>>213464368
That's an interesting take and I can see where you're coming from.
But isn't there a risk of assigning too much mystical power to language itself? At what point does it stop being a tool for understanding and start becoming a kind of magical thinking?
On the flip side though, if language truly holds that kind of power, wouldn't Buddhist mantras be a perfect example? They're not just recited for ritual. they're meant to embody the vibration of reality itself.
So maybe Buddhism isn't just compatible with scientific inquiry, it may actually already be operating on the kind of linguistic reality interface you're talking about.