 If we designate an area of philosophical inquiry concerned with the ultimate nature of reality—its being, origins, components, ways of changing, and so on—there is no question that Chinese philosophers addressed issues within this domain. The question is, do we apply the label of “metaphysics” to philosophical arguments within this domain, or do we reserve the label for some specifically European approach or theory. The latter faces an obvious problem—any definition broad enough to include all European approaches will include some Chinese theories, just as any definition narrow enough to exclude all Chinese approaches will exclude some European philosophers that everyone would agree addressed metaphysics. The choice of definitions is as much about rhetoric and power as the facts. If “metaphysics” labels the broader domain, then studying metaphysics involves engaging other cultures, and an SEP entry on “Metaphysics” that discussed only ideas derived from Europe would be biased and partial. In contrast, if “metaphysics” labels a specifically European view, then courses, books, and encyclopedia entries on metaphysics legitimately exclude other cultures. Aside from the political consequences of that exclusion, it obscures the many areas in which the traditions can be placed in fruitful dialogue. Those factors support using an expansive definition of metaphysics. While applying “metaphysics” to both European and Chinese thought is more inclusive, it risks obscuring the differences between the two. More insidiously, it erodes these differences by presenting Chinese philosophy in European terms. That is a legitimate worry, but I think the greater danger is in ignoring what Chinese Philosophy might contribute to discussions of metaphysics.