The Ten Impermissible Points: Comparing the Traditions

Origins of Secret Mantra • Day Two 

20 August 2025

On the second day of the teachings, the Gyalwang Karmapa continued his exposition on the ten impermissible points with a comparison of the Pali Theravāda tradition and the Tibetan translation of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, where it is found in Minor Topics (Tib. གཞི་ཐམས་ཅད་ཡོད་སྨྲའི་ལུང་ཕྲན་ཚེགས་; Skt. Vinayakṣudrakavastu). These ten points can be found not only in the Pali Vinaya, he explained, they are also in the Mahīśāsaka Five-Part Vinaya, the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya and several different traditions.

The Karmapa began with a slide which clearly showed the order of the points in the Theravāda tradition compared with that in the Tibetan.

གནས་བརྟན་སྡེ་པའི་ཕུང་པོ། The Theravāda Khandhaka	བོད་འགྱུར་གཞི་ཐམས་ཅད་ཡོད་སྨྲའི་འདུལ་བ། Tibetan Mūlasarvāstivāda
1 རྭ་ཅོའི་སྣོད་དུ་ཚྭས་རུང་བ།  Legality of salt in horn containers	4 ཚ་ཡི་རུང་བ། Legality of salt
2 སོར་མོ་གཉིས་ཀྱིས་རུང་བ།  Legality of two fingers	6 སོར་མོ་གཉིས་ཀྱིས་རུང་བ། Legality of two fingers
3 གྲོང་ན་སྤྱོད་པས་རུང་བ།  Legality of eating in another Village	5 ལམ་གྱིས་རུང་བ། Legality of the road
4 གནས་ཀྱིས་རུང་བ།  Legality of location	1 ཨ་ལ་ལས་རུང་བ། Legality of “Alala!”
5 རྗེས་སུ་ཡི་རང་བས་རུང་བ། Legality of rejoicing	2 རྗེས་སུ་ཡི་རང་བས་རུང་བ། Legality of rejoicing
6 གོམས་པས་རུང་བ། Legality of habit	3 ཀུན་དུ་སྤྱོད་པས་རུང་བ། Legality of behaviour
7 འོ་མས་རུང་བ། Legality of buttermilk	8 བསྲེས་པས་རུང་བ།  Legality of mixed
8 ཛ་ལོ་གིས་རུང་བ། Legality of jalogi	7 ནད་པས་རུང་བ། Legality of illness
9 རྒྱུ་མེད་པའི་གདིང་བས་རུང་བ། Legality of mats without borders	9 གདིང་བས་རུང་བ།  Legality of mats
10 གསེར་དངུལ་ལེན་པས་རུང་བ། Legality of accepting gold and silver	10 གསེར་དངུལ་གྱིས་རུང་བ།  Legality of gold and silver

1. The legality of salt in horn containers 

The first of the points that is covered in the Pali tradition is the legality of salt in horn containers. This is the fourth point in the Tibetan translation of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya. 

According to the Pali Vinaya, keeping salt in a horn container would be beneficial if you are in a place where there is no salt. The issue is that bhikshus lived off alms, only ate the food that was offered on the day it was offered, and were not permitted to store food, otherwise they would commit the downfall of storing food. However, the Karmapa elaborated, salt is different from other foods: it is essential for health, and in some locations it could be difficult to get, so for this reason, some of the bhikshus made this request. Primarily, the request came from the sangha in Vaiśālī  (Vaishali, Pāli: Vesālī), though it is difficult to say whether they had a particular problem with salt at that time. However, because of its vital importance, it is possible that the Bhagavat Buddha, if he were alive, would have made an exception for salt. He made it permissible to store medicines that you must take for your entire life and you cannot live without salt, so there is a sound reason for the exception.

2. The legality of two fingers 

The second point in the Theravāda tradition is the legality of two fingers, which is the sixth point in the Mūlasarvāstivāda tradition.

According to the Pali Khandhaka, the question was whether it was permissible to eat when the shadow cast by a stick was longer than the width of two fingers. [This refers to an ancient way of telling the time by the length of the shadow cast by an upright stick. It’s shortest at solar noon and then lengthens as the afternoon progresses.] In essence, the question is asking whether it is permissible to eat after noon, relaxing the rule against eating after midday

The Tibetan translation of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya interprets the rule differently. Whereas the Pali focuses on the time when it is permissible to eat, the Tibetan tradition translates it as “eating with two fingers”. It says that it is permissible to eat food and snacks which have not been made leftovers by ritual but only using two fingers. 

The Karmapa explained that ‘leftover food’ referred to any food remaining once a bhikshu had risen from his midday meal. Generally, after that point, they are no longer allowed to eat. Nor are they allowed to put any leftover food aside for the next day. This rule might create difficulties for sponsors because the bhikshus might finish eating before all the sponsors had had chance to offer. The problem was that once a bhikshu had finished his midday meal, no matter what food or fruits the sponsor might bring, he is not allowed to eat them and he cannot store them to eat the following day, so sponsors have no opportunity to make food offerings once the bhikshu has finished the midday meal. This could cause disappointment for the sponsors and also creates a barrier for them in gathering the accumulation of merit. The solution is for the food to be offered first to any bhikshus who have not finished eating, the ritual is performed, and then any newly-offered food is distributed amongst the sangha and may be eaten with two fingers. His Holiness commented that it is difficult to say exactly what the “two finger” rule means, but normally, when eating, all the fingers are used, so this is a different way of eating which makes a distinction between this and the main meal which is finished. It might also express some reluctance at eating after the main meal or may mean just sampling a little of the food offered by the sponsor. It’s a way of relaxing the precept.

 

3. The legality of eating in another village

This is the third point in the Pali and the fifth point in the Tibetan, where it is termed differently as ‘the legality of the road’. 

One interpretation is that after the bhikshus have finished their midday meal, either in the monastery or in a village, they travel to a different location, a different village, and people in that place also want to offer food. Is it permissible to eat the food?

A second interpretation is that having eaten in a village, they leave, but on the outskirts of the village or outside the village, someone offers them food. Are they allowed to eat that food?

Or, if they are forest dwellers, they leave the forest and go to a village.

Since they cannot eat repeatedly in one location, if they travel to another location, may they then eat another meal?

 

4. The legality of location

The Theravāda tradition uses the term “legality of location” but in the Tibetan translation of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, in a section found in Minor Topics, it refers to the legality of saying “alala”. According to the Pali Vinaya, the question was whether it is permissible to hold the ritual confession (Pali. uposatha Skt. poṣadha Tib: sojong) in separate locations within a single boundary (sīmaṃ samman). According to the Pali Vinaya, there may be different locations within a single boundary. Bhikshus in these separate locations may hold the uposatha at their particular location. The Tibetan translation of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya says that it is possible to give permission to do this by saying “alala”. The Chinese version of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya means basically the same but words it differently as “by giving verbal assent”. 

At that time, the bhikshus’ residence, the āvāsa or monastery, was their hub and was defined by a single, fixed boundary. It was, therefore, possible, to have either one or multiple locations within that boundary, depending on its size. If the boundary is large, then there may be many different locations inside it. All the sangha members within such a boundary were termed the sammukhībhūta-saṃgha (the local sangha). The opposite was the cātuddisa-saṃgha (Pāli; Skt. cāturdiśa-saṃgha) which translates as “the sangha of the four directions” ie those outside the boundary. Usually, the local sangha was expected to gather together in one place to perform sojong (the confession ritual) and other community functions. According to the Vinaya, a sangha acting together in this way qualified as a samagga-saṃgha (Pāli; Skt. samagra-saṃgha), an harmonious sangha.

The problem was that within a single boundary, there could be many different locations, sometimes quite far apart, making it difficult for the monks to gather together. So, this idea of the legality of the location, though contrary to the rule about the boundary, was put forward in the hope that the bhikshus would be allowed to perform confession and the other monastic motions in their individual locations. This is the issue that the monks from Vaiśālī were discussing. However, the main point here is that if the sangha within a sangha boundary were not together for sojong and the other motions or work of the sangha, there was the danger that it might lead to disharmony or schism.

However, the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya and the other vinayas that we have today, come from the time of the Buddhism of the Nikāya schools; we do not have the vinaya from the time before the 18 schools appeared, only those from after the split, and each school has its own vinaya. When we discuss the vinayas that came up from the time of the Nikāya Buddhism of the 18 schools, there may be differences and some exceptions to this rule.

For example, in our vinaya, it speaks about having a particular mandala that

does the sojong on its own, and the reason for that is because it is similar to the

question of the permissibility of the location in these ten points. This is something that

we do need to consider. Perhaps before the 18 schools appeared, all the sangha within a boundary had to act together, but after that, the schools all began to relax the vinaya rules and so forth, and there may have been things that were impermissible that gradually became permissible. We don’t really know about that, but it is something that we need to consider.

 

5. The legality of rejoicing

This is the fifth point in the Pali Vinaya and the second point in the Tibetan translation of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya Minor Topics. 

It concerns how the sangha conducts its business, which would normally be based on reaching a consensus after discussion between all the members of the sangha within the boundary. The question, therefore, is whether sangha members in a separate location within the boundary who had agreed on something could then later ask for the assent of the whole sangha when it gathered together. The Karmapa explained that sometimes it might be unavoidable for a group of sangha members in a particular location to make a decision without consulting the whole sangha.

6. The legality of habit

This is the sixth one in the Theravāda tradition and the third in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, where it is the legality of behaviour. 

The legality of habit asks whether it is permissible to act according to the customs or way of doing things of the khenpo who ordained you or your teacher. The Pali Khandhaka says that 

you cannot categorically say that all are permissible or all impermissible, because some are permissible and some are not. In brief, no matter what the custom or behaviour of the khenpo or teacher is, if it accords with the vinaya, it is permissible, and if does not, it is impermissible.

The Mūlasarvāstivāda Minor Topics does not consider whether it is permissible to act in the same way as your teacher or abbot. Instead, it speaks about whether it is permissible to dig the ground with your own hands or to have someone else dig the ground for you. According to Minor Topics, it is not permissible, and the reason is that it incurs the 73rd downfall, the downfall of digging the earth.

The Karmapa speculated that, though the two interpretations seem very different, it is possible to see how they might be connected. It is possible that the abbot or teachers, even though they were bhikshus, dug in the ground and the students witnessed this. When you are building a temple for example, you have to dig the ground and so forth, and so it is possible they did this. Although, in general, bhikshus are not allowed to dig in the ground, if the abbot or teacher did so, the question would arise whether the ordinary monks could follow their example. Likewise, it also asks clearly in the Pali Vinaya whether it is permissible to do whatever the abbot does, which suggests that the abbot is doing something that somewhat contradicts some of the precepts of the vinaya. Does that mean that the monks could do everything the abbot does that contradicts the vinaya? That would be too much! The Mūlasarvāstivāda tradition gives clarification: the issue is primarily connected with digging in the ground.

If there is no such connection, the two traditions are totally different.

7. The legality of buttermilk

According to the Tibetan tradition, this is termed the legality of mixing. 

In the Pali tradition, the question is whether it is permissible for a bhikshu who had already finished eating to then drink buttermilk, that has changed from the state of milk but not yet curdled and thickened into yoghurt. Some vinayas pose a slightly different question: is it permissible for bhikshus to drink drinks mixed with honey or butter or raw sugar and so forth

without performing the ritual for leftovers. Or is it permissible to drink yoghurt which has been mixed with water at an inappropriate time?

According to the vinaya, milk, honey and yogurt are all temporary medicines, so they may only be consumed before noon and the ritual for leftovers should be performed. However, it is not clear in the vinaya whether it is permissible to mix permissible and impermissible together and drink them at inappropriate times or not. Because it wasn’t clearly described in the vinaya, the monks from Vaiśālī were hoping for some relaxation of the discipline and asked whether it was permissible to drink mixtures at inappropriate times, for example, water which is permissible, with honey which is impermissible.

.

8. The legality of jalogi 

Jalogi is a Pali word and means the sap collected from palm trees that is then allowed to ferment into alcohol [in South India these days it is known as ‘toddy’]. The issue here is basically the same as that in the Tibetan tradition’s legality of illness. The question is whether it is permissible to drink the sap before it is fully fermented into palm wine, or, if it has                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                already fermented into alcohol, is it permissible to drink it mixed with water? 

The Pali vinaya explains that one may not drink surā or majja, two types of intoxicating drink. But can you drink something which is not completely fermented? And in the Mūlasarvāstivāda tradition, the question is whether alcohol mixed with water or another non-alcoholic liquid can be used as medicine. The answer in Minor Topics is that it is not permissible for people who are ill to drink alcohol even if it is mixed with water.

                                                         

So, this is actually very clear, commented the Karmapa. There are three different scenarios:

1. When the drink hasn’t completely fermented as in the case of the palm sap so it isn’t truly alcoholic.
2. When the alcohol is diluted with water.
3. When alcohol is used as medicine.

Many researchers suggest that the monks were not facing any particular difficulties which required the relaxing of the vinaya rules about alcohol; rather, they just wanted the freedom to drink alcohol.

It is also possible that an exception needed to be made for people who were ill. Within Tibetan medicine, for example, you sometimes have to drink alcohol alongside the medicine in order to bring out the power of the medicine.

.

9. The legality of mats without borders

The ninth point is basically the same in both the Theravāda and the Mūlasarvāstivāda traditions and concerns the size of the individual mats which sangha members sit on. [In Tibetan they are called dingwa (གདིང་བ།).]

There is a specific size for the mat and the border of the mat. The regulation for the size of the mat and its border is given in the 89^th downfall in the Pali Vinaya. It is also taught in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya. In the Pali Vinaya, it says that the length of the mat should be two fingers of the sugata, and the width should be one and a half fingers of the sugata. The border should be one finger of the sugata. If it exceeds those measurements, it should be trimmed. [According to Buddhist tradition, the Buddha had extremely long fingers, much longer than a normal person’s, and so his fingers became a standard unit of measurement in the vinaya.] 

The issue for the monks of Vaiśālī was that though there is a fixed size for the mat with a border, if there is no border, is it permissible to make any size of mat?

10. The legality of accepting gold and silver. 

The basic issue here is whether it is permissible for bhikshus to accept and keep gold and silver. In the vinaya, it is taught that for a bhikshu to accept or keep gold is a relinquishing downfall. However, as the society developed economically and became wealthier, it became difficult for both individual bhikshus and the sangha overall to maintain a living without money. These days, it is difficult to live your life without money, and this was the case even in ancient India. You can’t do anything without money. Hence, it may have become necessary to relax the vinaya rules. There may have been no choice.

So, the question in the past, it says, is the legality of accepting,gold and silver, the Karmapa summarised. It’s not that it was decided by the 700 arhats that it is not allowed, but as the Indian society of that time developed, as some sponsors wanted to offer money as well as food, the situation changed.

“These days, we don’t necessarily have gold and silver, but we have money, and without money it’s difficult to lead our lives. So, there’s a lot that we really need to

think about with this issue.”

The Rulings of the Council on the ten points 

In summary, the bhikshus from Vaiśālī argued for the ten permissible points. However, when the 700 elders held the Council, they ruled that these ten points were impermissible.

The Sarvāstivāda and the Mūlasarvāstivāda traditions state that that the elder Yaśa asked the elder Sarvakāmin to explain how the rules in the Vinaya made the ten points impermissible; this was done in the form of questions and answers.

The Karmapa gave, as an example, the fourth point [first in the Tibetan order], where the monks of Vaiśālī argued that giving assent by saying “Alala” should be permissible, but it was ruled impermissible and the reason given was that during the time that the Buddha was alive, in the town of Campā [near present-day Bhagalpur], the gang of six bhikshus did something, and so it was determined  that this was impermissible. Hence, if bhikshus did this impermissible action, they would commit an offense, and so forth. 

Many modern scholars assert that among the ten points, accepting gold and silver, the legality of rejoicing, eating after noon, allowing bhikshus within a boundary not to perform sojong in a single location, and allowing motions to be passed if only a few bhikshus are present, had a great influence on the growth of the sangha, so it is unnecessary to mention that there were people who objected to them. The others are all minor precepts, so they are not so important. 

In brief, when we talk about the ten impermissible points, it was the Vṛjiputra (Pāli: Vajjiputta; En. Sons of Vriji) bhikshus from Vaiśālī who made these ten rules and asserted that practicing them was permissible, in accord with the dharma, and legal. However, the elder Yaśa considered these ten points to be impermissible and not in accord with the dharma, but he was a solitary voice, so, consequently, all seven hundred elders or arhats were invited and a council (sometimes known as the Council of the Seven Hundred) was convened. They declared the ten points impermissible. This account is according to the vinayas of the schools from the Sthaviravāda tradition, which describes how, once it had been determined that the ten points were not permissible, the seven hundred arhats held the council to correct the vinaya. 

However, the account in the Mahāsāṃghika vinaya scriptures (which are only extant in Chinese) is different. They explain that the council discussed the five permissible points and do not mention the ten impermissible points. Because accepting gold and silver is not permitted in the Mahāsāṃghika vinaya, the common point between the Sthaviravada and Mahāsāṃghika accounts is that the Council of the Seven Hundred did not give permission to accept gold and silver. Otherwise, the accounts do not tally.

One point we should pay particular attention to here is that most of the seven hundred elders or arhats who participated in this council were students of Ānanda who had been supportive of relaxing the minor precepts and stated that what is allowed or prohibited could be adjusted according to time and place. Also, during the Second Council the elders from Vaiśālī held a conservative position and ruled the ten points as impermissible, in contradiction to the views of the bhikshus from Vaiśālī.

So both liberal and conservative factions at the Second Council seem to have ruled the ten points as impermissible.