([FHUSWIURP
The Blooming of a Hundred Flowers:
Philosophy of Ancient China 
:KDWLVWR3KLORVRSKL]H"
$OIUHGR3&R


.H\SRLQWV

 7KHKXPDQEHLQJLVDXQLYHUVDOSKHQRPHQRQ$VVXFKWKHKXPDQEHLQJLVDQLPSRUWDQW
VXEMHFWLQSKLORVRSK\
 3KLORVRSK\LVDKXPDQHQGHDYRUWKDWSURIRXQGO\IRUPVSDUWRIKXPDQQDWXUH
 3KLORVRSKLFDO H[SUHVVLRQV DUH FXOWXUHERXQG SKLORVRSKL]LQJ LV QRW UHVWULFWHG WR WKH
*UHHNV
 3KLORVRSK\ KDV WKUHH EDVLF TXHVWLRQV HYLQFHG E\ WKH WKUHH JUHDW FLYLOL]DWLRQV ,QGLDQ
*UHHNDQG&KLQHVH:KRDP,":KHUHDP,":KDWDP,"
 7RSKLORVRSKL]HPHDQVWRWKHRUHWLFDOO\FRQVLGHUDOOWKLQJVLQDVWXG\RUUHIOHFWLRQ


Early attempts to write a universal definition of
philosophy failed because mankind never shared a
common idea of what it is.
Is it valid to define philosophy as the science
of beings, of their ultimate causes or principles as known
by the light of natural reason? Perhaps so, but then, what
would happen to existentialism or Indian philosophy?
Existentialism is not interested in the problem of the
ultimate principles;; neither is Indian philosophy
concerned with the truth arrived at by the light of natural
reason. Shall we then define philosophy as the
LQGLYLGXDO·V TXHVW IRU DXWKHQWLF H[LVWHQFH RU DV WKH
VHDUFKIRUWKHXOWLPDWH%HLQJE\WKHXVHRIRQH·VLQWXLWLYH
faculty? But what would happen to Chinese philosophy
whose main interest is to know how man can live in
harmony, unity, peace, prosperity, if in- deed, perpetuity!
Should philosophy then be defined as a way of life? But
then those who believe that it is a way of thought could
easily reject it!
It seems that behind the many definitions,
whatever degree of validity each one has, rests a more
fundamental question: What is to philosophize?
Man is a universal phenomenon. He cogitates,
contemplates and interprets the same world and yet he
comes up with varied opinions regarding it. History has
indeed shown us that the diversity of human experiences
has created diversified cultures that have brought about
distinct interpretations of the world.
The complex enterprise of philosophizing has
been a monopoly of man ab initio. God, being
omniscient, has no need for either reason or intuition in
order to know. He is the Repository of truth and the
Fountainhead of wisdom. The angels possess a natural
knowledge of God and know other things by merely
contemplating their angelic essence. The brutes do not
philosophize for their sentient level simply cannot allow
them to do so. Only man can and needs to philosophize
because of his uncertainties, which manifest themselves
as doubts. Therefore, we may say that philosophy begins
and ends with man. We see in the history of ideas, how
man tried to construct philosophical ideas, and how
others tried to destroy them. One system of thought is
raised and another system of thought refutes it.
Generally, to philosophize means to
theoretically consider all things in a study or reflection.
But philosophizing is a complex process of thought. The
history of humanity has shown how man has struggled
to come up with a genuine, indigenous world-view.
Through the different periods of history, he has used his
natural powers to pursue various philosophical ends. I
see generally three ends, namely: the Knowledge of the
Absolute Truth;; the Knowledge of the Reasoned Truth;;
and the Knowledge of the Practical Truth or what is also
known as the Knowledge of the Art of living.
These different ends were curiously pursued by
three great civilizations: the Indian, the Greek and the
&KLQHVH7KH,QGLDQVDVNHGWKHTXHVWLRQ´:KRDP,"µ
7KH*UHHNVLQTXLUHG´:KHUHDP,"µODVWO\WKH&KLQHVH
SRVLWHGWKHTXHVWLRQ´:KDWDP,"µ7KH-HZVDOVRDVNHG
VXFKVLJQLILFDQWTXHVWLRQVDV´:KHUHGLG,FRPHIURP"µ
DQG´:KHUHDP,JRLQJ"µ%XWVLQFHPDQ·VNQRZOHGJHRI
his origin and des- tiny cannot be verified, we shall not
classify these questions as philosophical. In all these
questions, there is the encompassing I, which only
proves the reflective nature of philosophizing.
The Indian philosophical tradition is deeply
URRWHG LQ WKH TXHVWLRQ ´:KR DP ,"µ )RU WKH ,QGLDQ
IRUHVW VDJHV WKH $EVROXWH 7UXWK FRQVLVWHG LQ PDQ·V

discovery of the Self. The famous dialogue from the
Twelfth Khanda of the Chandogya Upanishad between
Udalaka Aruni and his son Svetaketu depicts quite vividly
this intuitive search for the Absolute.
Aruni said;; Fetch me from thence a fruit of the
nyagrodha tree.
Svetaketu UHSOLHG´+HUHLVRQH6LUµ
´%UHDNLWµ
´,WLVEURNHQ6LUµ
´:KDWGR\RXVHHWKHUH"µ
´7KHVHVHHGVDOPRVWLQILQLWHVVLPDOµ
´%UHDNRQHRIWKHPµ
´,WLVEURNHQ6LUµ
´:KDWGR\RXVHHWKHUH"µ
´1RWDQ\WKLQJ6LUµ
7KH IDWKHU VDLG ´P\ VRQ WKDW VXEWOH HVVHQFH
which you do not perceive there, of that very essence
this great nyagrodha WUHHH[LVWVµ
´%HOLHYH LW P\ VRQ 7KDW ZKLFK LV WKH VXEWOH
essence, in it all that exists has its self. It is the True. It is
the Self, and thou, o Svetaketu DUWLWµ
In the same text, the Absolute Truth is revealed
as the discovery of the Self that is identical with the spirit
of the universe. The Atman and Brahman are one. It is
through this realization that man achieves emancipation
from all forms of illusions or Maya. ´%\WKHROGDJHRI
the body, the ether does not age;; by the death of the
body, the ether is not killed. That is the true Brahman. In
it all desires are contained. It is the Self, free from sin,
free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and
thirst, which desires nothing but what it ought to desire,
and imagines nothing but what it ought to imagine.
Those who depart from hence without having
discovered the Self and those true desires, for them there
is no freedom in all the worlds. But those who depart
from hence, after having discovered the Self and those
true desires, IRUWKHPLVIUHHGRPLQDOOWKHZRUOGVµ
The highest truth in Brahman can only be
known if man is to consciously withdraw from the world
of the senses, and methodically suspend the activity of
his reasoning intellect in order to give way to the inner
faculty of intuition. The Absolute Truth can only be
attained by the use of his intuitive faculty. Philosophy
for the Indians is the science of the Absolute Truth as
NQRZQE\WKHXVHRIRQH·VLQWXLWLYHSRZHU
In this subtle and mystical search for the
´GHSWK HJRµ WKH ,QGLDQ VDJH SUREHG LQWR WKH DJHOHVV
deathless, spiritual identity of man. This psychocentrism
is the distinguishing mark of Indian philosophy. But the
Indians were great psychologists. Patanjali of Nyaya
philosophy, Mahavira and Gautama - were they not in fact
great psychologists and spiritual leaders?
Early Greek philosophical inquiry started with
WKH TXHVWLRQ ´:KHUH DP ,"µ $PD]HG E\ WKH
phenomenon of change, the pre-Socratic cosmologists
commenced their philosophical speculation with a
search for the unifying principle of the universe. For

WKHP WUXWK FRQVLVWHG LQ PDQ·V XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH
principles behind the workings of the spatio-temporal
world and his relationship with it. Thus, we have Thales
claiming that Water was the ultimate World-Stuff;;
Anaximander, declaring it was the Boundless, and
formulating his theory of evolution;; Anaximenes, Air;;
Heraclitus, Fire;; Parmenides, the one;; Pythagoras, the
limited and the unlimited;; Empedocles, earth, Air, Water
and Fire;; and Anaxagoras, Infinitely- Various Seeds.
They were great cosmologists.
The Greek attachments to the spatio-temporal
world prompted them to develop a peculiar science
reflective of such a spirit of inquiry. Thus, the Greeks
invented the science of logic and epistemology, where
truth is attained by a successful use of syllogistic
demonstrations. The clarity of truth rests in the
SKLORVRSKHU·V DELOLW\ WR GHILQH D FRQFHSW DQG RQH·V
security rests in his ability to insulate himself in these
clearly -and neatly demonstrated discourses of reason.
For the Greeks, philosophy is the science of the logico-
HSLVWHPLF WUXWK DWWDLQHG E\ WKH XVH RI PDQ·V QDWXUDO
reason.
The Chinese philosophical enterprise was
EDVHGRQWKHTXHVWLRQ´:KDWDP,"µ7KH&KLQHVHZHUH
interested in the discovery of what it meant to be human
- ZKDWPDQ·VSRWHQWLDOLWLHVZHUHDQGKRZPDQFRXOGOLYH
in self-determination, harmony and cohesiveness with
others, in righteousness and propriety, sincerity and
wisdom, peace and prosperity, so that he might be able
to live in perpetuity. The ancient Chinese masters
focused their attention on the problem of making man
KXPDQH 7KH TXHVWLRQ ´:KDW DP ,µ LV LQGHHG VRFLR-
politico-moral. The anthropocentric slant of the Chinese
thinkers made them great social thinkers, political
thinkers and moral thinkers. No other civilization has
invested so much of its philosophizing on the problem
of attaining the highest moral good within the reach of
men than the Chinese. They have thought out, preached
and lived their answers to the problems of practical life
WKDWLVWKHELUWKPDUNRIWKHLU´SULQFHO\VDJHVµ
Chinese philosophy attempts to come up with
explanations for the knowledge of practical wisdom
GUDZQ RXW RI PDQ·V PRUDO JURZWK LQ OLIH·V H[SHULHQFH
The richness of this Truth on the Art of living is
measured on the basis of how that practical wisdom is
able to enrich man as an individual and as an integral part
of society.
Philosophy then for the Chinese is the science
of practical truth attained by the use of practical reason.
Were not the first Chinese masters moral, social and
political philosophers? We have;; Kong Zi, Lao Zi, Zhuang
Zi, Meng Zi, Shang Yang, Xun Zi to name a few.
Thus, we have seen that philosophizing,
traditionally speaking, could mean: a methodic exercise
of the faculty of intuition (with the use of mantra,
concentration or meditation) for the transcendental
grasp of the Absolute;; a methodic exercise of the faculty
 
 
of reason (with the use of logical paradigm) for the
attainment of ontological or epistemic truths;; or the
methodic exeUFLVH RI SUDFWLFDO UHDVRQ EDVHG RQ OLIH·V
experience) for the practical ability of man to live in
dignity as a moral person.
The nobility of traditional philosophizing rests
LQWKHWKLQNHUV·VLQFHULW\H[KDXVWLYHQHVVDQGRULJLQDOLW\
in their approach to their philosophical end.
Philosophers following these three ancient traditions are
nothing but footnotes as far as their end and the use of
their faculty are concerned.
The 18th and 19th centuries saw the cross-
cultural contact among these three ageless traditions.
Philosophical works of various cultures were translated
and people started to see things from different lights.
The initial experience was shattering and even
abhorrent. It was not surprising that G.W.F. Hegel failed
to see philosophy in the east and with, sardonic pride,
declared flatly that philosophy was a monopoly of the
West! It was Schopenhauer who saw the wisdom in
Indian thought and Leibniz who perceived the
superiority of Chinese moral wisdom. Regrettably,
Schopenhauer saw the wisdom of Indian thought but
failed to experience the light;; while Leibniz appreciated
the moral Truth of the Art of living but failed to
experience its beauty, righteousness, humanity and
decorum.

4XHVWLRQVIRU)XUWKHU'LVFXVVLRQ

 :KDWLVWKHUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQSKLORVRSK\
DQGWKHVWXG\RIKXPDQQDWXUH"
 :KDWGRHVLWPHDQWRVD\WKDWSKLORVRSKLFDO
H[SUHVVLRQVDUHFXOWXUHERXQG"
 :KDW DUH WKH WKUHH DQFLHQW H[SUHVVLRQV RI
SKLORVRSK\ DQG KRZ DUH WKH\ UHODWHG WR WKH
KXPDQSHUVRQ"
 +RZ DUH WKH WKUHH DQFLHQW H[SUHVVLRQV RI
SKLORVRSK\UHOHYDQWWRGD\"
 :K\ LV WKH KXPDQ EHLQJ D XQLYHUVDO
SKHQRPHQRQ"