I thought Leo summarized the Mahayana part very well, but somehow thought I was maintaining that Paul actually was speaking Mahayana lingo. My point all along is that we can read in a different trajectory from the classical Greek ontology that began with Hebrews and continues to this day. My aim is to argue that there are many philosophies able to serve as vehicles for modern commentaries, among which Mahayana thought is well worth the effort. I have no access to CBQ so cannot read Gray's article.