Library

The books of the Three Teachings (Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism), although differing in wording, share the same purport. Practitioners should not harbor sectarian prejudices. Where contents are similar, they should be consulted with each other; where they differ, one should still strive to comprehend them wisely. Texts expounding principles may offer insights applicable to governance and social order. Studies of statecraft and livelihood provide sufficient methods for self-cultivation. Through mutual verification, one gains considerable benefit. To adhere rigidly to a single school while dismissing all others is certainly not the way of a learned scholar.

In expounding these classics, every statement has its origin. Passed down through oral transmission and heart-to-heart instruction, occasional excerpts from other collections are merely old sayings of the sages of the Three Teachings, not fabricated inventions.

Daoism and Buddhism are now widely recognized by the world as two aspects of one truth. However, Confucianism and Buddhism are often seen as divergent paths. Their inability to merge stems from later scholars creating separate sects. Those who study the books of Confucius—regardless of whether they merely memorize rhetoric or engage in practical learning—often compete for fame and merit, neglecting self-cultivation. They speak grandly of nature and destiny but derive no benefit for their body and mind, failing to understand what the Six Classics and Four Books actually teach regarding nourishing the body and mind.

Those who study Buddhist and Daoist texts—regardless of whether they perform rituals and keep precepts or focus on mental stability—often specialize in cultivation practices while ignoring family and state affairs, effectively emulating Yang Zhu and Mo Di. Claiming to follow Buddhism or Daoism, they fail to grasp the meaning of the vows of compassion recorded in the Daoist Canon and Buddhist Tripitaka. Both sides are biased. Confucius was not devoid of self-cultivation, nor were Buddhism and Daoism devoid of worldly achievements. Different tunes achieve similar skill; different schools share the same source. The commonality lies in the efforts of investigating things, extending knowledge, sincerity of will, and rectification of the mind. The difference lies in the manifestations of cultivating oneself, regulating the family, governing the state, and bringing peace to the world. Ultimately, the principle is one.

Looking back to the beginning of chaos, from Pangu to the Three Dynasties (Xia, Shang, Zhou), there was no distinction between Confucianism and Daoism in China. All those who studied the Way read the books of the Five Emperors and the Three Kings; they were both Confucians and Daoists. Daoism highly praises Huangdi (the Yellow Emperor) and Pengzu. Laozi’s teachings were adopted by Confucius, who compared himself to him, sought his advice, and praised him, never engaging in debate. It was only with the emergence of the Heavenly Master (Zhang Daoling) in the Han Dynasty that Confucianism and Daoism began to separate. In reality, the Way of the Heavenly Master was also Dao and also Confucianism. The separation was caused by later generations establishing sects.

Before the Qin and Han dynasties, China’s territory was not vast, occupying only one-tenth of the world. Beyond the seas lay thousands of countries beyond the reach of Confucian teachings. Dipankara Buddha appeared first, propagating the Dharma in the ancient middle lands. Subsequently, Shakyamuni emerged, spreading教化 (teaching/transforming) in the Western Regions. Transmission continued through twenty-eight generations until Patriarch Bodhidharma came to the Eastern Land. Foreign Buddhist branches included distinctions such as the Yellow Hat and Red Hat schools. After Patriarch Bodhidharma attained parinirvana in the West, Chinese Buddhism developed separate lineages, such as the Linji and Caodong schools. This is akin to the Northern and Southern schools or Han and Song scholarship in Confucianism, or the Zhengyi and Longmen sects in Daoism. Various schools have different methods but the same purport. Though divided into sects, the Great Way remains united. From one comes ten thousand; from ten thousand returns to one. The principles are identical. Without adhering to the Middle Way, how could it spread far and endure long? Throughout this history, each sect had its similarities and differences, preserved its own transmissions, and possessed its merits and flaws. There were distinctions between refined and crude, pure and mixed, shallow and deep, true and false. None should be excessively condemned.

Today, the Three Teachings stand side by side, yet few can integrate them. People elevate one and subordinate another. Those focusing on cultivation call Confucianism vulgar; those sticking to textual commentary regard Buddhism and Daoism as erroneous. They look down upon each other and attack each other, even fighting within the same house, contradicting themselves. This is truly laughable.

Briefly stated: Confucianism speaks of "holding the mean," Buddhism speaks of "guarding the center," and Daoism speaks of "mysterious centrality." Is this not evidence that the Three Teachings are consistent? Therefore, to elucidate this Way, one must discuss it by integrating the principles of the Three Teachings. This is not to confuse the Sacred Scriptures with Buddhist and Daoist methods. Consider that the words of the Sages encompass everything. What harm is there in extracting insights from Buddhist and Daoist teachings on body, mind, nature, and destiny to verify them?