Buddhism (specifically the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path; Later Buddhist schools, other than Zen, which is a distinctively Chinese invention, I know very little about.)
Buddhism is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. The same is true of the Upanishads. Additionally, the concept of filial piety in Confucianism is taken to such an extreme with Ancestor Worship as to be idolatrous. Was Confucianism superior in morality to the essentially amoral culture promoted by the CCP in the PRC? Certainly. And we can see its strengths, and its weaknesses, on display in Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and even Japan, where Neo-Confucianism had a substantial philosophical influence even if it is not counted as a religion as it is in China, Korea, and Viet Nam, where it is the theoretical third member of a syncretic grouping of religions including Buddhism, Taoism and indigenous religions (with Taoist priests in China having traditionally sought to take charge of traditional religion wherever possible; in contrast, in Japan, traditional religion in the form of Shinto and Shugendo remained independent, viable and self-governing and influenced the practice of Buddhism, rather than vice versa, with a great many Buddhist temples featuring Shinto shrines).
I mean, if you’re going to enumerate religions of the East, you might as well include Zoroastrianism, which is so close to Judaism in its cosmology that one might suspect Zoroaster was a failed prophet. Specifically, Zoroastrianism looks like someone was inspired by Judaism to convert the Indians, and thus reconstructed the Jewish religion around a sophisticated liturgy designed to be anti-Hindu, in order to stop the spread of Hinduism across Iran and to spread Zoroastrianism into western Pakistan, however, Zoroastrian attempts to convert Hinduism ceased when the Parsi people immigrated to India from Persia in response to the Islamic conquest and were allowed to remain as long as they did not convert any Hindus, which included not marrying any, since a Zoroastrian can only marry another Zoroastrian, and the specific promise was so broad as to apply to converting anyone not already a Zoroastrian, however, it only applied to the Parsis, so those Zoroastrians who remained in Iran, and I suppose in theory the later wave of Zoroastrian immigrants to India known as the Irani are not subject to it. Of course, Zoroastrianism is dualist, and Christianity is not, but Taoism is also dualist, and you included in on your list.
Lastly, I would note that the early church did make some use of Aristotle, contrary to the Roman Catholic narrative of a Platonic Patristic period followed by an Aristotelian Scholastic period. The idea is accompanied with the proposition that St. John of Damascus, a major Eastern Orthodox saint, was the last Church Father, and every Roman Catholic theologian following him is Scholastic. That may be true as far as Roman Catholicism is concerned, because there is a definite change noticeable between the writings of St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Vincent Lerins, St. John Cassian, S. Irenaeus of Lyons or Pope St. Gregory I Diologos, also known as Pope St. Gregory the Great*, and later writers who are regarded as scholastic such as Anselm of Canterbury or St. Thomas Aquinas.
In contrast, there is no noticeable change in the writings of Orthodox fathers during this period, but rather, a direct continuity between the Greek and Syriac fathers with the writings of, for example, of St. Niketas Stethatos, St. Symeon the New Theologian, Mar Gregorios bar Hebraeus and Mar Dionysius bar Salibi. Even St. Gregory Palamas reads like an early church Faather, despite using Aristotle in his work and being considered by many to be the Orthodox equivalent to Aquinas (although he was not a friar or systematic theologian, but rather an Athonite monk called upon the writings of the Cappadocians and other Orthodox fathers to defend the Hesychasts on Mount Athos such as the aforementioned St. Symeon the New from the attacks directed at them by Barlaam, with a synod convened on the matter siding with St. Gregory and Barlaam converting to Roman Catholicism.
Indeed, there is a direct continuity between early monastic writings such as those of the Desert Fathers, and later monastic writings over the centuries compiled into the Philokalia** compiled in the 18th century on Mount Athos by the hesychast monks St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite and St. Macarius of Corinth. And if one reads another monastic classic, The Arena, by the 19th century Russian bishop St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, it in turn is also fully consistent with what one would expect.
That said, despite my criticisms with some of your arguments, I do appreciate your overall post and find the subject of the connection between philosophical systems and Christianity to be one of great interest.
* St. Gregory the Great’s skill at dialogue writing might arguably make him more of a Socratic philosopher than a Platonic philosopher, but this would also apply to St. Justin Martyr and many others who composed dialogues for didactic purposes, which Plato also did, but both known disciples of his, Plato and Xenophon seem to credit this idea of the DIalectic Method to Socrates.
** Philokalia means “Love of beauty” but in practice is a more elegant way of saying “Anthology”; the Philocalia with a C was compiled by the Cappadocians and is an anthology of the best writings of Origen, which is to say, the ones lacking in questionable theological speculation about reincarnation that would cause many people to, many say unfairly, regard Origen as a heretic, but nothing in the Philocalia is heretical, nor anything in the 18th century Philokalia with a K.
