Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism have different perceptions of language and its role in society. The beliefs of philosophers in each of these Chinese philosophical traditions are stated in the Analects in Confucian philosophy, the Tao Te Ching in Taoist philosophy, and the Platform Sutra for Buddhist philosophy. Specific beliefs about language are expressed in relation to its role in general principles of social relationships. The perception of language in Confucianism is rooted in the relationship between words and their meanings. The definitions of key words in Confucian philosophy are vague as they represent broad terms and relationships. Despite the obscurity of the definitions of these words, they are conceptual words. While Confucius noted the importance of "correct" language in Daoism, in Daoism language is said to cause divisions and differences within society, thus taking away the wholeness associated with the Dao. The Dao is impartial to all things, for it passes through everything and is eternally present in all things. In the first lines of the Tao Te Ching it states that “The unnameable is the eternally real. The denomination is the origin of all particular things”. Although Confucius believed in the importance of naming things correctly and correcting language, it is evident that in Daoism language is perceived as less important. In the previous quote from the Tao Te Ching it is understood that the “unnameable” does not need to be named or characterized. Things that can be named are not considered eternal by the philosophy of the Tao Te Ching. One potential explanation behind the perception that words play a lesser role is because the Dao cannot be expressed in language. If Dao, the most basic principle of Daoist philosophy, cannot be expressed in words, then words should not be as important as they are in Confucian philosophy. Not only is language considered less important by Daoism, but it is potentially harmful and divisive. When things are considered to have a particular characteristic, such as good or beautiful, then other things are considered bad or ugly. In Buddhist philosophy, it is considered ignorant when someone associates reality with language, since there is a separation between language and reality. True reality is present in the state of enlightenment, and the perception that ignorance arises from the association between reality and language is prevalent in Mahayana Buddhism. it can only be associated with the external perception of things and cannot express the true nature of the object or idea. Therefore, language has no real value since it is unable to convey the nature of what it is attempting to describe or characterize. they create a false reality, thus perpetuating the ignorance of human beings. From this belief in Buddhism we are led to question the value of the words spoken by the Buddha. If words and language create a false reality, then how should we attach importance to Buddha's words? Buddhist philosophy states that there is a dissimilarity between the Dharma and the words used to convey it. The Buddha's words are merely vehicles used to convey the true nature of what he is teaching. Importance should not be given to his words, but should be given to the essence of what he is trying to convey. The Buddhist perception of language is comparable to that of Taoism. In both philosophies, language is limited in what it can express. Language cannot truly communicate the nature of objects