user17652: How does an enlightened mind distinguish itself from all other phenomena?
There is one such person amidst a crowd of other people. Somebody shouts their name, and they say, "yes, that is I. I am here. What do you want?"
After hearing his name, how does he make the connection between the hearing of his name and referencing that name to himself, so that he then responds thus, "yes, that is I. I am here. What do you want?"

user13709: 
MN121:12.3: There is only this modicum of stress, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’

Communication does not require identity view.
Calling out "Tom" in a room full of people named "Tom" will generate multiple contacts via all the sense fields in the room. Multiple faces will turn. Yet "Tom" is a common name, so there will not be a perception of self. Additional sense field contacts will be required to generate a perception of recognition requiring response. Eventually, communication will be established.
Communication does not require identity view. Our individual phones answer when called. And phones do not have identity view. A phone number is a name. Phones answer in response to a cascade of contacts through the sense fields of the phone network.

user43: As explained in Maitreya’s "Distinguishing the Middle from the Extremes" (Madhyāntavibhāga), Enlightenment is not going back to the primal state of ignorance and nondifferentiation, nor does it mean to abandon the relative to only dwell in the absolute, no.
The relative and the absolute are two descriptions of the same ground. Enlightenment superimposes and harmonizes all the various descriptions, even contradictory ones, and can juggle the limited perspectives with ease.
It's the same process as with adult playing a Santa. When children call "Santa, Santa, I have a question", how do you know they are addressing you? Because you know for them you are Santa. For your wife you are her husband etc.
Buddha is not the body nor the mind, it doesn't have boundaries nor is it the universe, it's beyond all definitions. But for the sake of sentient beings that childishly think "that is the Buddha" when they address the Buddha they get an answer "I'm here, what do you want?"

user471: If I tell you: "Your future is in your hands."
Would you look at your physical hands and reply, "but where is it? I can't see it!" I don't think so.
"In your hands" is a mere conventional figure of speech, not to be taken literally.
Similarly, the terms "I", "my", "mine", "you", "your" etc. are simply conventional terms when used verbally by the enlightened ones. They don't literally think that "I" refers to their body or consciousness or mental fabrications or feeling or perception.
And similarly in the Buddha's time, they looked at him and referred to him as "Bhante" or "Venerable Sir" in the second person or as "Bhagava" or "Blessed One" in the third person. The Buddha referred to himself as "Tathagata" (or "the one who has thus gone").
These are just conventions.
From SN 1.25:

“When a mendicant is perfected, proficient,
with defilements ended, bearing the final body:
would they say, ‘I speak’,
or even ‘they speak to me’?”
“When a mendicant is perfected, proficient,
with defilements ended, bearing the final body:
they would say, ‘I speak’,
and also ‘they speak to me’.
Skillful, understanding the world’s conventions,
they’d use these terms as no more than expressions.”
“When a mendicant is perfected, proficient,
with defilements ended, bearing the final body:
is such a mendicant drawing close to conceit
if they’d say, ‘I speak’,
or even ‘they speak to me’?”
“Someone who has given up conceit has no ties,
the ties of conceit are all cleared away.
Though that clever person has transcended identity,
they’d still say, ‘I speak’,
and also ‘they speak to me’.
Skillful, understanding the world’s conventions,
they’d use these terms as no more than expressions.”


user13375: The mind of a fully enlightened one is completely empty of discursive thoughts. It does not conceptualize at all. In fact, this has already occurred to an Arya being at the 7th Bhumi let alone a fully enlightened Buddha. So the answer to your question is that an enlightened mind DOES NOT distinguish itself from all other phenomena.
For references I draw from this commentary by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche on Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara.
Here is a screenshot and highlight of the table of contents of the pertinent sections:

When we turn to page 369 we see a verse describing the way in which an Arya being achieving the 11th Bhumi (full Buddhahood) knows suchness and associated commentary:

Right after this passage the next verse is an objection. I think the objection is coming from someone espousing the Cittamatra tenet system as this is the last labeled objector in the text. Anyway, here is the objection:

A little further down we see a verse by Chandrakirti himself giving a simile of how it can be that a Buddha's mind can be totally free from discursive thought all the while being of benefit to other sentient beings. This seems to be the thrust of the OP's question if I'm not mistaken:

Here's the really dispositive part. A little bit later in the text Rinpoche affirms that the standard interpretation of the text and of Tibetan Buddhist schools is that a Fully Enlightened Buddha is entirely free of discursive thought and elaborates a bit. He says the answer to your question is basically that an enlightened mind DOES NOT distinguish itself from all other phenomena:

There is so much more in this commentary and I encourage you to read all of it as it is an absolute treasure. Of course, this commentary and root text are from the masters of the Prasangika Madhyamaka and so keep in mind this as the basis for understanding the text.

17652: <p>How does an enlightened mind distinguish itself from all other phenomena?</p>
<p>There is one such person amidst a crowd of other people. Somebody shouts their name, and they say, &quot;yes, that is I. I am here. What do you want?&quot;</p>
<p>After hearing his name, how does he make the connection between the hearing of his name and referencing that name to himself, so that he then responds thus, &quot;yes, that is I. I am here. What do you want?&quot;</p>
 13709: <blockquote>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn121/en/sujato#mn121:12.3" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN121:12.3</a>: There is only this modicum of stress, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Communication does not require identity view.</p>
<p>Calling out &quot;Tom&quot; in a room full of people named &quot;Tom&quot; will generate multiple contacts via all the sense fields in the room. Multiple faces will turn. Yet &quot;Tom&quot; is a common name, so there will not be a perception of self. Additional sense field contacts will be required to generate a perception of recognition requiring response. Eventually, communication will be established.</p>
<p>Communication does not require identity view. Our individual phones answer when called. And phones do not have identity view. A phone number is a name. Phones answer in response to a cascade of contacts through the sense fields of the phone network.</p>
 43: <p>As explained in Maitreya’s &quot;Distinguishing the Middle from the Extremes&quot; (Madhyāntavibhāga), Enlightenment is not going back to the primal state of ignorance and nondifferentiation, nor does it mean to abandon the relative to only dwell in the absolute, no.</p>
<p>The relative and the absolute are two descriptions of the same ground. Enlightenment superimposes and harmonizes all the various descriptions, even contradictory ones, and can juggle the limited perspectives with ease.</p>
<p>It's the same process as with adult playing a Santa. When children call &quot;Santa, Santa, I have a question&quot;, how do you know they are addressing you? Because you know for them you are Santa. For your wife you are her husband etc.</p>
<p>Buddha is not the body nor the mind, it doesn't have boundaries nor is it the universe, it's beyond all definitions. But for the sake of sentient beings that childishly think &quot;that is the Buddha&quot; when they address the Buddha they get an answer &quot;I'm here, what do you want?&quot;</p>
 471: <p>If I tell you: &quot;Your future is in your hands.&quot;</p>
<p>Would you look at your physical hands and reply, &quot;but where is it? I can't see it!&quot; I don't think so.</p>
<p>&quot;In your hands&quot; is a mere conventional figure of speech, not to be taken literally.</p>
<p>Similarly, the terms &quot;I&quot;, &quot;my&quot;, &quot;mine&quot;, &quot;you&quot;, &quot;your&quot; etc. are simply conventional terms when used verbally by the enlightened ones. They don't literally think that &quot;I&quot; refers to their body or consciousness or mental fabrications or feeling or perception.</p>
<p>And similarly in the Buddha's time, they looked at him and referred to him as &quot;Bhante&quot; or &quot;Venerable Sir&quot; in the second person or as &quot;Bhagava&quot; or &quot;Blessed One&quot; in the third person. The Buddha referred to himself as &quot;Tathagata&quot; (or &quot;the one who has thus gone&quot;).</p>
<p>These are just conventions.</p>
<p>From <a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn1.25/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 1.25</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“When a mendicant is perfected, proficient,<br />
with defilements ended, bearing the final body:<br />
would they say, ‘I speak’,<br />
or even ‘they speak to me’?”</p>
<p>“When a mendicant is perfected, proficient,<br />
with defilements ended, bearing the final body:<br />
they would say, ‘I speak’,<br />
and also ‘they speak to me’.<br />
Skillful, understanding the world’s conventions,<br />
they’d use these terms as no more than expressions.”</p>
<p>“When a mendicant is perfected, proficient,<br />
with defilements ended, bearing the final body:<br />
is such a mendicant drawing close to conceit<br />
if they’d say, ‘I speak’,<br />
or even ‘they speak to me’?”</p>
<p>“Someone who has given up conceit has no ties,<br />
the ties of conceit are all cleared away.<br />
Though that clever person has transcended identity,<br />
they’d still say, ‘I speak’,</p>
<p>and also ‘they speak to me’.<br />
Skillful, understanding the world’s conventions,<br />
they’d use these terms as no more than expressions.”</p>
</blockquote>
 13375: <p>The mind of a fully enlightened one is completely empty of discursive thoughts. It does not conceptualize at all. In fact, this has already occurred to an Arya being at the 7th Bhumi let alone a fully enlightened Buddha. So the answer to your question is that an enlightened mind DOES NOT distinguish itself from all other phenomena.</p>
<p>For references I draw from <a href="http://siddharthasintent.org/assets/pubs/MadhyamakavataraDJKR.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this commentary</a> by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khyentse_Norbu" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche</a> on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamak%C4%81vat%C4%81ra" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara.</a></p>
<p>Here is a screenshot and highlight of the table of contents of the pertinent sections:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/VWAtK.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/VWAtK.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>When we turn to <em>page 369</em> we see a verse describing the way in which an Arya being achieving the 11th Bhumi (full Buddhahood) knows suchness and associated commentary:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/K5OvP.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/K5OvP.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>Right after this passage the next verse is an objection. I think the objection is coming from someone espousing the Cittamatra tenet system as this is the last labeled objector in the text. Anyway, here is the objection:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/bJjPm.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/bJjPm.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>A little further down we see a verse by Chandrakirti himself giving a simile of how it can be that a Buddha's mind can be totally free from discursive thought all the while being of benefit to other sentient beings. This seems to be the thrust of the OP's question if I'm not mistaken:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bbabo.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bbabo.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>Here's the really dispositive part. A little bit later in the text Rinpoche affirms that the standard interpretation of the text and of Tibetan Buddhist schools is that a Fully Enlightened Buddha is entirely free of discursive thought and elaborates a bit. He says the answer to your question is basically that <strong>an enlightened mind DOES NOT distinguish itself from all other phenomena:</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/daqAp.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/daqAp.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>There is so much more in this commentary and I encourage you to read all of it as it is an absolute treasure. Of course, this commentary and root text are from the masters of the Prasangika Madhyamaka and so keep in mind this as the basis for understanding the text.</p>
