kirk5a wrote:Is there any guidance from the suttas on differentiating between "phenomenological statements" and "ontological statements"?
It's not a classification scheme called out in the suttas, so no.... but we do often see the Buddha reframing certain prevailing concepts (e.g. loka, sabba) from ontological to phenomenological perspectives, so it's not without precedent.
The fact something like "old kamma" is formed (sankhata) suggests to me it is the product of avijja (i.e. a product of dependent origination), and thus phenomenological. I'm not here to argue the point, just to explain how I see it.... you may take it or leave it as you see fit.
“I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.” (MN 31)
What is the final conviction that comes when radical attention is razor-edge sharp? That the object of the mind is mind-made (manomaya). (Ven. Ñāṇananda)
"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago and a racist today." (Thomas Sowell)