mudra wrote:Namdrol wrote:
Napper's book Dependent Arising has a whole section devling into this issue. Look there.
Ok so checked the index in Napper's book and could not find any reference to Je Tsongkhapa disregarding the second set. All I could find was his classic emphasis on the need for qualifiers when interpreting the tetralemma (yes, all four lines). I checked back to the Snow Lion translation of LRCM and in the chapter "Production is not Refuted" (p189) found one discussion on the tetralemma which again is more of a discussion on the need for qualifiers when interpreting the four lines such as refuting essential nature etc. Nowhere have I found Je Tsongkhapa actively disregarding the second set.
Look on page 60 of the Napper book.