Buddhist ontology
Most Buddhists assimilate that modern philosophy has never answered the subject of what is reality? Modern philosophy doesnt know how the really genuine or loyal being is to be well well known or what exactly will be well well known when it does know (if it ever does!). This is the complaint of epistemology. It attempts to answer the question, What is meaningful as well as the known?
If you pretence that ontology is the science of what is ultimately real, it strikes me odd that much of it appears to be conditioned by epistemology as well as its confusion. One such problem, for example, is how is the knowledge of loyal being to be derived? Is it acquired by pristine intellection, concepts, sensory alertness or what you Buddhist call the Five Aggregates? For me this is consequential since if this is the way you proceed ontology, by way of epistemology, you have been not even tighten to what Buddhist ontology should be, that should not rest upon epistemology.
If the Buddhist ontology is to know or to be though delay acquainted with loyal being (which has the accumulation of names in Buddhism such as pristine Mind as well as Buddha-nature) it is not an easy task. To be sure, you cannot do it by way of the intellect, aptitude or by equates to of concepts that leads us behind to epistemology with all of its unresolved problems. We can't walk upon an epistemological path, in other words, as well as expect to get to the ontologic Land of Jewels.
Thus you have been thrown behind upon introspection (dhyana) as the correct equates to of divining loyal being that is not at all epistemological. By equates to of introspection you have been inwardly seeking loyal reality, or if you prefer, Buddha Mind, though any epistemological aids such as pristine intellection. In this wise, introspection opens up prior to the immediacy of loyal reality, of that you have been intrinsically, though which, as yet, stays unmediated by us. The strength as well as depth of introspection, that it should reach id! ealisati on reality, that will afterwards recognize itself, depends upon itself, not upon epistemology.
This for me is what Buddhist ontology should be about. It's an ontology giveaway of epistemology that relies, instead, upon profound introspection. It requires of us that the journey should lower introspection such that you are, eventually, able to penetrate by the veil of phenomena as well as come in to direct, non-conceptual contact, with idealisation reality.
