One might go 'Gorampa' on this. Gorampa's particular brand of Madhyamaka philosophy is defined by his understanding of the relationship between the two truths, the use of negation, the role of logic, and proper methods of philosophical argumentation. His work was banned, one reason I've been looking. .His views regarding the two truths and negation inform a process whereby the Mādhyamika begins with logic and analysis, but ends in a state of nonconceptuality, Gorampa contends that there can be no differences between Mādhyamikas with respect to their final view. There cannot be different types of nonconceptuality; freedom from conceptual constructs is freedom from conceptual constructs. The final, ultimate view is actually no view at all.
This might seem as much use as as chocolate teapot. I suspect there is some way for us to commune non-conceptually long before any 'guru state' is achieved and that we need this for knowledge that can shift us from the current interregnum. One might take Descartes as meaning one has to doubt all to arrive at anything of value, and I rather like the notion that this is non-conceptual. I like the sway of these Indian and Tibetan arguments, yet think they serve to remind us how much we exclude from our arguments in forgetting what the self does in argument, rushing us to 'decision', forgetting all kinds of argument can always be made (Pyrhho in western stuff).
