So I open up a couple dictionaries of philosophy to <\/span>ontology<\/span> and get the following entry: <\/span>see metaphysics.<\/span> <\/span>Granted, other dictionaries do define ontology as a subfield of metaphysics, but even then the definition doesn\u2019t support the idea that ontology is inherently useful and metaphysics is mere abstractions. Rather, the fine points suggest that ontology is the study of what is and is not real<\/span> in the nature of things and metaphysics is, more broadly, the study of the ultimate nature of things.<\/p>\n Was the Buddha concerned with what is and is not real?<\/span> Yes. Was he concerned with the ultimate nature of things? Double-yes<\/span>. Of course there ARE things that are unwise to speculate about, as evidenced by the <\/span>Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta<\/a>, where we find the famous Parable of the Arrow<\/span>. The positions in question there are:<\/p>\n I think there was also one about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but that must have been edited out at some point.<\/p>\n The Buddha says that these things are \u201cundeclared\u201d by him because: \u201cthey are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That\u2019s why they are undeclared by me.\u201d<\/p>\n The Buddha also at many times states that he teaches \u201csuffering and the end of suffering.\u201d But, we cannot simply run with those and believe that the Buddha never discussed things like magical abilities, cosmology, the soul or \u201cSelf\u201d and so on<\/span>. He did. He just did so in a way that was useful (for the alleviation of suffering).<\/p>\n So, with such odd things (for us) as karma, the Buddha said that the path begins with Right View and \u201cRight view on this level means believing in the principle of kamma and trusting that those who have practiced properly truly understand the workings of kamma in this life and the next.\u201d (from here<\/a>) And from kamma we move to ideas of Buddhist cosmology<\/a> and so on\u2026<\/p>\n To me this all points to the need to understand the nature of things as they truly are, \u201cti yath\u0101bh\u016btam paj\u0101n\u0101mi<\/span>.\u201d While for many this points to the Buddha and his life primarily and his teachings only secondarily, for me it points very clearly at the Dhamma, which could mean simply \u201cteachings\u201d but could go further to mean the nature of things or reality writ large. As stated in the Sa\u1e43yutta Nik\u0101ya II 25ff<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u2018\u2026whether there is an arising of Tath\u0101gatas or no arising of Tath\u0101gatas, that element still persists, the stableness of the Dhamma, the fixed course of the Dhamma, specific conditionality. A Tath\u0101gata awakens to this and breaks through to it. Having done so, he explains it, teaches it, proclaims it, establishes it, discloses it, analyses it, elucidates it.\u2019 <\/p><\/blockquote>\n So this speculation on or pointing toward the immensity of the regularity of the Dhamma itself, of conditionality specifically, is very much a Buddhist teaching. It\u2019s definitely abstract \u2013 at least at first \u2013 but it\u2019s also definitely important.<\/p>\n The above, nearly verbatim, is restated in the \u201cDhamma-niyama Sutta: The Discourse on the Orderliness of the Dhamma<\/a>.\u201d Interestingly, this is picked up in Nyanatiloka Thera\u2019s Buddhist Dictionary under the entry for<\/p>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7907151-3168733975230417608?l=americanbuddhist.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"