Previous parts of the translation:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

或曰西士言其國有開闢以後史記至今皆存凡三千六百卷耶蘇之生皆預言其期不若中國史之冺滅不存虛僞相雜然乎

My conversation partner said: “The Western scholars say that in their lands, the [early] historical records [before the coming of Christ],1 3600 scrolls in total, have all been preserved. They all [,according to the Western scholars,] foretold the moment of Jesus’ birth. This is nothing like the Chinese historical documents having been lost due to destruction, and the many falsehoods scattered about [in the Chinese historical works that have been preserved], isn’t it?”

曰非吾見則不可言其不然而假使有之今其書所引經文卽其語也

[I] replied: “I myself have not seen [those historical records of the Western scholars’ own lands], and for that reason I cannot say that they are wrong, but let’s assume that they do exist. At any rate, what their texts [in literary Chinese] draw from are authoritative writings, which must constitute their [written] language. (…)”

必擇其精者言之而今使有眼者見之其與吾中國聖人之語孰優孰劣子若見之可以知之矣

“(…) We should select the most excellent among them2 to relay it.3 We should then make anyone with eyes behold it.4 You, my friend, could only know which written language is superior to the other, theirs or that of our Chinese sages, after seeing such an event!”5

或曰其人專以行敎爲重越滄溟八九萬里經啗人戕人之國而不知懼罹鮫鱷虎狼之患而不知避若非所見之的實力量之絶人能如是乎

My conversation partner said: “Their people are merely focused on spreading the teaching. They cross the vast ocean, [travelling vast distances of] 80,000 or 90,000 lǐ 里,6 pass through lands where they devour and attack [other] people, but they [simply] do not fear. They encounter the afflictions brought about by sharks, crocodiles, tigers, and wolves, yet they [simply] do not know how to back down. How could it ever be possible that [these Western scholars] would not be considered eminent men of real might?”

曰以史考之姚秦之鳩摩羅什蕭梁之達摩皆自大西國涉重溟而至是亦欲行其敎於中國此何以異是

[I] said: “[Let us] consider it based on historical precedence. [The foreign proselytizing Buddhist monk] Kumārajīva,7 who was active in the state of later Qín,8 and [the foreign Buddhist master] Bodhidharma,9 who was active in the state of Southern Liáng,10 both came from the vast Western lands, after crossing the rough sea, also because of their wish to spread their teaching in China. How would this be any different from that [what the Western scholars have been doing in China]? (…)”

二僧之所傳不過今行佛書使西士之學雖欲行於中國此亦不過其類行之如今佛書而已豈可使吾儒舍周孔之道而從之乎

“ (…) What they have conveyed [, however,] is nothing more than the Buddhist writings that are currently in circulation. Even though [the Western scholars] seek to spread their teaching in China, such efforts also have yielded nothing more than the circulation of what is very much similar to the Buddhist writings we are familiar with! How could one soundly put into practice the right teachings of our scholarly tradition and Confucius and observe that other teaching11 at the same time?”

或曰西士之言自耶蘇之敎行後至今千七八百年而化行鄰國無纂弑之事無侵伐之害西國累萬里至今猶然

My conversation partner said: “According to the Western scholars, 1700 to 1800 years have passed since Jesus’ preached his teaching. It has transformed the countries nearby and [in this entire long stretch of time] there has never been a single incident of regicide [there]: the Western lands are a vast area totaling a myriad communities, [yet] up to the current day this has been the case.12 (…)”

中國聖人雖多代興代滅則可知中國之敎不探其本而然也爲吾儒者聞之茫然自失反以中國聖人之敎謂不及於彼其果然乎

“(…) Even though there have been many Chinese sages, given that some generations [in China] flourished, while others found themselves in ruins, China’s [orthodox] teaching clearly does not get to the root of the matter! If our orthodox scholars heard about this, they would actually be utterly dumbfounded, and even go so far as calling the teaching of Chinese sages falling short of that [other one],13 wouldn’t they?”

曰西域一方風氣敦厚人心淳樸不甚如中國之巧僞則容或有之然是皆夸大之語也嘗觀歷代諸史漢哀以後大西諸夷之侵伐幷合者多史豈誣說乎是不足取信

[I] said: “It may be the case that in the entire Western region is characterised by honest manners and the people [there] may be modest and kind-hearted, and they may not be as extremely prone to ingenious deceit as the Chinese are, but that [what you just said] is entirely exaggerated. Just take a look at historical records from successive generations: all the hostile incursions by the Western barbarian tribes [into China] which have occurred since the reign of Emperor Āi 哀 of the state of Hàn 漢14 tally up to a large amount. Why would historical works make [this] up? That [argument of yours] is not credible. (…)”

且倭國始祖狹野卽其所謂神武天皇也立國當周平王之時至今一姓相傳其制國之術封建之法亦非今中國之所可比則豈可以此而謂過於中國乎是皆知天學而然耶

“(…) Furthermore, the first ruler of Japan, Sanо 狹野, who is also called Jinmu Tennō 神武天皇,15 founded his state when King Píng 平 reigned over the [Chinese] state of Zhōu 周.16 Ever since this founding, members of one single clan have succeeded each other [as Japan’s rulers]. Its statecraft and method of enfeoffment bear no comparison to today’s China. But how could one, based on these [facts], [preposterously] claim that [Japan] would excel more than China? Might it be so because they all17 know the Heavenly Teaching?”

或曰耶蘓救世被釘於架能震撼天地萬物而不傷一釘己之人此非至仁而然耶

My conversation partner said: “When Jesus underwent His crucifixion, He could have made heaven and earth, and all things and beings in them, tremble, yet He did not hurt a single person involved in the crucifixion. Isn’t this, in fact, ultimate humaneness?”

曰此上所謂忘讐愛仇者也畸人書曰天主敎士以德報讐不以讐報讐

[I] replied: “This is [an example of] forgetting the harm done by others out of hatred and loving one’s enemy.” In The Man of Paradox18 it is written that the Heavenly Lord teaches that noble men repay hateful treatment with virtue instead of repaying hateful acts in kind. (…)”

凡讐有兩般若害我之讐古君子之若是者多矣若以君父之讐而以此爲敎則其害義大矣此吾所以謂墨子兼愛之流而此其甚者也

“(…) In general, there are two categories of injustices borne out of hate, the first being that which harms oneself: gentlemen of superior virtue in the olden days often had to deal with that! The second category is the injustice wrought upon one’s ruler or father. If one were to accept this [principle propagated by the Western scholars of forgetting harm done by others borne out of hate], then one would harm justice in a huge way! This is the [same] train of thought [as] we have already seen in the idea of “Universal Love” by Mòzǐ 墨子, only taken to extremes!”

或曰西士斥中國之人不知上帝造此天地萬物而周子太極圖言理爲物之原朱子又曰天卽理也之說如何

My conversation partner said: “The Western scholars find fault with the Chinese for not recognizing that the [Supreme Lord named] Shàngdì 上帝 created all the things and beings in heaven and earth, but how to think of that in light of the statement in the Diagram of Supreme Polarity19 by Master Zhōu 周子 about the Principle (lǐ 理) being, in fact, the source of beings and things, as well as the pronouncement by Master Zhū 朱子20 about the Principle being exactly Heaven?”

曰上帝主宰之稱而爲萬物之緫主吾儒已言之矣

[I] responded: “Shàngdì 上帝 is the name of the Chief Lord, Who functions as the ruler of all beings and things. Our orthodox scholars have already stated that [clearly enough]! (…)”

人之稱天有二一是主宰之天曰天命之性曰畏天命之類是天卽理也一是形氣之天是天卽物也

“(…) There are two meanings to the term “Heaven” as used by people.21 The first one is the Chief Lord’s Heaven, as in: “the nature of the Mandate of Heaven,” and “do fear the Mandate of Heaven!” This “Heaven” is indeed the same as the Principle. The other one is [the meaning of] heaven as a material manifestation of qì 氣 energy. This “heaven” is, in fact, a material object. (…)”

周子之圖本於孔子太極生兩儀之言以有主宰而言之則曰上帝以無聲無臭而言之則曰太極曰理上帝與太極之理其可貳而言之乎

Master Zhōu 周子’s Diagram [of Supreme Polarity], goed to the core of Confucius’ pronouncement that Supreme Polarity brings forth the Two Elementary Forms: If it names it on account of the existence of a Chief Lord, then it says “Shàngdì 上帝,” if it names it on account of it being without any sound or smell, then it says “Supreme Polarity,” also known as “the Principle.” How could one present the Principle of both Shàngdì 上帝[, the Supreme Lord] and Supreme Polarity as two different things? (…)”

其言曰但聞古先君子敬恭于天地之上帝未聞有尊奉太極者又曰理是依賴者有物則有物之理無物則無物之理有君則有臣無君則無臣若以虛理爲物之原是無異乎佛老之說云

“(…) They [, the Western scholars,] say: “[We] have only heard of the highly virtuous gentlemen of ancient times paying reverence to Shàngdì 上帝[, the Supreme Lord] of Heaven and Earth, we have not once heard about anyone venerating a Supreme Polarity.”22 They furthermore claim: “A principle (lǐ 理) is an accidental property.23 If there is an object, then there is the object’s principle, [but] when there is no object, then its principle does not exist[, either.] If there is a ruler, then there are his subjects, [but] when there is no rule, there are no subjects[, either]. If you regard the trivial [concept of a] principle as the origin of objects, then that is no different from what the Buddhist and Daoists [falsely] profess.” (…)”

此等言語其果成說乎上帝爲理之原而造此天地萬物天地萬物不能自生必有天地萬物之理故生此天地萬物安有無其理而自生之理乎此卽後儒氣先於理之說不足卞矣

“(…) Now, could such writings really be sensible expositions? [The Supreme Lord] Shàngdì 上帝 acts as the origin of the Principle (lǐ 理), and created the great many things and beings in this Heaven and Earth. The great many things and beings of Heaven and Earth cannot be created by themselves: a Principle of the great many things and beings in Heaven and Earth, on account of which they are created, must exist. How could it possibly be that there is no Principle underlying them and [the great many things] have been created by themselves? This is exactly the same as the [false] theory of more recent scholars that qì 氣 energy takes precedence over the Principle (lǐ 理). This does not warrant any [further] discussion. (…)”

孔子曰太極生兩儀又曰一陰一陽之謂道道卽理也若如西士之言則是幷與孔子而斥之也

“(…) Confucius says that Supreme Polarity brings forth the Two Elementary Forms, while also stating that the movement of Yīn 陰 and Yáng 陽 is called the Way (Dào 道), and the Way[, according to Confucius,] is in fact the Principle. Therefore, by contrasting [the Western scholars’ statements] with Confucius we [come to] reject the former. (…)”

爲吾儒者當明目張膽排擯之不暇也

“(…) As for our orthodox scholars: if they were confronted with such a brazen, flagrant act [to present a theory so jarringly at odds with our sound doctrine], they would spare no time to categorically refute it!”

或曰觀實義畸人等書西士所言中士莫不斂衽信從者何哉

My conversation partner said: “How is it that if you look in writings such as The True Meaning and The Man of Paradox it is always the case that the Chinese scholars, debated by the Western scholars, [end up] straightening their lapels24 and faithfully follow [what the Western scholars propagate]?”

曰此等書皆西士設問而自作故如是耳若與識道之儒士言之豈有斂衽信從之理乎

[I] said: “This is simply so because the Western scholars came up with the questions [ostensibly posed by the Chinese scholars to them] and wrote these writings themselves. If they had a discussion with orthodox scholars proficient in the right teaching, then how could there be a reason [for our orthodox scholars] to straighten their lapels and faithfully follow [what the Western scholars represent]?”