A few more replies on what you just said. As with many discussion on Buddhadharma, one must understand Buddhism contains many traditions and variations and so what I say here will reflect only a few.

Now the idea of “no-self” is ontological only in the sense it teaches as that there is no eternal, unchanging entity. That’s the point. Christians agree with this. That the self is in constant flux you can find in St Maximus the Confessor who points this out as a correction to Origen’s understanding of the fall — change does not mean fall, change is inherent to our existence from the fact we are created in change (from non-existent to existent). For Buddhism, anatman is more a discussion of method than it is ontology. Moreover, you will find St John of the Cross reference the way of “nada” as the method to perfection as well. Now this is why Balthasar says Buddhism is close… because Jesus does teach self-denial, the theology of the saints teaches self-denial, but then the denial of the self allows God to grant us our mission and our true grounding — we must perish in order to resurrect. Now I would disagree with the implicit understanding of Buddhism here, but it gets quite complicated — but the idea is only through self-denial, by rejecting egoism, do we get to experience the thusness of reality and realize we don’t “not exist” nor “exist’ but we are flux. A Zen parable (which is one tradition among many, and not my favorite) can help: a zen monk believed nirvana is nothingness, in the nihilistic way; his master notices this and asks him how he would grab a hold of nothing… the monk is confused, and so the master grab’s the monks nose… “here’s a bunch of nothing.” The point is there is something there, the nothing, the negation is a negation of our way of perceiving them.

Now what would a Buddhist think of a Christian honoring the Buddha? It depends upon which Buddhist. One has said to Christians, “If you think the Buddha is so good, why are you still Christians?” Many in Sri Lanka with their nationalism and “Protestant” Buddhism would probably find it odd, to say the least. But for many others from Hanh to the Dalai Lama, there would be an agreement that we can understand each other’s personages within the context of our religious tradition and honor them there — the Dalai Lama honors Jesus as a great Bodhisattva who he believes is a greater being than he; while this isn’t the Christian response, I can see how he does have reverence for Christ.

I am giving rough explanations because the fact is to really delve into the Buddhist doctrine, takes depth and study and is not something which can be written up in shorthand (as I pointed out). As such, what I say assumes SOME understanding of terms. If you don’t know what Samsara is you are not fit to even discuss or criticize Buddhist thought (it’s that simple!)

“Apophatic theology is very sketchy” to who? You? It’s actually at the core of all positive theology — such as St Thomas’ analogia.

So, to discuss the issues, one must have studied the Buddhist teachings, in context, and understand them just as one doesn’t take Christian teachings out of context, and understand there are many ways Christianity is presented and believed.

Now back to your quote about what “you have heard”: basic metaphysics agrees with this position. All things, because they are a thing and not existence itself, partakes of existence; because they are created, then they are not eternal, permanent, unchanging entities; thus they do fall under the understanding of “there are no permanent entities, no stable appearances.”

But again, the point of this post is not to discuss or debate Buddhadharma (because that exploration would be far too complex for a short exposition, and I would have to even chose which traditions to engage and point out that there are other teachings and traditions, some radically different from my presention). The central issue is to show that we can recognize Siddhartha as a holy man, and he has a place on the Catholic calendar suggests this, whatever it is he taught or believed.

Oh, and Buddhism is not as alien to the West as people might think; it depends upon which Western traditions they have studied. Even Balthasar was to note many times the similarity of Buddhist positions with Plotinus — and there is evidence that Buddhist monks in Alexandria had a profound philosophical influence upon the region.

Buddhism does not teach nihilism, and indeed, nihilism is considered one of the two great errors (the other is eternalism). The nihilistic interpretation of Buddhism is erroneous, and the West misunderstood Buddhism in this sense for quite some time. As I pointed out, it is not metaphysics proper but practice; of course one can discuss the metaphysics implied, but even those are often misunderstood, sometimes by poor translations (anatman is not “no-soul” for example).

I won’t get into much detail here (because it would take too much time/space), here are a couple things to briefly consider:

The elimination of desire should be understood as similar to the traditional patristic and monastic virtue of apatheia.

Nirvana is more difficult, because in part, which tradition you follow will determine how you understand it; for example, the Mahayana teaching is to say “Nirvana is Samsara” — and so one must begin to ask, what does this mean? It’s all about perspective. But it is true Nirvana is often described by apophatic expressions and these have confused the Western mind: however, just as apophatic theology tells us that God is no thing, so we must understand Nirvana is not being described in nihilistic terms. The Buddha, understanding that some might think this, also has given positive treatments of it such as “great peace” “great joy” etc.

I ask this because 1) there might not be sufficient evidence to think the historical Siddhartha taught the metaphysics ascribed to him (maybe?). On the other hand, the notion of Nirvana as extinction of being and desire is the diametrical opposite of Christianity. We are to have more and greater life, not extinguish it. We are to die to self only in order to live for God, which makes our self better. Die only in order to live, humble yourself, *because God will lift you up.* I have understood that Buddhism wants you to annihilate the self.

There are many issues which you have brought up which makes me question what you know of the Buddha. First, he told people to test what he said (although later Buddhist logicians would suggest a place for faith in those areas which the Buddha discusses and one has not yet been able to test). Second, I am not sure what metaphysics he taught — if he taught any (he was, after all, not interested in metaphysics proper); of course, metaphysical discussions developed within Buddhism and then — became criticized because of the logical problems inherent in such discussions. So I am still trying to discern what “metaphysics” you are trying to suggest is “the Buddha’s”? Third, let’s say he held a metaphysical view and he was wrong — well, is this any different from many Catholic saints and even Doctors of the Church? Anyone who knows the Fathers and Doctors will know their metaphysics are not univocal and there are great debates between them and their views; so some (if not all) of them would be wrong and yet saints and even Doctors of the Church.

So I would be interested in your take of “Buddhist metaphysics” so I would know what exactly you are trying to discuss. But if one focuses on Buddhist teaching, one will note it has strong accord with a monastic and especially desert Christian tradition, and even the notion of dying to the self is fully embraced by many Christian saints.