You canât establish the reality of anything using Buddhism, so-called EBT or otherwise. For nothing is more evident than the Buddhaâs rejection of abstract ontological inquiries. It is a general trait of Indian psychology. The Buddha presumes that you are interested in experiencing something, rather than knowing something. Or to be more exacting: he encourages you to align knowledge with experience and to make it subservient to experience. Thus, nothing is real independently from what is strictly experienced: an idea of âothersâ is real, the sensorial manifestations of others are real, not because we can know others to be in fact real, but solely because we are actually and already experiencing ideas and sensorial stimuli which we call âothersâ. Etc.
Buddhism goes further in the direction of what may appear as solipsism by adding that there is nothing substantial or important in the sum of all experience, except solely for the fact that it can be used to bring about salvation, precisely, from being subjected to the bodily and emotional impact of experience itself. That which does not make Buddhism solipsistic is that it places significance on certain possible outcomes of experience, the outcome of transcending experience. Thus the significance of experience, any experience, including moral conscience (as friend @Erika_ODonnell notes), is that it is something that is to be used for a certain purpose, that of emancipation from being conditioned by what we experience. Such utterly teleological and pragmatic nature of Buddhism renders it more of a science than a philosophy or religion; it is just not science in the same way science is defined in the west.
The Buddha refused to address abstract ontological questions such as that which youâve just posted here, and once the person who posed the question departed, he would then turn to the wondering mendicants and explain to them why he didnât answer, and how such entire domain of inquiry is mired in suffering. It is not suffering as in âouchâ or âpainâ, but that which arises in the form of endless confusion and uncertainty brought about by seeking truth in âideasâ rather than in experiences. This never means that ideas or ideation are wholly wrong or bad, but only that they are unreliable and impossible sources of truth, and quite often, vigorous and prolific sources of precisely falsehood. And you will agree that the many ideas that we once had about many âthingsâ were later proven in experience to be utterly false; this is precisely the means by which obsession turns into disenchantment and love, into hate!
What you find established instead, and abundantly, in the so-called EBT, or what I like to call Pali literature, is how to verify truth in experience, and particularly, truth about how suffering gets to âstopâ:
âWhen this happens, that happens. When this stops, that stops!â