David Higgins

This study examines how Mi bskyod rdo rje (1507‒1554), the Eighth Karma pa of the Karma Bka’ brgyud lineage, articulates and defends a key distinction between consciousness (rnam shes) and wisdom (ye shes). The first paper focuses on the author’s clarification of the distinction both as an accurate account of the nature and structure of human consciousness and as an indispensable principle of Buddhist soteriology. Arguing that human beings have two “concurrent but nonconvergent” modes of awareness, conditioned and unconditioned, Mi bskyod rdo rje urges the practitioner to discern amidst the adventitious flux of dichotomic thoughts an innate nondual mode of awareness that is regarded as the ground and goal of the Buddhist path. That the recognition of their difference is the key to realizing their underlying unity is central to the Karma pa’s response to the perennial Buddhist problem of reconciling two divergent Buddhist models of reality: [1] a differentiation model based on robust distinctions between conventional and ultimate truths or realities (saṃvṛtisatya versus paramārthasatya) and their associated modes of cognition and [2] an identification (yuganaddha) model of the two realities (satyadvaya : bden gnyis) which emphasizes their underlying unity. This article concludes with an annotated translation and critical edition of a short text by the Karma pa on the subject entitled “Two minds in one person? A Reply to the Queries of Bla ma Khams pa” (bla ma khams pa’i dris lan mi gcig sems gnyis).

This study (published in two successive articles) examines how Mi bskyod rdo rje (1507‒1554), the Eighth Karma pa of the Karma Bka' brgyud lineage, articulates and defends a key distinction between consciousness (rnam shes) and wisdom (ye shes). The first article outlined the author’s clarification of the distinction both as an accurate account of the nature and structure of human consciousness and as an indispensable principle of Buddhist soteriology. He argued that human beings have two “concurrent but nonconvergent” modes of awareness, conditioned and unconditioned. The second article – part two – focuses on the author’s vindication and further clarifications of the distinction between consciousness and wisdom in response to certain rival Tibetan views which in his view has tended to elide their differences and thus confuse the ever-present ground and goal of the Buddhist path (innate wisdom) with what has to be abandoned along the way (adventitious consciousness).