How Can Empathy Be Achieved?—A Comparative Study Between the Christian “Golden Rule” and the Buddhist “Five Precepts and Ten Virtues” in China

Abstract

The four ethical boundaries established in the Declaration Toward a Global Ethic (1993)—“Do not kill,” “Do not steal,” “Do not lie,” and “Do not commit sexual immorality”—though recognized as cross-civilizational consensus, face practical challenges as external commandments. From a comparative theological perspective, Christianity’s “Moral Golden Rule” originates from the Ten Commandments, with Sabbath observance serving as sacred temporal space for moral practice. While this time-bound practice has physiological and psychological foundations and plays a vital role in shaping religious identity, contemporary conflicts and divisions within Christian civilization reveal its sacredness facing secularization crises. The Buddhist ethical framework of the Five Precepts and Ten Virtues, grounded in the principles of dependent origination, karma, and mind-consciousness, manifests enhanced flexibility in sacred temporality and tolerant practical applications when interpreted through the lens of emptiness as a temporal perspective. The Christian Zen movement creatively employs Buddhist meditation techniques as methodological instruments, providing an embodied practice pathway for civilizational dialogue and constructing future communities of shared ethical values.

1. Introduction

In 1993, the Parliament of the World’s Religions convened in New York, USA, where it formally recognized a set of shared principles among diverse religious traditions, referred to as the foundation of a “global ethic.” (Parliament of the World’s Religions 1993). As part of this consensus, four fundamental ethical imperatives were identified as inviolable moral boundaries for humanity: “Do not kill,” “Do not steal,” “Do not lie,” and “Do not commit adultery” (Küng and Kuschel 1997). Articulated as an external moral contract binding the moral agent “I,” these principles delineate the boundaries of morality. They not only reiterate the prohibitions of the Ten Commandments—“You shall not murder,” “You shall not commit adultery,” and “You shall not steal”—but also underscore the principle of universal justice rooted in Christianity’s ultimate concern for humanity.

In traditional ethics, the “Golden Rule” is regarded as the primary imperative, foundational principle, and starting point of moral systems. Serving as the cornerstone of moral law, it provides fundamental norms governing the value of life and interpersonal relationships. In Christian texts, the “Golden Rule” evolved into expressions such as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” or “Do not do to others what you would not want done to you.” These formulations reflect Christianity’s emphasis on the principle of interpersonal care.

Civilizations are often capable of mutual learning and dialogue. Buddhism, with its emphasis on liberation as the ultimate goal, shares numerous commonalities with Christian ethical thought through its framework of the “Five Precepts and Ten Virtues.” The “Five Precepts” include refraining from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, false speech, and intoxication. The “Ten Virtues” expand upon the “Five Precepts” and encompass refraining from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, harsh speech, divisive speech, false speech, idle chatter, greed, hatred, and delusion. Based on these principles, Buddhism has constructed a comprehensive system of precepts, with the ethical thought of texts like The Four-Part Vinaya (《四分律》) and Brahmajāla Sūtra (《梵网经菩萨戒品》): the Bodhisattva Precepts exerting profound influence on Chinese Mahayana Buddhism. Core ethical principles such as “avoiding evil and doing good,” “equality and compassion,” and “self-benefit and benefiting others” emerged from these precepts. While Christianity advocates for the doctrines of creation, original sin, redemption, and divine judgment, Buddhism upholds the doctrines of dependent origination (缘起论), Buddha-nature (佛性论), liberation, and karmic retribution (因果报应论). Despite differences in theoretical structure, both traditions share notable similarities. Examining the ethical characteristics of Christianity’s “Golden Rule” and Buddhism’s “Five Precepts and Ten Virtues” can shed light on potential pathways for constructing a global ethic based on religious moral principles. It may offer valuable insights into the possibility of a global ethic grounded in the mutual learning of civilizations.

From a comparative theological perspective, Perry Schmidt-Leukel’s Towards a Buddhist–Christian Theology of Creation points out that Buddhism’s negation of a divine creator and Christianity’s affirmation of faith in a divine creator reveal that, hermeneutically speaking, despite their apparent incompatibility, both traditions share common concerns and purposes in their conjectures about the origin of the world (Schmidt-Leukel et al. 2010, pp. 40–50). This provides a deeper dialogical logic for reconciling the surface conflict between the “Moral Golden Rule” (premised on a personal God) and the “Five Precepts and Ten Virtues” (premised on non-self and dependent origination). Meanwhile, Wilfred Cantwell Smith proposed the concept of “world theology,” arguing it would “give intellectual expression to our faith, the faith of all of us, and our modern interpretation of this world” (Smith 1989, p. 125). That author contends that the universal ethical values inherent in Christianity and Buddhism can serve as a foundation for harmonious human coexistence.

Regarding practical pathways for ethical dialogue, James L. Fredericks’ Faith among Faiths: Christian Theology and Non-Christian Religions explores how to expand Christian religious tolerance through openness to truth from a comparative theological perspective (Fredericks 1999). John B. Cobb Jr.’s Process Theology posits that “Christianity and Buddhism are two utterly different religions, yet both have developed rational religions” (Cobb and Griffin 1998, p. 110). Unlike internal Western movements (e.g., women’s liberation), Buddhism as the “genuine Other” poses a fundamental challenge; its doctrine of dependent origination and emptiness (śūnyatā) denies substantial selfhood, replacing eternal substance with dynamic experiential events that transcend time and value judgments to achieve universal compassion. Christianity retains personal ethical responsibility within history and social concern and can assimilate Buddhism’s “emptiness” to interpret God’s selfless love, thereby exploring new communities that integrate non-attached compassion with ethical engagement (Cobb and Griffin 1998, pp. 144–51). The former suggests Christianity could draw from Buddhist precepts to reflect on the practical limits of “loving one’s neighbor as oneself”; the latter indicates that Buddhism’s view of karma could provide dynamic ethical responsibility complementary to Christianity’s personalist Moral Golden Rule, establishing an ethical foundation for non-attached compassion and multi-religious community integration.

In terms of modern explorations of ethical community construction, Talal Asad—a highly influential contemporary anthropologist of religion and critical theorist whose work has pioneered analyses of religion, secularism, power, and disciplinary practices—proposes in Genealogies of Religion the idea of constructing a “common moral tradition” through disciplinary practices. He notes that medieval Christian monasteries systematically built moral traditions through “collective life programs.” This discipline differed from external coercion, instead transforming obedience into virtue through structured systems. Monks’ submissive will was formed through sustained participation in sacramental rituals, scriptural interpretation, and penitential practices (Asad 1993, pp. 53, 60). This formative process involved establishing new lexical systems through sermons (exegetical practices) to reshape monks’ cognitive frameworks regarding memory and desire (ibid., p. 60). Interactions within this moral space—between priest and monk, monk and peer, and confessor and self—helped reconstruct the religious self (ibid., p. 60), a process further reinforced by coercive means like logical argumentation, corporal punishment, and Christian rhetoric to facilitate moral choices. David Tracy’s The Analogical Imagination argues that ethical dialogue has enabled Asian religions to begin forming a fundamental human community (Knitter 2003, p. 181). Commonalities between Christian and Buddhist practices can be identified: Christianity’s Moral Golden Rule manifests in sacraments, prayer, and communal accountability, while Buddhism’s Precepts and Virtues are expressed through meditation, Uposatha recitation, and karmic awareness. Both traditions’ approaches to desire (e.g., restraining greed) offer mutual lessons for training adherents, and their cultivation of virtues contributes to building social trust.

2. Christianity’s Moral Golden Rule and Its Practical Challenges

2.1. Core Principle of the Moral Golden Rule

Hailed as humanity’s second written legal code, the Ten Commandments establish moral principles governing divine–human and interpersonal relationships through a covenantal framework characterized by mutual obligation—stipulating divine punishment for covenant-breakers while conferring upon humans the right to renounce God should divine protection be withdrawn. This covenant, external to the moral subject “I,” legally delineates ethical boundaries with provisions including:

“You shall have no other gods before Me”

(First Commandment)

“You shall not make carved images… nor bow down to them”;

(Second Commandment)

“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain”;

(Third Commandment)

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy”;

(Fourth Commandment)

“Honor your father and your mother”;

(Fifth Commandment)

“You shall not murder”;

(Sixth Commandment)

“You shall not commit adultery”;

(Seventh Commandment)

“You shall not steal”;

(Eighth Commandment)

“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”;

(Ninth Commandment)

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house… wife, male servant, female servant, ox, donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s”.

(Tenth Commandment)

It is evident that the first four commandments of the Ten Commandments focus on divine–human relationships while the latter six address interpersonal ethics—later extended to animals and the natural world. This framework progresses from the divine to the human, employing divine origins to authorize morality (Chen and Wang 2018a, pp. 68–87). In Christian tradition, God is the sole source of all goodness; acting morally constitutes obedience to divine commands and signifies authentic piety. As Rousseau observes in Emile (Book IV): “A righteous heart is the true temple of God” (Zhao 1997, p. 438). The Bible portrays God not only as the fount of goodness but also as the possessor of wisdom to discern good from evil. Celestial bodies, landscapes, flora, fauna, and humanity itself are God’s creations. However, moral discernment is not innate to humans but reserved for God. In Genesis, God repeatedly affirms the goodness of creation (“God saw that the light was good,” “God saw that the dry land and seas were good,” etc.) yet forbids humans from eating the fruit of “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen 1:4–31). After the Fall, God declares “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil” (Gen 3:22). Humanity’s acquisition of moral discernment constitutes a transgression against divine prerogative, establishing original sin and affirming God as the exclusive source of goodness (Yang 2013, p. 242). Original sin remains a foundational tenet of Christian anthropology (Chen and Wang 2018b, pp. 25–26), exposing humanity’s existential paradox: the infinite gap between knowledge, will, and capability. As the Apostle Paul laments: “I do not do the good I want to do… For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out” (Rom 7:15–18 NRSV). This “powerlessness toward goodness” demands humility, rejecting human pretensions to omnipotence. Scholars note that original sin paradoxically heightens self-awareness, compelling cautious navigation of human limits (Lin 2015, pp. 38–43). For instance, Romans articulates humanity’s inherent inability to fulfill the law autonomously: “I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate… I can will what is right, but I cannot do it” (Romans 7:15, 18, NRSV) and “For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do what is good, evil lies close at hand” (Romans 7:19–21, NRSV).

While not all Christian traditions uniformly embrace the original-sin doctrine, Roman Catholicism and Augustinian-influenced denominations uphold its significance. Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism, and certain Anabaptist groups partially reject it, yet all agree that Adam’s sin introduced a fallen state characterized by moral weakness, sin propensity, and separation from God. Consequently, even the “Moral Golden Rule”—Christianity’s highest ethical principle with its core command to “love God and neighbor”—derives its authority solely from God’s will and commands, possessing irreducible external prescriptivity. Human moral agency thus requires divine grace, while the Golden Rule’s practice embodies the believer’s responsive participation in divine love.

The Moral Golden Rule, as a higher righteousness, unifies divine–human and interpersonal relationships through inner motivation. Matthew interprets the first commandment: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment” (Matt 22:37–38 NRSV), immediately adding: “‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’… All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matt 22:39–40). This positive hermeneutic refines the first four commandments into “loving God” and the latter six into “loving one’s neighbor as oneself”.

This principle appears throughout scripture: “In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets” (Matt 7:12); “Do to others as you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:31); “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18); and, in Tobit 4:15, “What you hate, do not do to anyone.” Jewish tradition echoes this: “Respect your neighbor’s honor as your own” and “Safeguard your neighbor’s property as your own” (Babylonian Talmud, Avot 2:10). Both “loving God” and “loving neighbor” concern inward disposition—a priority evident in Jesus’ reinterpretations of the Decalogue: On the Sixth Commandment: “If you are angry with a brother or sister… you will be liable to judgment” (Matt 5:22) and “First be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift” (Matt 5:24). On the Seventh: “Everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt 5:28). These emphasize purifying motives—prohibiting anger, contempt, and lust—demonstrating that Decalogue observance requires inner purity beyond external compliance.

Love constitutes the Golden Rule’s core. The Gospel According to John elevates mutual love to Christological parity: “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another” (John 13:34). Galatians declares: “Serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’” (Gal 5:13–14). This resonates with Confucius’ axiom: “Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire” (Yang 1980, p. 166; Analects 12.2). Martin Buber frames this as an “I–Thou” relationship—interpersonal care absolutized under divine ultimacy into universal moral law. Karl Popper’s reformulation captures its essence: “The golden rule is improved by doing unto others, wherever reasonable, as they want to be done by”.

2.2. Practical Dilemmas in Applying the Moral Golden Rule

The fourth commandment in the “Ten Commandments,” “Observe the Sabbath,” provides sacred time for the practice of the Golden Rule. In Genesis, the Sabbath is closely linked to the creation myth—“God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all the work of creating that he had done” (Gen 2:2-3 NRSV)—thus imbuing it with sanctity. Notably, the Sabbath was created by the cessation of creation itself. As a sanctified mode of being, it is not a concrete entity nor possessed by any individual. Time is equitable for all, endowing the Sabbath with characteristics of being non-materialized, non-appropriative, and universally shared (Moltmann 1985, pp. 302, 321). The sanctity of the Sabbath, established in the Decalogue as a cosmic-origin commemorative ritual, distinctly separates it from the other six days. This allows Christians to simultaneously experience sacred and profane time (Eliade [1957] 2002, p. 55). Within this sacred time, humanity dwells with God. By imitating God’s cessatio (cessation of creation), individuals reaffirm their identity as creatures dependent on God. Furthermore, all creation—regardless of status or species—finds rest, embodying Christianity’s spirit of equality.

From the perspective of the divine–human relationship, the Sabbath is God’s invitation to humanity, providing a practical guide for the Golden Rule. In Exodus, Yahweh repeatedly emphasizes to Moses: “You shall keep my sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, given in order that you may know that I, the Lord, sanctify you… It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed” (Exod 31:12-17 NRSV). Jesus compares the Kingdom of Heaven to “a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his slaves to call those who were invited to the wedding banquet” (Matt 22:1-2 NRSV). Through wholehearted prayer, individuals free themselves from profane, utilitarian time and enter the kairos—the opportune moment of divine presence. Correspondingly, God bestows upon humans on the Sabbath the “additional soul” (neshamah yeterah), manifesting as an enhanced radiance of the countenance Abraham Heschel ([1951] 1994). By the fourth century, Sabbath worship was formally established (Rordorf 1972, p. 13), involving praise to God at dawn and dusk (Old Testament churches began in the evening, New Testament churches at dawn): “It is good to give thanks to the Lord… to declare your steadfast love in the morning, and your faithfulness by night” (Ps 92:1-2 NRSV). Entering fellowship life, people are instructed to “speak to one another with psalms” (Eph 5:19 NIV) and “teach and admonish one another in all wisdom… with psalms” (Col 3:16 NRSV). Alongside prayer in poetic rhythm, silent prayer is also vital, exemplified by the Eastern Orthodox tradition of “prayer of the heart” (hesychasm)—a wordless, inner repetition of “Lord, have mercy,” coordinated with breathing and focus (see The Philokalia, “On Prayer,” and The Way of a Pilgrim). As Dietrich Bonhoeffer noted, any communal worship should incorporate the Word of Scripture, the hymns of the Church, and the prayers of the fellowship (Bonhoeffer [1939] 2012, p. 32).

The Sabbath is a temporal sanctuary for reshaping the Christian self, while the Golden Rule is internalized through commandments into life instinct. As described, the Sabbath practices “love God with all your heart” through cessatio and “love your neighbor as yourself” through shared rest. Furthermore, regarding humanity’s relationship with nature, the Sabbath principle extends from one day to the seventh year. “Land Sabbath” practices “Reverence for life”: “But in the seventh year there shall be a sabbath of complete rest for the land, a sabbath for the Lord: you shall not sow your field or prune your vineyard” (Lev 25:4 NRSV). The Jubilee year proclaims liberty: “And you shall hallow the fiftieth year and you shall proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants” (Lev 25:10 NRSV). As Pierre Hadot demonstrates in The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, “The production of self-consciousness is essentially an ethical activity… To be conscious of ourselves means to be conscious of our moral state” (Hadot [1995] 2012, p. 212). Christian practice, grounded in God’s supremacy, cultivates humility. “Self-examination” (examen conscientiae) is its fundamental psychological activity: “Above all else, guard your heart” (Prov 4:23; Athanasius, Life of Antony §20). This introspection confronts the individual: “Are you not ashamed of your anger and speaking ill of your brother? Do you not know he is Christ? Do you not know you injure Christ himself?” (Dorotheus, Instructions). Such self-examination produces a dual will toward good and evil within the subject: “The mind commands the mind… it is no strange phenomenon… but the punishment of sin” (Augustine, Confessions 8.9.21). It is within this painful spiritual state that the longing to end suffering arises. Neurologist Andrew Newberg’s brain scans of nuns and monks reveal that prayer activates the frontal, parietal, and temporal lobes (VanPool and VanPool 2023). The frontal lobe, the neural basis of human cognition, governs selective attention, working memory, and decision-making. Meditation training enhances the prefrontal cortex’s ability to filter irrelevant information, improving goal-directed behavior efficiency (Newberg 2009, p. 37). Prayerful breathing and relaxation also promote calmness, demonstrating prefrontal plasticity. Post-meditation “Compassionate Communication” shifts value judgments from material desires to spiritual pursuits, suppressing negative emotions like anger and fear (Newberg 2009, p. 203). When perceiving God as a distinct entity, the parietal lobe activates; deep meditation quiets this region, dissolving the self–other boundary into a sense of unity (Newberg 2009, p. 110). The anterior cingulate cortex, unique to human social cognition, when activated during meditation, inhibits fear. Studies also indicate a positive correlation between Sabbath observance and interpersonal relationships—particularly deeper connections and greater marital intimacy—linked to improved mental well-being (Boyd 1999; Dein and Loewenthal 2013). Observing the Sabbath is significantly associated with higher spiritual health and quality of life (Hough et al. 2019).

The contemporary practice of the Golden Rule faces evident challenges. As Samuel Huntington states in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, “The most important distinctions among peoples are not ideological, political, or economic. They are cultural… People and nations are attempting to answer the most basic question humans can face: Who are we?” (Huntington [1996] 2009, p. 21). On one hand, European societies show widespread alienation from Christianity, with declining religious participation. While Christian ethical influences persist in countries like Sweden, individual faith trends toward indifference (Huntington [1996] 2009, p. 395). The former reflects the problem of religious secularization due to desacralization, and the latter points to the temporal metaphor of religious division: the Christian Sabbath is Sunday, the Jewish Sabbath Saturday, and the Islamic day of communal prayer Friday. Major civilizations remain confined within their own sacred time. “Sacred time,” seen as a cyclical view of time in seven-day or seven-year periods, contrasts with linear time. Practice is inherently temporal, drawing civilizational “fault lines” across geographical space for practicing “love your neighbor as yourself.” “Europe ends where Western Christianity ends and Islam and Orthodoxy begin” (Huntington [1996] 2009, p. 158). While mutual empathy remains possible, it has become profoundly difficult. Furthermore, regarding humanity’s relationship with nature, although Christianity supports “land Sabbath” and “animal rest,” practices like using GMOs in agriculture or “humane certification” for slaughter often resemble a “civilizational fig leaf.”

The modern philosopher Immanuel Kant, in his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, opposed equating the “Moral Golden Rule” with his categorical imperative. Kant argued that the traditional “Moral Golden Rule” lacked sufficient rational foundation. He asserted that only his universal moral law could truly serve as the basis for human morality and the “Moral Golden Rule,” enabling it to function effectively. As Kant states: “All imperatives command either hypothetically or categorically… The hypothetical imperative represents the practical necessity of a possible action as a means to achieving something else that one does or might will. The categorical imperative would be that which represented an action as objectively necessary in itself, without reference to another end” (Kant [1785] 1988, p. 65). Among the formulations of the categorical imperative Kant proposed, the most discussed are the “universal law” and the “principle of humanity.” The categorical imperative can be expressed as “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (ibid., p. 90). Furthermore, “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end” (ibid., p. 86). For Kant, the reality of the categorical imperative cannot be sought in experience, and “the practical necessity of acting in accordance with this principle, i.e., duty, cannot be based on feelings, impulses, and inclinations, but only on the relation of rational beings to one another” (ibid., p. 87). As Wang Qingjie observes, “Within the Western Christian Moral Golden Rule lie two inherently contradictory and conflicting principles: the principle of universal justice and the principle of interpersonal care” (Wang 2004, p. 231). He further notes that “the principle of interpersonal care was marginalized in modern ethical thought, while the absolute principle of universal justice dominated moral and ethical evaluations” (ibid., p. 232). The “Declaration Toward a Global Ethic,” drafted at the 1993 Parliament of the World’s Religions, proposed a vision for a global ethic. It advocated principles such as “You shall not kill,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not lie,” and “You shall not commit sexual immorality,” and also included Jesus’ saying “What you wish done to yourself, do to others!” (cf. Matt 7:12). While these principles constitute a restatement of the Mosaic Decalogue, they ultimately demote the Moral Golden Rule from an ideal of human flourishing to a minimal ethical requirement for human coexistence.

This vision resonates deeply with the realm advocated by Zhang Shiying, drawing upon Zhang Zai’s Western Inscription (originally titled Ding Wan; see Cheng and Cheng 1981, p. 418), which articulates the ideal of “all people are my kin and all things are my companions” (min bao wu yu) and the unity of all things. We see similar efforts in Albert Schweitzer’s concept of “Reverence for Life.” The fundamental meaning of Schweitzer’s “Reverence for Life” is to respect all forms of life, including but not limited to human life (Schweitzer [1966] 1992). Schweitzer elevates “goodness” to the highest value and intrinsically links it to life: “Goodness is preserving life, promoting life, and enabling life capable of development to achieve its highest value. Evil is destroying life, harming life, and suppressing life’s development” (Schweitzer [1966] 1992, p. 9). In Schweitzer’s view, life possesses a will (Wille zum Leben), and all beings, from humans to the “lowest organisms,” strive to preserve and develop their existence. This resembles what Marx described as the natural attributes of animals. For Schweitzer, this is the operation of “God as a natural force” or the “law of nature” (Schweitzer [1966] 1992, p. 19). The self-division of the will to live is a demand of this “natural law” and “necessity”: “In the most meaningful way it brings forth the phenomenon of life in millions of forms, and in the most meaningless way it destroys them again” (ibid., p. 19). The “cruel egoism” inherent in this self-division brings forth evil: “Because of this mysterious self-division of the will-to-live, life is set against life… [causing] suffering and death to come to pass” (ibid., p. 20). Consequently, morality becomes the orientation of the moral agent to “reject evil and promote good” and demonstrate “reverence for the will-to-live both within myself and outside myself” (Schweitzer [1966] 1992, p. 26). This approach avoids the rigid constraints imposed by an external moral law while affirming the moral agent’s inherent freedom and dignity. It is not an action compelled by fear of divine punishment but the externalization of the consciously internalized principle of Reverence for Life. This consciousness involves “letting the existence outside ourselves flow into our own existence” (ibid., p. 21). It is also an experiential process: “Through the ethics of Reverence for life we enter into a spiritual relation with the universe. The inner experience we thus receive makes us capable of giving an ideal content to our will-to-live…” (ibid., p. 8); “My will-to-live… experiences itself… I thereby experience an elevation of my world-view” (ibid., p. 26); and “In his own existence he experiences the existence of other life” (ibid., p. 9). This consciousness, “freed from the bonds of fate,” embodies freedom and reflects the dignity of the moral agent. In this process, the moral agent transcends individuality: “… attain[ing] self-consciousness and ceas[ing] to be merely an individual being…” (ibid., p. 21). This broadens the moral experience of the self in the “Moral Golden Rule” beyond interpersonal relationships.

3. The Buddhist “Five Precepts and Ten Virtues” and Their Practice

3.1. Buddhist Ethics Grounded in Dependent Origination and Mind-Consciousness

When engaging in a discussion on the mutual learning between these two civilizations, it is essential not only to examine the Christian Golden Rule but also to consider the Buddhist code of precepts.

According to Buddhist scriptures, during the Buddha’s lifetime, the monastic community (saṅgha) “took the Buddha as their teacher,” whereas after the Buddha’s nirvana (death), they “took the precepts as their teacher.” The disciplinary code established by the Buddha thus serves as a continuation of his personal (or divine, or enlightened) nature, and is consequently imbued with the utmost sanctity within the saṅgha. The precepts function as the guarantee of the sacred character of the Buddhist monastic community (Sheng 2009b). Centered on the goal of liberation, Buddhism upholds three major ethical principles: “eliminating evil and cultivating good,” “equality and compassion,” and “benefiting both oneself and others.” Among these, “eliminating evil and cultivating good” can be regarded as the starting point of Buddhist moral ethics.

The Buddhist ethical system proposes the observance of the Five Precepts and the Ten Virtues. The Five Precepts include refraining from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, false speech, and intoxication. The Ten Virtues expand on these precepts and comprise refraining from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, harsh speech, divisive speech, false speech, idle talk, covetousness, ill will, and wrong views. The Ekottarāgama Sūtra (《增壹阿含经·五戒品》) explains the Five Precepts in terms of conduct, intention, consequences, and karmic rewards. Structurally, the first seven virtues of the Ten Virtues elaborate on the Five Precepts. Among these, refraining from killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct pertains to physical conduct, while avoiding harsh speech, false speech, divisive speech, and idle talk pertains to verbal conduct. The mental disciplines include overcoming covetousness, ill will, and wrong views.

The Āgama Sūtras (《阿含经》) establish the universality of moral values based on internal psychological functions. They emphasize that the key determinant of ethical behavior lies in the psychological function of “intention” (cetanā), which activates and directs mental faculties. The criterion for evaluating moral behavior rests on the presence or absence of the Three Wholesome Roots: non-greed (alobha), non-hatred (adveṣa), and non-delusion (amoha). These internal qualities form the moral foundation of good and evil judgments (Liu 2022).

Buddhism incorporates the “Five Precepts and Ten Virtues” into its disciplinary code, establishing a vast and intricate system of precepts. Among these, the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya (Four-Part Vinaya, 四分律) and the Bodhisattva Precepts (菩萨戒) have had the most profound influence on Chinese Buddhism. The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya represents the Theravāda (Hīnayāna) tradition (小乘), while the Bodhisattva Precepts belong to the Mahāyāna tradition (大乘戒法). As the Mahāyāna precepts lack detailed regulations for everyday monastic life, the procedural and practical aspects of monastic discipline are supplemented by the Theravāda Vinaya system to ensure the effective functioning of the saṅgha (僧团) (Sheng 2009a). According to the Four-Part Vinaya, killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, and false speech are considered unforgivable grave offenses. For instance, acts such as killing others, assisting in suicide, endorsing killing, or persuading others to commit suicide are classified as Pārājika offenses (比丘波罗夷罪), leading to permanent expulsion from the monastic community: “If a monk kills or encourages killing, he is guilty of a Pārājika and shall no longer reside with the community” (Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, vol. 2, CBETA 2024.R2, T22, no. 1428, p. 576b26-c1). Similarly, any act or intent of theft results in a Pārājika offense: “If a monk steals or intends to steal, he is guilty of a Pārājika and shall no longer reside with the community” (ibid., p. 573b11-12). The Four-Part Vinaya outlines strict prohibitions against sexual misconduct, encompassing relationships with the opposite sex, the same sex, animals, and even objects. Monks are also forbidden from acting as matchmakers: “If a monk commits impure conduct or engages in acts of lust, he is guilty of a Pārājika and shall no longer reside with the community” (ibid., p. 570c7-8). Additionally, “If a monk commits impure acts even with animals, he is guilty of a Pārājika and shall no longer reside with the community” (ibid., p. 571a22-24).

The text also specifies various other offenses: “If a monk deliberately causes seminal emission except during a dream, he commits a Saṃghāvaśeṣa, which means remaining for the Saṅgha” or “incomplete before the Saṅgha”(僧伽婆尸沙) (ibid., p. 579c1-2), “If a monk intentionally touches a woman’s body, such as holding hands, touching hair, or making physical contact with any body part, he commits a Saṃghāvaśeṣa” (ibid., p. 580b28-29), and “If a monk acts as a go-between for a man and a woman, even briefly, intending to arrange a marriage or facilitate a private meeting, he commits a Saṃghāvaśeṣa” (ibid., p. 583a16-18). False speech is similarly condemned: “If a monk, knowing something to be untrue, falsely claims to have seen or known it, he is guilty of a Pārājika (比丘波罗夷) and shall no longer reside with the community” (ibid., p. 578a14-16). Furthermore, “If a monk, without genuine insight, falsely claims to have attained a superior spiritual state or profound knowledge, he is guilty of a Pārājika (增上慢) and shall no longer reside with the community, unless motivated by overestimation of his progress” (ibid., p. 578b8-13).

Among the “Five Precepts,” the offense of drinking alcohol is considered the lightest but still involves ten transgressions that require repentance. According to the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, “If a bhikkhu drinks alcohol, it constitutes a pācittiya offense”(波逸提) (Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, Scroll 16: CBETA 2024.R2, T22, no. 1428, p. 672a27-28). The Buddha explained to Ānanda that drinking alcohol causes ten faults: 1. A deteriorated appearance; 2. Reduced strength; 3. Impaired vision; 4. Displays of anger; 5. Damage to livelihood and agriculture; 6. Increased illness; 7. Escalation of disputes; 8. A bad reputation spreading far and wide; 9. Diminished wisdom; 10. Rebirth in one of the three evil realms after death (ibid., p. 672a16-21).

Greed mainly refers to desires for love, emotions, and food (Fang 2015, p. 250). Regarding greed, there is a story in the Four-Part Vinaya about a bhikkhunī who received five cloves of garlic daily from a garden owner. Dissatisfied, she uprooted the entire garlic patch, causing resentment from the owner. The Buddha remarked, “Due to greed, she exhausted the garlic and became impoverished” (Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, Scroll 25: CBETA 2024.R2, T22, no. 1428, p. 737b5). Thus, the precept “not to eat garlic” was established: “If a bhikkhunī eats garlic, it constitutes a pācittiya offense” (ibid., p. 737b9-10). This fable contains another story about a Brahmin who, in his old age, married a young and beautiful woman and had children with her. Because he could not bear to leave his wife and children and worried about their livelihood, after his death, he transformed into a golden goose. Every day, he flew back home and left a golden feather to provide for his family’s needs. However, his wife and children plotted to capture the golden goose and plucked all its golden feathers at once. From then on, the goose could no longer grow golden feathers. The Buddha remarked, “Due to greed, the golden feathers were exhausted, leaving only white feathers” (ibid., p. 737b4-5). This, he explained, was the consequence of greed and attachment.

Concerning “food desire,” the Four-Part Vinaya states, “If a bhikkhu, having finished eating, accepts an invitation but consumes additional food without following proper procedures, it constitutes a pācittiya offense” (波逸提) (ibid., p.661a2-3). As for “anger,” the text declares: “If a bhikkhu, overcome by anger, falsely accuses another bhikkhu of committing a grave offense to harm his pure conduct, and later, when questioned or unprompted, admits to making the accusation out of anger, it constitutes a saṅghādisesa offense” (僧伽婆尸沙) (Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, Scroll 4: CBETA 2024.R2, T22, no. 1428, p. 588b22-26). Lastly, “delusion” refers to mental obscuration or “ignorance” (avidyā). In the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, all individuals violating the precepts are referred to as “foolish persons.”

The “Bodhisattva Precepts” include four types: the “Brahmajala System Bodhisattva Precepts,” (梵网系菩萨戒) the “Yogachara System Bodhisattva Precepts,” (瑜伽系菩萨戒) the “Upasaka System Bodhisattva Precepts,” (优婆塞系菩萨戒) and the “Esoteric Bodhisattva Precepts,” (密教菩萨戒) among which the “Brahmajala System Bodhisattva Precepts” have the greatest influence in Chinese Buddhism. The Brahmajāla Bodhisattva Precepts include the “Ten Major and Forty-Eight Minor Precepts,” and they hold that all sentient beings are eligible to receive them. The “Radiant Vajra Treasure Precept” (光明金刚宝戒) is the fundamental source of all Buddhas, the origin of all Bodhisattvas, and the seed of Buddha-nature. All sentient beings possess Buddha-nature. All consciousness, forms, emotions, and thoughts are included within the Buddha-nature precept. Thus, due to inherent causes, all beings have the potential to abide eternally in the Dharma body. In this way, the Ten Prātimokṣa Precepts transcend the worldly realm; they are Dharma precepts, upheld and revered by all sentient beings of the past, present, and future: “I shall now once again proclaim for this great assembly the Ten Precepts of the Inexhaustible Treasuries, which are the fundamental source of all precepts for sentient beings, inherently pure in their true nature”. (Brahmajala Sutra, Scroll 2: CBETA 2024.R2, T24, no. 1484, p. 1003c22-28). Kings, princes, ministers, officials, bhikkhus (比丘), bhikkhunīs (比丘尼), the eighteen Brahma heavens (十八梵天), deities of the six desire heavens (六欲天子), commoners, eunuchs, adulterers, slaves, spirits of the eight divisions (八部鬼神金刚神), Vajra deities, animals, and even shape-shifting beings—as long as they comprehend the teacher’s words, they can all receive the precepts and be called the “first pure ones” (Translated by Kumārajīva, Brahmajala Sutra, Scroll 2, Chinese Tripitaka, vol. 24, p. 779b).

In the context where both Mahayana and Theravada precepts coexist, monks who have taken the Bodhisattva Precepts are prohibited from adhering to Theravada or non-Buddhist laws; “If a disciple of the Buddha turns away from the Mahayana, declares that the scriptures and precepts are not Buddha’s words, and instead upholds the teachings of the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas), non-Buddhist heretical views, or false precepts from corrupted scriptures, they commit a minor transgression of defilement” (p. 1005c5-7). In the context where both Mahayana and Theravada (大小乘戒律) precepts coexist, monks who have taken the Bodhisattva Precepts are prohibited from upholding Theravada or non-Buddhist laws; “If a disciple of the Buddha turns away from the Mahayana, claims that the scriptures and precepts are not the Buddha’s teachings, and instead adheres to the doctrines of the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas), heretical views of non-Buddhists, or false precepts from corrupted scriptures, they commit a minor transgression of defilement” (Brahmajala Sutra, Scroll 2: CBETA 2024.R2, T24, no. 1484, p. 1005c5-7).

The Brahmajala Sutra integrates the Bodhisattva Precepts with Chinese filial piety culture, considering “filial piety as a precept.” During memorial ceremonies for deceased family members, one should invite a Dharma teacher to recite the Bodhisattva Precept Sutra: “On the death anniversary of parents or siblings, one should invite a Dharma teacher to preach the Bodhisattva Precept Sutra to dedicate merit to the deceased, enabling them to see Buddhas and be reborn in the heavenly realms. Failure to do so constitutes a minor transgression of defilement” (ibid., p. 1006b16-18). Moreover, filial piety toward parents is considered “minor filial piety,” while Buddhist filial piety is regarded as “great filial piety.” Although the Brahmajāla Sūtra (Brahma Net Sutra) stipulates that all sentient beings are eligible to receive the precepts, it excludes seven specific categories of individuals. According to the text: “A Dharma teacher of the Bodhisattva Path must not administer the precepts in person to those who have committed any of the seven grievous offenses.” These seven offenses are shedding the Buddha’s blood, killing one’s father, killing one’s mother, killing a bhikṣu (monastic teacher), killing an ācārya (preceptor), disrupting a karmavācā (formal sangha act) and hindering the turning of the Dharma Wheel, and killing a saint (arhat).

Buddhist precepts are rooted in the doctrines of “Dependent Origination” and “Mind-Consciousness”. Buddhism holds that all phenomena arise from the combination of causes and conditions, making its view of equality fundamentally rooted in the principle of dependent origination (Shao 2025). A deeper exploration of the concept of dependent origination reveals that all phenomena emerge as results, with the convergence of various conditions being only a surface cause. The underlying force driving the world’s movement and change is karmic action. For example, Buddhism identifies life as inherent “suffering,” prompting reflection on the root cause of suffering—desire. This includes the three fundamental afflictions—greed, hatred, and ignorance—which are generated through actions of the body, speech, and mind. Thus, the Buddhist view of equality is also a karmic-based equality: the extent of one’s suffering corresponds to the magnitude of one’s karmic deeds. The accumulated negative karma from past lives must be counteracted through the practice of accumulating virtue. Buddhism emphasizes this principle by stating “This wondrous Dharma is known as the Law of Equality” (Ekottara Āgama, Scroll 19: CBETA 2024.R2, T02, no. 125, p. 644a13-14).

Based on the concept that all things are empty in nature, a person is deeply interconnected not only with others but also with their surrounding environment. According to the Buddhist doctrine of reincarnation, anyone in past or future lives could have been or could become one’s parents, siblings, relatives, or friends. The suffering of all sentient beings is, therefore, also “my” suffering. As a conscious individual, one has both the need for self-liberation (self-benefit) and the obligation to help others (benefiting others).

Buddhism’s concept of equality manifests at the level of consciousness through the universal potential for the “innate purity of mind” (prakṛti-prabhāsvara-citta) and the “transformation of consciousness into wisdom” (āśraya-parāvṛtti), demonstrating distinct psychological characteristics (Allen et al. 2015, pp. 3–5). The Yogācāra “Five Categories and One Hundred Dharmas” (pañca-vijñāna-kāyā) system subsumes all phenomena under cognitive activities. For instance, the eighth consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna) stores karmic seeds (bīja) that manifest phenomena when conditions mature, fundamentally negating independent self-nature (svabhāva) and establishing an epistemological basis for universal equality. Yogācāra posits that sentient beings’ differential perceptions arise from whether the sixth consciousness (mano-vijñāna) is defiled by “habitual tendencies of ignorance” (avidyā-vāsanā). If consciousness discriminates through “greed, hatred, and delusion” (rāga-dveṣa-moha), it reinforces unwholesome karmic seeds. Conversely, contemplating that “form is emptiness” (rūpaṃ śūnyatā) purifies mental formations and interrupts karmic perpetuation. This emphasis on mental accountability underscores equality in spiritual opportunity (note: this meditative process relates to the “simultaneously operating consciousness” within the sixth consciousness). Yogācāra’s ultimate goal—āśraya-parāvṛtti—directly actualizes equality: transforming the seventh consciousness (kliṣṭa-manas) into the “Wisdom of Equality” (samatā-jñāna) eradicates self-centered discrimination. Transforming the ālaya-vijñāna into the “Great Mirror Wisdom” (ādarśa-jñāna) realizes the non-duality of the dharmadhātu. This “revolution of the basis” (āśraya-parāvṛtti)—progressing from “dependent nature” (paratantra-svabhāva) to “consummated nature” (pariniṣpanna-svabhāva)—epistemologically verifies Buddhist equality through the path of consciousness cultivation.

3.2. Buddhist Precept Observance and Its Distinctive Characteristics

According to the “Five Categories and One Hundred Dharmas” (wǔ wèi bǎi fǎ, 五位百法) of Buddhist Yogācāra (Consciousness-Only) philosophy, time and space are classified as “mental factors dissociated from mind” (xīn bù xiāngyìng xíng fǎ, 心不相应行法), falling within the realm of conditioned phenomena (saṃskṛta-dharma, yǒuwéi fǎ, 有为法). Consequently, time is also “dependently arisen” (paratantra, yī tā qǐ, 依他起). As stated in the Commentary on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (Dàfāngguǎng Fó Huáyán Jīng Shū): “Time has no separate substance; it is established based on phenomena. Since phenomena are endless, time is also endless. Moreover, moments and eons interpenetrate perfectly, and one should not rigidly cling [to distinctions]” (Dafangguang fo huayan jing shu, T35, no. 1735, p. 579a19-21). This definition negates the substantiality and universality of time. Nevertheless, time retains ethical value as a tool for spiritual practice, differing from the Christian Sabbath—a temporal ontology grounded in the “cessation of creation.”

The Buddhist view of time as “empty” (śūnyatā, kōngxìng, 空性) renders its fasting days highly flexible and adaptable, representing a form of “desacralized sacred time.” Various options exist, such as the “Six Fasting Days” (liù zhāi rì, 六斋日), “Ten Fasting Days” (shí zhāi rì, 十斋日), “Monthly Fasts” (yuè zhāi, 月斋), and “New Moon and Full Moon Fasts” (shuò wàng zhāi, 朔望斋). The Six and Ten Fasting Days involve periodic repetition, demonstrating a progression in difficulty—shorter durations and lower frequencies initially—making adherence to precepts easier at the outset, similar to the Christian Sabbath. The New Moon and Full Moon Fasts follow the natural rhythm of the lunar cycle, reflecting the Buddhist symbolism of the moon representing the purity or defilement of the mind and the stages of practice. The “Eight Precepts Fasting” (bā guān zhāi, 八关斋) offers even greater temporal freedom and leniency. Overall, the selection of fasting days in Buddhism centers on facilitating human awakening rather than imposing external constraints.

Xi Chao (郗超, ca. 331–373) described conduct on fasting days: “On all fasting days, one should abstain from fish and meat, taking the midday meal only. After midday, not even the slightest taste of fine delicacies is permitted. One should cleanse the mind, contemplate the Dharma, take refuge in the Triple Gem, repent of faults, hold oneself accountable, cultivate the Four Immeasurables (catvāry apramāṇāni, sì děng xīn, 四等心), abstain from sexual activity, detach from the desires of the six senses (ṣaḍ-āyatana, liù yù, 六欲), refrain from whipping, cursing, or scolding, avoid riding oxen or horses, and eschew carrying weapons. Women should additionally remove ornaments, cosmetics, and powders. With upright mind and correct intention, they should focus on gentleness and obedience” (Xi Chao, Feng fa yao [奉法要], cited in Xi 2014, p. 17). This description reveals that “not eating after noon” (guò wǔ bù shí, 过午不食) relates to taming the greed associated with the “tongue consciousness” (jihvā-vijñāna, shé shí, 舌识) among the six consciousnesses. Dietary restraint gradually subdues oral desire (other desires have corresponding restraints and prohibitions). Regulations concerning clothing and cosmetics during fasts serve to diminish and dissolve the social identity markers of devotees. These fasting rituals resonate with the Buddhist doctrine of “non-self” (anātman, wú wǒ, 无我), providing the physical and physiological foundation for further practice.

The psychological state of monks and lay-participants during fasting days can be glimpsed in three poems titled “Eight Precepts Fasting” (Bā guān zhāi) by Zhi Dun (支遁, 314–366) (Zhang 2014, pp. 126–60). In these poems, Zhi Dun describes his participation in the fast according to the sequence of generating motivation based on dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda, yuánqǐ fāxīn, 缘起发心), engaging in repentance practices (shíjiàn xíng chàn, 实践行忏), and realizing a state of insight (zhèngwù jìngjiè, 证悟境界). As per the poems’ preface, Zhi Dun, along with He Chong and twenty-two others (including both Daoist priests and lay-Buddhists (báiyī, 白衣)), gathered in Wu County (modern Gusu District, Suzhou, Jiangsu) on the twenty-second day of the tenth month to prepare for the Eight Precepts Fasting. The ceremony, solemn and silent, commenced at dawn on the twenty-third and concluded on the twenty-fourth. After the ritual, Zhi Dun bid farewell to the others, continued contemplation in his hermitage (vihāra, jīngshè, 精舍), and then climbed a mountain to gather herbs. The first poem that suggested activities included generating motivation for group practice, purifying baths and quiet abiding, ascending the hall, exhortations (marked by three beats of the Dharma drum), making vows, and offering prayers. The phrase “cultivating the five truths” (wǔ xí zhēn, 五习真) likely refers to the Five Precepts (pañca-śīla, wǔ jiè, 五戒) (cf. Xi Chao in Xi 2014). Silence and solemnity were maintained throughout. Zhi Dun’s second poem focuses on repentance practices—”threefold repentance” (sān huǐ, 三悔) and “dual repentance” (shuāng chàn, 双忏)—involving reflection on transgressions against the Five Precepts and Ten Wholesome Deeds (daśa-kuśala-karmapatha, shí shàn, 十善). The third poem depicts the realm of realization, alluding to the Yijing (“Book of Changes”) hexagram “Qian: Initial Nine, Hidden Dragon, Do Not Act” (qián: chū jiǔ, qián lóng wù yòng, 乾: 初九，潜龙勿用) to imply his early stage of practice. Crossing vast bamboo groves, gathering herbs in the flowing wind, ascending heights to view marshes, and washing hands in cold springs metaphorically illustrate his reclusive ease and transcendent state, signifying continuous practice of the Way (dào, 道). The closing line, while modestly expressing inadequacy (“ashamed I lack the elbow of continuous transformation”—kuì wú lián huà zhǒu, 愧无连化肘), affirms his resolute confidence to diligently practice his faith. Zhi Dun’s writings reveal Buddhism’s repentance mechanism: first, using regret and reflection to dismantle “self-grasping” (ātma-grāha, wǒ zhí, 我执), requiring silent self-examination against the Five Precepts for recent violations in body, speech, and mind (kāya, vāc, manas). Eco-friendly actions during the fast, such as gathering herbs, treat the natural environment as a partner in practice, not an object to conquer.

“Good and evil” (善恶) originate from the human mind, and the tenet that “everyone can attain Buddhahood” (人人皆可成佛) exalts human subjectivity. In Buddhism’s worldview, the universe was not created by a deity. All material and spiritual phenomena result from the interplay of various conditions and factors. According to Buddhism’s interpersonal relationships, “suffering” and “evil” in life and social phenomena are mutually causal, just as “goodness” and “happiness” are interdependent. This understanding encourages people to “abandon evil and follow good,” “escape suffering, and attain happiness,” reflecting Buddhism’s universal compassion. Buddhism asserts that human suffering arises from unmet inner and external needs, with the root cause being the three mental afflictions: greed, anger, and ignorance. “Ignorance” (avidyā) refers to a state of spiritual blindness and an unawareness of the ultimate truth revealed by Buddhism. Conversely, understanding this truth and committing to practicing according to Buddhist teachings leads one toward enlightenment, making them an awakened being like the Buddha. Thus, Buddhism’s concept of good and evil encompasses not only a general concern for relieving suffering and attaining happiness but also an ultimate concern for liberation and Buddhahood, reflecting its spiritual nature.

In Buddhism’s Five Precepts and Ten Virtues, all precepts address human relationships. Even the relationship between ordinary beings and the Buddha is viewed through the lens of cause and effect. As stated in the Brahmajala Sutra: “Always cultivate great faith in the Mahayana, knowing that I am a Buddha-to-be, while all Buddhas are already enlightened Buddhas” (Brahmajala Sutra, Volume 2, CBETA 2024.R2, T24, no. 1484, p. 1007b23-24). In Chinese Buddhism, being kind to others serves as a means of accumulating merit for one’s path toward enlightenment and liberation. This reflects the core principle of benefiting oneself while benefiting others, highlighting the spirit of practical reason inherent in Chinese Buddhism.

In terms of rewarding good and punishing evil, Buddhism emphasizes the law of karma, devoid of any divine judge; this function is fulfilled by the “mechanism of karmic retribution”. Some secular views hold that everything a person experiences in this life is the result of karmic forces accumulated over past lives. Suffering in the present is due to evil deeds committed in previous lifetimes and is thus seen as deserved; blessings and good fortune in this life are attributed to virtuous actions performed in the past. In response to this, Buddhism places particular emphasis on dāna (generosity) and kṣānti (forbearance). Followers are encouraged to use their wisdom and physical strength to help the poor and fulfill the requests of others—even to the extent of sacrificing their own lives. While such actions may seem cruel, barbaric, or foolish, they are imbued with a spirit of profound self-sacrifice and devotion (Fang 2006, pp. 214–15). “Forbearance” requires adherents to endure extreme hardships—such as being boiled in oil or minced into paste—without complaint, even in the face of injustice, all for the sake of their faith (David R. Loy offers an insightful comparison in Ecodharma: Buddhist Teachings for the Ecological Crisis: “I’m reminded of a well-known comment by the Brazilian archbishop Dom Helder Camara: ‘When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.’ Is there a Buddhist version? Perhaps this: ‘When Buddhists help homeless people and prison inmates, they are called bodhisattvas. But when Buddhists ask why there are so many more homeless, so many people of color stuck in prison, other Buddhists call them leftists or radicals—saying that such social action has nothing to do with Buddhism.’” (Loy 2019)). This Buddhist view of karma and rebirth can be seen as a gradual path to salvation, where one’s sins can be cleansed through countless cycles of rebirth, placing greater emphasis on the autonomy and effort of the individual in their spiritual cultivation.

4. The Development and Implications of Christian Zen

The origins of Christian Zen thought can be traced to the 1860s. During this period, figures like D.T. Suzuki and schools of psychoanalysis facilitated the exchange and understanding of Zen thought within Christian contexts. The English translation of Chán Master Dōgen’s Fukanzazengi (Universal Recommendation for Zazen) provided Christians with concrete methods for seated meditation (zazen).

The formative period of Christian Zen thought roughly spanned 1970 to 2000. Jesuit William Johnston’s work, Christian Zen: A Way of Meditation (1971), was pivotal, as it first coined the term “Christian Zen.” Johnston argued that this practice was designed for Christians, requiring no abandonment of Christian faith; rather, Zen meditation could deepen their understanding of God. He contended that meditative techniques were not exclusive to Buddhism and that Christianity could develop its own spiritual tradition by incorporating them. Other significant works from this era include H.M. Enomiya-Lassalle’s Zen Meditation for Christians (1974) and Robert E. Kennedy’s Zen Spirit, Christian Spirit: The Place of Zen in Christian Life (1996). The period concluded with Robert Powell’s Christian Zen: The Essential Teachings of Jesus Christ (2003). Johnston further elucidated the purpose of integrating Zen methods into Christianity in The Still Point: Reflections on Zen and Christian Mysticism (1970, relevant context). Patricia H. Clifford’s Sitting Still: An Encounter with Christian Zen (1995) offered practical guidance on experiencing God through meditation.

Examining the practice and localization of Christian Zen in Western countries reveals the emergence of global meditation centers and local Zen teachers. Philip Kapleau’s Zen: Merging of East and West advocated for integration on social and psychological levels. The founding of the Society for Buddhist–Christian Studies (1987) provided a vital platform for deeper and more frequent dialogue. Eastern Chán masters also actively engaged in teaching in the West: Venerable Master Hsing Yun (Taiwan, China) and Venerable Master Hsuan Hua (Mainland China) significantly contributed to spreading Buddhism in the US, while the Vietnamese monk Thích Nhất Hạnh, author of Living Buddha, Living Christ, was highly active in France. Research has also noted the development of Tibetan Buddhism in the West; Wang Jiujiu’s work highlights visits by Kagyü and Gelug representatives to Spain, fostering its growth there (Thoughts on the Localization of Buddhism in Spain from the Perspective of “Christian Zen”).

Naturally, Christian Zen has faced critique and challenges. Benrui Zhai and Huizhen You (2001) identified significant tension between Christianity’s reliance on scriptural authority and Zen’s principle of “relying on the meaning, not the words” in interpreting texts. Tsai (2014), Pei-Chun (蔡珮珺), studying the Benedictines and the Taizé Community, pointed to the inherent conflict between Christian obedience to God and Zen’s emphasis on autonomous enlightenment (The Relationship between Communal Spiritual Life and Clergy Formation Education: Case Studies of the Benedictine Order and the Taizé Community). Daniel Millet Gil’s recent work (Christian Zen: A Critical Examination of Catholic Use of Zen Meditation, 2024) reflects conservative skepticism toward this localization.

The breadth of research on Christian Zen indicates its rise is not accidental; it represents Christianity’s response to modern spiritual needs. The Rule of St. Benedict stands as a cornerstone of Christian monastic practice, establishing three core virtues: obedience (Obsculta), silence (Silentium), and humility (Humilitas). A crucial contribution of the Rule is its guidance to internalize these precepts, replacing “fear” with “love” as the true motive for observance. This love is directed toward Christ himself: “prefer nothing whatever to Christ” and “place nothing before the love of Christ” (Tsai 2014, pp. 15–16). Furthermore, obedience is the core expression of humility, and “unhesitating obedience” is the practical manifestation of loving Christ above all (Puzicha [2002] 2007, pp. 119–27). This obedience carries an eschatological dimension, linking the superior’s command directly to Christ’s call, fostering a spiritual attitude of “immediate response and action” (Puzicha [2002] 2007, p. 127). Ultimately, this training in obedience aims to dissolve the individual will, leading to a state of spiritual awakening characterized by loving God “without fear and with one’s whole heart” (Puzicha [2002] 2007, pp. 194–95). However, rapid compliance may limit rational judgment, while spiritual awakening often emphasizes the free development of inner consciousness. The Rule’s transformation of obedience from fear-based to love-based places high demands on superiors and requires monks to avoid blind obedience, revealing an inherent tension. Secondly, Jean Leclercq’s The Love of Learning and the Desire for God: A Study of Monastic Culture noted that in post-Cluniac reforms, liturgical time expanded from the Benedictine ideal (reciting the entire Psalter weekly) to an extreme state occupying “nearly the whole day” (Leclercq 1982, pp. 287–88). This turned sacred time into a burdensome schedule, eroding inner piety—“better to sing with a hoarse voice than to be bored in the choir stalls” (Leclercq 1982, pp. 300–1)—undermining its salvific efficacy. Regarding humility, the Rule’s twelve degrees demand self-abasement—a psychologically self-negating attitude reinforcing external authority through intensified individual guilt, potentially leading to an existential crisis. When religious ritual fails to provide redemption, this dynamic can manifest as pathological depression (Becker 1973).

Thus, the practical dilemma of the Golden Rule lies in the disconnect between external commands and internal experience: cognitively affirming “love thy neighbor as thyself,” yet emotionally grappling with the “powerlessness of original sin” regarding salvation’s efficacy. While Buddhist precepts (Five Precepts, Ten Wholesome Deeds) offer a path for mental training, their philosophical foundation of non-self (anātman) and dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) fundamentally conflicts with Christian faith in a personal God. Christian Zen’s breakthrough lies in bypassing this ontological debate. Furthermore, the success of the ecumenical Taizé Community demonstrates that interreligious communion’s core lies not in doctrinal fusion but in an open, inclusive, and free attitude toward learning from diverse traditions. Finally, Buddhism, renowned for its meditation practices, possesses vast records of practical techniques and literature. The emergence of Christian Zen creatively transforms Buddhist “mental training” into a Christian “tool for ethical practice,” providing a tangible, operational foundation of awareness for the abstract command of the Golden Rule, fostering empathy across civilizations. Fundamental ethical prohibitions (against killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying)—survival imperatives for humanity—can be grounded, through Buddhist meditative techniques, in the universal neural mechanisms underlying empathy. This transforms them into principles of self-identification and guides for action within a shared human destiny.

5. Conclusions

Karl Jaspers’ The Origin and Goal of History proposes not only the “Axial Age” but also the concept of a “Second Axial Age.” He asserts: “This Second Axial Age possesses possibilities unavailable to the first. Because it can assimilate diverse experiences and inherit various intellectual traditions, it inherently embodies richer significance and greater substance from its inception” (Jaspers [1949] 2016, p. 89). This indicates that the emergence of the Second Axial Age must result from intercultural exchange, absorption, and dialogue among diverse intellectual traditions, with this era’s richness constituting its fundamental requirement.

Buddhist civilization’s theoretical framework articulates a universality beyond Christian civilization (Wang 2023), though, as Mr. Chen Jinhua insightfully notes, “One cannot understand the true nature of Buddhism (especially the various East Asian Buddhist traditions) merely by studying the numerous precepts found in different Vinaya texts. These precepts are intended to prescribe behavior, not to accurately describe the environmental factors that influenced the growth and evolution of the sangha” (Chen 2020, pp. 75–148). Historically, Catholicism’s failure to integrate into Chinese culture—represented by Confucianism and Buddhism—has stemmed primarily from an absence of genuine theoretical synthesis. This theoretical disconnect can be attributed to Catholicism’s religious and cultural intolerance toward Chinese civilization as a whole. Such religious intolerance has fundamentally hindered the integration of Chinese and Western civilizations (Ma 2002), a challenge persisting in modern Christian missionary efforts in China. Given this context, examining Christianity’s “Moral Golden Rule” alongside Buddhism’s “Five Precepts and Ten Virtues” may offer constructive pathways for mutual learning between these two great civilizations.