天學問答 - Argumentative Text Against Catholicism by Korean Scholar An Chŏngbok 安鼎福 from 1790 AD) - Part 4

Link to Part One of the translation

Link to Part Two of the translation

Link to Part Three of the translation

或曰古今言天學者不無其人於古有鄒衍於我 朝有許筠願得其實

My conversation partner said: “From olden days up to the present there always have been people speaking of Heavenly Learning. In olden days there was[, for instance,] Zōu Yǎn (鄒衍),¹ and in our dynastic period there was Hŏ Kyun (許筠)² who sought to understand its essence.”³

曰鄒衍談天滉洋難測無所歸宿不如西士之論天度地毬鑿鑿符合

[I] said: “Zōu Yǎn (鄒衍) spoke of Heaven [as something] immeasurably boundless and sprawling, never returning to a configuration it [previously] had.⁴ This is no match for the Western scholars’ depiction of Heaven and Earth as being in exact alignment [with each other], as though brought about by masterful artisanry. (…)

筠則聦明能文章專無行檢居喪食肉産子人皆唾鄙自知不爲士流所容托迹於佛日夜拜佛誦經求免地獄

(…) As for Hŏ [Kyun], though he was clever and competent at writing, he completely lacked self-restraint: While in a period of [filial] mourning he [still kept] eating meat and fathering children, [which] everyone utterly despised. While he was aware what would not be considered befitting for the scholarly class [he himself was part of], [he still] professed faith in the Buddha, prayed to the Buddha day and night and recited sutras in order to avoid Hell. (…)

倡言曰男女情慾天也分別倫紀聖人之敎也天尊於聖人則寧違於聖人而不敢違天禀之本性

(…) [Hŏ Kyun] declared the following:

The natural desires of man and woman are Heaven. The distinct rules of social conduct are the teaching of sages. [If one contrasts] the Heaven Supreme from the sages, then [one concludes that] one may perhaps go against a sage, but one would not dare contravene [one’s own] innate dispositions with which [one] has been endowed by Heaven.

(…)

以是當時浮薄有文詞爲其門徒者倡爲天學之說其實與西士之學霄壤不侔不可比而同稱也

(…) By doing so [Hŏ Kyun] meant to have some literary message during a volatile time for his [own] students, and presented it as an exposition on the teaching of Heaven. Its essence is[, however,] as different from the Western scholars’ teaching as the sky is from the earth. They are incomparable nor can they [even] be given the same name. (…)

大抵學術之差皆歸異端不可不愼也老佛楊墨皆必神聖之人而末梢終歸於虛無寂滅無父無君之敎

(…) In general, all aberrations in scholarship are ultimately caused by heterodoxy. This is not something to be frivolous about! Lǎozǐ 老子, the Buddha, Yáng Zhū 楊朱,⁵ Mòzǐ 墨子 must all have been men of wondrous sagacity, but in the end they [all] remained stuck in teachings that were void, barren, without any meaningful reference to fathers or rulers.⁶ (…)

王陽明大倡儒學而其實異端

(…) [The philosopher] Wáng Yángmíng 王陽明⁷ propagated, for the most part, proper Confucian scholarship, but his core tenets were heretical. (…)

是以其徒顔山農者以一欲字爲法門何心隱者以一殺字爲宗旨皆曰我先生良知之學以心爲師心之所出皆良知也我則從吾心之所出末乃與南蠻連結作亂被誅

(…) As a consequence, his student Yán Shānnnóng 顔山農⁸ made the sole concept of “will” as the be-all and end-all of his school. [But] what [if] some troubled soul would make the concept of “killing” his main goal in life? Everyone maintains that [one’s] teaching is based on sound knowledge from one’s own instructors and predecessors. [But] to regard [one’s own] mind as [one’s own] teacher means that everything that springs from [one’s own] mind is sound knowledge! If we were to follow that which springs from our minds, then we would end up being put to death after inciting rebellions in liaison with southern barbarians.⁹ (…)

以此言之學者當卞於爲學原頭而察此末流之弊也

(…) For this reason studying entails staying appropriately focused on the central principles that make up the source of [our proper] scholarship, while critically investigating the defects of these inferior streams of thought.”

或曰西士之說異於是只是爲善去惡則有何流弊之可言乎

My conversation partner said: “[But] wat the Western scholars profess differs from that [which you have just described]. [They] merely state that one is to do good and abandon evil. How, then, could this be called an [inferior] stream of thought?”

曰是何言也善之當爲惡之不當爲是愚智賢不肖之所同知也

[I] said: “What kind of talk is that?! That appropriate action means goodness, and inappropriate action means evil is a fact which the foolish, the wise, the upright and the unworthy alike know! (…)

今有人於此其人至惡也然而又有人稱之曰子是善人也則其人喜曰子是惡人也則其人怒善惡之別雖惡人已知之矣

(…) Now suppose there is a man with us who is utterly evil. Yet if there were another person who called him a good person, then he would be pleased, and if he called him an evil person, then he would grow angry: The distinction between good and evil is known even to those who are evil! (…)

世豈有爲惡去善之學乎

(…) Has there ever been a teaching in the world which states that one should do evil and abandon good?! (…)

是以從古異端皆以爲善去惡爲敎

(…) For this reason all the heresies, which have appeared since olden times, presented the teaching that [one should] do good and abandon evil. (…)

今此西士爲善去惡之言獨西士言之而已乎

(…) What the Western scholars’ say about the [need of] doing good and abandoning evil, is that really something that only Western scholars say?!¹⁰ (…)

吾所憂者以其流弊而言也

(…) [But] what I am saddened about is what they state in addition, which are heterodox shortcomings. (…)

其學不以現世爲言而專以後世堂獄之報爲言

(…) Their scholarship does not speak of the current world, but rather of the reward of Paradise and the punishment of Hell in the afterlife [as its central theme]. (…)

是豈非誕妄而害聖人之正敎乎

(…) How cannot this be but boastful delusions that are harmful to the correct teachings of [our] sages? (…)

聖人之敎惟於現世爲所當爲之事光明正大無一毫隱曲慌惚之事

(…) The teachings of [our] sages only pertain to the current world, deal with matters that should be taken care of, and are replete with clarity and fairness. They do not contain one bit of things that are obscure or illusory. (…)

是以孔子不語怪力亂神怪是稀有之事神是不見之物

(…) For this reason Confucius did not speak of the power of wonders and rebellious spirits: Wonders being occurrences that take place [but very] rarely, and spirits being invisible beings. (…)

若以稀有不見之事言之不已則人心煽動皆歸荒誕之域以其大者言之

(…) If [one] were to keep talking about such rare and invisible matters, then people’s minds would start to get impassioned [by them]. All would resort to the field of obscure chatter¹¹ and they would speak of it as if it were of utmost importance! (…)

漢之張角唐之龐勛黃巢宋之王則方臘元之紅巾賊明末之流賊皆其流也

(…) Zhāng Jué¹² in the Hàn Dynasty, Páng Xūn¹³ and Huáng Cháo¹⁴ during the [late] Táng era, Wáng Zé¹⁵ and Fāng Là¹⁶ in the [Chinese] Sòng Empire, the red turban bandits¹⁷ at the time of the Yuán Dynasty, and the roving brigands at the end of Míng China: They all were corollaries of this [phenomenon]. (…)

其他小小妖賊稱彌勒佛白蓮社之徒在在蝟興史傳不誣

Nor do historical records lie about the fact that beside them [i.e. the previous examples of -relatively significant- rebellious forces] some small-time [yet] beguiling rogues called for Maitreya [to make his advent in this world] and [therefore] adherents of “White Lotus Societies” reared their ugly heads in various paces.¹⁸ (…)

至若我英宗朝戊寅新溪縣有妖巫英武者自稱彌勒佛

(…) [And] as far as we [, Koreans] are concerned, in the year Muin 戊寅 of King Yǒngjo’s reign,¹⁹ there appeared a beguiling shaman [by the name of] Yǒngmu 英武 in the district of Sin’gye 新溪.²⁰ She proclaimed herself to be the Maitreya Buddha. (…)

列邑輻湊謂之生佛出世合掌迎拜

(…) She travelled from county to county, where people gathered in droves around [her]. They called her the living Buddha who had come into this world. They clasped their hands together and made reverent bows [before her]. (…)

令民盡除神社雜鬼之尊奉者曰佛旣出世豈有他神之可奉者乎於是民皆聽命所謂祈禱神箱神缸之屬率皆碎破而焚之

(…) She ordered folks to completely do away with shrines and services to venerate all the sundry spirits, stating: “The Buddha has already made his appearance in this world, [so] why should there be other deities who are to be served?” The people all subsequently followed [her] command: Things such as those called “divine chests for praying for a long life” and divine vessels were all smashed and burned [by them] without fail. (…)

不數月之內自海西及高陽以北嶺東一道靡然從之

(…) Within not even a few months [the shaman’s movement] from Hwanghae province,²¹ down to Koyang [District],²² and from the North through the Taegwan mountain pass eastward,²³ in that whole area, people, as many as leaves blown off in a heavy wind, followed suit. (…)

西士所謂天主之敎其從化之速豈過於是乎

(…) How would [the situation develop] any differently with what the Western scholars have named “the Teachings of the Heavenly Master,” [given] the quick surge of converts [to that religion], as compared to this [movement brought about by that shaman]? (…)

其時自上送御史李敬玉按誅之而其妖彌月不定

(…) Promptly the regional governor Yi Kyŏng’ok 李敬玉, who had been sent from Seoul, tried and put her to death, but her cult could not be properly dealt with for another full month. (…)

人心之易動難定易惑難悟大抵如是矣

(…) In general the following really holds true: People’s minds can easily be perturbed, but can put in check only with difficulty; they can easily be stirred up, but it is difficult to make them understand. (…)

今世爲此學者其言曰一心尊事上帝無一息之停比之吾儒王敬之學也

(…) Where this teaching²⁴ is concerned with the current world, its precept that one has to serve the Supreme Deity with undivided care, without any moment of pause, there it is very much the same teaching which our orthodox scholars and kings revere. (…)

又曰飭躬薄食無踰濫之念比之吾儒克己之工也

(…) [Where it] furthermore states that one should bring oneself to eat but austerely and one should not have any frivolous and boastful thoughts, [there] it is very much equal to our orthodox scholars’ practice of self-effacement. (…)

實爲此學者雖其門路異而爲善則同豈不可貴

(…) Where this teaching²⁵ is concerned with reality: Even though its lineage and ways²⁶ are different, on the principle of doing good it is the same [as our teaching]: How can this not be appreciated! (…)

但世道巧僞人心難測

(…) But it is the shrewd fabrications of what would constitute the right morals and tenets that people’s minds have trouble seeing through. (…)

設有一箇妖人假冐 倡言東有一天主降西有一天主降

(…) Let us assume that there is some beguiling person who spreads the false rumour eastward and westward that a certain “Lord of Heaven” has come down [to Earth]. (…)

民心習於誕妄以爲實然而風從矣

(…) The common folks, receptive to [such] boastful delusions, would deem these [claims] to be actual facts and would adhere [to them] en masse. (…)

當此之時爲此學者其能曰我正而彼邪我實而彼僞乎自不覺爲聖學之蟊賊

(…) And now with this [“Heavenly”] Teaching, they may start stating: “We are righteous, and they are heretical. We are truthful, and they are mendacious.”²⁷ They themselves would not realize themselves that they act as bandits wreaking havoc on the [real] sagacious teaching. (…)

亂賊之髇矢而甘心焉哀哉哀哉

(…) They would [even] think blissfully of the whistling arrows that bandits rebelling against the state may fire. Oh woe! How woefully bad that would be!”

1. Zōu Yǎn 鄒衍 (305 - 240 BC) was a Chinese philosopher who gained a reputation for being particularly well-versed in alchemy. One might consider him a mystic. He was native to the state of Qí 齊 during what is commonly known as the Warring States period.

2. Hŏ Kyun 許筠 (1569 - 1618) was a Korean major literary figure who also had his political ambitions. He is generally considered a “progressive” reformist, and, interestingly, he is often credited as the author of the Tale of Hong Gildong, the “Korean Robin Hood.” He was executed on charges of treason, and as such may be considered one of those victims of political infighting that was so characteristic of the Chosŏn era in Korea. It is noteworthy that the author’s “conversation partner” apparently considers Hŏ Kyun to be a contemporaneous figure, even though he died well over 150 years after this text was written.

3. I interpreted 願得其實 in my final translation here as “to seek to grasp (understand) its essence.” “It” here must refer back to “Heavenly Teaching,” i.e. 天學. One may interpret, however, the final character, 實 in multiple ways. It can, for instance, also be used to mean “fruits,” or, in a more metaphorical sense, “benefits,” and then one could interpret this phrase as meaning “to seek to reap/obtain its fruits/benefits.” 實 may mean “fruit” as well as “seed,” and therefore it signifies what something really is, regardless of at what stage (before or after germination or blooming, before or after the plant borne out of the seed has started to bear fruits, etc.) this “something” finds itself in at the moment. It therefore is also used to signify “actual state/nature,” “the truth,” and it may well be considered to signify “essence” in certain contexts.

4. Although there must have been astronomers back in the days of Zōu Yǎn 鄒衍 who would already have taken issue with this understanding of Heaven, Zōu Yǎn’s view of Heaven, as represented here by the author, reads as if he perceives the “cosmos” as being in a thoroughly chaotic, hence unpredictable, state.

5. Yáng Zhū 楊朱 lived about 440 - 360 BC during the Warring States period. A philosopher not referred to earlier in this text, he is considered to be an “ethical egoist.” No direct writings of him have survived, but his ideas are represented (and accompanied with refutations of or criticisms against them) in classical Confucian, and perhaps also Daoist, works.

6. Here the Neo-Confucian criticizes the Daoist, Buddhist, “Ethical Egoist,” and Mohist teachings as ignoring what any Confucian, incl. Neo-Confucian, ideologue would find essential: The ever-present societal relationships between ever-present categories of people, such as fathers vis-à-vis sons, rulers vis-à-vis subjects.

7. Wáng Yángmíng 王陽明 (1472 - 1529), although in Chinese scholarship celebrated as a major Neo-Confucianist, in the Korean Chosŏn kingdom he was considered as a problematic figure. Zhū Xī 朱熹 (1130 - 1200) and those who wholeheartedly adhered to his philosophy were taken to be the true orthodox Confucians in Chosŏn.

8. Yán Shānnnóng 顔山農 is better known as Yán Jūn 颜钧 (1504 - 1596), who was indeed a follower of the aforementioned Wáng Yángmíng 王陽明. The author of this written dialogue seems to equate “will” 欲 with “what(ever) springs from one’s own mind” 心之所出 in order to argue against Yán Jūn’s prioritization of “will.”

9. This is a rather puzzling conclusion from the author, especially so since it refers to a rebellion and southern barbarians without providing any further context. I believe he may mean that the Koreans, if they would really start acting on their “will” (as Yán Jūn 颜钧 suggested one should), they would rebel against the actually “barbarian” Qīng 清 Dynasty, which the Neo-Confucian elites would like to see overthrown. The “southern barbarians” could refer to the Vietnamese, who, in fact, engaged in battle with the Qīng empire in the late 18th Century, around the same time when this text was written.

10. Obviously, this is a rhetorical question that is to be answered in the negative.

11. Meaning in slightly more idiomatically sound English: “All would merely keep being obsessed about futile talk on matters that are obscure [and not orthodox]”

12. Zhāng Jué 張角 (died 184 AD) was the leader of what became known as the Yellow Turban Rebellion. Historical records describe him as a general who also was a Daoist believer and a sorcerer.

13. Páng Xūn 龐勛 (died 869), was a rebel leader against the Táng empire.

14. Huáng Cháo 黃巢 (835 - 884), was another prominent rebel. It is said that he was able to severely weaken the state of Táng.

15. Wáng Zé 王則 (d. 1048), rebelled against the Sòng empire. He was able to hold on to a state of his own, which he called Ānyáng 安陽, for only a couple of months.

16. Fāng Là 方臘 (d. 1121) was a leader of an uprising against the Sòng state. This uprising has come to be associated with Manichaeism early on, as Chinese documents from about a decade after his rebellion began to suggest some Manichaean influence, although there probably is no relation between Manichaeism and Fāng Là’s uprising.

17. This refers to the Red Turban Rebellions (Hóngjīn Qǐyì 紅巾起義) that occurred between 1351 and 1368, which eventually led to the collapse of the state of Yuán altogether. The Red Turban rebels were to a certain degree also inspired by Buddhist figures who claimed that the coming of the next Buddha, known as Maitreya, would be imminent.

18. White Lotus (Báilián, 白蓮) became a non-mainstream Buddhist sect, which had appeared first as “White Lotus” in the end of the 4th or beginning of the 5th Century in the Chinese Jiǔjiāng 九江 region. In the 12th Century, however, it became more influential, and became a hybrid form that also incorporated elements of Manichaeism. It propagated the advent of Maitreya as a central theme, and its societies (Báiliánshè 白蓮社), operated in secrecy as heterodox sects. They were often identified as involved in organizing, or promulgating, rebellions against the state in premodern China.

19. Yǒngjo 英宗 (1694 - 1776), was king of Chosǒn Korea who reigned from 1724 to 1776). In Sources of Korean Tradition (Volume Two: From the Sixteenth to the Twentieh Centuries), by Yǒngho Ch’oe, Peter H. Lee, and Wm. Theodore de Bary (editors), the indication of the year is translated as “1758.” Most of the remainder of this narration regarding the shaman Yǒngmu 英武 is also rendered into English in the aforementioned Sources of Korean Tradition (edition from 2000), pages 176 - 177.

20. Sin’gye 新溪 meant here is probably the district that still goes by the same name in North Hwanghae-do Province, located in what now is North Korea, south of the city P'yŏngyang. I here follow Sources of Korean Tradition (see Note 19) in identifying Yǒngmu 英武 as a woman (I believe most shamans in Korea, at least in modern times, are female) regardless of the fact that her name Yǒngmu 英武, which may be translated as “valiant warrior,” sounds somewhat (stereotypically) masculine and the Maitreya Buddha would normally be considered a male figure to appear in this world.

21. Haesŏ 海西 found here has been identified as another term for the historical Hwanghae-do Province, where the aforementioned district called Sin’gye 新溪 is also located.

22. Koyang 高陽 is a location in Kyŏnggi-do Province, considerably more to the south than Hwanghae-do Province, and close to Seoul.

23. Sources of Korean Tradition (as referred to in Note 19) identifies the mountain pass, 嶺, as being the Taegwan pass, located in the eastern Kangwŏn-do Province. This would mean that the shaman’s movement not only spread quickly further south in the western part of the peninsula, where it apparently started to come close to the actual capital, but also saw “territorial gains” in the eastern coastal region of Kangwŏn-do Province, i.e. the completely other side of Chosŏn Korea.

24. I believe the author to refer here to Catholicism.

25. Ibid.

26. I have translated 門路 as “lineage and ways,” lineage 門 here meaning “lineage,” i.e. the previous masters who have developed and propagated the teaching as currently known (in the case of (Neo-)Confucianists Confucius, Mencius, etc.; Christians might see Jesus as their Teacher, while they could also acknowledge the influence of Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, etc., on their religion), 路, the “ways,” would, in my opinion, refer to the rites, which, of course, were very much different in the “Western” and “Eastern” teachings.

27. “They” in this quotation actually refers to the scholars and the state officials of Chosǒn Korea. In other words, Catholicism may easily lead to deep mistrust toward the current system, which may escalate into dangerous uprisings.