天學問答 - Argumentative Text Against Catholicism by Korean Scholar An Chŏngbok 安鼎福 from 1790 AD) - Part 5

Link to Part One of the translation

Link to Part Two of the translation

Link to Part Three of the translation

Link to Part Four of the translation

或曰現世後世之說可得聞乎

My interlocutor asked: “Could you inform me about what is said about the current life and the afterlife?”

曰現世者卽今吾生現在之世後世者死後靈神不滅善者受天堂萬世之快樂惡者受地獄萬世之虐刑是也

[I] answered: “The current life is simply the life that one is currently living. The afterlife concerns the spirit that does not expire after [one’s physical] death. A good person would [in the afterlife] enjoy delights in Heaven incessantly, while an evil person is [then] to undergo tortuous punishments in Hell eternally.”

或曰吾子以現世爲重果不違於吾中國聖人之敎無可改評其所謂靈神不死及堂獄之說亦實然無疑乎

My conversation partner remarked: “[You,] my teacher,¹ consider the current life as the most important topic, and therefore you do not contravene the teachings of our [ancient] Chinese sages. This cannot be disputed. But isn’t the claim that [one’s] spirit is immortal and will end up in [either] Heaven [or] Hell also unquestionably true?”

曰是不可以質言於無形慌惚之事而以理推 之以經書之所言傳記之所記言之似不難知矣

[I] replied: “This is such an intangible topic marred by delusional thinking, which cannot be talked about in a grounded manner. If [we,] however, examine the matter by using proper principles, by referring to what our fundamental scriptures and historical records state about it, then we may become more knowledgeable without [too much] trouble! (…)

我輩學孔子者也但以子路問孔子之事言之子路問事鬼子曰未知事人焉知事鬼問死曰未知生焉知死聖人所答糢糊不分明其不幾於囫圇呑棗乎子路是聖門高弟異於新學後進今此之問似當曰人之生全受天主生養之德當以事天主爲工人之死。雖肉身凘滅靈神長存生時善惡死後靈神受堂獄之報以此明白言之則豈不痛快乎設有是事聖人之意不過不語怪神而然矣况未必可知乎若然則聖人之學異於天主救世之學聖人法天則豈有違 天而行敎乎此吾所以斥之爲異學也

(…) Confucius, whom we all have studied, discussed the subject [of afterlife] only once, on account of questions posed [to him] by Zǐ Lù (子路). Zǐ Lù asked Confucius about [his opinion on] serving ghosts. Confucius responded that we do not yet know how to serve people, so how would we know how to serve ghosts? When asked about [his opinion on] death, he replied that since we would not yet know life, how are we supposed to know death? The answer given by the sage is elusive and not clear-cut: Could he perhaps even mean that [his disciple] should simply accept that he could not grasp it yet, and gloss it over for the moment?² [But] Zǐ Lù was, among Confucius’ students, a highly esteemed disciple, very much different from a mere pupil at the very beginning of his studies. Thus it would have seemed appropriate [to answer Zǐ Lù’s question on ghosts and death] by saying: “Man, during his entire life, receives the grace of the Heavenly Lord’s sustenance. He [therefore] should do [good] deeds in order to serve the Heavenly Lord. When man dies, only [his] physical body withers away, [while his] soul shall remain for a long time. Depending on whether he has been good or bad in his lifetime, after death his spirit will receive either the reward of Heaven, or the punishment of Hell.” What great satisfaction would he have given [Zǐ Lù], had he given such a clear answer! [I] assume[, however,] that this conversation [along with Confucius’ evasive answer] took place precisely because of the sage’s wish not to break the principle of not dwelling on wondrous and mysterious matters. It³ is moreover not even necessarily something that can be known! The teaching of [our Confucian] sages is therefore [fundamentally] different from the teaching that claims that the Heavenly Lord is the world’s Saviour. [Our Confucian] sages take Heaven to be [the source of] laws, so how could there possibly be anything that would go against Heaven while putting [the Confucian sages’] precepts into action? This is the reason why I denounce it⁴ for being a heterodox teaching.”

或曰西士之斥現世不過其學異也子何斥之甚邪

My conversation partner said: “The fact that the Western scholars reject this current world, is nothing more than a [slight] difference in their teachings [as compared to ours]. Why do you, sir, spurn it⁵ so extremely?!”

曰吾何甚但明其不然而已吾生也旣生此現世則當盡現世之事如上所云有何更加之工乎

[I] said: “How am I extreme?! I merely explain how they are wrong, that is all! As for our lives [I say the following]: Now that we have already been born into this current world, we ought to carry out the tasks [we find] in this world as well and thoroughly as possible. What more, on top on what has been said before, can be done? (…)

試以西士之言言之其言曰今世勞苦世也又曰現世暫世也又曰現世非人世也禽獸之所本處也又曰此世禽獸世也是以其國有賢士黑臘者恒笑笑世人之逐虛物也德牧者恒哭哭因憐之耳

(…) [I] shall endeavour to express it in the words used by the Western scholars. They claim that this world is a world of toil and sorrow, and they also maintain that the current world is a temporary one. They furthermore say that the current world is not a world of men, but rather the habitat actually meant for beasts, saying: “This world is the world of beasts.” Therefore a wise man of their [Western] lands, Heraclitus,⁶ constantly laughed: He laughed at the people having their vain material pursuits [in a world that afforded them only a temporary stay]. Democritus⁷[, on the other hand,] constantly cried: The reason of his weeping was that he felt sorry for them.⁸ (…)

此獨西士知之乎大禹曰生寄死歸後人莫不以此世爲逆旅則豈長久可戀之物乎其言則是而但所謂禽獸世者大不然

(…) But is this something only Western scholars are familiar with? The great [legendary ruler] Yǔ (禹) said: “Life is but for a short while, then we die and return.” If all people who came [after him] considered this world but a place to sojourn at, then how could there be anything worthy of being eternally cherished? Though their⁹ words may be [generally] true, at least what is called “a world for beasts” [implying that this world is actually not meant for mankind] is definitely a falsehood. (…)

惟我上帝造此三界巍然而天尊於上頹然而地處於下陽氣下降陰氣上升氤氳交媾萬物化生上帝以其得氣質之最淸淑者命之爲人參爲三才指天而曰天指地而曰地萬物之可畜者畜之可殺者殺之可用者用之莫非吾人宰成輔相之道

(…) Indeed, our Supreme Deity created these Three Realms. What was majestic and celestial was aloft, what was forlorn and belonged to the earth was below. Currents of yáng 陽 energy flowed downward, flows of yīn 陰 energy rose upward. The various energy streams interacted with each other, [as a result of which] manifold things and beings came into being. The Supreme Deity [then] took the energy [thus] obtained which was the purest in quality, and ordered it to become Human. He made sure that Human’s forehead, nose, and chin were well aligned. [Then] He pointed at Heaven and said: “Heaven.” He pointed at the earth and said: “Earth.” What among all the things and beings could be cultivated, [mankind] cultivated, what could be slaughtered, [mankind] slaughtered, and what could be used, [mankind] used. Our people have always perfected the way of good governance.¹⁰ (…)

今曰禽獸之所本處曰禽獸世者其果成說乎其說之妄不必多卞而愚者惑焉何哉若如西士之說則其流也必以不生爲善若使人類盡滅則天地之間空蕩爲禽獸之塲乎

(…) But now, what does all this talk about this world meant for beasts and a world of beasts in fact entail? Its delusional thinking behind these claims may not necessarily be a very pressing matter, but some foolish people may still, regrettably, fall for it! From the Western scholars’ position on this world it must logically follow that not being alive [in this world, which is meant for beasts] is to be considered a good thing. Should one let the people completely become extinct, then what a empty, desolate place, dwelled by beasts alone, will the space between Heaven and Earth be!”

1. Here I take 吾子 (which may be more literally translated as “my teacher,” “my teachers,” “our teacher,” or “our teachers”) to actually refer to the other conversation partner, i.e. An Chŏngbok 安鼎福.

2. Here I have tried to translate, in the most sensible way possible, the phrase 囫圇呑棗, which would literally mean “to swallow a jujube whole.” It is an expression that describes the behaviour of simply accepting something without thinking. Note that in the original text, the character 囫 is replaced by a character that does not seem to be ASCII supported (as yet). The original author opted in his manuscript for 昆 “caged” within a large square.

3. “It” here stands, primarily, I believe, for “the question of life after death.”

4. Here “it” refers to “Heavenly Teaching,” i.e. Roman Catholicism.

5. “It” here standing for “the rejection of the current world, or life, as espoused by the Western scholars (i.e. the Jesuit priests) in their teachings.”

6. 黑臘 Hēilà is the transcription used for the name of the Greek pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus. Heraclitus is one of the Western philosophers which are described or referred to by the Jesuit missionaries who came to China from quite early on. It may even be that Matteo Ricci already mentioned Heraclitus (and Democritus) in his Chinese writings.

7. 德牧 Démù is the transcription of Democritus, another Greek pre-Socratic philosopher. Interestingly, the author seems to have mistakenly swapped the characters of Heraclitus and Democritus: Actually, Heraclitus is generally considered the “weeping philosopher,” whereas Democritus is characterized as the “laughing” one.

8. “Them” here may be understood as the people who are involved in vain pursuits.

9. “Their” would refer here to the Western scholars, and Yǔ (禹), when talking to the current world as a temporary dwelling for mortal beings, including people.

10. I am not sure as yet what 宰成輔相之道 actually is supposed to mean. I have decided to interpret it as “perfecting the way of (good) governance.” Any meaningful comments on the meaning of this clause or part of a larger sentence will be very much appreciated.