Any and every word (from person to citta) is conventional and conceptual. If citta lasts for a split second, then what exactly are we talking about when we say "citta"? Only the idea of a citta... Conceptualization is involved even when speaking about "ultimate reality", so how ultimate can it be? Is the split "ultimate vs conventional" itself conceptual?
Isn't analysis by itself a conceptual activity of the mind?
Does a baby who didn't yet learn conventional truths to be misled by, perceive ultimate truths? No. A person is supposed to learn these ultimate truths... So how real are they?
When it comes to splitting a person into 5 aggregates, the activity is purely abstract. One cannot divide a person in 5 heaps and place body in one heap, feelings in 2nd heap, perceptions in 3rd heap, volitions in 4th heap, and consciousness in 5th heap.
"Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them
."http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
In the 12 āyatana, for example, you can't physically separate mind-sphere (manāyatanaṃ
) from mental-object-sphere (dhammāyatanaṃ
). One cannot be without the other. Mental object requires mind, and mind cannot be without a mental object. So the separation is purely conceptual, done to illustrate some point, but not to be held as absolute reified analytical truth.