I appreciate the wisdom of being mindful of the difference between reality and conceptual abstractions, and of testing rather than trusting methods. The question is how far enlightened Buddhists go with this practice.

David Hume pushed empiricism pretty far, too, as did the positivists and Bishop Berkeley, which landed them in solipsism and in having to reconstruct commonsense understanding to avoid going mad. There's reason and there's perception. If we're too skeptical of rational abstractions and we focus on being mindful of present states of awareness, we lose our understanding of what's going on.

You say that humans need abstractions for our commonsense understanding and daily life. But are buddhas really human in that sense? The mystique suggests otherwise. They're biologically human, of course, but not psychologically so. They've seen through so many delusions about themselves, that their psychological identity dissolves, and they experience life as though they were one with everything else. That's more like a transhuman mode of experience, I'd say. And the question that interests me is: What are the social and moral implications of such a mode?