You can't say that something is pure if it's filled with impurity!
I can, if it's mixed with incidental impurities. Water can be dirty, but it is still water. It's nature is pure water, and always will be.
What do we call water with dirt in it? Dirty water! It's not pure water, everyone understands this. It becomes pure when the impurity is removed. A mind mixed with impurity is not a pure mind, even if the impurity is adventitious.
It is precisely because of the function or existence of Buddhanature that we have a path. I want to make it clear, though....I am speaking from a certain perspective when I say the aggregates are the wisdom buddhas, etc.....but they are not "created" by practice. Neither can we be dishonest and say we are without defilements. But those defilements are incidental, and not permanent state. Buddhahood is the removal of stains and the blossoming of Buddha nature into Buddhahood--but it is not created.
Buddhahood is clearly created as before following a spiritual path there was no Buddhahood. In Tantra, sometimes generation stage is called 'creation stage'. It's the realisation of a creative yoga. Generation stage creates a blueprint for enlightenment in the form of the Deity body, mandala and so forth. Before this practice, there is no Deity, mandala, etc. The Illusory body is created by completion stage yogas so you cannot say that Buddhahood is not created.
You can say that phenomena are naturally pure in that they are empty of inherent existence from the beginning and this doesn't need to be created, but Buddhahood itself is clearly a process of creation and purification - both processes are needed for enlightenment to be attained.
A sculptor creating a statue does not chip away at the stone to reveal a statue that already exists within the stone. He uses his skill and imagination to sculpt a new image. It is an act of creation. Buddhahood is also like this - we use the spiritual technology of Sutra and Tantra to create enlightenment.
I don't think we should denigrate others, and that does sadden me. But I also don't think we should make the sorts of absurd assertions you made, "hey-maybe you should study some tantra!" when it's obvious to all that we've all studied some tantra. Your tactic was a denigration, it was just a bit more passive-aggressive. Malcolm is more direct, and also, perhaps, a better manager of his time than I.
Yes, I admit that was a mistake, it was passive aggressive, and I regret it but from my perspective, his answers appeared to be from someone who has never studied and doesn't understand Tantra.
I don't understand why you feel the need to defend Malcolm all the time but that's irrelevant to this discussion.