So either something is true (according to your definition) or it is a belief?oushi wrote:Look closer and you will see. Bend the sphere of understanding in such a way, those two point to the same.
Truth is something you don't have to look for, and something you cannot escape from. How would you confirm it? Conceptual truth is based on duality of wrong and right. Sameness is entirely true, otherwise how would not true "things" exist at all?
And so everything is truth, wrong does not exist. I am not pointing to truth, as this is impossible, I'm changing the definition of it. It is not a virtual concept justified by other virtual concepts, like the "truth" we got use to.
It seems you are overlooking the idea of conventional truth, which may be arbitrary and relative, but nonetheless is not based upon a belief but on a convention which only becomes false the moment we mistake the tool for reality itself (which is the issue with Science that Buddhism addresses). Hence, I have no idea what "truth" means in your private language, but there is a degree of standardization and convention which suggests that your use of the term would appear to be an attempt to conceptualize emptiness. As a Buddhist (and using words in their conventional sense), I would say that "true things" do not "exist at all," and that your statement appears to be a reification.