I suppose when you speak in terms of Dharma as a form of realization then that does not need a cosmology. It needs a model of perception. However, if you got that model of perception down, it will automatically end in some form of cosmology when it completes itself. That will become obvious when the model of perception is understood and experienced.
Now if you got such a basis laid out, you can draft up dependent systems. Like those of tibetan medicine, ayurveda, those for interacting with other people, and the like. Not to see them as rules, but honoring certain predictions you can make from that model. The problem is, you will not understand those predictions if you don't have the underlying model down. That's what it's for. Not more, not less. Those dependent models will still have to prove themselves experimentally. They just structure themselves accordingly. That structuring seems appropriate, since it is easier to remember things when they attach to some basic core that has already been laid out. Otherwise you have a pile of jigsaw puzzle pieces that don't give a big picture in which you can sort stuff. Makes remembering a ton more difficult. Let alone conclusions when you need to interpolate.
Now ask a doctor of tibetan medicine about buddhist cosmology, and you get as an answer: what the buddhist cosmology within its perception model looks like (the cosmology appears to me as an extension of the perception model which makes it complete). What other answer do you expect? Something that contradicts it? That may appease your temper, it will maybe even attach to your current understanding better, but it won't make you for example understand all those procedures that have been based on it. And it's not only medicine, it's also the Dharma itself. The practices which have been described.
How can a question whether something is selfish or not be answered without a corresponding reference frame? It's a relative question. A yogi who dwells "as pure observer" may be seen as selfish: "You only do that for yourself". The yogi dwelling in it may tell you: "If you would experience this, you would know that there is no room for selfishness left, since I cannot find my self." There are then two possibilities: Either you make the experience, which probably will take time. Or you try to get an explanation. That again needs a reference fram which describes the phenomena involved.
Transporting them into a capitalist (or communist, or libertarian, or whatever) framework for example will not deliver an appropriate explanation. It may give you one which appeases your temper. But it doesn't give you one to make the experiences which are described in the methods. I constantly try to come up with "newer" ways of explaining things, so people may be pointed to that which I found I could experience so far. And it's not easy. Most of the stuff I have experienced came along with developping a similar view upon the world, although not as complete. And even that resulted in a ton of misunderstandings as I tried to communicate with people here. Since it was my reframing. Partly yogic, partly scientific, but difficult to interpret for people who do not have a model with the same terminology, when it comes to a level of detail that is required to describe phenomena. Then I can only talk about what I have experienced so far. And there's a huge chance that people will think what I say is wrong, that I apparently haven't made the experience, because what I say for them seems to contain too many mistakes.
It also doesn't make me understand a description of a meditation method that has been described in buddhist terminology. I have to map my experiences into that buddhist reference frame first to get that understanding, and then see what other pieces are there to explore. Therefore I have to look up the definiton of terms that are specific to the model. That does not mean that I was wrong. I just needed an add on to my "translator module". Then I can see which of my experiences are covered where, and what's been described in addition to that. And maybe even where the two seem to contradict. That still doesn't mean I have to accept patriarch organization systems. But once I can argue within the system, things may become easier
The main mistake one makes is the illusion of "isness". Talking in a different reference model does not mean things "are" different. It does not mean "you become different". It does not mean your sensing becomes different. You only speak different about them in a particular context. That doesn't make you unscientific, that's a mere issue of communication. Even if you do science that's just a different way of speaking about what appears to be, what is experienced, with a different purpose. And maybe, with these additional thoughts, you can draw conclusions or understand texts which you weren't able to before.
The simple fact is: When you continue to talk in scientific terms, that will not point you towards the phenomena that are there to realize on the path, which is completely described "from the perspective awareness" (forgive this trivialization). Well, maybe if you read people in the cybernetics/sociology/biology corner, like Humberto Maturana, Heinz von Förster, maybe even Benoit Mandelbrot, concepts about autopoiesis, Nassi Taleb's black swans, it may happen that your thinking drifts towards an inversion from the paradigma of dimensionality to a paradigma of dependent arising. They're really close to it. Maybe it helps dwelling 20 years over an interpretation of the first three pages of the Tao Te King to get your thinking set up this way.
But to take laws which are based on dimensionality and telling they don't work in dependent arising, therefore dependent arising is wrong, is just mixing up things. There's nothing new to be won by doing that. And not knowledge either.
Of course, you can do the Zen way, sit down, and wait until realization comes spontaneously. You can do the yoga way, merge self into the observer and forget about it, but that still won't make you understand what's written in buddhist texts. Even to grasp ayurveda you won't get around the terminology of the Baghavad Gita (and if you understand that, you will probably grasp the "good"/"bad", halal, kosher-Principle of quite some religions). Starting from there you can probably even make modern adjustments to it, that don't violate the rest of the system.
You don't need to do that. It's not needed for practice. But that's what many people here apparently want to do: talk about it.
Formerly aka Gwenn Dana.