Maybe I’m missing the defining of terms. Relative truth is not objective truth. It’s perception and perceptions can be a faulty picture of absolute or objective truth.
A tree is a tree and it is composed of other things. The fact that a tree is composed of carbon and nitrogen and oxygen does not mean the tree ceases to be a tree.
Creator, created, and creating would still all be absolute truths.
Maybe I’m missing what you’re saying but it sounds like your saying relative truth is perception and objective truth is beyond that.
It also seems like you’re saying that all perceptions are false. But to do that you are claiming that one perception is true which is the narrators view that, in this case, the Buddhist has found. His perspective is the objective reality and ultimate truth. This is a logical contradiction and cannot be the case.
There is a point where they converge, in the non-conceptual reality. The paradox is resolved in seeing that absolute and relative are themselves ideas about it. What is the reality before one conceptualizes about it?
You may find that this is where God is revealed. But yes the tree is still a tree, it just has no permanence as a tree being made of non- tree elements.
This article will help you understand better what I'm saying about relative and absolute if you give it a read.
https://tsoknyirinpoche.org/two-truths/
Thread collapsed
But basically yes relative truth is what we experience through the five senses and mind. Absolute is before the senses and mind. They are different but not separate. You might say the world is the manifestation of God's will. Yet if God is then how can God be anything but thusness?
Thread collapsed
