Someone wanted to understand more about Tsongkhapa understanding.

I sent him:

“I don’t think you’re off. You’re already pointing at a lot of the right territory — dependent arising, lack of inherent existence, purity, recognition, how afflictive functioning appears. It’s clear you’re not treating this casually.

Where I think the next step is: you’re opening many threads at once, but not yet following any one of them all the way through. At this stage, instead of widening, it’s about drilling down.

Take the statement “things are empty and pure because they’re dependently arisen.” That’s good, and it’s in line with how Tsongkhapa links dependent arising and emptiness: whatever depends on causes and conditions (and on designation by mind) cannot have any inherent nature of its own.  

But Tsongkhapa will immediately press you further:

1. If x is empty because it depends on causes and conditions —

do those causes and conditions themselves have any inherent nature?

2. If you say no, what is the exact reasoning that shows even those causes/conditions are empty and only exist by being dependently designated?

3. Can you carry that all the way through such that nothing in the entire causal network — not the object, not the causes, not “dependent arising” itself — is left standing as something that exists from its own side?

That part is crucial. It’s not enough to say “it’s dependently arisen, therefore empty / pure” as a slogan. In Tsongkhapa’s reading, you have to demonstrate precisely how dependence defeats inherent existence at every level, not just assert it in general terms.  

Same with how you talk about “stain,” “afflictive efficacy,” and “recognition.” You said: when there’s non-recognition, confusion functions as an affliction; with recognition, that confusion is seen as never having truly stained anything, and the afflictive force collapses.

That’s very close to how Dzogchen talks about primordial purity (ka dag) and adventitious obscurations: under non-recognition, the kleshas appear and operate; with recognition, they release, and you see they never truly established themselves.  

From the Madhyamaka/Gelug side, that invites a few surgical questions that are worth answering clearly, because they sharpen your view instead of leaving it a general intuition:

• When you say “stain,” what exactly is being stained?

• Through what mechanism does that “stain” create afflictive functioning — i.e. what, exactly, is the mode of operation of ignorance?

• When recognition happens and the afflictive force stops, what actually happened? Did something get removed, or was something seen through?

These aren’t nitpicks. They’re the heart of insight practice. They force you to describe ignorance and release in a way that is precise, not poetic.

And this is why this can’t really be wrapped up in a few casual lines like “everything is dependently arisen so everything is pure.” If it were that straightforward, we wouldn’t have thousands of pages of Prajñāpāramitā literature and Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā going verse by verse dismantling inherent existence. The Buddha didn’t just drop “it’s empty lol” and walk away — the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras go on and on, and Madhyamaka develops extremely fine-grained arguments about exactly what is negated and how. (The long Prajñāpāramitā texts run into tens of thousands of lines dedicated to this single point, and Nāgārjuna’s MMK is basically a systematic demolition of every candidate for inherent existence.)  

So if you’re serious about understanding Tsongkhapa’s stream — not just getting reassurance that you’re “already there,” but actually internalizing the view — then this is where, honestly, study becomes necessary. This isn’t something that can be resolved by clever phrasing alone.

Yin Ling very strongly recommends going through the Dalai Lama / Thubten Chodron “Library of Wisdom and Compassion” series for this, especially the emptiness-focused volumes like “Searching for the Self,” “Realizing the Profound View,” and “Appearing and Empty.” These books are explicitly designed to walk a modern reader through Tsongkhapa-style Prāsaṅgika logic: how we wrongly project inherent existence, how dependent arising undercuts that projection, how designation works, and how to hold appearance and emptiness together in meditation. They’re deep, not just inspirational, and they’re meant to take you right into the core analysis. Read them and the volume 5 commentary by Geshe Sopa on insight if you really want to understand Tsongkhapa's stream of thoughts.

Also recommended: His Holiness’s “How to See Yourself As You Really Are.” That one is more introductory — it’s very readable and practical, and it trains you to observe in real time how “I,” “object,” and “function” are being projected as solid, and then to watch that projection unravel via dependence, karma, and imputation. It’s extremely useful groundwork, but it doesn’t go all the way into the very sharp, technical Prāsaṅgika moves that Tsongkhapa is famous for. Think of it as establishing the habit of looking, preparing you for the heavier material.  

So my suggestion is basically:

• You’re on the right track.

• At this point, depth matters more than clever synthesis.

• The way to get that depth is to sit with those very specific questions (about how dependence actually erases inherency in every link, and what “stain / recognition” actually means in lived cognition), and to work through systematic presentations that were designed to answer exactly those questions, line by line.

If you do that, you’re not just collecting viewpoints (“Tsongkhapa says X, Dzogchen says Y”), you’re actually doing the same analytic work those traditions expect of a serious practitioner. And that’s the part that really matures the view.”