Two Rivers to Cross?

Two Rivers to Cross?

In The Concealed Art of the Soul, Ganeri, while discussing the instrumentality of the Buddha’s truth, says, “the Buddha, clearly, does not regard the truth even of his own teachings as having an unconditional value. The truth is not a holy grail, something to which everything else has to be sacrificed. So the value of truth is conditional” (55). The relationship between truth and condition seem to steer the teachings of the Buddha towards a subjective sphere. The objectiveness of the truth is therefore limited to an individual level of receptivity. This idea brings me back to the idea of multiple rivers or even currents within the raft metaphor.

Are there multiple rivers if the end is subjective or even indeterminate/ without limit (45)? Do we cross these rivers with new truths, as our situation and conditions change? Or perhaps, is the river just really wide, and the way in which we might perceive there to be multiple rivers is in fact the product of large currents? If the truth is applied subjectively, how is reality seen to be objective (for example, this object is yellow, a fruit, and has seeds, therefore it must be a lemon)? The latter of my question might go back to how convenience and language interrelate to describe reality.

Also, the idea of interpreting the ‘two truths’ as a hermeneutical device, as a device that should “certainly not to be confused with the philosophical distinction between appearance and reality” (59), is perhaps where I am going wrong! Maybe as I ponder multiple truths and rivers, I am confused with the distinction between appearance and reality AND truth.

Thoughts?