I disagree.
In his own thinking, which doesn't need to be compromised in any way for the purposes of communication, he would have no need whatsoever to think in terms of what he knows to be falsehoods.
AN 3.33 wrote:“When there is in a monk no I-making or my-making conceit-
obsession with regard to this conscious body, no I-making or my-
making conceit-obsession with regard to all external themes, and
when he enters & remains in the awareness-release & discernment-
release where there is no I-making or my-making conceit-obsession
for one entering & remaining in it, he is called a monk who has cut
craving, has ripped off the fetter, and—from rightly breaking
through conceit—has put an end to suffering & stress.
Ud 1.10 wrote:"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."
MN 109 wrote:“There is the case, monk, where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person—who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma—assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.
“He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception. He assumes fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications. He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.
“This, monk, is how self-identification view comes about.”
Saying, “Very good, lord,” the monk… asked him a further question: “Lord, how does self-identification view no longer come about?”
“There is the case, monk, where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones—who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for people of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma—doesn’t assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He doesn’t assume feeling to be the self.… doesn’t assume perception to be the self.… doesn’t assume fabrications to be the self.… He doesn’t assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.
“This, monk, is how self-identification view no longer comes about.”
DN 15 wrote:“Having directly known the extent of designation and the extent
of the objects of designation, the extent of expression and the extent
of the objects of expression, the extent of description and the extent
of the objects of description, the extent of discernment and the
extent of the objects of discernment, the extent to which the cycle
revolves: Having directly known that, the monk is released.”
Metta,AN 6.104 wrote:“In seeing six rewards, it’s enough for a monk to establish the
perception of not-self with regard to all phenomena without
exception. Which six? ‘I won’t be fashioned in connection with any
world. My I-making will be stopped. My my-making will be
stopped. I’ll be endowed with uncommon knowledge. I’ll become
one who rightly sees cause, along with causally-originated
phenomena.’”
Paul.
