This is the very first post from yours truly in 2025!

I found it hard to translate this part, especially the latter half, which treats the idea of whether everyone is a descendant of the “progenitors of all progenitors,” Adam and Eve. I understand that the author here is trying to refute this idea by means of a reductio ad absurdum. The only thing is: His presentation of the Western scholars’ (i.e. Jesuits’) idea looks less absurd, at least to me, than his own ideas about energy streams, which, once activated (“stirred up,” or “agitated”), work to create life in a way that is very similar to generatio spontanea. Still, I am not sure I have understood the author correctly, and it may be that some misunderstanding about as small as the meaning of a single character has made me miss an essential point in the reasoning used in this part. At any rate, any suggestions or corrections from my dear readers will be very much appreciated! I still think that the translation I can present you with here is good enough, so do enjoy!

Link to Part 1 of the Translation

Link to Part 2 of the Translation

Link to Part 3 of the Translation

Link to Part 4 of the Translation

Link to Part 5 of the Translation

或曰西士之言謂人有三仇己身一也以其聲色臭味怠惰放恣偸佚闇溺我于內矣世俗二也以其財勢功名戱樂玩好顯侵我于外矣魔鬼三也以其倨傲魅惑誑我眩我內外伐我是言豈不切實乎

My conversation partner said: “The Western scholars speak of the Three Adversaries,1 the first of which is one’s own body. After all, [the body,] with its sensory faculties of hearing, sight, smell, and taste, drags us into the darkness of sloth, self-indulgence, and carelessness, and does so from within! The world is the second [adversary]: With its [allurement of] wealth, might, fame, arts, and amusement, it evidently encroaches upon us from the outside! The Devil is the third [adversary]: Through his conceited ways of enticement, he misleads us and bedazzles us. Both from the inside and the outside he targets us. How could this idea [of the Three Adversaries] be far from the truth?”

曰子之惑甚矣己身爲仇之說其悖倫大矣人有此身則不無形氣之慾吾儒克己之說所以立也今若以此身之生爲仇則此身從何生乎此身之生由於父母是以父母爲仇矣

[I] replied: “You really suffer from severe delusions! [Their] talk of one’s own body being an adversary is very much at odds with [our proper] understanding of how society should be! Given that a human has a body, then [that body] cannot but also have desires stemming from its physical qì energy.2 That is what our scholars’ principle of self-restraint hinges upon. But if one is to regard this body’s being as an adversary, then from where has this body come into being? The [whole] body’s being stems from one’s parents. This would mean that one would regard one’s [own] parents as adversaries! (…)

且旣生此世則富貴貧賤窮通利害勢當然矣不知所以省察克治之工而以世俗爲仇則君臣之義亦絶矣

(…) As for the world that has come to be, it is self-evident that the conditions by which one enjoys benefits or has to deal with hardships depend on one’s social standing and wealth, or the lack thereof. [But] if one were to stay ignorant on how to practice true introspection and subjugation of one’s own selfish drives, and to regard the world as one’s adversary, then it would lead even to the severance of the just bond between the ruler and his subjects! (…)

若魔鬼之說尤不近理人有此形氣則形氣之慾雖聖人不能免而但聖愚之判在于過不及之間耳是以吾儒克己之工以自己天性本有之心治形氣之慾節之而不使過中而已魔鬼誰能見之假使有之是外物也以外物之誘而喪自己之性容或有之人之不善由於形氣之慾豈皆魔鬼之事乎其內外致工之術不同儒者克己之工由於內西士之言舍形氣而謂由於魔鬼內外緊歇之別自不同矣此不足卞也'

(…) And what is being said about the Devil is even farther away from proper logic. As man possesses this physical qì energy, the desires that emanate from that energy [are such that] not even sages can elude them: What separates a sage from a fool is simply a question of whether one overdoes [in trying to satisfying these desires] or engages with [these desires] in proper moderation. This is done by means of the practice of self-restraint [taught] by our orthodox scholars and with the aid of one’s own mind, in which one’s [good] innate character is seated. To control [one’s] physical qì energy merely means to moderate it and not to cause it to go beyond what is appropriate. Who can see the Devil? Even if he did exist, he would be a being living in the outside world, and how could it possibly be that one would lose one’s own true character due to the temptations of an external being? His3 ways to affect [one’s] inside and outside [worlds] are incongruous with our orthodox scholars’ practice of self-restraint, which is brought about from within. The Western scholars have, in their professed ideas, done away with [the concept] of physical qì energy, claiming that the Devil is the cause [of people’s misconduct, instead]. This difference in viewing the essential cause as something within or without [oneself] is what makes [the Western scholars’ ideas about the Devil] incongruous [with our orthodox teachings]. This [Western idea] is [therefore] not worthy of any further serious consideration.”4

或曰其言曰西國古經天主闢天地卽生一男名亞黨一女名阨襪是爲世人之祖然乎

My conversation partner spoke: “This story is called the Ancient Scripture of the Western Lands: The Heavenly Lord, upon creating Heaven and Earth, brought a man, whom he called Adam,5 and a woman, whom he called Eve,6 to life. They would become the ancestors of [all] the people of the world. Is [this story] true?”

曰以理推之此亦不然矣天主神權何所不爲然而其闢天地也陰陽二氣升降交媾化生萬物而得其淸淑之正氣者爲人得其穢濁之偏氣者爲禽獸草木

I replied: “If you examine it by applying proper logic, then this [story] turns out to be false, too. The divine might of the Heavenly Lord may be capable of anything, yet when it comes to the creation of Heaven and Earth, the two types of qì energy, namely yīn (陰) and yáng (陽) were involved. [These energy streams] flow downward and rise upward, intermingle with each other, thus shaping and bringing to life all kinds of beings. The ones who received the purest of the proper qì energy became humans. The ones that received more tainted, corrupted qì energy developed into animals, plants, and trees. (…)

今以目前事言之蝨之化生由於人乎由於衣乎此有澡潔其身無一點垢膩着新製衣袴服未數日必衣有數箇蝨袴有數箇蝨此蝨從何出乎必是人與衣氣相蒸欝而生此非氣化乎

(…) [Let us] now talk of something that occurs before our very eyes: How lice are shaped and brought to life. Do they come from humans, or out of [our] clothes? [Now] imagine there is this man, whose body has been cleansed to perfection, no speck of dust or greasy spot has been left, and he puts on a freshly tailored upper and lower garments. [Then] after wearing them for hardly a couple of days, some lice will be found in his upper and lower garments. Where do these lice come from? They must have come into existence due to the friction and agitation of the qì energy in [the fabric of] the clothes and the man wearing these clothes. This is an instance in which qì energy has transformed [into living organisms], is it not? (…)

此又有一畚土無一草根木實無一虫蟻而置之空架之上風鼓雨潤濕氣壅欝亦未幾何必有草木蟲蟻生于其中亦非氣化而然乎

(…) [Let us imagine now] that there is a large basket full of soil, in which there is not a single sprout of a plant, nor a single seed of a tree, nor are there any bugs or ants to be found in it. [Let us imagine that] we put [that soil] onto an empty shelf. When beaten by the wind and soaked by the rain, the damp qì energy becomes stirred up in that musty environment. And what will occur once again before long? There will certainly be grass, trees, bugs, and ants that have come alive within it. Isn’t this also just the transformation of qì energy? (…)

氣化以後因以形化其類漸繁

(…) After the transformation of the qì energy, then, accordingly, the appearance also changes, with the species [this qì engenders] becoming ever more profuse. (…)

人之生何異於是

(…) Is this any different from how humans come into existence? (…)

大地齊民皆爲亞黨一人之子孫其果成說乎若如其說則禽獸草木其初只有一箇物繁生若此之說不必深究亦不足信也

(…) That all the folks in the world would be descendants of one man, Adam: What would be the ultimate logical outcome of that idea? If that story were the truth, then all the animals, plants, and trees, would at the beginning have merely one [common] being out of which they have developed and come to life. Such an idea is not deserving of any closer scrutiny, nor is it seriously credible.”