Tsongkhapa’s interpretation of dependent origination

Tsongkhapa treats dependent origination not as one doctrine among many, but as the single key that unlocks the entire meaning of emptiness, the two truths, and the Middle Way. His interpretation is unusually precise.

A walk through the heart of this view.

1. Dependent origination is the meaning of emptiness

Tsongkhapa’s most famous elucidation is that emptiness and dependent origination are the same fact seen from two angles. He says:

• When you look at a phenomenon from the side of its lack of intrinsic nature, you call it emptiness.
• When you look at the same phenomenon from the side of its arising through causes, conditions, and conceptual designation, you call it dependent origination.

This is why he insists that emptiness is not nihilism. If things were truly nonexistent, they could not arise dependently.

He says:

“Because things are empty, they can arise.”

This is the opposite of how people usually think. Most assume emptiness threatens existence. Tsongkhapa says emptiness enables existence.

2. Three levels of dependent origination

Tsongkhapa famously distinguishes three kinds of dependent origination. Each one deepens the meaning of emptiness.

1. Dependence on causes and conditions

***This is the most basic: things arise from causes. It refutes the idea of permanent, unchanging entities.

2. Dependence on parts

Objects are composites. This refutes the idea of unitary, indivisible wholes.

3. Dependence on conceptual designation

This is the most subtle and the most important. It means:

• Things exist only as they are designated by thought and language
• There is no “core” or “essence” behind the designation
• Existence is relational, not intrinsic

This third level is where Tsongkhapa sees the full force of emptiness.

~

3. Why dependent origination proves emptiness

Tsongkhapa argues that if something had intrinsic existence, it would be:

• independent
• unchanging
• self-established
• not needing causes
• not needing conceptual designation

But anything that arises dependently:

• changes
• relies on causes
• relies on parts
• relies on conceptual imputation

Therefore, dependent origination is the proof that intrinsic existence is impossible.

He says:

“If you understand dependent origination, you understand emptiness. If you understand emptiness, you understand dependent origination.”

This is the philosophical core of his system.

~

4. Why emptiness protects dependent origination

Tsongkhapa is deeply concerned about nihilistic misreadings of emptiness. He uses dependent origination to prevent this.

He argues:

• If things were truly nonexistent, cause and effect would be impossible
• If cause and effect were impossible, ethics would collapse
• If ethics collapsed, the entire Buddha Dharma path would collapse

So emptiness must be understood in a way that preserves the functioning of the world.

This is why he says:

“The deeper your understanding of emptiness, the stronger your conviction in cause and effect.”

This is a direct refutation to nihilistic interpretations of Madhyamaka.

~

5. How dependent origination relates to the two truths

Tsongkhapa uses dependent origination to explain the unity of the two truths:

Ultimate truth:

• Phenomena lack intrinsic existence
• This is discovered through reasoning (on the relative level)

Conventional truth:

• Phenomena function causally
• This is discovered through ordinary perception

Dependent origination is the bridge:

• It shows why things cannot be intrinsically real
• It shows why things can function conventionally

This is why Tsongkhapa says the two truths are one entity but different conceptual isolates.

~

6. How Tsongkhapa differs from other Madhyamaka interpretations

Tsongkhapa’s interpretation is sharper and more systematic than earlier Tibetan readings.

Against nihilistic interpretations:

He expounds that emptiness does not undermine conventional truth.

Against realist (Svātantrika) interpretations:

He explains that conventional objects do not have intrinsic characteristics. If they did, dependent origination would be impossible.

Against Yogācāra:

He rejects the idea that mind is more real than matter. Both are equally dependently arisen and empty.

~

7. The philosophical payoff

Tsongkhapa’s interpretation of dependent origination accomplishes three things at once:

• It refutes intrinsic existence
• It preserves the functioning of the world
• It grounds the entire Buddha Dharma path

This is why he calls dependent origination:

“The king of reasonings.”

And why he says that understanding it is the key to comprehending:

• emptiness
• the two truths
• ethics
• liberation
• enlightenment

Everything rests on this one insight.

---

How Tsongkhapa uses dependent origination to defend the validity of conventional pramāṇas

Tsongkhapa’s move here is one of the most elegant pieces of Buddha Dharma philosophy: he uses dependent origination—the very principle that proves emptiness—to defend the reliability of conventional pramāṇas (valid cognitions like perception, inference, and testimony).

Most Madhyamaka thinkers before him struggled to explain how knowledge could be valid if everything is empty. Tsongkhapa flips the problem on its head:

Conventional pramāṇas are valid because things are empty, not in spite of it.

He does this in the following way:

1. Why emptiness seems to threaten pramāṇas

If nothing has intrinsic nature, then:

• How can perception latch onto an object
• How can inference track a real relation
• How can testimony refer to anything

This is the classic worry: If everything is empty, isn’t knowledge impossible?

Tsongkhapa says this worry only arises if you misunderstand emptiness.

~

2. Tsongkhapa’s key insight: Dependent origination is the ground of conventional validity

Tsongkhapa argues that dependent origination is the only thing that makes conventional knowledge possible.

His reasoning goes like this:

• If things had intrinsic nature, they would be fixed, isolated, and unchanging
• If they were fixed and isolated, they could never interact
• If they could never interact, perception and inference would be impossible

So intrinsic existence would actually destroy pramāṇas.

This is why he says:

“Because things are empty, they can function.”

Dependent origination—causal interaction, relationality, conceptual designation—is what allows pramāṇas to operate.

~

3. How dependent origination supports each type of pramāṇa

Tsongkhapa uses dependent origination to show why each pramāṇa works conventionally.

Perception

Perception works because objects arise dependently:

• They have causal powers
• They appear in regular patterns
• They interact with sense faculties

If objects were intrinsically different from the mind, they could never be perceived. If they were intrinsically identical, perception would collapse. Dependent origination avoids both extremes.

Inference

Inference works because relations like “smoke → fire” are dependently arisen regularities. They are not grounded in intrinsic essences, but in:

• causal dependence
• statistical regularity
• conceptual designation

Inference is valid because the world is structured by dependent relations.

Testimony

Language works because meanings are dependently designated. There is no intrinsic meaning in words, but there is:

• shared convention
• causal history
• pragmatic success

This is why testimony can be a valid pramāṇa.

~

4. Tsongkhapa’s major philosophical move: separating the two levels of analysis

Tsongkhapa insists that ultimate analysis and conventional analysis must never be mixed.

• Ultimate analysis asks: “Does this have intrinsic nature?”
  • Answer: No.
• Conventional analysis asks: “Does this function reliably?”
  • Answer: Yes.

Pramāṇas belong entirely to the conventional side. They are not undermined by ultimate emptiness because they do not claim ultimate status.

This is why Tsongkhapa says:

“Ultimate reasoning does not contradict conventional validity.”

---

Further elucidation on why Tsongkhapa insists that ultimate analysis and conventional analysis must never be mixed.

Tsongkhapa’s insistence that ultimate analysis and conventional analysis must never be mixed is one of the most important—and most misunderstood—points in his entire Madhyamaka system. When you see why he draws this sharp boundary, his whole philosophical project becomes much clearer.

Below is a structured explanation that captures the heart of his reasoning.

Why Tsongkhapa Separates Ultimate and Conventional Analysis

i. They investigate different kinds of truth

Tsongkhapa follows Nāgārjuna in saying that reality has two truths:

• Conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya): How things appear and function in everyday life—causes, effects, persons, ethics, logic, language.
• Ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya): The emptiness of inherent existence discovered through deep philosophical analysis.

These two truths are not two separate realities; they are two ways of apprehending the same phenomena. But the methods used to understand them are radically different.

~

ii. Ultimate analysis destroys inherent existence

Ultimate analysis asks questions like:

• Does this phenomenon exist from its own side?
• Can it be found under ultimate scrutiny?
• Is it one with its parts or different from them?

This kind of analysis dismantles any notion of inherent existence. If you apply this analysis to anything, it dissolves under examination.

If you apply it to a table, the table disappears. If you apply it to a person, the person disappears. If you apply it to cause and effect, they disappear.

This is exactly what ultimate analysis is supposed to do.

~

iii. Conventional analysis preserves functioning

Conventional analysis deals with:

• logic
• ethics
• cause and effect
• perception
• language
• reasoning about everyday life

If you apply ultimate analysis here, you destroy the very basis of conventional functioning. For example:

• If you analyze a person ultimately, you find no inherently existing person.
• But if you then conclude “therefore karma doesn’t work,” you’ve mixed the two modes of analysis.

This leads to nihilism—something Tsongkhapa is extremely careful to avoid.

~

iv. Mixing the two leads to philosophical disaster

Tsongkhapa argues that mixing the two types of analysis leads to two major errors:

❌ Reifying emptiness

If you use conventional reasoning to “prove” emptiness, you end up treating emptiness as a thing.

❌ Destroying conventional reality

If you use ultimate analysis to evaluate conventional truths, you end up denying:

• karma
• ethics
• cause and effect
• the path
• enlightenment

This is the classic Madhyamaka warning: Do not use the ultimate to destroy the conventional.

~

v. His core point:

Ultimate analysis is only for discovering emptiness.

Conventional analysis is only for navigating the world.

They must never be mixed because:

• Ultimate analysis negates inherent existence.
• Conventional analysis affirms dependent functioning.

If you mix them, you either:

• fall into nihilism (nothing exists), or
• fall into eternalism (emptiness becomes a real thing).

Tsongkhapa sees the separation as the only way to preserve:

• the Middle Way
• the validity of conventional truth
• the liberating power of ultimate truth
• the functioning of karma and ethics
• the possibility of enlightenment

~

vi. A simple metaphor

Tsongkhapa often uses metaphors like illusions or dreams.

• Ultimate analysis is like waking up and seeing the dream as unreal.
• Conventional analysis is like understanding the dream’s internal logic while still dreaming.

If you try to use “waking logic” inside the dream, the dream collapses. If you try to use “dream logic” to understand waking reality, you misunderstand emptiness.

~

vii. The Middle Way depends on this separation

For Tsongkhapa, the Middle Way is only possible if:

• Ultimate truth negates inherent existence
• Conventional truth affirms dependent arising

Keeping the two analyses separate is what allows both truths to coexist without contradiction.

---

5. How this differs from other Madhyamaka interpretations

Tsongkhapa uses dependent origination to counter against two extremes.

1. Nihilistic interpretations

Some earlier Madhyamikas treated conventional truth as “mere illusion.” Tsongkhapa rejects this. He says conventional truth is valid, just not intrinsically real.

2. Realist (Svātantrika) interpretations

Svātantrikas argue that conventional objects must have intrinsic characteristics to be known. Tsongkhapa uses dependent origination to show the opposite:

• Intrinsic characteristics would block causal interaction
• Without causal interaction, pramāṇas would fail
• Therefore, emptiness is required for knowledge

This is one of his most important philosophical contributions.

~

6. The payoff: Tsongkhapa’s Middle Way

Tsongkhapa’s system achieves something rare:

• It avoids nihilism (because pramāṇas are valid)
• It avoids realism (because pramāṇas are empty)
• It preserves the entire Buddha path (ethics, meditation, liberation)

Dependent origination becomes the principle that:

• proves emptiness
• preserves conventional truth
• grounds epistemic reliability
• supports ethics and causality
• makes liberation possible

It is the single thread that ties this entire philosophy together.