Steven > Recent Status Updates

Tsongkhapa once again reiterates that action cannot happen in a vacuum, nor can it arise through anything other than causes and conditions. The only reason that we can impute both action and agent is because actions have effects, and these effects imply both an agent and prior conditioning. If action did not have an agent, action would happen endlessly. If agent were not the basis for action, no action could happen

It's admirable that Saitō wants to rewrite Marx's legacy, but to base the entirety of his thought on unpublished material seems like a bit of a cop out to me. Even if Marx's thinking did transform into a more egalitarian and less eurocentric theory of economy late in his life, it transformed too late--The letter that Saitō cites as the "culmination" of his thought was written just two years before his death

Tsongkhapa makes an interesting point that exhaustion of a phenomena is not the same thing as a phenomena not existing. Exhaustion is based on an object referent (meaning that something that used to be there is no longer there) whereas nonexistence is simply an absence of causes, conditions, and effects. The effect of an action destroys the causes and conditions phenomenologically, leading to their exhaustion.

Tsongkhapa makes another complicated argument about why arising necessarily entails enduring and ceasing. If arising existed but not endurance and ceasing, then the produced would be like space. If enduring existed but not arising or ceasing, the produced could not endure (because it never arose nor ceased). If the produced ceased without arising or enduring, this is nonsensical, because nothing arose at all

Listening to the audiobook. Depressing but important. It's definitely weird to have a mainstream author cite world systems theory in his work lol, really bringing my international relations education to life

As I read, Gorampa's position becomes less and less convincing. If we take all of the metaphysical implications of his philosophy into consideration, it's quite clear that he falls into the trap of nihilism, which Madhyamaka theory explicitly prohibits in the search for emptiness

This book is so well-written and enlightening. In my opinion, of the two thinkers, Gorampa is much less convincing than Tsongkhapa. Some of his phenomenological claims have no precedent in Buddhist canon, whereas Tsongkhapa's views are always backed up by scripture, whether they're from Nagarjuna or from somewhere in the Pali canon

Tsongkhapa makes another interesting point, saying that if space were accommodating to objects in a positivistic way, you would be able to have two objects in the exact same spatial location. However, since space is merely the absence of an object, it cannot accommodate two objects in one location--You have to move one object in order to place another one in its stead. Space is therefore dependent on material form

So at this point we're refuting the elements, and Tsongkhapa gives a very convoluted explanation of the untenable sequential arising of characteristics and the things that they characterize. Basically, he is saying that they are both dependent on one another and their ultimate absence--They cannot arise sequentially, because if one existed without the other, the syllogism would fall apart

As usual, the only two actual heroes in this book were both imprisoned--One was an Irish gay man who was executed by the British government for treason.

Okay so, I think the first two chapters of the commentary are the most important--If you can understand those chapters, you will probably be able to understand the rest of the commentary without any issue. Tsongkhapa is very adamant in pointing out that 1) nothing has an inherent, permanent essence, and that 2) action produces the agent, not the other way around (although neither are essentially real)