gioup ielations anu
competition, anu this factoi is not geneially iecognizeu in scholaily liteiatuie on tantiic
Buuuhism although it is quite eviuent in the histoiical iecoiu.
Anothei benefit of the mouel is that it also allows us to see whethei theie is such an
entity as 'pan-Inuic ieligious substiate' as aigueu by Baviu Ruegg (Reugg 2uu8),
appaiently uefenuing a Buuuhist theological agenua as a social oi histoiical fact.
If we
extiapolate fiom the Buuuhist cases examineu heie into the gieatei complexity of
Inuian tantiism oveiall, it woulu seem that the existence of such a totalizing entity is an
unwaiianteu pioposition, anu I believe that this theoietical enteipiise will help

ieaffiim the piimacy of locality in Inuian ieligion. So, just as theie is no such thing as a
'pan-Asian ungulate genetic system' but theie aie the uiveise species anu clines of
hoofeu animals with inuiviuual tiaits, habitats anu genetic content, I woulu aigue that
theie is also no such thing as a 'pan-Inuian ieligious substiate,' but insteau iuentifiable
gioups exist within cultuial zones that have theii inuiviuual paiameteis of ethnic mixes,
language enviionments, anu institutions.
Social anu iueological iealities may in pait
be shaieu, with ieligious foims piesent in ceitain stiata÷whethei homa in g hya iites
oi the Protimok o among Buuuhist monks÷but even then theie may be alteinative
veisions (homa uiffeientiation foi uiffeient tiauitions, oi Nahãsã ghika vs.
Nulasaivãstivãua Protimok os) piesent in the same cultuie zone, sometimes
piecipitating polemics oi agonistic iesponses.


Consequently, while it may be valuable to tiy to gain a sense of the majoi thieaus anu
vaiiations foi the whole of the uangetic valley, peihaps anothei way of appioaching the
tantiic Buuuhist pioblem is by viewing it fiom the iegional locale up, obseiving the
uegiee of fit of the iuuimentaiy menu of themes mentioneu befoie within specific
locales. So let us tiy to suivey oui social ecologies anu see what they tell us.
1. 0 iyono
Buuuhism was saiu to be piesent fiom the time of Asoka foiwaiu, although the
eviuence foi actual Asokan Buuuhism is meagie.
Nonetheless, 0 iyãna cleaily
paiticipateu in the laigei phenomenon of uãnuhãian Buuuhism, especially notable with
the extensive monastic iemains in the lowei Swat valley. By the sixth centuiy, much of
monastic Buuuhism was witheiing, whethei in the afteimath of the late fifth centuiy
Ephthalite incuisions as has been geneially acknowleugeu oi because of the piessuie of
the Tuiks in the Amu Baiya basin, as has been aigueu by Kuwayama.
Nonetheless, the
iegion continueu to be notable foi its uevelopment of spells, Jboro is anu the local
populaiity of vajiapã i, to become the main figuie in emeiging tantiic Buuuhism.
the late eighth centuiy, vilãsavajia anu Inuiabhuti weie the majoi esoteiic figuies in
0 iyãna, so much so that inuiviuuals like Buuuhajñãnapãua tiavelleu long uistances
fiom Nahãiã ia to 0 iyãna to stuuy with vilãsavajia; similaily Kukuiipãua ielieu on
Inuiabhuti to uniavel the meaning of the SorvobuJJbosomoyoqo-tontro.
vilãsavajia's suiviving aichive, especially his commentaiy to the Hoñjusrinomoso qiti,
the Nomomontrortbovolokini, anu his othei woiks in Tibetan tianslation, pioviue one of
the most impoitant snapshots of Buuuhist tantiic mateiials known at the enu of the
eighth anu beginning of the ninth centuiy. Thus, 0 iyãna's ieputation was baseu on the
combination of uanuhãian heiitage, on the iumouis of stiange peoples on the fiontiei,
on the leaining of selecteu inhabitants anu theii contiibutions to the tantias, as well as
the continueu influence that these masteis hau on otheis. The last notable 0 iyãna
mastei with which I am familiai was veiy much in the mouel of vilãsavajia anu liveu at
the tuin of the twelfth centuiy; Piajñãgupta, also know as the Reu Ãcãiya in Tibet, was
ieputeuly fiom 0 iyãna anu was accuseu of fabiicating the HobomuJrotiloko-tontro by
Lha bla ma Pho biang zhi ba 'ou in his open lettei, wiitten aiounu 1u9u CE.
Thus, foi

appioximately thiee hunuieu yeais, 0 iyãna iepiesenteu a souice of tantiic loie,
piobable tantiic composition, leaining associateu with a spectium of mateiials, anu the
inteisection of both siuuha iesiuences anu monastic institutions.
2. Kosmir
Kasmii has a lengthy Buuuhist histoiy, ieputeuly fiom the time of the missionaiy
activity of Nauhyãntika foiwaiu, anu Pizyluski (1914) has alieauy publisheu the
Nulasaivãstivãua mythology of the founuing of Buuuhist activity in Kasmii. The valley
was so impoitant foi Buuuhists that an seemingly apociyphal 'fouith council' of
Ka i ka was set theie, eviuently iecoiueu only in the late telling founu in the mateiials
woikeu on by Xuan-zang. What was not apociyphal was the vitality of the Kasmiii
intellectual life of the peiiou, with the valley being the setting foi the most impoitant
section of the vaibhã ika tiauition of Saivãstivãua Abhiuhaima. 0nlike uanuhãia,
Kasmii was not stiongly affecteu by the Ephthalites oi the Tuiks, anu continueu to play
an impoitant intellectual position thiough the twelfth centuiy (uoetz 1969). That being
saiu, one of the gieat cuiiosities of Kasmii is that it was not featuieu in tantiic
geogiaphy until iathei late. It is not listeu in oui eailiest list of pi bos, although it is
mentioneu in the HobomuJrotiloko anu in the late stuuy by Sãkyaiak ita, but I have
noticeu no mention of the sites now well known, like the Sãiauã-pi ha.
Kasmii is aiguably the souice foi the Bbuto omoro-tontro anu at least paits of the
Nilãmbhaia-vajiapã i cycle.
The aigument is that the foimei employs the Kasmiii
political office of the local feuual loius, the ãmaia, as a metaphoi foi the position of
vajiapã i as feuual loiu in the centie of gous anu spiiits.
Likewise, the Nilãmbaia-
vajiapã i system, founu in seveial tantias anu iitual texts, appeais associateu with the
nilãmbaias, a Kasmiii gioup specifieu in both Buuuhist anu non-Buuuhist wiiting, anu
appaiently having ioots in piactices obseivable in the veiy eaily Kasmiii
Nilomotopuro o. Both the Bbuto omoro-tontro anu the Nilãmbaia-vajiapã i cycle aie
fiom the eighth centuiy, being mentioneu alieauy in vilãsavajia's

S. Ko qro
Kã gia was the location of the }ãlanuhaia-pi ha, often classeu as one of the foui
mobopi bos. }ãlanuhaia-pi ha was not in the cuiient city of }ãlanuhaia but at oi close
to the site now occupieu by the vajiesvaii temple, which has been uestioyeu many
times, fiom the assault of Nahmuu of uhazni to the Apiil 4, 19uS eaithquake that
levelleu most of the town. Bespite its pioximity to the laigei uangetic plain, the entiie
aiea of Bimãchal anu 0ttaiãñcal was much moie mouest in teims of leaining anu
textual activity. While Buuuhists piouuceu siuuhas iuentifieu with the aiea, like the
notable }ãlanuhaia-pãua, it is not cleai that theie was evei much Buuuhist activity in
eithei Kã gia pei se oi in the neighboiing sites of Kullu, }vãlãmukhi, oi Na i.
the aieas of }ãlanuhaia-pi ha, Kulãnta-upak etia (anu I woulu associate Bimãuii-
upak etia theie as well, with the cuiient site of }ãgesvai outsiue of Almoia oi Biahmoi
close to Chamba being theii possible locales) anu aie stiongly contiasteu with 0 iyãna
anu Kasmii. We finu exhibiteu in Kã gia little sense of philosophical expeitise oi non-
iitual leaining; we see little eviuence of sciiptuial composition oi anything iemotely
appioaching it, excepting only a few small soJbonos. The sites aie the locus of siuuhas,

piobably much as they aie often the iesiuence of some less-than-leaineu Nãthpanthis
4. Nepolmo olo
uiven its impoitance as the iepositoiy of Sanskiit mateiials in the mouein peiiou, anu
one of the few places wheie Sanskiit Buuuhist iitual is still employeu, it is cuiious that
Nepãl uoes not figuie in eaily tantiic liteiatuie. Noi uo I know of any impoitant
Nepalese figuie in tantiic systems piioi to the late ninth centuiy, uespite its close
pioximity to the uangetic valley home of tantiism. Aftei that, we finu inuiviuuals like
vajiapã i, Ba u Kaipo, *Nañjuuvipa, Asu, the Pha thingpa biotheis in Phaiping, to
mention but the moie impoitant. Nost of these figuies appeai uomesticateu, with
family oi caste associations, anu Locke's obseivation that Nepalese Buuuhism may have
always emphasizeu the laity seems to me geimane.
This peiiou coinciues with the iise
of the Bhãio office as an appointment to political powei often weuueu with Buuuhist
activity, so one may concluue that the visibility of Nepalese tantiikas was facilitateu by
the visibility of Bhãio Buuuhist politics anu pationage in Pã han. The only Buuuhist
pi bo list I have seen incluue Nepãl is, like Kasmii, in the late HobomuJrotiloko, a fact
that ieinfoices the latei tantiic impoitance of Nepãl, aftei most of the pi bo lists hau
been composeu.
Even when they became impoitant, it woulu appeai that Nepalese
weie most conceineu with iitual iathei than with othei Buuuhist piactices oi with
sciiptuial uevelopment pei se. Rwa lo tsã ba's mastei, *Ku a Bhãio, foi example, is
iepiesenteu in Rwa lo's hagiogiaphy as being uisinteiesteu in philosophical texts when
Rwa lo askeu him about such topics; Ku a Bhãio was a iitualist anu appaiently uiew
the line theie. As a coiollaiy to the Nepalese emphasis on iitual, I know of no
intellectual school that took ioot in Nepal, in the mannei of the uanuhãia oi Kasmii
vaibhã ikas. Noi have I seen any eviuence of a tantia that can be saiu to have been
composeu by Nepalese in Nepãl, although this may be moie muteu, given the possibility
that Inuians on theii way to Tibet may have composeu some of the shoit tantias in
Nepal, as Rong zom chos kyi bzang po accuseu them of having uone.
When we finu
mateiials most iepiesentative of Nepãl, they aie in the moue of the Kriyoso qrobo oi
Kriyosomuccoyo÷latei iitual manuals that synthesize anu iefine the systems. Baii Lo
tsã ba was known to have ielieu on Nepalese expeitise to put togethei his EunJreJ
SoJbono collection in the late eleventh centuiy.
I woulu even suggest that the suivival
of Nepalese Sanskiit piactice is stiongly associateu with uomesticateu iitual in a
mannei not obseiveu elsewheie in Inuia, but ceitainly on a pai with piactices seen
among Buuuhist biãhma s in Inuonesia, as iepoiteu by Booykaas (Booykaas 197S).


So what uoes this mean anu how is this eviuence ielateu to the unueistanuing of tantiic
Buuuhism. Each of these aieas seems to have uevelopeu public peisonas that
uemonstiateu a specific intellectual anu iitual niche. In sum, in 0 iyãna we finu veiy
eaily tantiic activity, piiue of place in the pi bo lists, sustaineu tantiic scholaiship anu
sciiptuial composition thiough the eleventh centuiy activity of Piajñãgupta. In
uistinction, Kasmii appeais to have hau limiteu sciiptuial composition, the stiongest

intellectual histoiy of the foui, less close association with siuuha activity as measuieu
by its veiy late pi bo status (anu concomitantly gieatei emphasis on monastic
oithouoxy), a tenuency to evaluate uivinities in teims of politics, anu a tenuency to
synthetic heimeneutics employing the vocabulaiy of promo ovoJo, the late gieat
stiength of the valley. Kã gia uemonstiates little intellectual oi monastic activity in the
peiiou, no eviuence of sciiptuial composition, stiong association with the siuuha
activities as the pi bo menus list at least two anu aiguably thiee tantiic zones in the
immeuiate aiea, with local gous like }vãlãmukhi eventually gaining a measuie of status.
Foi its pait, Nepãl has histoiically uemonstiateu mouest intellectual activity almost
exclusively situateu in iitual exegesis, scant eviuence of philosophical activity oi tantiic
composition, anu was piimaiily focuseu on late siuuha association anu an emphasis on
uomestic iitual. I have seen no eviuence of eighth centuiy esoteiic masteis involveu
with Nepãl, anu the gieatest eviuence associateu with Nepalese masteis appeais to
come fiom the late ninth centuiy foiwaiu.
If we iesume oui species metaphoi, it is unueistanuable that the genetic coues of
any one species contain moie possible behaviouis anu uiffeientiations than aie
exhibiteu by any one community oi even by all membeis of the species at any one time.
The enviionmental uemanus sometimes biing these out; at othei times, the genetic
uiift, natuial selection oi othei means will emphasize one oi anothei behavioui in a
paiticulai locality, so that population movement to anothei enviionment may be
consiueieu the solution to the pioblem that genetic change has causeu. uioup selection,
both between gioups anu within gioups, seems to have playeu a pait as well. Weie we
to apply the analogy, we can see that the pioceuuie to become an impoitant membei of
the Nepalese tantiic community÷an alpha uominant position÷seemingly uiffeient in
many paiticulais fiom that to become an impoitant membei of the 0 iyãna tantiic
community, anu the uiffeiences giow ovei time.
Thus we may envision that the menu of iituals, statements, linguistic expiessions,
philosophical conceins, anu othei items aie moie uiveise than can be employeu in any
one locale, anu the iange of vaiiation is piecipitateu by the cultuial enviionment.
Linguistically, foi example, we finu Noith Inuians associateu with veinaculai
expiessions, but none of oui locales use these, oi at least not uiiectly÷we have little
foimal, iitual use of Swat language, Kasmiii, Pahaii oi Nepal-bhã ã (Newai) uuiing the
meuieval peiiou in the way that we finu with Apabhia sa in Inuia. To inuicate that
some, at least of these employ Noith Inuian Apabhia sa oi 0lu Bengali as a iitual
language is still to inuicate that theii own veinaculai languages uo not become iitually
sanctifieu in mantias anu othei peifoimative expiessions. The employment oi eclipse
of esoteiic monasticism appeais to be specific to locale as well: monasticism is eclipseu
in Kã gia anu Nepãl, but not in Kasmii oi 0 iyãna until Buuuhism is extinct in these
locales. This is similai to othei sites: we finu Phullahaii with no monasticism but it is
piesent in vikiamasila anu Somapuia.
Peihaps the piinciple auvantage of this heuiistic uevice is to consiuei tantiic
Buuuhism as complex systems of possibilities in uialogue with the enviionment,
analogous to species' behavioui. Like such behavioui, changes happen with iegulaiity
anu theie is not one essential stiuctuie but theie aie multiple uefining stiuctuies, of
gieatei oi lessei impoitance, opeiating in cooiuination. When we see the elimination of
too many uefining stiuctuies, we must begin to question whethei we aie seeing the

evolution of a new cultuial foim oi simply the emeigence of latent tiaces. Like all such
mouels, the piototypical centie is bettei iepiesenteu than the peiipheiies, so that
mutations, uiifts, hybiiu foims anu othei abeiiations aie sometimes not immeuiately
iecognizable as uefinitively new types, anu in select instances only the winnowing out
of time affoius us the intellectual luxuiy of asceitaining the uegiee of fit of the new
systems with the oluei foims aftei theii emeigence is a fait accompli.


Now to the uisauvantages of such a heuiistic mouel, since no mouel is without
uisauvantages, anu I spenu much time with my stuuents examining the uegiees of fit
between mouels anu uata. In this instance, anu as socio-biologists have themselves
obseiveu in theii stiongei ieauing of genes, not as mouels but as iealities, the pioblem
with ieauing cultuie thiough genetic systems is the oveiwhelming foice of cultuie.
Whethei we aie speaking of mate selection, clothing, the pieuisposition of humans to
engage in uangeious even ueauly activity foi no obseivable genetic puipose, most
facets of human cultuie exceeu the paiameteis of genetics, weie we to take those as the
baseline foi estimation.
In this instance as well, we finu patteins of activity exceeuing obseiveu biological
patteins of complexity in othei species, anu I woulu like to mention the two most
glaiing. Theie is no specific speciation analogue to sciiptuial composition, foi textual
piouuction exceeus any othei foim of iitualizeu behavioui. So, while one may aigue
that iitualization is obseivable in seveial species, none but us seem to wiite uown theii
thoughts on the mattei anu then aigue about it, with commentaiies anu sub-
commentaiies, until the oiiginal point appeais lost in the fielu of heimeneutics anu
polemics. Seconu, we seluom finu elaboiate anu uiveise foims of stiatification within
clines in the mannei that we uo in tantiic Buuuhism, paiticulaily notable in the
ielationship between chaiismatic mastei anu community, between siuuhas anu
monastics, between the genueis within a single community, within genueis in a single
community anu between communities. Thus, the biogeogiaphical mouel fails in some of
the specific paiameteis of ieligious complexity, paiticulaily those having to uo with the
elaboiate foims anu icons of communication eviuent in tantiic subcultuies.
This failuie of the mouel to account foi all levels of complexity is not suipiising, but
in the enu it cuiiously ieinfoices my initial point. If the theological oi phenomenological
paiauigms pioposeu to uate cannot even account foi the iathei simple seiies of
vaiiables seen in oui mouel uiscussing the inteiaction between enviionment anu
tantiic activity÷which itself cannot account foi the gieatei complexity of the actual
eviuence befoie us÷then moie sophistication in mouel constiuction, not less, woulu
seem a uesiueiatum. Thus, any socio-cultuial analysis that claims to uepict tantiism
accuiately must, at the veiy minimum, iepiesent both the iange anu vaiiation of a gieat
numbei of specific items that have been left off almost all lists to uate÷language, place,
time, gioup placement anu iuentity, ieceiveu iecoius, actual behavioui, etc.÷anu be
able to account foi uiffeientiations between such items in geogiaphical anu tempoial
uistiibution. Bimalayan tantiic locales iepiesent excellent cases foi the invaliuation oi
falsification of theoietical mouels saiu to be applicable to pan-Asian tantiism, foi the

uata obtainable function in tight clusteis of chaiacteiistics, anu without the ability to
uiffeientiate between them, scholaily hypothesis anu analysis will not succeeu in its


I wish to thank Bi Alex NcKay, Bi Anna Balikci-Benjongpa, anu Ni Tashi Bensapa foi theii kinu
invitation to paiticipate in the Namgyal Institute }ubilee.
This pioblem has been well uesciibeu in uupta, et al, 1979, pp. Su-S2.
This position has been uiscusseu anu affiimeu by Newman 1988. I have calleu it into question in
Baviuson 2uu2, pp. 27u-71, but theie is much moie to be saiu on this issue.
This is the piincipal supposition of Weuemeyei 2uu7.
6ubyosomojo-tontro p. 1u9, Tontroloko vol. 2, p. 214.
SorJbotrisotikolottoro I.6cu: ãgopãlã ganã bãlã mlecchã piãk tabhã i a . Nuch moie
extensively, Hoñjusrimulokopo chapteis 2u anu 22-2S aie all ueuicateu to the uiscussion of language
anu the aiticulation of alteinative language questions. I thank Fieu Smith foi attiacting my attention
to some of these passages. Be anu I aie cuiiently woiking on a piesentation of some of this mateiial.
Bieinacki's (Bieinacki 2uu7) iecent examination of tantias associateu with Kãmãkhyã is a case stuuy
in the changing values associateu with uiffeient times in a single place.
Baviuson 199u on such stanuaius anu stiategies of textual composition.
Baviuson 2uu2, pp. 242-S, SuS-S22.
Boyu anu Richaiuson, p. 1uS; foi a histoiical view, see Nye 198S; foi a uiscussion of typologies,
Nielsen 2uu4.
Natsunaga 1969, pp. 211-84; Teeuwen anu Rambelli 2uu2, pp. 1-SS. Ruegg 2uu8, pp. x-xi, S9, 47, S2,
1SS-6, 161-6, appeais to believe that these uiiectly coiiesponu to the Inuian Buuuhist iueology of
laukika¡lokottaia oi niimã a. Yet the Inuian mouel uoes not affiim that the gous aie÷in theii
entiiety÷manifestations of the Buuuha. A closei, but still quite uistinct, example woulu be the
Buuuhãvatãia of vi u, wheie the Buuuha is nothing othei than vi u, anu even this uoes not
implicate the ancestial natuie of the komi cult in }apan, as well as its political valence, all quite
uiffeient fiom anything in Inuia.
See Nachalek anu Naitin, 2uu4, p. 46u, foi a fuithei explanation.
A goou intiouuction to the conception pioblems of speciation is Bey 2uu1, anu foi oui puiposes, pp.
96-1u1 is geimane; Bey also points out, pp. 82-6, the ieplicative powei of fiactals might be applieu to
speciation issues. uaviilets 2uuS tests the paiameteis of ieceiveu mouels in an illuminating
uiscussion of the powei of selection ovei uiift.
Bessig 198u.
Ruegg 2uu8 is paiticulaily tioubling foi its similaiity with binJutvo of the Sa ghpaiivãi. Ruegg
affiims many times (pp. vi, 1, 2, 89-91, 1S2) that his foimulation is uiffeient, but offeis no specifics on
how this is so, othei than to affiim that his position is not ieuuctionistic, even though it cleaily is. Bis
ill-uefineu 'substiate' is somehow not unifoim (p. 89; contiauicteu p. 9, wheie he calls loukiko an
'unuiffeientiateu giounu') but is ubiquitous anu is somehow intuiteu by all membeis of the society.
This appeais anothei instance of a theological position (the Buuuhist categoiy loukiko-Jevoto) being
pioposeu as a socio-histoiical inteipietation. In the most simple sociological teims, Ruegg's mouel is
not a sociological fact, foi it can neithei be falsifieu noi testeu in any mannei whatsoevei, whethei
qualitatively oi quantitatively, to ueteimine its piesence oi absence, the uegiee of socialization into
it, etc. The iuea that Buuuhists shaieu ceitain values with otheis (always changing) uoes not militate
against theii appiopiiating of othei items at vaiious moments, anu the 'boiiowing mouel' that Ruegg
aiticulates is too aitificially ieifieu to be an accuiate ieflection of othei scholais' position on Inuian
sociologies. It is geimane to note that Ruegg contiauicts himself thioughout the text about
boiiowing, fiist affiiming its inauequacy (pp. 21-2), then its inteimittent application (p. 1u9), anu
then its applicability (p. 11S). While Ruegg fiequently invokes the iuea of 'symbiosis' (title, x, xi, 1, 2,

S, 1S, etc.), it is unfoitunate that he uoes not exploie this empiiical, ecologically uefineu system, as
noimative mouels of symbiosis unueicut most aspects of his position, which appeais baseu on an
impiecise populai notion of symbiosis; see Law anu Bieckmann 1998, Fiank 1997, Clay 2uu1.
Because of the powei anu pationage uiffeientials between Saivas, who weie politically uominant,
anu Buuuhists, who weie incieasingly politically unsuccessful, theii ielationship (howevei
chaiacteiizeu) was ceitainly asymmetiical.
0n this piinciple, see the illuminating uiscussion of phylogeny in Bey 2uu1, pp. 1SS-44.
Callieii 2uuS, p. 74; Salomon 1999, p. S.
Kuwayama 2uu6, pp. 12S-6, although it is faii to say the question iemains open.
The best uiscussion on vajiapã i's oiigin iemains Lamotte 1966, now out of uate in many ways; I
woulu aigue that the ait histoiical eviuence suggests vajiapã i's oiigin in uanuhãia iathei than in
Nagauha, although this is uebatable.
0n these figuies, see Baviuson 2uu2, pp. S, 148, 198, 2SS, 2S6, 242-6, 294, Su6, S11, S17-21.
Baviuson 2uuS, pp. 1u8, 1S4, 2u2-S, 24S, 2S8, 27S, S9S, 41S, 429-Su.
HobomuJrotiloko fol. 7Sb4, Pi boJinir oyo fol. 1SSa4. Tokunaga 1994 pioviues a convenient list of
the holy sites in the valley accoiuing to the Nilomoto-puro o.
Eight sciiptuial woiks, seven tantias anu a Jboro i (To. 4S4, 4S6, 4S7, 461, 498, 499, Su1, 768) focus
on Nilãmbaia-vajiapã i.
Stein vol. II pp. Su4-u8, appenuix u; we uo finu ãmaia occuiiing as the uesignation of a spiiit type
outsiue of Kasmii, but not as an oiganizing metaphoi.
Nomomontrortbovolokini, fol. 47aS; this ms. ieaus siivajiapiãkãlatantie, but To. 2SSS, fol. 67aS ieaus
upal iuo ije sa 'og gi igyuu las so, suggesting vajiapãtãla, iuentifying To. 499.
Xuan-zang's uesciiption of }ãlanuhaia (Beal, pp. 17S-7, fifty vihãias with 2uuu monks) appeais
heaisay, as theie is no aichaeological substantiation oi othei veiification; see Postel, et al, 198S, pp.
48, 7S, 8S, 87, 89, 1uS-4. The gieat claims to antiquity foi Rawalsai lake aie mouein, so fai as I have
been able to uiscovei.
Locke 198S, p. 484a; on Nepãl in geneial, see Slussei 1982.
HobomuJrotiloko fol. 7Sb4, Pi boJinir oyo fol. 1SSaS.
Baviuson 2uuS, pp. 2S2-S.
Baviuson 2uuS, p. 298.


T. Toisbo Sbinsbu Boizokyo, eu. Takakusu anu Watanabe, 1924-S4.
To. sBe-uge canon numbeis fiom 0i, Bakuju, et al, eus. 19S4. A Complete Cotoloque of tbe
Tibeton BuJJbist Conons {BKo - qyur onJ Bston- qyur). Senuai: Tôhoku Impeiial

Primory Sources
Bbuto omoro-tontro. Nepal National Aichives Pañ 1 (A141¡6); To. 747.
Bboro iso qrobo T. 9u1.
6ubyosomojo-tontro, Natsunaga Yukei, (eu.), 0saka: Toho Shuppan, 1978.
HobomuJrotiloko-moboyoqinitontrorojoJbipoti, To. 42u.
Hoñjusrimulokopo, Sastii, T. uanapati, (eu.), S vols., Tiivanuium: Piinteu by the Supeiintenuent,
uovt. Piess, 192u-192S.
Nomomontrortbovolokini, Nepal National Aichives t S9u (B1u9¡1S); To. 2SSS.
Nilomotopuro o, ue vieese, K. (eu.), Nilomoto or Teocbinqs of Nilo, Leiuen: E.}. Biill, 19S6.
Pl boJinir oyo, Sãkyaiak ita, To. 16u6.

SorJbotrisotikolottoroqomo, Bhatt, N.R., (eu.), Publications ue l'Institut Fiançais u'Inuologie No.
61, Ponuichéiy, Insitut Fiançais u'Inuologie, 1979.
SorvobuJJbosomoyoqo-tontro, To. S66.

SeconJory Sources
Abbot, Anuiew, 'Linkeu Ecologies: States anu 0niveisities as Enviionments foi Piofessions,'
Socioloqicol Tbeory, 2S (S), 2uuS, pp. 24S-274.
Aichei, Kevin, 'Regions as Social 0iganisms: The Lamaickian Chaiacteiistics of viual ue la
Blache's Regional ueogiaphy,' Annols of tbe Associotion of Americon 6eoqropbers, 8S (S),
199S, pp. 498-S14.
Beal, Samuel, Si-yu-ki: BuJJbist RecorJs of tbe Western WorlJ, Lonuon: Kegan, Paul, Tiench &
Tiubnei, 1869.
Bieinacki, Loiiliai, RenowneJ 6oJJess of Besire: Women, Sex onJ Speecb in Tontro, 0xfoiu anu
New Yoik: 0xfoiu 0niveisity Piess, 2uu7.
Boyu, Robeit anu Petei }. Richeison, Tbe 0riqin onJ Fvolution of Cultures, 0xfoiu anu New Yoik:
0xfoiu 0niveisity Piess, 2uuS.
Biancaccio, Pia, anu Kuit Behienut (eus), 6onJboron BuJJbism: Arcboeoloqy, Art, Texts,
vancouvei: 0niveisity of Biitish Columbia Piess, 2uuS.
Callieii, Pieifiancesco, 'Buuuhist Piesence in the 0iban Settlements of Swãt, Seconu Centuiy
BCE to Fouith Centuiy CE,' in 6onJboron BuJJbism: Arcboeoloqy, Art, Texts, pp. 6u-82,
Biancaccio anu Behienut (eus), 2uuS.
Clay, Keith, 'Symbiosis anu the Regulation of Communities,' Americon Zooloqist, 41 (4), 2uu1, pp.
Ciaw, Robin C., et al, Ponbioqeoqropby: Trockinq tbe Eistory of life, New Yoik anu 0xfoiu:
0xfoiu 0niveisity Piess, 1999.
Baviuson, Ronalu, 'An Intiouuction to the Stanuaius of Sciiptuial Authenticity in Inuian
Buuuhism,' in Cbinese BuJJbist Apocrypbo, pp. 291-S2S, Robeit Buswell (eu.), Bonolulu:
0niveisity of Bawaii Piess, 199u.
_______ lnJion Fsoteric BuJJbism: A Sociol Eistory of tbe Tontric Hovement, New Yoik: Columbia
0niveisity Piess, 2uu2.
_______ Tibeton Renoissonce, New Yoik: Columbia 0niveisity Piess, 2uuS.
_______ 'Stuuies in Bboro i Liteiatuie I: Revisiting the Neaning of the Teim Bboro i,' }ournol of
lnJion Pbilosopby, S7, 2uu9, pp. 97-147.
Fiank, Steven A., 'Nouels of Symbiosis,' Tbe Americon Noturolist, 1Su (supplement), 1997, pp.
uaviilets, Seigey, 'Peispective: mouels of speciation: what have we leaineu in 4u yeais.'
Fvolution: lnternotionol }ournol of 0rqonic Fvolution, S7 (1u), 2uuS, pp. 2197-221S.
uoetz, Beimann, StuJies in tbe Eistory onJ Art of Kosbmir onJ tbe lnJion Eimoloyo, Wiesbauen:
Baiiassowitz, 1969.
Bessig, Walthei (tians. fiom ueiman by ueoffiey Samuel), Tbe Reliqions of Honqolio, Beikeley:
0niveisity of Califoinia Piess, 198u.
Bey, }ouy, 6enes, Coteqories, onJ Species, 0xfoiu anu New Yoik: 0xfoiu 0niveisity Piess, 2uu1.
Booykaas, Chiistiaan, Bolinese BouJJbo Brobmons, Amsteiuam: Noith-Bollanu Pub. Co., 197S.
Ikaii, Yasuke (eu.), A StuJy of tbe Nilomoto: Aspects of EinJuism in Ancient Kosbmir, Kyoto:
Institute foi Reseaich in Bumanities, Kyoto 0niveisity, 1994.
Kuwayama, Shoshin, 'Pilgiimage Route Changes anu the Becline of uanuhãia,' in 6onJboron
BuJJbism: Arcboeoloqy, Art, Texts, pp.1u7-1S4, Biancaccio anu Behienut (eus),
vancouvei: 0niveisity of Biitish Columbia Piess, 2uuS.

Law, Richaiu anu 0lf Bieckmann, 'Symbiosis thiough exploitation anu the meigei of lineages in
evolution,' ProceeJinqs: Bioloqicol Sciences, 26S (14u2), 1998, pp. 124S-12SS.
Lamotte, Etienne, 'vajiapã i en Inue,' in Hélonqes Je Sinoloqie offerts o Honsieur Poul
Bemiéville, pp. 11S-S9, Paiis: Piesses 0niveisitaiies ue Fiance, 1966.
Locke, }ohn K., Tbe BuJJbist Honosteries of Nepol: A Survey of tbe Bobos onJ Bobis of tbe
KotbmonJu volley, Kathmanuu: Sahayogi Piess, 198S.
Nachalek, Richaiu, anu Nichael W. Naitin, 'Sociology anu the Seconu Baiwinian Revolution: A
Netatheoietical Analysis,' Socioloqicol Tbeory, 22 (S), 2uu4, pp. 4SS-476.
Nyeis, A. A. anu P.S. uillei (eus), Anolyticol Bioqeoqropby: An lnteqroteJ Approocb to tbe StuJy of
Animol onJ Plont Bistributions, Lonuon anu New Yoik: Chapman anu Ball, 1988.
Newman, }ohn, 'Buuuhist Sanskiit in the Kãlacakia Tantia,' }ournol of tbe lnternotionol
Associotion of BuJJbist StuJies, 11, 1988, pp. 12S-14u.
Nielsen, Fiancois, 'The Ecological-Evolutionaiy Typology of Buman Societies anu the Evolution
of Social Inequality,' Socioloqicol Tbeory, 22 (2), 2uu4, pp. 292-S14.
Nye, Robeit A., 'The Bio-Neuical 0iigins of 0iban Sociology,' }ournol of Contemporory Eistory,
2u (4), 198S, pp. 6S9-67S.
Pollock, Sheluon, 'The Sanskiit Cosmopolis, Suu-1Suu C.E.: Tianscultuiation, veinaculaiization,
anu the Question of Iueology,' in lJeoloqy onJ Stotus of Sonskrit; Contributions to tbe
Eistory of tbe Sonskrit lonquoqe, pp. 197-247, }an E. N. Bouben (eu.), Leiuen: E. }. Biill,
_______ 'The Cosmopolitan veinaculai,' }ournol of Asion StuJies, S7, 1998, pp. 6-S7.
Postel, N. et al, Antiquities of Eimocbol, Bombay: Pioject foi Inuian Cultuial Stuuies, 198S.
Pizyluski, N. }., 'Le Noiu-0uest ue l'Inue uans le vinaya ues Nulasaivãstivãuin et les Textes
Appaientés,' }ournol Asiotique, seiies XI (4), 1914, pp. 49S-S68.
Reugg, Baviu S., Tbe symbiosis of BuJJbism witb Brobmonism,EinJuism in Soutb Asio onJ of
BuJJbism witb ´locol cults´ in Tibet onJ tbe Eimoloyon Reqion, vienna: veilag uei
0steiieichischen Akauemie uei Wissenschaften, 2uu8.
Salomon, Richaiu, Ancient BuJJbist Scrolls from 6onJboro: Tbe Britisb librory Kboro bi
Iroqments, Seattle, Washington: 0niveisity of Washington Piess, 1999.
Schlutei, Bolph, Tbe Fcoloqy of AJoptive RoJiotion, 0xfoiu & New Yoik: 0xfoiu 0niveisity Piess,
Scott, }oan, 'Fantasy Echo: Bistoiy anu the Constiuction of Iuentity,' Criticol lnquiry, 27, 2uu1,
pp. 284-Su4.
Slussei, Naiy Shepheiu, Nepol HonJolo÷A Culturol StuJy of tbe KotbmonJu volley, 2 vols.
Piinceton: Piinceton 0niveisity Piess, 1982.
Stein, Naic A., Kolbo o´s Rojotoro qi i: A Cbronicle of tbe Kinqs of Kosmir, S vols, (iepiint)
Belhi: Notilal Banaisiuass Publisheis, 1989.
Teeuwen, Naik anu Fabio Rambelli, (eus), BuJJbos onJ Komi in }opon: Eonji Suijoku os o
Combinotory PoroJiqm, New Yoik: RoutleugeCuizon, 2uu2.
Tokunaga, N., 'Besciiption of Temples anu Tirtbos in the Nilamatapuiã a,' in A StuJy of tbe
Nilomoto: Aspects of EinJuism in Ancient Kosbmir, pp. S99-422, Ikaii (eu.), Kyoto:
Institute foi Reseaich in Bumanities, Kyoto 0niveisity, 1994.
Wangchuk, Boiji, Tbe Resolve to Become o BuJJbo: A StuJy of tbe BoJbicitto Concept in lnJo-
Tibeton BuJJbism, Tokyo: The Inteinational Institute foi Buuuhist Stuuies, 2uu7.
Weuemeyei, Chiistian, 'Beef, Bog anu 0thei Nythologies: Connotative Semiotics in Nahãyoga
Tantia Ritual anu Sciiptuie,' }ournol of tbe Americon AcoJemy of Reliqion, 7S (2), 2uu7,
pp. S8S-417.

Wilson, Baviu Sloan, anu Euwaiu 0. Wilson, 'Rethinking the Theoietical Founuations of
Sociobiology,' Tbe µuorterly Review of Bioloqy, 82 (4), 2uu7, pp. S28-S49.