it is possible, on the other hand, that the name Vajrakīlaya as favoured by the Tibetans could in fact have been the form that was actually used in the original Indic sources, and that there is no need to hypothesize a correct form "Vajrakīla". "Vajrakīlaya" could have come from the second person singular active, causative imperative, of the verb ''Kīl''. Indigenous grammar (Pāṇini Dhātupāṭha I.557) gives to ''Kīl'' the meaning of ''bandha'', i.e. "to bind", while Monier-Williams (285) gives the meanings "to bind, fasten, stake, pin". Hence the form kīlaya could mean "you cause to bind/transfix!", or "bind/transfix!". This, taken from mantras urging "bind/transfix", or "may you cause to bind/transfix", might have come to be treated as a noun; and the noun might then have become deified; hence Kīlaya might have started out as a deified imperative, in some ways comparable to the famous example of the deified vocative in the name Hevajra, and a not unheard of phenomenon in Sanskrit tantric literature. This suggestion is supported by Alexis Sanderson, a specialist in Sanskrit tantric manuscripts whom I consulted on this problem.〔''A Scripture of the Ancient Tantra Collection: The Phur-pa bcu-gnyis'' by Robert Mayer Kindsdale Publications, 1996. ISBN 1-870838-52-1 pg 165-6〕