关于“历史”与“文明”的考辩

原文：

文明历史，文明之历史耶？历史之文明耶？

历史者，以历为纲而史记也。史者，初为官名，如柱下史，主记日月星象天气运行迹，以明其道，制历法天之术也；柱者，观象所凭器也，史者，记象所掌职者。天行有道，人行有常，典言册行，亦明其道也，是以经天纬地，以历为纲，记人言行，名曰历史，鉴诸历史，以期察明人道，此历史之义。故当名实相应，是必现言现记、现行现记，直书不评，记而万世不可更易，以保其真，以警后来。先圣遗立此法，不可不谓德披万世之大爱也。

近世西学东渐，History一词入华，学者取意相似之“历史”一词，意译对应。“History”一词初源原始印欧语 *weid-（看见，知晓），与英语“vision”（视觉）、“idea”（观念）同源。核心逻辑：“看见”即“知晓”，历史最初是智者通过观察和调查对事件的叙述。

希腊词进入拉丁语为 historia，意为“对过去事件的记录或故事”。基督纪12世纪古法语吸收为 estoire/estorie（故事、编年史），基督纪14世纪晚期传入中古英语，拼写演变为 history，但仍与 story（故事）混用，均指向“叙述性文本”。

“history”的语义经历了从模糊叙述到专业学科的清晰化过程：中古英语时期（基督纪14–15世纪）：叙述与记录不分，指代广义的“事件叙述”，不分真实或虚构（如“a history of knights”可指骑士传说或史实）。与 story 同源同义，二者均源自拉丁语 historia，后因开头的“hi-”脱落分化出 story。

基督纪15世纪晚期：历史作为“真实记录”的确立，伴随文艺复兴对古典文献的重视，“history”逐渐专指 基于证据的过去事件记录，如国家编年史、战争记载。

“History”词源强调 个体智者（histōr）的视角，依赖调查与见证，隐含主观性。如希罗多德《历史》自称“探究”（inquiries），实不适与“历史”译意对应也，其本无“历”之意，亦尤指事后考证之事也，实非历史也。然，“History”自含于“历史”成其一部而非全部也，可以“Celestial-Human Canon Veridicus”译“历史”也。

所谓文明，众人明了文而近道也。文者，初义指纹，古先觉者，自觉比类画纹，取象诸道，故曰象也，申义如坟、卦、符、字、书契之类，皆道之彰显，故明了文，文教昌明，则近道也，是谓文明。《易·象》云：“见龙在田，天下文明。”圣人现，行文教，化蛮民使性智而知理，言行有节，自如应变，以近于道，是为文化，天下文即明也。《易·贲·彖传》云：“贲，亨；柔来而文刚，故亨。分刚上而文柔，故小利有攸往。天文也；文明以止，人文也。观乎天文，以察时变；观乎人文，以化成天下。”自觉观察自然规律，使人能察觉环境而应变自如；自觉观察社会规律，使人能通过教化而成就“天下”，故众人言行节秩有度，明了一切，理智行事，通达情理，社会发达且和谐，即近大道也。

《三皇》云：“谨按：《易》称：‘古者伏羲氏之王天下也，仰则观象于天，俯则观法于地，始作八卦，以通神明之德，以类万物之情。结绳为网罟，以田以渔。伏羲氏没，神农氏作，斫木为耜，揉木为耒，耒耜之利，以教天下。日中为市，致天下之民，通其变，使民不倦，神而化之，使民宜之。’唯独叙二皇，不及遂人。遂人功重于祝融、女娲，文明文见。《大传》之义斯近之矣。”遂人之功，何言曰“遂人功重于祝融、女娲，文明见(现)。”也？《韩非子·五蠹》云：“上古之世，民食果蓏蚌蛤，腥臊恶臭而伤害腹胃，民多疾病。有圣人作，钻燧取火，以化腥臊，炮生为熟，令人无腹疾，有异于禽兽。而民说之，使王天下，号之曰燧人氏。”遂人之功，重在使人有异于禽兽也，此人族之所生也，文明之萌发也。遂人钻木，启于䴕，此察自然之理也；自觉而钻遂，此自我发展之意识萌生，文明之端也；化生为熟，异于禽兽，此功之所重于后也。

自西学东传，“civilization”译曰“文明”。“civilization”源于拉丁语“civilis”，其词根为“civis”，意为“公民”，申意为“civitas”，“城邦”之意也，后缀“-lis”表所属，故“civilis”意为“属于公民的”。基督历18世纪初，法国启蒙思想家首将拉丁语词根化为新词 “civilization”（约基督纪1756 年见于文献），指“人类社会从野蛮到有序的进步状态”。Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot作《人类心灵进步史表纲要》，以“civilization”述社会发展阶段；伏尔泰对比 “文明”（civilisation）与“野蛮”（barbarie），强调理性与艺术价值，作《风俗论》。基督纪1770 年代，英国始用 “civilization”（英式），美国受诺亚・韦伯斯特《美国英语词典》（1828 年）影响，渐用 “civilization”（省略 “s”，简化拼写），亚当・斯密在《国富论》（基督纪1776 年）中用 “civilization” 讨论商业对社会进步作用；爱德华・吉本在《罗马帝国衰亡史》（基督纪1776-1788）中用该词指罗马帝国之文化成就。

词源本质以 “公民社会的秩序” 为本，隐含对 “有序 / 无序”“文明 / 野蛮” 之二元划分。此隐喻在启蒙运动时期与 “理性战胜蒙昧” 之叙事结合，为西方中心主义世界观之重要工具（如将非欧洲文明视为 “未开化”）。基督纪19 世纪末以来，人类学等学科对 “civilization”的普世性提出质疑：埃米尔・涂尔干指出“civilization”是多元文化的产物，而非单一进步链条；当代学者如爱德华・萨义德（《东方学》）批判“civilization”概念曾被用于殖民话语，强化西方优越性。如今，“civilization”更多被理解为“特定社会的文化复合体”（如 “Chinese civilization”“Maya civilization”），弱化了 “进步论” 色彩，强调文化多样性。

如是可知，“civilization”本无“文”之义，亦无“明”之义，何以为“文明”之译也？然“文明”自括“civilization”之义也，文教昌明，则人得解自然之理而善造诸论诸物，以使社会发达；则人得解万物之规律而自如应变、举止有节，以使社会和谐文明昌盛。社会发达而和谐，非止圣王私民，亦可大众公民，俱可近道也，“civilization”仅其一义也。自近世“鸦片通商”之战以降，文教衰微，以西代华之风日盛，于今至极也。何谓“以西代华”？西学东来，学人以华译西，止于意似，非深通文教者，无以义通，但以西学为准，反校华义，颠倒行事，失却本义，障蔽道理，文遂暗矣！由是观之，“以西代华”之风荼毒久矣，非一字一词之流弊，实已深入骨血，满目疮痍，实因西学重形失本之性始然，确非东西方所之异、种族立场之情也。《楞严咒》等不以意译，其为避此祸耶？可以“Illumined Actualization”译“文明”耶？

观今之世，常言某某文明者当何解了？若曰“中华文明”，指中华社群也，若不文明，亦无可知其名曰中华也。是以独特之式而文明也，以地域之所属名其式曰中华而冠名也，实全称曰中华地域式文明社群也，他者同也。今论“以西代华”之风，实非以华论西也，道本如是，东西同一道故，自然化成，其言“以西代华”，实质“以西代道”也。

解释：

“历史”一词，是以历法为纲领、记录史实的学问。“史”字，最初是一种官职名称，例如“柱下史”，其职责是记录日月星辰的运行轨迹、天象气象的变化，目的在于阐明天道运行的规律，制定观测天象、推算岁时节候的方法。“柱”是观测天象所凭借的仪器，“史”则是掌管记录这些天象的官职。天道运行有其法则，人事活动也有其规律，记录典章制度、重要言论、行为规范，同样是为了阐明这些法则。因此，贯通天地，以历法为纲领，记录人的言行，就称之为“历史”。借鉴历史，是为了期望能够察明人道的规律，这就是“历史”一词的根本含义。所以，要做到名实相符，必须即时记录当下的言论、当下的行为，如实记载不加评议，所记录的史实历经万代也不能更改，以保证其真实性，并警示后人。先代圣贤创立这一方法，不能不说是泽被万世的仁德大爱。

近代以来，西学东渐，“History”一词传入中国。学者们选取含义相近的“历史”一词作为其意译对应。“History”一词最初源于原始印欧语词根 *weid-，意为“看见”、“知晓”，与英语单词“vision”、“idea”同源。其核心逻辑是：“看见”即等同于“知晓”。历史最初是智者通过观察和调查，对事件的叙述。

该词进入希腊语，再进入拉丁语成为“historia”，意为“对过去事件的记录或故事”。基督纪12世纪，古法语吸收了该词，拼写为“estoire/estorie”。基督纪14世纪晚期，传入中古英语，拼写演变为“history”，但仍与“story”混用，两者都指向“叙述性文本”。

“history”的语义经历了从模糊叙述到专业学科的清晰化过程：基督纪14至15世纪的中古英语时期，叙述与记录不分，泛指广义的“事件叙述”，不区分真实或虚构。此时与“story”同源同义，二者均源自拉丁语“historia”，后来因“hi-”脱落分化出“story”。基督纪15世纪晚期，随着文艺复兴对古典文献的重视，“history”逐渐专指“基于证据的过去事件记录”，如国家编年史、战争记载。

“History”的词源强调个体智者的视角，依赖调查与见证，隐含主观性。例如希罗多德的《历史》自称是“探究”。这个词源含义实际上与中文“历史”的译意并不完全对应，它本身没有历法的含义，尤其侧重于事后的考证，严格来说并非中文原义的“历史”。然而，“History”的含义可以包含在中文的“历史”概念之中，成为其一部分而非全部。或许可以将中文“历史”意译为“Celestial-Human Canon Veridicus”。

所谓“文明”，是指众人明了“文”的含义并接近大道的状态。“文”字，最初指纹理。古代的觉悟者，自觉地类比、描画纹理，从各种现象中提取象征符号，所以称为“象”。其引申的含义如“坟”、“卦”、“符”、“字”、“书契”之类，都是“道”的彰显。因此，明了“文”的含义，文教昌盛，就能接近大道，这就称为“文明”。《周易·乾卦·象传》说：“见龙在田，天下文明。”圣人显现于世，施行文德教化，感化粗野之民使其开启智慧、知晓事理，言行有节度，自然能应对变化，从而接近大道，这就是“文化”。天下因文教而光明普照。《周易·贲卦·彖传》说：“贲卦，亨通；阴柔来文饰阳刚，所以亨通。阳刚分居上位而文饰阴柔，所以小有利益而有所前往。这是天文；人文明而有节度，是人文。观察天文，用以察知时序的变化；观察人文，用以教化而成就天下。”自觉观察自然规律，使人能察觉环境变化而自如应对；自觉观察社会规律，使人能通过教化而成就“天下”。因此，众人的言行有秩序、有法度，通晓事理，理智行事，通达情理，社会发达且和谐，这就是接近大道。

《三皇》记载：“谨按：《周易》说：‘古时伏羲氏治理天下，仰头观察天上的星象，俯身观察地上的法则，始创八卦，用以贯通神明的德性，用以类比万物的情状。结绳制成网罟，用于打猎捕鱼。伏羲氏去世后，神农氏兴起，砍削木头做成犁头，弯曲木头做成犁柄，将耒耜的便利，教给天下人。正午时分开设集市，招引天下的民众，互通有无，使民众乐于交易不觉厌倦，神奇地感化他们，使民众感到适宜。’这里只叙述了伏羲、神农二皇，没有提到燧人氏。燧人氏的功绩比祝融、女娲更重要，文明由此显现。”《大传》的含义与此很接近。那么，为什么说“燧人功重于祝融、女娲，文明见”？《韩非子·五蠹》说：“上古时代，民众吃野果、瓜类、蚌蛤，腥臊恶臭而且伤害肠胃，民众多生疾病。有位圣人出现，钻木取火，用来消除腥臊，把生的食物烤熟，使人们不再得肠胃病，这使人与禽兽有了区别。民众爱戴他，让他统治天下，称他为燧人氏。”燧人氏的功绩，关键在于使人类区别于禽兽，这是人类真正诞生的标志，也是文明的萌芽。燧人氏钻木取火，启发于䴕鸟啄木的行为，这是观察自然之理；自觉地去钻木，这是自我发展意识的萌生，是文明的发端；将生食变为熟食，区别于禽兽，这就是他功绩重于后世圣王的原因。

自西学传入东方，“civilization”被译为“文明”。“Civilization”源于拉丁语“civilis”，其词根是“civis”，意为“公民”，引申为“civitas”，意为“城邦”。后缀“-lis”表示所属关系，因此“civilis”意为“属于公民的”。基督纪18世纪初，法国启蒙思想家首次将这个词根创造为新词“civilization”，指“人类社会从野蛮状态向有序状态的进步过程”。安妮-罗贝尔-雅克·杜尔哥撰写《人类心灵进步史表纲要》，用“civilization”描述社会发展阶段；伏尔泰对比“文明”与“野蛮”，强调理性与艺术的价值，著有《风俗论》。基督纪1770年代，英国开始使用“civilization”。受诺亚·韦伯斯特《美国英语词典》影响，美国逐渐采用“civilization”。亚当·斯密在《国富论》中用“civilization”讨论商业对社会进步的推动作用；爱德华·吉本在《罗马帝国衰亡史》中用该词指代罗马帝国的文化成就。

该词的词源本质是以“公民社会的秩序”为核心，隐含对“有序/无序”、“文明/野蛮”的二元划分。这种隐喻在启蒙运动时期与“理性战胜蒙昧”的叙事相结合，成为西方中心主义世界观的重要工具。基督纪19世纪末以来，人类学等学科对“civilization”的普世性提出质疑：埃米尔·涂尔干指出“civilization”是多元文化互动的产物，而非单一线性进步链条的结果；当代学者如爱德华·萨义德批判“civilization”概念曾被用于殖民话语，强化西方优越性。如今，“civilization”更多被理解为“特定社会的文化复合体”，弱化了“进步论”色彩，强调文化多样性。

由此可知，“civilization”一词本身并无“文”的含义，也没有“明”的含义，为何能作为“文明”的翻译？然而中文的“文明”一词本身就涵盖了“civilization”的含义：文教昌盛，人们就能理解自然规律，善于创造各种理论和技术，从而使社会发达；人们就能理解万物的规律，自如应对变化、举止有节，从而使社会和谐、文明昌盛。社会发达而和谐，并非仅限于圣王的臣民，也可以是大众公民，都能接近大道。而“civilization”仅仅表达了其中的一个方面。自近代“鸦片战争”以来，中华文教衰微，以西方学说取代中华学术的风气日益兴盛，至今已达极致。什么是“以西代华”？西学东来，学人用中文翻译西学，往往只求表面意思相似。若非深通中华文教精髓者，无法做到意义贯通，反而以西方学术为标准，反过来校正、框定中华学术的含义，本末倒置，丧失了中华概念的本义，遮蔽了根本道理，文化的光明因此暗淡！由此看来，“以西代华”的风气毒害已久，并非个别字词翻译不当的小问题，实际上已深入骨髓血脉，造成严重创伤。究其根本，实因西方学术重外在形式而迷失根本的特性所致，确实并非东西方本质差异或种族立场问题。佛经如《楞严咒》等采用音译而非意译，是否就是为了避免这种祸患？或许可以将中文“文明”意译为“Illumined Actualization”？

观察当今世界，常说的“某某文明”应当如何理解？例如说“中华文明”，指的是中华社群。如果它不“文明”，也就不能称其为“中华”了。因此，是指以一种独特的方式实现了“文明”，根据其地域归属将其方式命名为“中华”，并冠以“文明”之名。其完整含义实为“中华地域式文明社群”，其他文明命名方式也类似。如今讨论“以西代华”之风，其实质并非用中华学术来讨论西方。根本道理原本如此，东西方遵循的是同一个根本之道，自然化育而成。所谓“以西代华”，实质是“以西代道”，即以西方学术框架和标准取代了对普遍根本之道的探究与遵循。

TRANSLATION:

An Examination of "History" and "Civilization"The History of Civilization? Or the Civilization of History?The Original Meaning of "History" (历史 Lìshǐ)

The term "history" (历史) refers to the study that takes the calendar (历法 lìfǎ) as its guiding principle to record historical facts. The character "史" (shǐ) originally denoted an official title, such as "柱下史" (Zhùxià Shǐ, Archivist Under the Pillar), whose duty was to record the trajectories of the sun, moon, and stars, changes in celestial phenomena and weather. The purpose was to elucidate the laws governing the operation of the cosmos and to establish methods for observing celestial phenomena and calculating seasons. The "Pillar" (柱) was the instrument used for celestial observation, and the "Historian" (史) was the official responsible for recording these phenomena. The movement of heaven follows its principles; human activities also have their patterns. Recording institutions, important words, and norms of behavior similarly served to elucidate these principles. Therefore, connecting heaven and earth, using the calendar as the guiding principle, and recording human words and deeds is called "history" (历史). Consulting history aims to discern the patterns of human affairs. This is the fundamental meaning of "history". To achieve correspondence between name and reality, it was essential to record contemporary words as they were spoken, contemporary actions as they occurred, writing directly without commentary. The recorded facts must remain unalterable for all ages to ensure their authenticity and to warn posterity. The ancient sages established this method; it must be said to be a great benevolence bestowing grace upon ten thousand generations.

The Western Origin and Chinese Translation of "History"

In modern times, with the eastward spread of Western learning, the word "History" entered China. Scholars selected the conceptually similar Chinese term "历史" (lìshǐ) as its semantic equivalent. The word "History" originates from the Proto-Indo-European root *weid- (to see, to know), sharing the same root as English words "vision" and "idea". Its core logic is: "to see" is equivalent to "to know". History was initially the narration of events by wise individuals through observation and investigation.

The word entered Greek, then Latin as "historia", meaning "a record or story of past events". In the Christ Era 12th century, Old French adopted it as "estoire/estorie". In the late Christ Era 14th century, it entered Middle English, evolving into the spelling "history", but it was still used interchangeably with "story", both referring to "narrative texts".

The semantics of "history" underwent a process of clarification from vague narration to a specialized discipline: During the Middle English period (Christ Era 14th-15th centuries), narration and record-keeping were not distinguished; it broadly referred to the "narration of events", without distinguishing between truth and fiction. At this time, it was synonymous and cognate with "story", both derived from Latin "historia". Later, the loss of the initial "hi-" led to the differentiation of "story". By the late Christ Era 15th century, with the Renaissance's emphasis on classical texts, "history" gradually specialized to mean "a record of past events based on evidence", such as national chronicles, war accounts.

The etymology of "History" emphasizes the perspective of the individual wise person (histōr), relying on investigation and witness, implying subjectivity. For example, Herodotus' "Histories" calls itself "Inquiries". This etymological meaning does not fully correspond to the Chinese translation "历史". It inherently lacks the meaning of "calendar" (历法), and particularly emphasizes post-event verification. Strictly speaking, it is not the original Chinese "history". However, the meaning of "History" can be encompassed within the Chinese concept of "历史", forming a part of it, not the whole. Perhaps the Chinese "历史" could be semantically translated as "Celestial-Human Canon Veridicus".

The so-called "civilization" (文明) refers to a state where the multitude understands the meaning of "文" (wén, patterns/culture) and approaches the Great Dao (道 Dào). The character "文" originally referred to patterns or textures. Ancient enlightened individuals consciously imitated and depicted patterns, extracting symbolic signs from various phenomena. Hence, it was called "image" (象). Its extended meanings include "ancient texts" (坟), "hexagrams" (卦), "talismans" (符), "characters" (字), and "written contracts" (书契), all being manifestations of the Dao. Therefore, understanding "文", with culture and education flourishing, allows one to approach the Dao. This is called "civilization". The *Yi Jing* (Book of Changes), "Xiang Zhuan" on the Qian hexagram, states: "The dragon appears in the field; all under heaven become cultured and enlightened." When the sage appears in the world, implements cultural and virtuous education, transforming the crude populace, enabling them to open their wisdom and understand principles, their words and deeds become measured, naturally able to respond to changes, thus approaching the Dao. This is "culture" (文化 wénhuà). All under heaven become illuminated through cultural education. The *Yi Jing*, "Tuan Zhuan" on the Bi hexagram, states: "Bi denotes ornamentation; there is progress and success. The weak comes and ornaments the strong; hence there is progress and success. The strong is divided above and ornaments the weak; hence it is advantageous to have somewhere to go. This is the ornamentation of Heaven. When culture is bright and restrained, this is the ornamentation of Man. Contemplate the ornamentation of Heaven to observe the changes of the seasons; contemplate the ornamentation of Man to transform all under heaven." Consciously observing the patterns of nature enables humans to perceive environmental changes and respond flexibly; consciously observing the patterns of society enables humans to achieve "all under heaven" through education. Therefore, the words and deeds of the multitude become orderly and measured, comprehending all matters, acting rationally, understanding reason and emotion, society becomes developed and harmonious. This is approaching the Great Dao.

The *San Huang* (Three Sovereigns) records: "Carefully examined: The *Yi Jing* states: 'In ancient times, when Fuxi ruled all under heaven, he looked up and contemplated the images in heaven; he looked down and contemplated the patterns on earth. He began creating the eight trigrams to comprehend the virtues of the divine and luminous and to classify the conditions of the myriad things. He knotted cords to make nets for hunting and fishing. After Fuxi passed away, Shennong arose. He cut wood to make plowshares and bent wood to make plow handles. He taught the benefits of the plow and hoe to all under heaven. He established markets at midday, gathering the people of all under heaven, exchanging goods to meet their needs, causing the people not to weary, transforming them spiritually, making things suitable for them.' It only mentions the two sovereigns, Fuxi and Shennong, not Suiren. Suiren's achievements are more significant than Zhurong and Nüwa; civilization appears here." The meaning of the *Da Zhuan* (Great Commentary) is close to this. Why then does it say "Suiren's achievements are more significant than Zhurong and Nüwa; civilization appears"? The *Han Feizi*, "Five Vermin", states: "In high antiquity, the people ate fruit, melons, clams, and mussels; the rank and putrid smells harmed their stomachs and bowels, and the people suffered many illnesses. A sage arose; he drilled wood to produce fire to transform the rank and putrid, cooking the raw to make it cooked, relieving people of stomach ailments, making them different from birds and beasts. The people were pleased with him and made him king over all under heaven, calling him Suiren Shi." Suiren Shi's achievement lies crucially in making humans distinct from birds and beasts. This marks the true birth of humanity and the sprouting of civilization. Suiren drilling wood, inspired by the owl's pecking, demonstrates observing the principles of nature; consciously drilling wood signifies the sprouting of self-development consciousness, the beginning of civilization; transforming the woodpecker into cooked food, distinguishing humans from beasts – this is why his achievements are weightier than those of later sage-kings.

Since Western learning spread eastward, "civilization" has been translated as "文明" (wénmíng). "Civilization" originates from the Latin "civilis", whose root is "civis" (citizen), extended to "civitas" (city-state). The suffix "-lis" indicates belonging, so "civilis" means "belonging to citizens". In the early Christ Era 18th century, French Enlightenment thinkers first formed the new word "civilization" (documented around Christ Era 1756), meaning "the progressive state of human society from barbarism to order". Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot wrote the *Outline of a Plan for a Work on Political Geography*, using "civilization" to describe stages of social development; Voltaire contrasted "civilisation" with "barbarie", emphasizing reason and the value of the arts, authoring the *Essay on Universal History*. In the Christ Era 1770s, Britain began using "civilization". Influenced by Noah Webster's *An American Dictionary of the English Language* (Christ Era 1828), America gradually adopted "civilization" (omitting the 's'). Adam Smith used "civilization" in *The Wealth of Nations* (Christ Era 1776) to discuss commerce's role in social progress; Edward Gibbon used the term in *The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire* (Christ Era 1776-1788) to denote the cultural achievements of the Roman Empire.

The essence of its etymology centers on "the order of civil society", implying a binary division between "order/disorder" and "civilized/barbaric". This metaphor, combined with the Enlightenment narrative of "reason conquering ignorance", became an important tool for a Eurocentric worldview (e.g., viewing non-European civilizations as "uncivilized"). Since the late Christ Era 19th century, disciplines like anthropology have questioned the universality of "civilization": Émile Durkheim pointed out that "civilization" is the product of multicultural interaction, not a single linear progression; contemporary scholars like Edward Said (*Orientalism*) criticized the concept of "civilization" as used in colonial discourse to reinforce Western superiority. Today, "civilization" is more often understood as "the cultural complex of a specific society" (e.g., "Chinese civilization", "Maya civilization"), downplaying the "progress theory" and emphasizing cultural diversity.

Reflection on the Translation of "Civilization" and "Replacing China with the West"

From this, we see that the word "civilization" inherently lacks the meaning of "文" (patterns/culture) or "明" (illumination/clarity). Why then was it translated as "文明"? However, the Chinese term "文明" itself encompasses the meaning of "civilization": with culture and education flourishing, people can understand the principles of nature, skillfully create various theories and technologies, thereby developing society; people can understand the patterns of all things, respond flexibly and act with propriety, thereby making society harmonious and civilization prosperous. A society that is developed and harmonious is not limited to the subjects of sage-kings; it can also include the masses of citizens – all can approach the Dao. "Civilization" expresses only one aspect of this. Since the modern "Opium War", Chinese cultural education has declined, and the trend of "replacing China with the West" (以西代华 Yǐ Xī Dài Huá) has increasingly prevailed, reaching its peak today. What is "replacing China with the West"? Western learning came east; scholars translated Western concepts into Chinese, often stopping at superficial similarity. Without deep mastery of Chinese cultural education, they could not achieve semantic coherence. Instead, taking Western learning as the standard, they reversed course to correct and frame the meanings of Chinese scholarship, putting the cart before the horse. This led to the loss of the original meanings of Chinese concepts, obscuring fundamental principles, and causing the light of culture to dim! Viewed thus, the trend of "replacing China with the West" has been deeply poisonous for a long time. It is not merely the flaw of individual word translations; it has penetrated deep into the bone marrow, leaving a scene of devastation. At its root, this is caused by the nature of Western learning, which emphasizes form and loses the essence. It is indeed not a matter of inherent East-West difference or racial standpoint. Were Buddhist scriptures like the *Shurangama Mantra* transliterated rather than semantically translated to avoid this calamity? Perhaps the Chinese "文明" could be semantically translated as "Illumined Actualization"?

The Meaning of "Such-and-Such Civilization" Today and the Essence of "Replacing China with the West"

Observing today's world, how should we understand the commonly used phrase "such-and-such civilization"? For example, "Chinese civilization" refers to the Chinese community. If it were not "civilized", it could not be called "Chinese". Therefore, it signifies achieving "civilization" in a unique way, named "Chinese" based on its geographical affiliation, and crowned with the name "civilization". Its full meaning is actually "a civilized community in the Chinese regional style"; other civilizations are named similarly. The current discussion on the trend of "replacing China with the West" is not essentially about using Chinese scholarship to discuss the West. The fundamental principle (道 Dào) is originally thus; East and West follow the same fundamental Dao, naturally formed and transformed. What is termed "replacing China with the West" is, in essence, "replacing the Dao with the West" (以西代道 Yǐ Xī Dài Dào) – substituting the Western academic framework and standards for the exploration and adherence to the universal fundamental Dao.