Although there are great differences between them, there are also many similarities. Here, I can only briefly mention the most essential points I have experienced personally: First, they have something in common: 1, and they all acknowledge the changes in the phenomenal world. Buddhists say that "all actions are impermanent", and The Book of Changes says that "in nature, images are formed in the earth, and changes can be seen." Everyone thinks that impermanence and selflessness are the signs of unchangeable truth. The Buddhist "Shen Jie Mi Jing" says that "all the lines are in the same phase, and the places of interest are in the same phase ... all the lines are without me. There is no self, and the scenic spots are positive. " "I Gan Wei Chishui" said: "Yi Yi has three meanings, the so-called Yi Yi, Yi Yi, but not easy." Second, the difference: 1, Buddhism believes that all phenomena in the world can not be separated from consciousness in the final analysis, and all material and spiritual phenomena belong to the "three realms of idealism, and all methods are just knowledge"-this heart and knowledge are beyond binary opposition, not the "heart" of idealism. Buddhists also revealed the inherent law of life's coming and going-twelve causes (ignorance, knowing, knowing the name and color of the cause, six causes entering, six causes touching, touching, being loved, loving, taking the cause, being old, dying, worrying, sad, bitter and annoying). The Book of Changes ascribes all phenomena to the function of Yin and Yang-"Virtue is combined with heaven and earth, Ming with the sun and moon, sequence with the four seasons, good luck with ghosts and gods". Although this yin and yang is Tai Chi in the final analysis, it does not reveal the interaction law between human and biological behaviors, activities and the phenomenon world like Buddhism, but stays on the law of the phenomenon itself, failing to fully reflect the soul and sum up the law of life cycle. 2. Buddhism has become a religion beneficial to society because it has a clear social ethical orientation and code of conduct-all evils should be avoided, all good should be pursued, and self-purification is the focus of Buddhism; At the same time, as a science of life consciousness, there is a set of practice system with perfect rules, which is generally called abstinence, determination and wisdom. Although the Book of Changes and even the Book of Changes all have certain ethical and moral values (such as "Qing Yu is indispensable for a good family"), there is actually no clear standard for the "gentleman's way" advocated by it-what is a gentleman? What is a villain? Moreover, the code of conduct advocated by it has failed to grasp the root-for example, although it is believed that "a modest gentleman will die", there is no answer to how to achieve this "modest" state-is it to hide inner arrogance and prejudice and be humble and kind on the surface? If this is the case, Yi-ology is at best a skill (in line with Laroche) rather than a Tao. Buddhism is not like this. In Buddhism, looking at "modesty" is actually to realize Prajna wisdom and get rid of self-persistence; More brilliantly, a bodhisattva who is divorced from me can not only be modest, but also be brave enough to bear it when necessary. It can be silent as a virgin, the lion can be excited, it can endure humiliation and surrender to all beings, and it can show kindness and strength. These realms are probably beyond the reach of all kinds of heretics in the world.