天學問答 - Argumentative Text Against Catholicism by Korean Scholar An Chŏngbok 安鼎福 from 1790 AD) - Part 3
Link to Part one of the translation
Link to Part two of the translation
或問何謂也
My conversation partner asked: “[Could you explain] what you mean?”
曰惟此一心本乎天性若能操存此心
[I] said: “[I mean] that only if one’s entire mind is rooted in Heaven-conferred nature, then one can maintain this mind. (…)
保有其性無忘吾上帝所賦之命則事天之道無過於是
If one sustains its1 innate qualities, without forgetting our duties which the Supreme Deity has imposed [on us], then one’s way of serving Heaven will in no way go beyond what is proper. (…)
何必如西士朝晝祈懇赦其舊過求免地獄
How should [this] be equated with the Western scholars’ prayers and dawn and daytime, their forgiveness of past transgressions, and their efforts to avoid Hell? (…)
如巫祝祈禱之事
[These] are [in fact] similar to shamanistic2 practices of prayers and supplications. (…)
一日五拜天七日一齋素然後可以盡事天之道乎
How could one fulfill the Way of Heaven by venerating Heaven five times a day3 and by eating a vegetarian diet for one day a week?!”
或曰世有三敎曰儒曰釋曰道今西士以天名學其意何居
My conversation partner asked: “Generations [here] have had three schools of thought, namely, the Confucian, the Buddhist, and the Daoist. Now [, however,] the Western scholars refer to Heaven to name their teaching [namely, their “Heavenly Teaching”].4 What is the [deeper] significance of this?”
曰聖人之道一而已豈有三敎乎三敎之名後世俗見之累也
[I] replied: “The Way of sages is only one, and that is that. Why [,then,] would there be three schools of thought? The term “the Three Schools of Thought” is due to the confused thinking of folks in later generations! (…)
佛是西方之敎而絶滅倫理道是世外之敎而無關世道豈可與儒敎比而同稱乎西士之以天名學意已僭妄矣
Buddhism is a doctrine from a Western region and it tore asunder society’s ethically sound fabric.5 Daoism is a doctrine from outside the [regular] world and has no bearing on the [proper] way of [our] world. [So] how could those two be compared to Confucian Doctrine or [even] be named in the same breath?! The use of “Heaven” by the Western scholars to name [their] teaching indicates [their] highly presumptuous delusions! (…)
盖西域一帶自古異學蝟興佛氏之外諸敎亦多觀於傳燈等書可知矣
Besides, in the territory of Western lands, strange doctrines have risen, like a porcupine’s quills so many, since ancient times. Even aside from Mr. Buddha’s, all those doctrines are still large in number. If you take a look at writings such as “The Transmission of the Lamp,”6 then that will become evident! (…)
西士之言天者其意以爲莫尊者天言天則諸敎豈敢相抗是則挾天子令諸侯之意其計亦巧矣
The significance of the fact that the Western scholars speak of “Heaven” [to refer to their teaching], is that they purport it to be the very, most Supreme Heaven. If you mention “Heaven,” then how could other doctrines keep vying with each other [for ascendancy]? In such a case, [it] carries the meaning of an order of [the Emperor,] the Son of Heaven, directed at all his vassal lords. Their scheme [of misappropriating the term “Heaven”] is indeed quite shrewd! (…)
吾儒之敎則聖人繼天而立代天工而治天下叙秩命討莫不由天則是皆天命之流行也何必以天名學而後爲眞道聖敎乎
According to our Confucian doctrine, sages serve as an extension of Heaven without fail, they act to bring Heaven’s work into effect, and to establish order in the world beneath It. Time and time again the rewards as well as punishments acts all stem, without exception, from Heaven. This [teaching of ours] is thus all of the Heavenly Mandate’s flowing progress. [So] why would it be necessary to call a teaching “Heavenly” and, after that, to take it to be the “True Way” and the “Sagely Doctrine,” then?”
或曰西士之外更無言天者乎
My conversation partner asked: “Aside from the Western scholars, hasn’t there been anyone who spoke of “Heaven?”
曰墨子有天志篇其言曰
[I] said: “[There was.] Mòzǐ 墨子 authored the tract [titled] “Will of Heaven.” It states the following: (…)
順天意者兼相愛交相利必得賞反天意者別相惡交相賊必得罰
Those who acquiesce to the Will of Heaven unite with each other, maintain loving relationships, and benefit each other. They shall obtain rewards. Those who go against the Will of Heaven separate themselves from one another, are spiteful in their dealings with each other, and injure each other. They shall receive sanctions.
三代聖王禹湯文武順天意而得賞者也桀紂幽厲反天意而得罰者也
The Sage-Kings of the Three Dynasties, Yǔ 禹, Tāng 湯, 文 Wén, and 武 Wǔ,7 were those who acquiesced to the Will of Heaven and obtained rewards. [The tyrants] 桀 Jié, 紂 Zhòu, 幽 Yōu, and 厲 Lì were those who went against the Will of Heaven and obtained sanctions.8
其事上尊天中事鬼神下愛人
To be subservient to it [namely Heaven and its will], is, first of all, to honour Heaven, secondly, to serve the spirits, and, finally, to love [fellow] humans.
天之所愛兼而愛之所利兼而利之
Love in unison what Heaven loves, and benefit in unison what Heaven benefits.
此墨子之言天而兼愛兼利其大義也
This is [how] Mòzǐ 墨子 mentions “Heaven” and “universal love, universal benefits” is his main idea. (…)
西士忘讐愛仇之說與兼愛無異
The Western scholars’ sermons about forgetting grievances and loving [one’s] enemies are in no way different from [Mòzǐ 墨子’s] “universal love.” (…)
其約身攻苦與尙儉相同
Their [exhortations to] have restrain oneself and practice ascetism, and [Mòzǐ 墨子’s] approval of austerity are the same. (…)
但其異者墨子言天以現世西士言天以後世比之墨氏尤爲詭誕矣
The only difference between them is that Mòzǐ 墨子 refers to “Heaven” in relation to this world, [while] the Western scholars refer to “Heaven” in relation to the afterlife. [So] as compared to Mr. Mòzǐ 墨子, [the Western scholars] are even more baselessly boastful! (…)
大抵西學之言後世專是佛氏餘論而兼愛尙儉墨氏之流是豈學周孔者所習者乎
Generally speaking, the Western scholars’ statements on the afterlife merely equal Mr. Buddha’s passing remarks [on the same topic], and [the Western scholars’ words on] “universal love” and approving austerity [follow] Mr. Mòzǐ 墨子’s train of thought. How should this be [as valuable as] studying what Master Confucius of [the state of] 周 Zhōu practiced? (…)
今之所謂儒者嘗斥道佛堂獄之說墨氏兼愛之論
Those whom we nowadays call Confucian scholars have once [and for all] refuted the Daoist and Buddhist explanations of Paradise and Hell, [as well as] Mòzǐ 墨子’s theory of “universal love.” (…)
而至於西士之語不復卞別直曰此天主之敎也中國聖人雖尊豈有加於天主乎其猖狂妄言無所忌憚至於如此矣
And now we are dealing with statements by Western scholars that are, once again, not substantially different [from those refuted doctrines], [yet] they flat out claim that that doctrine of theirs is the Heavenly Lord’s teaching… How is it that though China’s sages are revered, [the Western scholars] grant even more reverence to the Heavenly Lord?! Their deranged, delusional ramblings are ultimately the kind of madness one arrives at if one has the gall to stoop to any low!”
或曰耶蘇救世之名也與聖人行道之意似不異矣
My conversation partner said: “[But] the significance of Jesus, the Saviour, appears not to be different from the sages’ intention to bring about the Way!”
曰是何言也耶蘓救世專在後世以天堂地獄爲勸懲
[I] replied: “What is that supposed to mean?! The Saviour Jesus only dwells in the afterlife. [Jesus] encourages and dissuades [people to do good and to do evil, respectively] by means of Paradise and Hell. (…)
聖人行道專在現世以明德新民爲敎化
The sages who bring about the Way only dwell in this world. They enlighten by explicating virtue and by reforming the people. (…)
其公私之別自不同矣
Their differences in terms of public-spiritedness and selfishness are [also] markedly different. (…)
假使信有堂獄如彼之說人在現世爲善去惡行全德備則必歸天堂去善爲惡行虧德蔑則必歸地獄人當於現世之內孶孶爲善毋負我降衷之天性而已有何一毫邀福於後世之念
Suppose [we] were to believe that Paradise and Hell exist, then the following reasoning would be valid: “If people living in this world do good and steer clear of evil, so their feats are replete with pure virtue, then they shall end up in Paradise. [But] if they steer clear of good and do evil, so their actions, deficient in virtue, wither away, then they shall end up in Hell. [Thus] that the people who are alive in this world are untiringly committed to doing good has absolutely nothing to do with an innate, morally sound nature that we would have been endowed with from above,9 but rather has to do with the desire for happiness in the afterlife felt in every single fiber [of one’s body.]” (…)
程子曰釋氏超脫死生專爲一己之私天學之祈免地獄非爲一己之私乎
Master Chéng 程10 stated:
The Sakyamuni Buddha transcended death and birth merely for his own selfish interests.
Aren’t those prayers of Heavenly Teaching for avoiding Hell also used to serve one’s very own selfish interests?”
“Its” here is the translation of the character 其 in the relevant fragment. I believe it to refer to 心 “mind,” or 一心 “entire mind,” and thus I believe the speaker here refers to the “(entire) mind’s innate qualities / characteristics,” which are benign in nature according to the Confucian and Neo-Confucian thinkers. This, of course, is also in stark contrast with the idea of of human’s sinful nature that Christian theologians espouse.
Shamanism was not worthy of serious consideration by scholarly men of letters, and therefore the author here argues that also the rites and practices advocated by the Jesuits (the “Western scholars” in question) should equally be spurned.
Somehow it seems that the author believed, or maybe even for a fact knew, that the Jesuits prayed five times and/or encouraged Chinese converts to pray five times a day. There are and were at that time, however, more than 5 canonical hours at which could, or, perhaps in some cases should be prayed. In order to fully understand why the author speaks of 一日五拜天 “venerating five times a day,” we might need to take a closer look at Matteo Ricci and other first Catholic missionaries claimed to be proper ways of conducting such prayers or “acts of venerating Heaven,” and what they wrote about the best/proper/acceptable daily frequency of such acts. It may even be that “venerating Heaven,” which supposedly is done five times a day, does not refer to prayer per se.
Here it became obvious to me as a translator that I made a mistake, or at least chose a suboptimal translation, as regards 天學. I decided to translate this Chinese term for the Catholic religion as “Heavenly Teaching.” but in this sentence here another character to denote religions is used, namely 敎, which could cause some friction with the interpretation of 學 as “teaching.” As a matter of fact, 敎 is closer to the meaning of “teaching,” and signifies more the conveyance of knowledge or precepts by a teacher to student, or disciple, whereas 學 tends to suggest the act of learning or studying, with or without the aid of someone else teaching. Hence a more apt translation of 天學 could have been “Heavenly Learning.” Fortunately for me, the anti-Catholic author merely focuses on what the character 天 would purport in the term 天學. He thus does not make any analysis on whether and how the use of character 學 therein might contrast that Western religion with the other three religions, or “schools of thought” which he mentions here with the use of the character 敎 (e.g. 三敎 “the Three Teachings” ; “the Three Schools of Thought” ; 釋敎 / 佛敎 “Buddhism” ; 道敎 “Daoism” ; 儒敎 “Confucianism”).
倫理, although nowadays meaning “ethics” in a more general sense, signifies in this (Neo-)Confucian context the actual proper conduct of people in a civilized society, with sons honouring their fathers, brothers and friends being loyal to each other, etc.. I therefore chose to translate it as “society’s ethically sound fabric.” The (Neo-)Confucianists castigated Buddhism especially because of its monastic groups formally cutting people off from their families, since monks, once they joined their monasteries, actually abandoned their families to live celibate lives in relative seclusion: Something abhorrent for a proper Confucian who particularly values filial piety and extending the families’ bloodline from generation to generation. Ever since the founding of the Choseon Dynasty in Korea, Confucianists also successfully argued that the Buddhist monastic societies would have to remain insignificant in politics, because of their allegedly corrupting tendencies that could negatively impact even the royal court.
傳燈 Jǐngdé here refers to the work 景德傳燈錄 Jǐngdé Chuándēnglù, or The Jǐngdé Record of the Transmission of the Lamp, which is a Buddhist work produced in the Chinese 宋 Sòng empire. It may be somewhat surprising that the author here mentions a clear-cut Buddhist work as something that would prove the great variety of foreign doctrines. Indeed, this would not make sense from a faithful Buddhist perspective. I believe, however, that the Neo-Confucianists, as detractors of Buddhism, somehow made an issue of the fact that aforementioned Buddhist work also contained references to other Buddhas who supposedly had lived in periods before the historical Buddha’s lifetime. These legendary Buddhas, and the stories around them, were probably regarded in Neo-Confucian circles as appearances of various “strange” doctrines from Western lands that could be regarded as separate teachings (notwithstanding the fact that the Buddhists would argue that all these Buddhas described in the record would all act in accordance with the one and the same Buddhism).
Yǔ 禹 is the legendary founder of the equally legendary Xià 夏 Dynasty, and generally lauded in Chinese traditional historiography as the very first ruler who brought proper order. Tāng 湯 would have founded the dynasty that came after Xià 夏, namely 商 Shāng. 文 Wén and his son 武 Wǔ were the ones who founded and consolidated the 周 Zhōu Dynasty, which was regarded in traditional (Confucian-dominated) historiography as a truly civilized state. Although 武 Wǔ would be the first de facto ruler of 周 Zhōu, he made his father 文 Wén the first Emperor of that state in the state’s annals and records. The latter man is also traditionally contributed with conceiving the idea of Mandate of Heaven, which would later become an essential part of Confucian philosophy.
桀 Jié was the last ruler of the Xià 夏 Dynasty. His name became synonymous with cruelty and corruption, which could wreak irreversible damage to any state. 紂 Zhòu was the last ruler of the 商 Shāng dynasty whose corruption would become legendary. He would serve as a warning for rulers not to indulge in avarice and other evils. He was the tyrant whom the aforementioned Sage-King 文 Wén effectively opposed. 幽 Yōu was the last ruler of what is called the Western Zhōu Dynasty, who actually obtained that position by usurping the throne (unlawfully, as per the judgment of the classical Chinese historians). 厲 Lì here probably refers to Duke 厲 Lì of the state of 齊 Qí, who reigned, according to historical records for less than a decade in the late 9th Century BC. He was described as a despotic ruler, who met his demise in a rebellion.
This innate goodness of human nature is, in fact, what the Neo-Confucianists, including the author of this late 18th Century text, believed in.
Master Chéng, or 程子 Chéngzǐ, would be the scholar and Confucian intellectual Chéng Yí 程颐 (1033–1107). Although his elder brother Chéng Hào 程颢 (1032–1085) might also have been referred to as Master Chéng, or 程子 Chéngzǐ, this appellation seems to have been used only for the aforementioned younger brother. Both these men of the Chéng family from 宋 Sòng China are considered influential figures who paved the way for Zhū Xī 朱熹 (1130 - 1200) to establish what would become known as Neo-Confucianism. It is no surprise that the Neo-Confucian author of the original text here quotes Master Chéng approvingly.