 From the viewpoint of these dichotomies, the semantic duality of qing becomes puzzling or confusing. However, if, as Hansen argues, Chinese philosophy does not subscribe the dichotomies of subjectivity-objectivity and emotion-reason, one can find a way to combine the two meanings of qing in a consistent and meaningful manner. Following this unique Chinese approach to language, mind and action, Hansen explains how different meanings of qing coexist in Chinese philosophy. According to him (1995: 196), qing, in early Chinese philosophy, should be understood as “the inputs from reality” or “reality induced discrimination or distinction-making reactions” such as dark-light, left-right, sweet-sour-salty-bitter, and high-low pitch. That is, qing refers to the inputs from our reaction or interaction with reality. From this broad meaning of qing, one can understand, as Hansen argues, how qing is discussed in early Chinese texts. On the basis of this interpretation of qing, he argues that the semantic transition from qingreality to qingemotion can be explained by the introduction of Buddhism to Chinese philosophy. He (1995: 183) states that 