gregkavarnos wrote:Tell you what, instead of wasting our precious time in intellectual mutual masturbation, let's put all our effort into reaching enlightenment and whoever get's there first can come back and tell the other one exactly what goes on inside the mind of a Buddha.
Of course there's always the chance that the one that has not reached enlightenment won't be able to comprehend the enlightened one, in which case the enlightened one will be forced to utilise conceptual/relative language, and the unenlightened one will then surmise that the enlightened one still has a conceptual mind.
Did anybody catch what colour underwear the archer was wearing?
I repeat, yet again, that I think a lot is at stake on this question - there are implications for the way we think about the relationship between emptiness and language, and for how we understand the two truths. Both are critical for gaining liberation - at least according to the Madhyamikan's.
And actually, your example describes perfectly why I think this an issue - we cannot know, one way or the other, how a buddha apprehends.
Yet, there are often strong assertions (not arguments, simple assertions) to the contrary: that we do know, categorically, how a buddha relates through language to ordinary sentient beings.
This kind of knowledge is basically grounded in scriptural authority: "Because it says so in the prajnaparmita's/or a tantric text."
My point is that a Madhyamikan ought to be able to provide a logical argument, not merely an appeal to a sutric or tantric text. So far none has been provided.