Beyond the valid -- but ultimately delusive -- pramaa.nas of conventional truth, we find a sort of ultimate pramaa.na: the Aryas themselves, or more accurately perhaps, their personal experience of enlightenment. This ultimate standard, however, is truly empty: a state of silence (tuu.s.nii^mbhaava) out of which there arises no concept-proliferation and hence no assertions or denials. [30] This is the non-viewpoint of the ultimate truth of which Naagaarjuna ironically says, "Those for whom there is really non-existence (i.e. the Maadhyamikas), who because of their reliance upon enlightenment [rely on] no assertion, no [special] conduct, no thought -- how can they be considered nihilists?" [31] Nihilism (naastikatva), like its opposites, is a position taken within conventionality, whereas ultimacy is a mode of experience which does not take any position nor deny any position -- the positions deny themselves.

　　 My conclusion is that for Naagaarjuna and for Praasa^ngika Maadhyamika, [32] the philosophic program adumbrated at the beginning of this article is devoid of truth-value. The endeavor to interpret experience, to explore and extend the powers of rationality, does not in itself lead to the goal of nirvaa.na. Even if speculative philosophy can satisfy the epistemological canons of conventional truth, from the ultimate standpoint, it has no more truth in it than does a mirage or spots before the eyes. I think another possible evaluation of constructive philosophic thought can be linked with the teaching of the earlier Praj~naapaaramitaa tradition, however, and it is to this that we now turn.

p. 453

IV
The stated purpose of the Perfection of Insight as a teaching is essentially the same as that of Naagaarjuna -- getting rid of attachment:

This dharma is taught for the sake of not-taking-hold (anudgraha) of any dharma -- yet the world carries on taking-hold. [33]

... This perfection of insight is presented for a great purpose: for [bringing about] non-acquisition (aparigraha), for [bringing about] non-addiction (anabhinive`sa) [34]

Such a program aims at the elimination of a mode of experience, that is, experience qualified by attachment. The goal is a detached mode of knowing -- perfect insight or enlightenment -- which is described in negative terms:

The Tathaagatas' non-attachment-knowing (asa^ngaj~naana) is indeed perfect insight. [35]

Non-apprehension (anupalambha) of any dharma is the perfection of insight. Thus it is said that when there is no idea (sa^mj~naa), name (samaj~na), designation (praj~napti), or conventional language (vyavahaara) -- then [there is] perfect insight. [36]

This is that perfection of insight -- no supposition (manyamaanataa) about any dharma at all. [37]

From this we gather that the unattached mode of knowing real things (dharmas) is a mode of knowing without conceptualization. Insofar, then, as any real thing is conceived or talked about, it is known in the attached mode and is thereby falsified. Dharmas or dharmataa (real-thing-hood, the nature of reality) as conceived, schematized (for example, in abhidharma thought), and talked about are fabrications (kalpanaa):

For those dharmas are not there in the way that untaught, simple people are addicted to them... The way they are not there is the way they are there. Thus they are not-being-there (avidyamaana), so they are called ignorance (avidyaa). Untaught, simple people are addicted to them. All dharmas, not being there, are fabricated (kalpita) by them. Having fabricated them they are attached to the two extremes (existence and non-existence, etc.) and neither know nor see those dharmas [as they really are]... Having fabricated them they become addicted to the two extremes. Having become addicted, and relying on that source as [a basis of] apprehension, they fabricate past dharmas, future dharmas, present dharmas. Having fabricated these they become addicted to name and form (the five bundles)... Fabricating all those dharmas which are not there they neither know nor see the Path as it really is... They do not go forth from the triple world. They do not wake up to the true end (bhuutako.ti, i.e. ultimate reality). [38]

Attachment is by means of both name (naama) and sign (nimitta)... [Thinking,] "form and the other bundles are empty" -- this is attachment. [If] one entertains the ideas "past dharmas" with regard to past dharmas, "future dharmas" with regard to future dharmas, "present dharmas" with regard to present dharmas -- this is attachment. [39]

p. 454

The term "dharmas" is here necessarily ambiguous. Its basic function is to designate something real or valid. Thus dharmataa refers to the nature of all that is real, what constitutes actuality. But "dharma" is itself a word, and when dharmas are named - form, consciousness, bodhisattva, nirvaa.na, or whatever -- they are totally within the sphere of the attached mode. It is in this sense that "all dharmas are made up by fabrication." [40] At the same time the terms "dharma" and "dharmataa" are used to refer to what is ultimately real, apart from fabrication: "All dharmas are talked about only by means of names, only by means of [linguistic] transaction (vyavahaara). But the transaction is nowhere, is out of nowhere, is not a transaction at all: all dharmas are free of transaction. free of talk, not transacted, not talked about." [41]