Ontology is a study (xue 学) of “being,” and is not a theory (lun 论) of “being.”
People misunderstand and mistranslate “being” as “existence or cun zai (存在)” and “to be or shi (是).”
GUTUL says “being” simply and clearly refers to “name or ming (名).”
People misunderstand and mistranslate “ontology” as “ben ti lun (本体论).” GUTUL prefers “ming xue (名学)” and is willing to accept “cun you xue (存有学)” as a translation for ontology.
Everything there is to know about “being” is the same as everything there is to know about the Universe and life and is explained clearly and cleanly in and by GUTUL.
Here they are:
1. xxx being as itself – which is substance and space,
2. our consciousness of xxx being as itself – which is still substance and space,
3. our consciousness of xxx being in itself – which includes asymmetry and symmetry,
4. xxx being in itself – which is symmetry or “change and no change,” and
5. xxx being – which is what is named xxx.
And, as shown before in “GUTUL on Being,”
xxx = being xxx = xxx being = xxx
Therefore, “being” is a redundancy or an “unnecessary convenience” in our language, particularly in philosophy.
No wonder scholars and philosophers from the West (e.g. from Plato to Heidegger) have admitted having troubles in understanding and articulating what “being” is.
Modern-day scholars and philosophers in the East have even more troubles in understanding and translating (i.e. articulating in their own languages) what “being” is – without knowing that their ancestors (i.e. Laozi and Buddha), more than two thousand years ago, have already clearly and cleaning understood and articulated “being” as “name or ming 名.”
There’s a good reason why ancient Easterners referred to their Westerner contemporary as “the barbarian” and modern Westerns refer to their Eastern contemporary as “the copycat.”