Do we have conventional knowledge of the present? I read the discussion between Bhavaviveka and Buddhapalita, and there's a reference to &quot;no cognition&quot; (anupalabdhi) of emptiness, as liberative, though I forget which one of the two were supporting it.
e.g. Garfield and Westerhoff in Madhyamaka and Yogacara:

The cognition of the ultimate nature of things—their all being empty
of intrinsic nature—is nonconceptual because, there being nothing to
cognize, no cognition arises.

Or Eckel in To See the Buddha:

And obviously the heart sutra includes (emphasis mine):

No suffering, no origination,
no stopping, no path, no cognition,
also no attainment with nothing to attain.


Does anyone say that there is &quot;no cognition&quot; of the present, either at all times, or that only this &quot;no cognition&quot; has conventional validity?
Or, can we have conventional knowledge of the present?
The quote you give:


  The cognition of the ultimate nature of things—their all being empty
  of intrinsic nature—is nonconceptual because, there being nothing to
  cognize, no cognition arises.


Refers to wisdom directly realizing emptiness. Such a wisdom realizes emptiness in a non-dualistic manner. It is non-conceptual and explicit, since it realizes its object (emptiness) by way of emptiness appearing to it. Conceptual consciousnesses realize their object by way of a mental image appearing to them. Cognition arise (this wisdom is a cognition) but there is no acertainment of conventional truths (such as time, a table, persons, the basis of emptiness, and so forth).

By the way, Garfield is not the safest source.

Chandrakirti (same view as Buddhapalita) also talked about "non-seeing" and "non-cognition" or "non-perception." He does not mean that a buddha is free from cognition (that would contradict the typical Mahayana claim hat he is omniscient) but simply that non-existent do not appear to a buddha. A buddha is free from the appearance of true existence. It is not so much about "no cognition" as it is about "no cognition of something in particular."

It is explained in
Chandrakirti's Commentary on the "Supplement to Nagarjuna's Treatise on the Middle'.

Geshe Jamphel Gyaltsen said:


  When said that they perceive it in the manner of non-perception, it
  does not mean that a buddha does not see anything at all. It means
  that he is not seeing any phenomenon arisen due to ignorance, that is,
  together with a false appearance of the conventional - an appearance
  of true existence. It is the omniscience realizing the final reality
  that perceives the emptiness, the absence of true existence. Since a
  buddha does not perceive what does not exist and knows all existing
  phenomena, when a truly existent conventional phenomenon were to
  exist, it should appear to a buddha, but it does not. What is not
  perceived by him is a non-existent. If it were existent it would
  appear to the Buddha. True establishment does not exist and therefore
  does not appear to the wisdom of a Buddha realizing the final reality.