I would like to bring forward the following hypnosis: The Buddha did not consider his Dhamma ultimate truth/reality. The implication of this would be that he would also approve of another Dhamma that also aims at cessation of suffering, but is rooted in Western Philosophy, Christianity or any other belief system. Can someone provide arguments for or against this hypnosis?
One postion in favour of this view might me that of Gethin (1998, Foundations of Buddhism, Oxford University Press; received though wikipedia):
The word satya (Pali sacca) can certainly mean truth, but it might equally be rendered as ‘real’ or ‘actual thing’. That is, we are not dealing here with propositional truths with which we must either agree or disagree, but with four ‘true things’ or ‘realities’ whose nature, we are told, the Buddha finally understood on the night of his awakening. [...] This is not to say that the Buddha’s discourses do not contain theoretical statements of the nature of suffering, its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation, but these descriptions function not so much as dogmas of the Buddhist faith as a convenient conceptual framework for making sense of Buddhist thought.