Reading this reminds me of math. Specifically the debates around the turn of the 19th century where everyone was obsessed with finding a system that encompassed absolute mathematical truth—given the right starting truths (axioms), they said, we could generate all true mathematical statements. Greatly simplified, it turns out that this is impossible to do. However, studying math or logic even today feels like being asked to categorize every snowflake as beautiful or ugly, or with any other arbitrary dualistic distinction. This is as if Ganto goes to every teacher and categorizes their Dharma as ordinary or holy.
In math and science we like to know what’s true and what isn’t. Separating the wheat from the chaff. In proving a theorem (true statement) you also carve out falsehoods. But these falsehoods are not, not real or meaningless. They are locked in a dance with the truths. They can’t exist separately. One implies the other. They are both Truth.
We get so obsessed with dividing what is from what isn’t we forget that what isn’t is, and what is, isn’t.
What does it mean for something to not be true?