Special feature: conceptuality and non-conceptuality in buddhist epistemology

Abstract

I would like to thank Kris McDaniel for his reply. In my original response to McDaniel I say that, given his interpretation of the distinction between conventional and ultimate truth (in Abhidharma metaphysics), we would no longer be able to employ certain powerful arguments in favor of the thesis that persons are merely conventionally existent, and it would turn out that the thesis that persons are merely conventionally existent doesn't have some of the important implications that proponents of that thesis generally take it to have. McDaniel offers a reply to both of these concerns. In the remainder of this rejoinder I will say a bit about his reply.