Position summary
The Ninth Karmapa Wangchuk Dorje (དབང་ཕྱུག་རྡོ་རྗེ་) compiled Feast for the Fortunate (c. 1578), an abridgement of the Eighth Karmapa’s Chariot of the Takpo Kagyü Siddhas (c. 1545) — the definitive Karma Kagyü commentary on Candrakīrti’s Madhyamakāvatāra. The core position: genuine Followers of the Middle Way dismantle others’ views while holding no thesis of their own. All phenomena — including emptiness — are free from all conceptual elaborations. The three stages of analysis structure the path: at no analysis, worldly conventions are accepted; at slight analysis, phenomena are seen as empty of inherent nature; at thorough analysis (the genuine Middle Way), even emptiness is transcended — there is freedom from all elaborations (niṣprapañca, སྤྲོས་བྲལ་).
The Karmapa is a genuinely independent voice: he agrees with Tsongkhapa on some points (self-awareness not existing conventionally, clinging to true existence as afflictive obscuration) while sharply criticising his object of negation as “partial emptiness.” He shares Gorampa’s impulse to critique Tsongkhapa but rejects Gorampa’s positions on self-awareness and conventional existence. He refutes Dolpopa’s zhentong as untenable. This point-by-point engagement rather than factional allegiance is philosophically distinctive.
Hermeneutical approach
The Karmapa works fully within the Mahāyāna hermeneutical framework: Two Truths, provisional/definitive, and the graduated stages of the Buddha’s teaching. He treats buddha nature and zhentong as provisional meaning. His method is strictly Prāsaṅgika — consequentialist reasoning that draws out the absurd implications of opponents’ positions without advancing a counter-thesis. The text integrates scholarly analysis with Mahāmudrā pointing-out instructions and siddha realisation songs, reflecting the Kagyü tradition’s emphasis on the unity of study and practice.
Key claims
- Genuine Followers of the Middle Way hold no thesis of their own — from karmapa-feast-fortunate-1578
- Phenomena themselves must be refuted, not just “the true existence of phenomena” (contra Tsongkhapa) — the Karmapa’s “partial emptiness” critique
- The Svātantrika-Prāsaṅgika distinction is primarily methodological; the Autonomists’ “intentions are the same” as the Consequentialists’
- The two truths are neither the same nor different; the distinction is drawn from the perceiving subject’s side, not the object’s side
- All instances of clinging to true existence are afflictive obscurations (agreeing with Tsongkhapa, contra Gorampa)
- Self-awareness does not exist even conventionally (agreeing with Tsongkhapa, contra Gorampa and Shākya Chokden)
- Hearers and solitary realisers realise phenomenal selflessness (contra Mipham)
- Buddha nature is provisional meaning and conventional, not ultimate (contra Dolpopa)
- No common object of perception exists between the six classes of beings
Tenpa’s assessment
The Karmapa fills a critical gap in the paper: a Kagyü Prāsaṅgika voice alongside the Geluk (Tsongkhapa), Sakya (Gorampa), Jonang (Dolpopa), and Nyingma (Mipham). His three stages of analysis provide an exceptionally clear articulation of why the hermeneutical framework is necessary — without it, one operates at the level of “no analysis” only (effectively Kalupahana’s position). His “partial emptiness” critique of Tsongkhapa is perhaps the sharpest available. His simultaneous agreements and disagreements with both Tsongkhapa and Gorampa demonstrate that the Tibetan debate is genuinely philosophical, not factional — the strongest evidence for Section 6.3.
Related scholars
- Eighth Karmapa (Mikyö Dorje, 1507–1554): The Ninth Karmapa’s source; author of the Chariot of the Takpo Kagyü Siddhas, the most extensive Kagyü Madhyamaka commentary. The Ninth Karmapa preserves and abridges the Eighth’s positions.
- Tsongkhapa: The most refuted master. Agreement on self-awareness and afflictive obscurations; sharp disagreement on the object of negation and postdisintegration.
- Gorampa: Shares the impulse to critique Tsongkhapa but diverges on self-awareness, conventional existence, and the precise grounds for a wider object of negation.
- Dolpopa: Zhentong explicitly refuted as untenable; buddha nature classified as provisional meaning.
- Mipham: Shares the sympathetic reading of Autonomists as genuine Followers of the Middle Way but disagrees on whether hearers/solitary realisers realise phenomenal selflessness.
- Gendun Chöpel (1903–1951): His critique of Tsongkhapa’s object of negation parallels the Karmapa’s.
- Pawo Tsuklak Trengwa (1504–1566): The Eighth Karmapa’s “moonlike” disciple; his commentary on Śāntideva is the other main Kagyü Madhyamaka text.