Origins of Secret Mantra • Day One
18 August 2025
At the beginning of the first session of this year’s Mar Ngok Summer Teachings, His Holiness the Karmapa reminded us of the various topics he had covered during previous teachings. This included early Buddhism at the time of the Buddha, the situation of Buddhism shortly after the parinirvana of the Buddha, the teachings of Buddhism at that time, how it spread and flourished. He had also discussed the political situations between the different kingdoms, and the connections between Indian society, Buddhism and the Sangha.
Karmapa reminded us that the First Council took place right after the Buddha passed into parinirvana. Although traditionally we think it was the compilation of all the pitakas [the three baskets of the Buddha’s teachings: sutra, vinaya and abhidharma], most modern scholars and researchers explain that it was primarily the compilation of sutras and the vinaya.
After the Buddha passed away, Buddhism continued to develop. As the teachings spread further than before, many disagreements and problems appeared. At the end, the Buddhist Sangha divided into two factions, known as the original split into two schools [Sthaviravāda and Mahāsāṃghika]. Around that time, there was also a Second Council to compile the piṭakas.
Many scholars hold that the circumstances that led to the divide into the two main schools was not due to the ten impermissible points, but because of the bhikshu Mahādeva’s five points instead. Other scholars believe that the ten impermissible points sort of planted the seeds for the schism, but were not the direct cause.
Karmapa emphasized that whether the schism was caused by the ten points or not, it is important for us to understand these points. He then arranged the content into four different sections:
- General Discussion of the Background
- The Incident
- Holding the Second Council
- The Ten Points
1. General Discussion of the Background
According to the description in most extant sources, the immediate catalyst for holding the Second Council was a debate over whether it was permissible to accept gold and silver or not.
After the Buddha’s parinirvana, Buddhism continued to spread through the neighboring regions and up the Yamunā River, a tributary of the Ganges, to the city of Mathurā, which became an important hub of Buddhism in western India. Mathurā is the birthplace of Krishna [Skt.Kṛṣṇa] an emanation of Vishnu [Skt.Viṣṇu] and a sacred site for Hindus, but for a certain period, Buddhism flourished there, becoming the main area for the Sarvāstivāda school.
Karmapa mentioned that he previously spoke of a student of the Buddha named Noble Kātyāyana [Skt; Pāli: Kaccāyana] who traveled to Mathurā and taught the dharma in that area, but there is no mention in any sutra of the Buddha himself actually traveling to the region of Mathurā.
In general, western India and the middle and upper reaches of the Ganges were areas where Brahminism spread widely. For that reason, the people of those areas were more rigid and attached to the old ways. The eastern areas from the middle to the mouth of the Ganges were the areas where the practice of śramaṇa;[Pāli: samana] the wandering mendicant originated.
Karmapa explained:
Śramaṇa was a way of practicing the dharma that spread very widely in India. When you go forth, you spend time in forests, undergo austerities, and spend your time living off alms. It was a tradition that was also later continued by the Buddhists. For example, we often talk about bhikshus, who were also called śramaṇas. The reason for this is that the bhikshus are continuing to follow the conduct of the older śramaṇas from India. They are practicing the dharma the same way.
The areas of eastern India had a more relaxed attitude, and people had a little bit more freedom. Thus, the forms of Buddhism that developed in these two areas were different, and, in particular, the differences in views became most evident in the vinaya.
One or two hundred years after the Buddha’s parinirvana, the views on vinaya precepts of the Western sangha and the Eastern sangha, especially the sangha in, Vaishali [Skt. Vaiśālī; Pāli: Vesālī] were in sharp contrast.
Basically, the Second Council was held at this time. The incident that led to it is that in the eastern area of Vaiśālī, the practices of bhikshus of Vṛji [Pāli: Vajji] caused controversy among the bhikshus from the west. They practiced these ten impermissible points, and they didn’t practice the vinaya discipline as strictly as before.
Karmapa reminded us that the bhikshus from the west were more conservative. When they saw this relaxing of vinaya rules, a great debate unfolded.
There was an elder from western India whose name was Yaśa, short for Yaśa Kākandakaputra [Pāli: Yasa Kākandakaputta; En.Yasha, son of Kakandaka]. He was also known as Yaśoda. He saw the monks from Vaiśālī were practicing these ten points which were contradictory to the vinaya. His name is translated in the Minor Topics of the Tibetan Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya as “Elder Yaśa” [Tib: གྲགས་པ།, En: the Famous One].
According to the Sarvāstivāda Ten-Part Vinaya, Yaśa was a student of Ānanda who had originally been born in the Brahmin caste. Later he went forth and became learned in the Buddhist teachings, achieving the level of arhatship. At that time, he was the most influential elder in the western regions.
2. The Incident
Elder Yaśa traveled from the west to the city of Vaiśālī in the east. He witnessed that on the 8th, 14th, and 15th days of the month, the bhikshus there would fill their alms bowls with water, go to places where people congregated, and ask them for gold and silver.
The laypeople wondered what the bhikshus were doing; some did not give money, and some would criticize the children of the Śākyas, basically the students of the Buddha, for this behavior of begging for gold and silver. There were also those who actually gave gold and silver.
At that time, the middle and lower stretches of the Gangetic plain were more economically developed and there was more trade. City dwellers routinely gathered money, so the custom of asking for money in place of alms gradually spread. It was a new phenomenon at the time and inconsistent with the earlier Buddhist sangha’s practice of begging for alms.
At that time, the middle stretches of the Ganges, the eastern part of central India, were also more economically developed. In particular, there was a lot of trade. City dwellers would keep a lot of gold and silver money, so the custom of asking for money in place of alms gradually spread.
Karmapa pointed out:
These days, we don’t take the gold and silver itself, but we take paper currency. The donors give it, and the bhikshus take it, and so this is not something that we are at all amazed or surprised about. But at that time, it was like a new phenomenon. It was something that had never happened before.
Elder Yaśa said to the bhikshus who were accepting gold and silver, “Asking for gold and silver is asking for the impermissible; it is not in accord with the vinaya.”
From the 30th fascicle of the Mahīśāsaka Five-Part Vinaya:
At that time, Yasa Kākandakaputta said to the bhikshus at the Kūṭāgāra hall, “You should not beg like this. If you beg inappropriately, there is an offense for both the donor and the recipient. I heard this directly from the Buddha himself.” He also said to all the lay men and women of all ages, “You should not give alms like this. If there are inappropriate alms, it is an offense for both the donor and the recipient.”
Apart from telling the bhikshus from Vaiśālī, Yaśa also spoke to the lay people of that area. He said that the Buddha did not allow Sangha members to accept gold and silver, and asking for that is not in accord with the vinaya. Many of the lay people of that region praised him very highly for this.
When the Vṛjiputra [Pāli: Vajjiputta ie the Sons of Vriji] bhikshus of Vaiśālī heard this, they were unhappy about it. They were displeased that Yaśa had told people that they were not children of the śramaṇa Śākyamuni. They told Yaśa he had committed the downfall of slandering the sangha and expected him to confess. But Yaśa did not listen to them and returned to Kauśambhī flying through the sky with miraculous powers. This is the incident that led to the gathering of the Sangha for the second council.
3. Holding the Second Council
In order to stop this, Yaśa gathered many bhikshus, particularly the elders, and then they held a council. Yaśa returned to the west and asked several well-known elders to attend this council. In the end, he was able to bring two well-known elders. One of these was the elder Saṃbhūta from the region of Mathurā, and the other was the elder Revata. They both agreed to participate.
There is an account in some texts of Revata being asked about the ten impermissible points. According to the Sarvāstivāda Ten-Part Vinaya, the questioner was Yaśa himself. According to the Khandaka in the Pali vinaya, Yasha looked for Saṃbhūta and the bhikshus, and then the bhikshus looked for Revata. Then Yaśa asked Revata. It is similar in the Mahīśāsaka Four-Part Vinaya. In brief, whoever the questioner was, all the accounts state that Revata said that the ten points were impermissible.
In brief, in addition to Saṃbhūta and Revata, Yaśa gathered many bhikshus from the areas of Pāvā, Avantī, and Dakśiṇāpatha [Skt; Pāli: Dakkhināpatha] to attend the council. At the same time, the eastern monks of Vṛji also gathered some sangha members from eastern regions. There were people who supported them from both sides.
At the end, there were seven hundred elders chosen by both sides as well as twenty thousand sangha members at this council. The council was held at Āmrapālī-vana [Skt; Pāli: Ambapālī-vana; En. Amrapali’s Grove (a grove gifted to the Buddha by the courtesan Amrapali)] in Vaiśālī. Karmapa described, “There were so many elders that it was difficult to organize the council. So, in the end, what they decided is that each side would choose four elders to be the representatives. Four elders from eastern India, and four elders from western India.”
Their names are given differently in the different vinaya scriptures, but they could be collated as: Sarvakāmin [Skt; Pāli: Sabbakāmin] (or Sarvagāmin [Skt; Pāli: Sabbagāmin]), Revata, Saṃbhūta, Yaśa Kākandakaputra [Pāli: Yasa Kākandakaputta], Sumana, Śāḷha [Pāli: Sāḷha], Kubjaśobhita [Pāli: Khujjasobhita], and Vasabhagāmika. In addition, there was bhikshu Ajita, who had only been ordained for five years but was capable of teaching and very learned in the vinaya.
“For this reason, these nine elders were like the representatives of the seven hundred. For that reason, it’s called the Council of Seven Hundred Arhats, or known as the Council of Vaiśālī. Though this council began because of accepting gold and silver, they discussed ten points that had been newly promulgated by the bhikshus from Vaiśālī,” Karmapa elaborated.
4. The Ten Points
His Holiness first explained the ten points according to the Theravāda vinaya and as described in the Mūlasarvāstivāda’s Minor Topics of the Vinaya.
According to the Theravāda text:
- Legality of salt: Allowing salt to be stored in a horn container.
Generally, bhikshus were not allowed to store any food for eating the next day. However, it is permissible to keep salt in a container made of horn.
- Legality because of two fingers: One may continue eating even if noon has passed, if the sun’s shadow is still less than two fingers long.
Karmapa explained that in the old days, people would measure the sun’s shadow to tell the time. Even if noon has passed, if the shadow is less than two fingers long, then one may continue eating. If the shadow is longer than two fingers, then one may not eat.
- Legality of another village: After eating one meal, one may go to another village and eat again.
If bhikshus had a meal in one village, they are allowed to go to another village to eat again there. They cannot have food a second time in the same village.
- Legality of place: The bhikshus within a single boundary do not need to hold the poṣadha [ Pāli: (u)posatha; Tib: sojong] in a single location.
If the bhikshus are within an 18 kilometer radius, then it’s very difficult if they all have to gather for the sojong. Thus, not all of the bhikshus in a single place need to hold the sojong together; they can all do it in their own place.
- Legality of assent: When the sangha is performing business, it is permissible even if all the monks do not gather if they give their assent.
If assent is given, then it is permissible that the monks don’t have to gather, especially for holding the sojong.
- Legality of custom: It is permissible to follow one’s abbot and teacher’s ways of doing things.
This is what we’re talking about these days, the visual transmission. If our teachers are already doing it, then it is alright to continue practicing in the same way as they have.
- Legality of unchurned milk: Buttermilk that has not been churned may be drunk.
- Legality of beverage: Allowing the drinking of semi-fermented coconut juice.
Coconut sometimes naturally ferments; since it is not an alcohol made by people, it is then alright to drink.
- Legality of the mat: When sewing a mat, if a hem is not sewn, it may be of any size.
- Legality of gold and silver: Allowing one to accept offerings of gold and silver.
According to the Mūlasarvāstivāda’s Minor Topics of the Vinaya:
- According to the Chinese translation, when the bhikshus made motions that were nondharma with no consensus, nondharma with consensus, and dharma without consensus, when the sangha members praised it verbally and gave their assent by saying “A la la.” This is called the point of making it permissible to give assent through verbal praise.
- Making something permissible by rejoicing. According to the Chinese translation, it is alright to pass motions by rejoicing.
- It is permissible to dig earth with one’s own hands or having others dig.
- According to the Chinese translation, it is allowed to keep salt if it is poured into a bamboo stalk, touched it with one’s own hands, used it, mixed it with suitable tonics. This is related to the Theravada point on storing salt in a horn.
- It is permissible to have your meal in one place, and then go to another place one and a half leagues away and gather to eat food.
- Earlier we talked about measuring with two fingers, which refers to using a wooden stick to measure the time of day based on the length of the shadow it casts. If the shadow is longer than the width of two fingers, then one may not eat. If it is within that length, then it is allowed to eat.
- According to the Chinese translation, it is permissible for those who are sick to drink alcohol that has been mixed with water.
- It is permissible to consume at inappropriate times a mixture of a full cup of milk and a full cup of yogurt. The Chinese translation states that if milk is mixed with water, then there’s no fault of drinking at an inappropriate time.
- According to the Tibetan translation, it says the bhikshus of Vaiśālī used mats that were not patched with a strip the length of the Tathāgata’s hand span and made this permissible. According to the Chinese translation, when the bhikshus make new mats, they need to take a patch from their old mat and attach it to the new robe. If they use it even without taking that patch from the old one, it is still permissible.
- The bhikshus of Vaiśālī would take their alms bowls, waft them with a nice scent, decorate them with flowers, and make them look really beautiful. Like carrying relics in India, they placed the alms bowls on a nice cushion and walked through the streets, saying: “Listen, all you intelligent people. This alms bowl is a good alms bowl. Whoever makes a gift to it or puts something in it will reap a great result. If you put jewels, gold, or whatever precious substance in this alms bowl, you will get great benefits.” This is called making it permissible through gold and wealth.
Karmapa concluded by reiterating that the various vinaya texts describe the ten points but present them in different ways.
