This paper attempts to explore the meanings and significance of the ontological transformations that proposed by John Hick (1922∼ ) and Abe Masao (1915∼ ) in the context of Christian-Buddhist dialogue. Not only will I take a close study of the two very controversial and insightful proposals for ontological transformation that suggested by Hick and Abe respectively, namely, the Real and the kenotic God, but also examine its significance on Christian and Buddhist axiology and the hermeneutic issue for Christian-Buddhist dialogue. What I want to argue in this paper is, in the course of transforming the idea of Christian God, we should not only focus on the ontological disputes between Christianity and Buddhism, but also the methodological question, that is, how Hick and Abe make their interpretations on Christian God. By borrowing the metaphorical approach of Hick, I will show how his methodology for interpretation is comparatively effective and less costly while conducting the transformation of Christian God in the context of Christian-Buddhist dialogue. Not only can it apply to the Real and the metaphorical God incarnate that Hick himself proposes, but also to the kenotic God that Abe suggests. For my part, in face of the very fundamental and seemingly irresolvable ontological confrontations between Christianity and Buddhism, should we not only confine to compare and contrast their similarities and differences, of which I think there may not come up with any constructive result, but also examine the question of interpretation that underlies. For whenever a dialogue takes place, the activity of interpretation undergoes through the medium of language. Particular on the ontological debate between Christianity and Buddhism, I believe that the question of interpretation is more important and should be dealt with now and in the future, instead of entangling with the debate of whether Christian God is substantial or not.
