Reddit mentions of From Here to Enlightenment: An Introduction to Tsong-kha-pa's Classic Text The Great Treatise of the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment

> requires a self and the doctrine of Anatta denies its existence.

If there's no self, who's reading this response?

"The Buddha does not negate the relative existence of anything, but teaches that whatever exists in the relative or conventional sense, exists interdependently... The inherently existing self, an independent existence of "I" does not exist; it is to be negated, it is just an illusion. To reiterate, the person, the "I" or the "You," is an interdependently originated nature, and this mode of existence is real, and it is there. We are not negating the interdependent existence when we are negating the "I." In other words, we are not negating the "I" which does exist relatively... So, the existence of the interdependent "I" is never negated by Buddhism." - Geshe Samdhong Rinpoche https://www.amazon.com/Samdhong-Rinpoche-Uncompromising-Truth-Compromised/dp/1933316209/

"So, when we talk about anatman, we do not mean the total nonexistence of the nominal or conventional self; we very much accept the existence of such a conventional self. What we actually mean is the nonexistence of the self that is thought to be totally independent and has nothing whatsoever to do with the self of the physical aggregates; it is totally separate from the self of the physical aggregates, which is the kind of self that is being denied." - The Dalai Lama https://www.amazon.com/Wanted-Holiness-Dalai-Happiness-Living/dp/1401920160/



"Thus, in the ultimate truth there is no 'I' but in the relative truth 'I' exists. Because there is 'I' then the Buddha also teaches that there are no phenomena which are not interdependent. 'I' exists as a dependent phenomenon in a relative, conventional world. When 'I' create a good karmic accumulation, the good result comes to 'me', not someone else. When 'I' study it is 'I' who become well-educated. On the relative level there is nothing which is not dependent and so there is definitely an 'I'. On the ultimate level, precisely because everything is interdependent, then nothing has true existence as its essence. Everything depends upon something else and so nothing has solid independent existence. For this reason it is said that there is not anything which is permanent." - Tai Situ Rinpoche http://www.samyeling.org/buddhism-and-meditation/teaching-archive-2/chamgon-khentin-tai-situpa/thr-four-seals-of-mahamudra/

"The Buddha does not reject the existence of a personal [conventional/nominal] self. There is a person who acts, amassing karma. There is a person who experiences the consequences of those actions. The Buddha asks us to analyze the nature of our self. The self, or the person, exists in dependence upon certain physical and mental elements. However, in our naïve perception of ourselves we tend to assume that the self is something like a master that rules over our body and mind, that it is an essence somehow independent of them. It is that kind of self, one that we falsely assume to exist, that the Buddha negates. Buddhists refute not the person, but a mistaken conception about the self." - The Dalai Lama https://www.amazon.com/Here-Enlightenment-Introduction-Tsong-kha-pas-Treatise/dp/1559394234/



---
> determinism (dependant origination) is true, then our acts are the consequence of laws of nature and events in the remote past.

Dependent origination and determinism are different concepts.

"The Buddha also rejected a purely deterministic view in his teaching on karma. Most of the Buddha's contemporaries taught that karma operates in a simple straight line. Your life now is the result of what you did in the past; what you do now will determine your life in the future. The problem with this view is that it leads to a degree of fatalism -- there's nothing you can do about your life now.

But the Buddha taught that effects of past karma can be mitigated by present action; in other words, one is not fated to suffer X because one did X in the past. Your actions now can change the course of karma and impact your life now. The Theravadin monk Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote,

> Buddhists, however, saw that karma acts in multiple feedback loops, with the present moment being shaped both by past and by present actions; present actions shape not only the future but also the present. Furthermore, present actions need not be determined by past actions. In other words, there is free will, although its range is somewhat dictated by the past.

In short, Buddhism doesn't align with western philosophy for a neat, side-by-side comparison. As long as we are lost in a fog of illusion, our "will" isn't as free as we think it is, and our lives will be caught in karmic effects and our own unskillful acts. But, the Buddha said, we are capable of living in greater clarity and happiness through our own efforts." - Barbara O'brien https://www.thoughtco.com/free-will-and-buddhism-449602

Together with our past karma, the actions that we take everyday influence how we experience our existence:

"The experience of the present is shaped both by actions in the present and by actions in the past. Actions in the present shape both the present and the future. The results of past and present actions continually interact. Thus there is always room for new input into the system, which gives scope for free will. There is also room for the many feedback loops that make experience so thoroughly complex, and that are so intriguingly described in chaos theory." - Thanissaro Bhikkhu http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/resonance.html


"In this way, the Buddha points to one of the most distinctive features of his own teaching on kamma: that the present experience of pleasure and pain is a combined result of both past and present actions. This seemingly small addition to the notion of kamma plays an enormous role in allowing for the exercise of free will and the possibility of putting an end to suffering before the effects of all past actions have ripened." - Thanissaro Bhikkhu http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.101.than.html


"The result, the future, is in our hands; our actions now will create a result. The law of karma does not mean that you just sink into a sleep, thinking, “There is no point. All I can do is wait for the result”. Our present human life carries the experience of the result of our past actions, but at the same time we are creating our own future. If you see it in this way, everything is not pre-determined by karma, because we are also creating our own, new karma. One thing I keep on saying is, “Doesn’t matter what you did, what matters is what you do now so that you can make your future better”. - Akong Tulku Rinpoche http://www.samyeling.org/buddhism-and-meditation/teaching-archive-2/choje-akong-tulku-rinpoche/karma/

"I once heard of Karma to be described as a huge web, with many, many interconnections between the threads making up the web. Now think of a drop of water sliding down one thread, changing course where another thread crosses it’s path. The drop of water can go this way or that way. We are making up the interconnections in the threads with our actions, and accordingly we do control our Karma. The only “predetermination” we will find is that virtuous action results in happiness and non virtuous action results in suffering." - Anyen Rinpoche http://www.anyenrinpoche.com/blog/2011/01/23/death-and-karma/

> When and where did I say "nothing exists"?

Here are some of your quotes from our recent arguments:

• "Phenomena do not ultimately exist in the view of the buddhadharma"
  
• "There is ultimately no table. There is ultimately no inner or external dimensions to experience at all."
  
• "Phenomena do not arise at all....Conditioned entities are figments of delusion, and this being the case, they do not actually exist, they merely appear to. "
  
• "In the Mahāyāna conventional phenomena do not actually "exist"
  
• "Appear to exist. They do not actually exist"
  
• "I simply said conventional truth is not an actual truth"
  
• "There are no entities on the level of ultimate truth."
  
  These are all nihilistic views. The Pali Canon affirms the existence of conditioned phenomena. The Dalai Lama, who I regard as my main spiritual teacher, affirms in many of his books the validity of conventional truth and that phenomena - including persons and beings do exist. I can admit that other Buddhist traditions such as yours may teach otherwise, but my views are not without precedence. The Pali Canon affirms the existence of conditioned phenomena, the Buddha is constantly talking about beings, persons and phenomena rather than preaching "nothing exists." In addition, the Dalai Lama in many of his books, especially How to Practice and From Here to Enlightenment (a commentary on Tsongkhapa's The Great Treatise of the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment ) explicitly teach that phenomena exist, beings, tables, persons exist and can function -- he gives numerous passages from both Tsongkhapa and Nagarjuna supporting these teachings. The Dalai Lama is very clear that conventional truth and phenomena maintain some sense of validity, thus affirming the notion of "Two Truths" whereas you seem to only teach "one truth" here and negate conventional truth.