It's possible that the more correct re-Sanskritization ought to be Abhayadāna. Sbyin pa generally translates as dāna, while byin pa translates as datta.
See the following entry for Abhayadattaśrī, as well as Abhayaśrī. Tibetans writers like to shorten the name even more, sometimes even with the bad spelling A bhya. The proof that he is to be identified with Abhayākaragupta is found in Gsan yig of Dalai Lama V, vol. 2, p. 199, which has the following lineage: rdo rje gdan pa / de la tsa mi sangs rgyas grags pa smon grub shes rab dang a bha yā ka ra gnyis kyis gsan / gnyis ka la dpal rgwa lo. This says Vajrāsana transmitted the teachings to both Rtsa mi and to Abhayākara, and the two of them transmitted them to Rgwa Lo. We may conclude from this that the complete name of Rtsa mi is Rtsa mi Sangs rgyas grags pa smon grub shes rab (note the Mi nyag Smon grub shes rab who worked with Abhayadatta on several translations).
Bibliography:
Grub thob brgyad cu rtsa bzhi'i rdzogs rim rin chen phreng ba rtsa 'grel. Contained in: Gdams ngag mdzod, vol. 16, pp. 149-200. At least three texts are hidden under this title, the root text, a commentary (ending at p. 193.5) and finally a Zhal gdams text.
Colophon, Gdams ngag mdzod, vol. 16, p. 154.3: gdams pa rin chen phreng ba'i gzhung chung rdzogs so. Colophon, p. 193.4: rin po che'i phreng ba'i bshad ṭī ka rdzogs so // bla ma a bha ya shrīs gsungs pa / me nyag lo tsā bas bsgyur ba'o.
See the comment in David White, ed., Tantra in Practice, Princeton University Press (Princeton 2000), p. 52.
Matthew Kapstein, 'King Kuñji's Banquet,' contained in: David White, ed., Tantra in Practice, Princeton University Press (Princeton 2000), pp. 52-71 (here refered to as Ratnamālā, the commentary is some kind of collaboration between Abhayadatta and his Tangut disciple Smon grub shes rab). Kapstein gives a complete translation of the root text, with summary from the commentary. In Matthew Kapstein, The Strange Death of Pema the Demon Tamer, in M.K., ed., The Presence of Light (Chicago 2004), pp. 119-156, at p. 126, Kapstein says he does not believe the commentary is by Abhayadatta, but a Tibetan composition that "may have originated as a Tibetan disciple's record of Abhayadatta's oral expositions of the verse text."
