Okay, got it! Nothing exists outside of our minds. No ultimate reality.
Okay, got it! Things do exist. Period. But just in their appearance, nothing more.
Okay, got it! Things do exist simply in the way they appear, but not in the way they appear to “most” people.
Things exist in some other way that is not essential or substantial, just in some “other” but apparent way where “what you see is what you get” but not in the way that “most people” see or get, but in some other way entirely that isn’t essential or substantial.
Sounds utterly incoherent.
It also appears that what Buddha found or discovered was the thin edge of the razor between rationality and irrationality, between coherence and incoherence, and he set his metaphysical claim to that “place” which is not a place because it merely demarcates the vanishingly thin line between meaning and non-meaning, existence and non-existence, being and nothingness, but which, according to Buddhism is all there is.
The problem with assigning complete meaning or significance to a boundary line ought to be clear, no?