---
title: "闢邪集 · 天學再徵"
description: "辟邪集是明末高僧钟始声的著作由大朗作序程启用撰写跋文该书创作于明末天主教传入中国的背景下主要针对当时天主教的天学理论进行批判全书分为天学初徵和天学再徵两部分并附有四则书信钟始声以佛教立场驳斥了天主教的上帝创世说和灵魂不灭论等核心教义维护了佛教的缘起性空和因果轮回思想辟邪集是明清之际佛教护教文献的重要代表作反映了佛教与西方宗教的早期思想交锋在佛教思想史上具有重要地位是研究明清佛教与中西文化交流的重要文献"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmgmzn64q0561l404s77euj0k"
---

### 天學再徵

> A Further Inquiry into the Heavenly Teachings

金閶逸史鍾始聲振之甫著

> The Lost History of Jinchang

新安夢士程智用用九甫評

> New An Dreamer Cheng Zhiyong Uses Nine Pu Commentary

鍾子作《天學初徵》。客閱而笑曰：「甚矣！子之鹵莽也！乍聞天說，曾未深究，遽謂不通而徵之。子且再閱《西來意》、《三山論學記》及《聖教約言》，則不通者，乃在子而不在彼矣。」鍾子取而細讀之，復為之徵如左。

> Master Zhong wrote the \*Initial Inquiry into Heavenly Studies\*. A guest read it and laughed, saying: "How reckless you are! Upon first hearing the teachings about Heaven, without thorough examination, you immediately declare them nonsensical and write a critique. You should read \*The Meaning of the Western Teaching\*, \*Record of Discussions on the Three Mountains\*, and \*Brief Words on the Sacred Doctrine\*. Then you will see that it is you, not they, who fails to understand." Zhong took these texts and read them carefully, then wrote his critique as follows.

其言曰：「上天自東運行，而日、月、星、辰之天自西循逆之。度數各依其則，次舍各安其位。倘無尊主幹旋主宰，其間寧免無悖？譬如舟渡江海，上下風濤而無傾蕩之虞。雖未見人，亦知一舟之中，必有掌舵智工」等。徵曰：舟之渡江海也，舟必各一舵工。未聞一舵工而遍操眾舟之上下者也。又操舟者必非造舟人也，謂天惟一主，并造之，并運行之。可乎？

> Their teaching says: "The heavens revolve from east to west, while the sun, moon, and stars move in the opposite direction, from west to east. Their measurements follow their own rules, and their positions each settle in their proper place. If there were no supreme master to oversee and direct this, how could there be no chaos? For example: when a ship crosses a river or sea, it braves wind and waves without fear of capsizing. Even if no person is visible, you know there must be a skilled helmsman aboard." But we can ask: When ships cross a river or sea, each ship must have its own helmsman. We have never heard of a single helmsman steering all the ships at once. Moreover, the person steering is certainly not the same as the one who built the ship. So, can we honestly say that one single master created the heavens, and also directs their movement?

其言曰：「凡物不能自成，必須外為者以成之。樓臺、房屋不能自成，成於工匠之手；天地不能自成，成於天主」等。徵曰：工匠之成房屋也，必有命之成者。天主之成天地，孰命之耶？工匠成房屋，不能為房屋主。彼成天地者，又烏能為天地主乎？

> The argument goes: "Nothing can create itself; everything requires an external agent to bring it into being. Towers and houses cannot build themselves—they are built by craftsmen. The heavens and earth cannot create themselves—they were created by the Lord of Heaven." To this we reply: When a craftsman builds a house, there must be someone who commissions him to build it. So who commissioned the Lord of Heaven to create the heavens and earth? And if a craftsman builds a house, he cannot be the master of that house. Then how can the one who creates the heavens and earth be the master of them?

其言曰：「天下之物極多、極盛，苟無一尊維持調護，不免散壞。是故一家止有一長，一國止有一君，一人止有一身，一身止有一首」等。徵曰：謂一身無二首，可也。謂一身一首之外，別無他身他首，不可也；謂一家無二長可也，謂一家一長之外別無他家他長，不可也；謂一國無二君可也，謂一國一君之外更無他國他君，不可也；謂一天無二主亦可也，謂一天一主之外獨無他天他主，可乎？又一身雖惟一首，首必與四肢、百骸俱生，非首生四肢、百骸也；一家雖惟一長，長必與眷屬、僮僕並生，非長生眷屬、僮僕也；一國雖惟一君，君必與臣佐、吏民俱生，非君生臣佐、吏民也。則一天雖惟一主，主亦必與神、鬼、人、物並生，謂主生神、鬼、人、物可乎？

> "The argument states: 'There are countless things in the world, vast and abundant. If there were no single supreme being to maintain and protect them, they would inevitably fall into chaos and decay. Thus, each family has one head, each country has one ruler, each person has one body, and each body has one head.' My response: It is acceptable to say a body has only one head. It is not acceptable to claim that besides one body and one head, there are no other bodies or heads. It is acceptable to say a family has only one head. It is not acceptable to claim that besides one family and one head, there are no other families or heads. It is acceptable to say a country has only one ruler. It is not acceptable to claim that besides one country and one ruler, there are no other countries or rulers. It is acceptable to say one heaven has only one master. But can we claim that besides one heaven and one master, there are no other heavens and masters? Furthermore, although the body has only one head, the head coexists with the four limbs and hundreds of bones from birth. The head does not give birth to the limbs and bones. Although a family has only one head, the head coexists with dependents and servants from the beginning. The head does not give birth to the dependents and servants. Although a country has only one ruler, the ruler coexists with ministers, officials, and common people from the start. The ruler does not give birth to the ministers, officials, and common people. Likewise, although one heaven has only one master, the master must also coexist with gods, ghosts, humans, and all beings. So can we claim the master gives birth to gods, ghosts, humans, and all beings?"

其言曰：「天主非天也，非地也，而高明博厚，較天地尤甚。非鬼神也，而神靈鬼神，不啻非人也，而遐邁聖睿，乃至無始無終，無處可以容載，而無所不盈充」等。徵曰：既無所不盈充，則不但在天堂，亦遍在地獄也。不但遍天、地，亦遍在神、鬼、人、獸、草、木、雜穢等處也。若謂高居天堂，至尊無上，則盈充之義不成；若謂遍一切處，則至尊之體不立。或救之曰：「天主之尊，如日在天，光遍一切。雖遍而不失其尊，雖尊而光原自遍。」今再徵曰：是仍有處所、有方隅、有形像也。日有形像，彼謂天主造之。天主亦有形像，又誰之所造耶？

> It says: "The Lord of Heaven is neither the sky nor the earth, yet is even higher, brighter, broader, and thicker than sky and earth. He is not a spirit or ghost, yet is more divine and spiritual than any spirit or ghost. He is not human, yet far surpasses the wisest and holiest—he is without beginning or end, nowhere can contain him, yet he fills all things completely." Then Cheng questioned: "If he fills all things completely, then he resides not only in heaven, but also throughout hell. He pervades not only heaven and earth, but also spirits, ghosts, humans, animals, plants, trees, filth, and all other places. If it is said that he dwells high in heaven, supremely honored and unsurpassed, then the idea of 'filling all things' falls apart. If it is said that he pervades everywhere, then the concept of a supremely honored being cannot stand." Some might try to defend this by saying: "The Lord of Heaven's supremacy is like the sun in the sky—its light shines everywhere. Although it shines everywhere, it does not lose its supremacy; although it is supreme, its light naturally pervades all." Cheng then further questioned: "This still implies a location, a direction, and a form. The sun has a form. They say the Lord of Heaven created the sun. If the Lord of Heaven also has a form, then who created him?"

其言曰：「吾天主，乃經所謂上帝也。」遂引〈頌〉、〈雅〉、《易傳》、《中庸》等以證成之。徵曰：甚矣！其不知儒理也。吾儒所謂天者，有三焉：一者、望而蒼蒼之天，所謂昭昭之多，及其無窮者是也。二者、統御世間，主善罰惡之天，即《詩》《易》、《中庸》所稱上帝是也。彼惟知此而已。此之天帝但治世而非生世，譬如帝王但治民而非生民也。乃謬計為生人、生物之主，則大繆矣。三者、本有靈明之性，無始無終、不生不滅名之為天。此乃天地萬物本原，名之為命。故中庸云：「天命之謂性。」天非蒼蒼之天，亦非上帝之天也，命非諄諄之命，亦非賦畀之解也。孔子曰：「五十而知天命。」正深證此本性耳，亦謂之中，故曰：「喜、怒、哀、樂之未發謂之中。」中也者，天下之大本也。亦謂之易，故曰：「易，無思也，無為也。寂然不動，感而遂通天下之故。」亦謂之良知，故曰：「知至而后意誠。」亦謂之不睹不聞，亦謂之獨，故曰：「戒慎乎其所不睹，恐懼乎其所不聞。」君子必慎其獨，即孔子所言畏天命也。亦謂之心，故曰：「學問之道無他，求其放心而已矣。」亦謂之己，故曰：「君子求諸己。為仁由己而由人乎哉？」亦謂之我，故曰：「萬物皆備於我矣。」亦謂之誠，故曰：「自誠明，謂之性。」誠者天之道也。此真天地萬物本原，而實無喜怒、無造作、無賞罰、無聲臭。但此天然性德之中，法爾具足理氣體用，故曰：「易有太極，是生兩儀」等。然雖云易有太極，而太極即全是易；如濕性為水，水全是濕；雖云太極生兩儀，而兩儀即全太極；雖云兩儀生四象，四象亦即全是兩儀；雖云四象生八卦，八卦亦即全是四象。乃至八相盪而為六十四，六十四互變而為四千九十六。於彼四千九十六卦之中，隨舉一卦、隨舉一爻，亦無不全是八卦、全是四象、全是兩儀、全是太極、全是易理者。譬如觸大海一波，無不全體是水，全是濕性者。又如撒水銀珠，顆顆皆圓。故凡天、神、鬼、人，苟能於一事一物之中，克見太極、易理之全者，在天則為上帝，在鬼神則為靈明，在人則為聖人，而統治、化導之權歸焉。倘天地未分之先，先有一最靈、最聖者為大主，則便可有治而無亂，有善而無惡，又何俟後之神靈、聖哲為之裁成輔相？而人亦更無與天地合德，先天而天弗違者矣。彼烏知吾儒繼天立極之真學脈哉！

> He said, "My Lord of Heaven is what the scriptures call the 'Supreme Being'." Then he cited the Odes, the Elegantiae, the Commentary on the Changes, and the \*Doctrine of the Mean\* to prove it. My response: How utterly ignorant he is of Confucian principles! In our Confucian tradition, "Heaven" has three meanings: First, the blue sky we see stretching vast and endless above us. Second, the Heaven that governs the world, rewarding good and punishing evil - this is the "Supreme Being" mentioned in the \*Odes\*, \*Book of Changes\*, and \*Doctrine of the Mean\*. He only knows this meaning. But this "Lord of Heaven" governs the world without creating it, just as an emperor governs the people without giving them life. To mistakenly claim it as the creator of humans and all things is a grave error. Third, the inherent, luminous nature that has no beginning or end, no birth or death - this is called Heaven. It is the primal source of all things, and is also called "Destiny." Thus the \*Doctrine of the Mean\* says, "What Heaven imparts to humans is called their nature." This heaven is not the blue sky, nor is it a ruling deity. This "destiny" is not a spoken command nor a gift given. Confucius said, "At fifty, I understood the Mandate of Heaven." This was his profound realization of this fundamental nature. It is also called "the Mean," as in: "Before the feelings of pleasure, anger, sorrow, and joy arise, it is called the Mean. The Mean is the great root of the world." It is also called "Change," as in: "The \*Book of Changes\* has no thought, no action. It is still and unmoving, yet when stimulated, it comprehends all things under heaven." It is also called "innate goodness," as in: "When knowledge is perfected, the will becomes sincere." It is also called "what is not seen or heard," and "the solitary self," as in: "Be watchful over what is not seen, and fearful over what is not heard. The noble person must be cautious in solitude." This is what Confucius meant by "fearing the Mandate of Heaven." It is also called "the mind," as in: "The path of learning is nothing other than seeking the lost mind." It is also called "the self," as in: "The noble person seeks in himself. To practice humanity depends on oneself - does it depend on others?" It is also called "the 'I'," as in: "All things are already complete within me." It is also called "sincerity," as in: "From sincerity to clarity, this is called the nature. Sincerity is the way of Heaven." This is the true original source of heaven, earth, and all things. In reality, it has no joy or anger, no creation, no reward or punishment, no sound or smell. Yet within this natural, virtuous essence, principle and material force, substance and function are inherently complete. Thus it is said: "Change contains the Supreme Ultimate, which generates the two forces." However, although we say change contains the Supreme Ultimate, the Supreme Ultimate is entirely change itself - just as wetness is the nature of water, and water is entirely wetness. Although we say the Supreme Ultimate generates the two forces, the two forces are entirely the Supreme Ultimate. Although we say the two forces generate the four images, the four images are entirely the two forces. Although we say the four images generate the eight trigrams, the eight trigrams are entirely the four images. And when the eight trigrams intermingle to form sixty-four, and the sixty-four transform into 4,096, within those 4,096 hexagrams, if you pick any single hexagram or any single line, it is entirely the eight trigrams, entirely the four images, entirely the two forces, entirely the Supreme Ultimate, entirely the principle of change. This is like touching one wave in the vast ocean - the whole wave is entirely water, entirely wetness. Or like scattering beads of quicksilver - every single bead is perfectly round. So wherever heaven, spirits, ghosts, or humans can see the Supreme Ultimate and the principle of change fully present in a single thing or event - in heaven, this is the supreme deity; in spirits, this is their luminous intelligence; in humans, this is the sage. And the power to govern, transform, and guide returns to this. If before heaven and earth were divided, there was already a most intelligent and most sacred being as the Great Lord, then there would only be order without chaos, only good without evil. Then why would there be later spirits, sages, and wise ones needed to assist and complete creation? And humans would never achieve harmony with heaven and earth, or act before heaven without it going against them. How could he possibly understand our Confucian true lineage of inheriting and establishing the ultimate standard of heaven?

其言曰：「魂有三品：下名生魂，草木之魂是也；中名覺魂，禽獸之魂是也。此二皆滅，亦云有始有終。卜名靈魂，即人魂也。此魂不滅，亦云有始無終。」徵曰：靈與覺異，則有始而無終。覺與生異，何皆有始而有終也？且謂禽獸有覺而無靈，惟人為有靈者，現見世之愚人，但念飲食、婬欲，他無所知，與禽獸何異？現見世有義犬、義猴，捨身殉主、訴官理究，與人何異？故孟子亦云：「人之所以異於禽獸者幾希，庶民去之，君子存之。」豈可妄分一有終、一無終耶？

> He said: "The soul has three grades: the lowest is called the life-soul, which belongs to plants; the middle is called the awareness-soul, which belongs to animals and birds. These two are both perishable—they have a beginning and an end. The highest is called the spirit-soul, which is the human soul. This soul is imperishable—it has a beginning but no end." I respond: If the spirit-soul and the awareness-soul are different, then the former would have a beginning but no end. But if the awareness-soul and the life-soul are also different, why do both of them have a beginning and an end? Moreover, you claim that animals have awareness but no spirit, and only humans have a spirit. Yet look at the foolish people in the world who only think about food, drink, and sexual desire, knowing nothing else—how are they different from animals? And we also see loyal dogs and righteous monkeys who sacrifice themselves for their masters or bring cases to court seeking justice—how are they different from humans? That is why Mencius said: "What distinguishes humans from animals is slight—common people lose it, while noble people preserve it." How then can you arbitrarily claim that one has an end and the other does not?

其言曰：「周公、仲尼之論，孰有狎后帝而與之一者。設匹夫自稱與天子同尊，其能免乎？地上民不可妄比肩，地上君而可同天上帝乎？」徵曰：庶民不敢擬帝王者，名位也；不敢讓帝王者，德性也。故曰：「朝廷莫如爵，輔世長民莫如德。」又曰：「當仁不讓於師。」又曰：「自天子以至於庶人，壹是皆以修身為本。」故文王，人君也。而純亦不己，可以配天；仲尼，匹夫也，而祖述憲章，不名僭竊。且父之生子也，誰不欲子之克肖者？天主既為大父，實生於人，乃不欲人之肖之，何哉？

> The text says: "Among the teachings of the Duke of Zhou and Confucius, which one ever dared to treat the supreme ruler as an equal? If an ordinary person claimed to share the same status as the emperor, could they escape punishment? Common people on earth dare not compare themselves to earthly rulers—how, then, could an earthly ruler compare himself to the Lord of Heaven?" Wei Zheng replied: "Common people dare not compare themselves to emperors because of status and position; they dare not yield to emperors because of virtue and moral character. Therefore it is said: 'In the court, rank takes precedence; in guiding the world and leading the people, virtue takes precedence.' Again: 'When faced with benevolence, do not yield even to your teacher.' Again: 'From the emperor down to the common person, all must take self-cultivation as the foundation.' Thus, King Wen was a ruler, yet his pure virtue was unceasing—therefore he could match Heaven. Confucius was a commoner, yet he transmitted and emulated the ancient ways—this was not considered usurpation. Now, when a father has a child, who does not desire the child to resemble him? Since the Lord of Heaven is the Great Father who truly gives birth to humanity, why would He not wish humans to resemble Him?"

其言曰：「知者之心，含天地、具萬物，非真天地、萬物之體也。若止水明鏡，影諸萬物，乃謂明鏡止水，均有天地，即能造作之，豈可乎？天主，萬物之原，能生萬物。若人即與之同，當亦能生之。」徵曰：止水明鏡之影萬物也，鏡水在此，萬物在彼。有分劑，有方隅，故知是影而非體也。心之含天地、具萬物也，汝可指心之方隅分劑，猶如彼鏡與水乎？若心無形朕，不能生萬物者，天主亦無形朕，胡能生萬物也？若天主無形而能形形，心獨不可無形而形形乎？

> The argument states: "The enlightened mind contains heaven and earth, holds all things—but this does not mean it is the actual substance of heaven and earth or the physical things themselves. It is like still water or a bright mirror: they reflect all things. If we say that because the bright mirror or still water contains heaven and earth, it can therefore create them—is that possible? The Lord of Heaven is the origin of all things, capable of generating them. If a person were equal to Him, they too should be able to generate things." In response, Zheng said: The still water and bright mirror reflect all things, but the mirror or water is here, and the things are there. They have boundaries and positions. Therefore, we know the reflections are images, not the actual substance. As for the mind containing heaven and earth and holding all things—can you point to the boundaries or positions of the mind, like you can for that mirror or water? If the mind has no form and cannot generate all things, then the Lord of Heaven also has no form—how can \*He\* generate all things? If the Lord of Heaven, without form, is able to give form to all forms, then why can the mind alone, also without form, not give form to forms?

其言曰：「有在物之內分，如陰陽是也；有在物之外分，如作者之類是也。天主作物，則在物之外分矣。」徵曰：天主作天地萬物，必在天地萬物之外。如匠作器皿，必在器皿之外。是固然矣。然則天主有方隅也、有分劑也，原非遍一切也。則必有分段也、有變遷也。何以無始無終，能為萬世主乎？

> The text states: "Some causes are within the object, such as yin and yang; others are external to the object, such as a craftsman. When the Lord of Heaven creates objects, He exists outside them." According to this view, the Lord of Heaven creates heaven, earth, and all things, so He must exist outside them, just as a craftsman creating a vessel must exist outside the vessel. This seems correct. But if so, then the Lord of Heaven has a location and limits; He does not pervade everything. Thus He would also have divisions and changes. How, then, could He be without beginning or end and be the eternal Lord of all ages?

其言曰：「形者在所，故能充乎所。神無形，則何以滿其所乎？一粒之大，萬神宅焉。豈惟往者，將來靈魂並容不礙也。」徵曰：神之無形，善乎其言之矣。然無形則無往來，亦無數目，亦無生滅。而曰靈魂天主所生，其可乎哉？

> A certain person said: "Form occupies space, therefore it can fill a space. Spirit has no form, so how can it fill a space? Within a single grain, ten thousand spirits can dwell. Not only past souls, but future souls can also be contained without obstruction." Response: The claim that spirit has no form—well spoken indeed. Yet, if it has no form, then it has no coming or going, no counting or numbering, and no birth or death. But then to say that the soul is created by the Heavenly Lord—how can that be?

其言曰：「化生天地萬物，乃大公之父也。又時主宰而安養之，乃無上共君也。世人弗仰弗奉，則無父、無君，至無孝、至無忠也。」徵曰：夫世間之法，決無全能。故天地能覆載而不能炤明；日月能炤明而不能生育；父母能生育而不能教誨；師友能教誨而不能賞罰；君主能賞罰而不能無漏網；鬼神賞罰無漏網而又不能覆載炤明等。若天主果有全能也，則直以天主覆載、炤臨、生育、教誨、賞罰之而可矣。又何用天、地、日、月、君、親、鬼、神為？若猶待天覆地載，乃至親生君治之也，則天主全能安在？今現見人之生也，天覆之、地載之，日月炤臨之、父生之，母育之，國君統治之、鬼神昭鑒保護之。顧不知感其恩德，獨推恩於漠無見聞之天主，謂之大父、大君。既謂之大父、大君，則必以吾父、吾君為小父、小君矣，豈不至無孝、至無忠哉？又設謂天主全能，即寄於天、地、日、月、君、親、鬼、神，如國主寄全用於公、卿、牧、長。則庶民有善，官宰賞之可矣；庶民有罪，官宰罰之可矣，豈事事必經國主哉？又庶民之所承事，亦但承事官宰無違，即為承事國主矣。豈必獨事一主而禁其承事官宰哉？今謂仙、佛僭竊，禁不承事，猶之可也。天、地、日、月、鬼、神，固天主所造，以覆載炤護人者，而亦禁其拜祭，不亦異乎？

> They say: "The one who creates heaven, earth, and all things is the Great Father of all. And the one who governs and nurtures them at all times is the Supreme Common Lord. If people do not revere or serve him, then they are without a father and without a lord—utterly unfilial and utterly disloyal." I respond: In the laws of this world, nothing is all-powerful. Heaven and earth can shelter and support, but they cannot give light; the sun and moon can give light, but they cannot bring forth life; parents can bring forth life, but they cannot teach and guide; teachers and friends can teach and guide, but they cannot reward and punish; rulers can reward and punish, but they cannot ensure no one escapes the net; ghosts and spirits reward and punish without anyone escaping the net, yet they cannot shelter, support, or illuminate the world. If the Lord of Heaven were truly all-powerful, then it would be enough for him alone to shelter, support, illuminate, bring forth life, teach, reward, and punish all things. Why then would we need heaven, earth, sun, moon, rulers, parents, ghosts, and spirits? If he still relies on heaven to cover and earth to support, even on parents to give birth and rulers to govern, then where is his omnipotence? Now, we see in our own lives that heaven covers us, earth supports us, the sun and moon shine upon us, our father gives us life, our mother nurtures us, the ruler of our country governs us, and ghosts and spirits illuminate our deeds and protect us. Yet people fail to feel gratitude for these kindnesses and instead attribute all grace to a Lord of Heaven they cannot see or hear, calling him the Great Father and Great Lord. If they call him the Great Father and Great Lord, then they must regard our own father and ruler as lesser father and lesser lord—is this not the height of being unfilial and disloyal? Furthermore, if one claims that the Lord of Heaven’s omnipotence resides within heaven, earth, sun, moon, rulers, parents, ghosts, and spirits, like a ruler delegating his full authority to ministers, governors, and magistrates, then when commoners do good, the officials can reward them; when commoners do wrong, the officials can punish them. Why must every matter go through the ruler alone? And when commoners serve, serving the officials without disobedience is already serving the ruler. Why must they serve only one lord and be forbidden from serving the officials? Now, it might be acceptable to say that immortals and Buddhas have usurped authority and should not be worshipped. But heaven, earth, sun, moon, ghosts, and spirits were created by the Lord of Heaven to shelter, support, and protect people—why forbid worshipping them as well? Is this not strange?

其言曰：「人心性命，原天主所賦也。」徵曰：天命之謂性。紫陽之解甚謬，吾已釋大意於前矣。夫可賦者，必其有形者也。心性有何形像而可賦乎？若無形像而仍可賦，則天主靈明，亦必有賦之者矣。又可賦則可奪，云何有始而無終乎？

> They say: "The human heart, nature, and life are originally bestowed by the Lord of Heaven." This alludes to the teaching: "What Heaven imparts is called nature." Zhu Xi's interpretation of this is greatly mistaken, and I have already explained the general meaning earlier. Now, if something can be "bestowed," it must have a physical form. What form or image do the heart and nature possess that can be bestowed? If they can still be bestowed without having form or image, then the spiritual radiance of the Lord of Heaven must also have a bestower. Moreover, if something can be bestowed, it can also be taken away—how can it be said to have a beginning but no end?

其言曰：「必先有物，而後有理。引詩云『有物、有則。』」徵曰：夫理者，貫於物之終始，而能成物者也。故曰誠者物之終始，不誠無物。《詩》所謂有物有則，正繇從理成物，故即物是理。如金作器，器全是金也。若言先有物而後有理，則未有物時便無理耶？既無物即無理，則無天地時尤必無理。而天主在天地先，乃無理之尤甚者也。

> Someone said: "There must first be a thing, and then there is a principle. As the Book of Songs says, 'There are things, and there are rules.'" Zheng replied: Principle runs through the entire existence of a thing, from beginning to end, and it is what makes a thing what it is. That is why it is said, "Sincerity is the beginning and end of things; without sincerity, there is no thing." When the Book of Songs speaks of "things and rules," it precisely means that principle creates things, and therefore, the thing itself is principle. It is like making a tool out of gold: the entire tool is gold. If you say there must first be a thing, and then principle arises, then does that mean before a thing exists there is no principle? If no thing means no principle, then before heaven and earth existed, there was certainly no principle. Yet God existed before heaven and earth — that would make God the most extreme case of being without principle.

其言曰：「必有無始，而後有有始；有無形，而後能形形。吾身之先，必有父母生我。必有天主降衷於我。」徵曰：無始無形，快哉論也！若天主無始，則父母亦無始乎？天主無形，則父母亦無形乎？或解之曰：「父母有形，故有始。天主無形，故無始也。」徵曰：吾身有形，故有始。吾心性無形，何為不無始乎？

> "It is said: 'There must be an infinite origin before there can be a finite beginning; there must be a formless source before forms can give form. Before my body existed, my parents must have given birth to me. And before them, a Heavenly Lord must have instilled a soul in me.' An inquiry says: 'A formless and infinite origin—what an exhilarating theory! If the Heavenly Lord is infinite, then are my parents also infinite? If the Heavenly Lord is formless, then are my parents also formless?' Someone explains: 'Parents have form, so they have a beginning. The Heavenly Lord is formless, so he has no beginning.' The inquiry responds: 'My body has form, so it has a beginning. My mind and nature are formless—why then are they not also without beginning?'"

其言曰：「天地猶一宮室也。宮室、樓臺必待有主製造而後成。曾是天地之大，無有主之者，竟能自造自成乎？」徵曰：宮室未成時，主及工匠，依地依廠。天地未成時，天主何依耶？又宮室則用土木瓦石成之，天地用何物成之耶？又未有天地，先有成天地之料耶？此料為本有之？為天主生之耶？且安置何所耶？為在天主身內？為在外耶？若在身外，則天主不遍一切；若在身內，不幾戕賊其身，而以為天地萬物耶？

> He said: "Heaven and earth are like a single palace. Palaces, towers, and pavilions must first have a master builder to construct them before they are complete. Can it be that heaven and earth, so vast, have no master and yet create themselves?" Zheng replied: When a palace has not yet been built, the master and the craftsmen work on a plot of land, within a workshop. Before heaven and earth existed, on what did the Heavenly Lord rely? Furthermore, a palace is built using earth, wood, tiles, and stone—with what materials were heaven and earth built? Moreover, before heaven and earth existed, was there some material ready to form them? Was this material self-existent? Or was it brought into being by the Heavenly Lord? And where was it placed? Was it inside the Heavenly Lord’s being or outside? If it was outside, then the Heavenly Lord would not be omnipresent. If it was inside, would that not be like injuring his own body, turning it into heaven, earth, and all things?

其言曰：「太極之說，不過理、氣二字。未嘗言其有靈知覺，明也。既無靈覺，何以主宰萬化？」徵曰：孔子不言「易有太極，是生兩儀」乎？夫易即靈明知覺之本性也，故無思、無為，寂然不動，感而遂通。然正不必以此主宰萬化。若萬化定有主宰，則但化善而不化惡，但化樂而不化苦。聖人修道之教，反為無用矣。

> The question states: "The theory of the Supreme Ultimate merely involves the two concepts of Principle and Material Force. It has never been said to possess spiritual awareness or intelligence. Since it lacks such awareness, how can it govern the myriad transformations?" In response, I say: Does Confucius not state that "the Yi (Book of Changes) has the Supreme Ultimate, which gives rise to the Two Modes"? Now, the Yi is precisely the fundamental nature of spiritual awareness and intelligence. Therefore, it is without thought, without action—silent and unmoving, yet it responds and penetrates all. However, it does not necessarily govern the myriad transformations in the way that the question suggests. If the myriad transformations truly had a single governing entity, then it would only produce goodness and not evil, only joy and not suffering. In that case, the sage's teachings on cultivating the Way would become utterly useless.

其言曰：「儒云：『物物各具一太極』，則太極與物同體。囿於物而不得為天地主。」徵曰：太極妙理，無分劑、無方隅，故物物各得其全，全體在物而不囿於物也。孔子曰：「範圍天地之化而不過，曲成萬物而不遺。通乎晝夜之道而知。」此之謂也。汝謂獨一天主，不與物同體，則必高居物表，有分劑、有方隅矣，何謂無所不在？

> His words say: "Confucians claim, 'Every individual thing possesses a complete Supreme Ultimate.' This would mean the Supreme Ultimate shares the same substance as things, confined within them and thus unable to be the master of heaven and earth." Swift observes: The wondrous principle of the Supreme Ultimate has no boundaries, no spatial limits. Therefore each thing fully receives it—the entire substance dwells within each thing, yet is not confined by it. Confucius said: "It encompasses the transformations of heaven and earth without exceeding them; it perfectly completes all things without omission; it penetrates the knowledge of day and night (light and darkness)." This is what it means. You claim that the singular Heavenly Lord does not share substance with things. If so, He must dwell loftily above all things, having boundaries and spatial limitations. How, then, can He be described as "present everywhere"?

其言曰：「人為天主所生，悉啟翼於善。或乃為惡，則同人所自造。」徵曰：天主既有全能，何以好善而人不善，惡惡而人反惡？或救之曰：「如父母生子，但欲其善，不欲其惡。子偏作惡，父母何辜？」徵曰：父母生子身，不生子心性，故不得自在也。天主既生其心性，何不但生善心性耶？

> They say: "Human beings are created by God in Heaven, and all are guided toward goodness. Yet if some choose to do evil, it is of their own making." One asks: Since God is all-powerful, why does He love goodness, yet people are not good; why does He abhor evil, yet people instead turn to evil? Another defends this by saying: "When parents have children, they only wish for them to be good, not evil. If the children deliberately do evil, how are the parents to blame?" To which the questioner replies: Parents give birth to the child's body, but not to the child's mind and nature—thus they lack control. Since God creates both mind and nature, why does He not create only good minds and natures?

其言曰：「天主生物，欲以養人。生人，欲以事主。」徵曰：天主既無始，無始何人事之？而忽起生人事己之想？又父母生子，為防老死。天主既無終，生人何用？

> They claim: "God creates living beings to sustain humanity; God creates humanity to serve God." I ask: If God has no beginning, what need is there for humanity to serve God? Why would the thought suddenly arise for God to create humans to serve the divine? Furthermore, parents bear children to provide for themselves in old age and death. Since God has no end, what purpose is there in creating humans?

其言曰：「人之生從何來？死從何去？」徵曰：此佛氏嘗談也，亦吾儒秘旨也。而用之則大異矣。孔子曰：「原始反終」，故知死生之說。精氣為物，遊魂為變，是故知鬼神之情狀。逮季路問事鬼神，則曰：「未能事人，焉能事鬼？」「敢問死。」則曰：「未知生，焉知死？」繇此觀之，生死無二理，人鬼無二致，明矣。「朝聞道而夕死可者」，謂其死而有不死者存也。既死而不死，則生必不生，而謂天主賦之始生，可乎？

> The text says: "Where does human life come from? Where does death go?" Zheng replied: This is a common topic in Buddhism, and also a deep, hidden principle in Confucianism. However, the way it is applied differs greatly. Confucius said: "Trace things back to their beginning and follow them to their end, and you understand the truth of life and death." Vital energy forms things, and the wandering soul brings change—through this, one knows the conditions of spirits and deities. When Ji Lu asked about serving spirits, Confucius replied: "If you cannot yet serve people, how can you serve spirits?" When asked about death, he said: "If you do not yet understand life, how can you understand death?" From this perspective, it is clear that life and death share no separate principle, and humans and spirits share no separate nature. "Hearing the Way in the morning and dying that evening is acceptable" means that in death, there is something that does not die. Since something remains undying after death, life must also have something that does not truly live. So how can it be said that God grants life at birth?

其言曰：「天主降生之時，第以本性之原體，結合於吾人之性體。譬之以梨接桃，梨藉桃以生，桃何嘗損其本體？」徵曰：彼謂人之性靈皆天主造。而今以桃、梨譬之，將謂世間之梨，皆桃所生乎？梨本桃生，何須待接？待接方生，則桃本不能生梨矣。

> They say: "When the Heavenly Lord was born into the world, He joined His original divine nature to our human nature. It's like grafting a pear branch onto a peach tree—the pear grows by relying on the peach, but does the peach lose its own essence?" I respond: They claim that human souls are all created by the Heavenly Lord. Now, using the peach-and-pear metaphor, does that mean all pears in the world are born from peaches? If pears originally came from peaches, grafting wouldn't be necessary. If grafting is required for them to grow, then a peach tree by itself cannot produce pears.

其言曰：「天主未降生千百年前，已豫示必降之兆。及其將降，又有天神來報。乃至種種奇功異瑞。其書充棟，特未傳譯」等。徵曰：此與釋氏所述佛生瑞應何異也？若謂釋迦為摩耶所生，不過是人。則天主為聖女所生，獨非人乎？若謂耶穌定是天主降生，則安知釋迦非天主降生乎？若謂佛氏經書荒偽，則汝書安知不荒偽乎？若謂汝書歷歷有據，則佛經不亦自謂歷歷有據乎？若謂佛出西域，此間無人見聞，便稱為謬。則汝出大西，此間尤無人見，不尤謬乎？佛書從天竺來，汝則以為誤取。汝謂九萬里來，誰知其非說謊乎？汝既孤身至此，去家已遠，歷年已久，何繇與汝交者，猶有本國異物贈之？豈汝膂力甚大，當日所攜之物如此其多耶？抑有神通，朝取而夕至耶？抑有奇術，隨意能變造耶？吾亦聞汝之根底矣。生於近香山岳之小國，聰明奸究，意在覬覦中原神器，故泛海潛至嶺南。先學此方聲字，然後竊讀三教群書，牽佛附儒，杜撰扭捏，創此邪教以為惑世誑民蠹壞國運之本。自謂絕婬不娶而以領聖水之妄說，誘彼愚夫愚婦私行穢鄙。然閩粵民庶，每年必與呂宋等國商賈往來。汝之羽翼，每年附舟賚、送寶物以相資給。是故與汝交者，汝不希彼一毫供養，更以異物而贈惠之。人遂謂汝廉潔無求，勝彼釋、老之勸人布施。乃至縉紳達士，亦被汝惑。以為恭、愨、廉、退，儼然大儒風格。嗚呼！安知王莽謙恭，乃漢室之賊，介甫新學，實宋世之蠹哉！汝之心術亦太惡矣。

> They said: "Hundreds or even thousands of years before the Lord of Heaven was born, signs already foretold his coming. When he was about to be born, an angel came to announce it. Countless miracles and extraordinary events were recorded in books stacked to the rafters, just not yet translated." I say: How is this any different from what Buddhism describes about the miraculous signs at the Buddha's birth? If they claim that Shakyamuni, born of Maya, was merely a human, then is the Lord of Heaven, born of a virgin, not also human? If they insist that Jesus must be the incarnation of the Lord of Heaven, how can we be sure Shakyamuni is not also an incarnation? If they dismiss Buddhist scriptures as absurd and false, how can we be sure their scriptures are not equally absurd? If they claim their books are well-documented, don't Buddhist scriptures also claim to be well-documented? If they argue that the Buddha came from the Western Regions, unseen by anyone here, and thus dismiss it as false, then they come from the distant West where no one here has seen them—quite similar, utterly absurd! Buddhist scriptures came from India, and they dismiss them as mistaken. They claim to have come ninety-thousand miles—who can say it's not a lie? Since you came here alone, far from home and for many years, how is it that those who associate with you still receive gifts of foreign curios from your homeland? Is it because you are so strong that you brought all those items yourself? Or do you have supernatural powers to fetch them in a day? Or do you have strange arts to conjure them at will? I have also heard of your background. You were born in a small country near the Fragrant Hills in the far west. Clever and cunning, you set your sights on usurping the Central Plain’s sacred vessels (power), so you sailed secretly to Lingnan. First, you learned our language and letters, then stole and read the books of the Three Teachings (Confucianism, Buddhism, Daoism), twisting and patching them together with Buddhism to create a false doctrine for deceiving the world and corrupting the nation’s foundation. You claim to be celibate and unmarried, using the absurd promise of holy water to lure foolish men and women into private, sordid acts. Yet the people of Fujian and Guangdong trade yearly with Luzon and other countries. Your followers ship treasures annually to supply you. Therefore, you ask nothing from those who associate with you and even give them exotic gifts. People then think you are pure and ask for nothing, surpassing Buddhism and Daoism that solicit donations. Even scholar-officials and wise men are deceived, thinking you are respectful, humble, incorruptible, and retiring, the very image of a Confucian gentleman. Alas! Who knew that Wang Mang's humility was the mask of a usurper, or that Wang Anshi's new policies were the ruin of the Song? Your mind and intentions are already too evil.

其言曰：「物或有始終，如草、木、鳥、獸；或有始而無終，如天、地、神、鬼及人之靈魂。惟天主無始無終，而能始終萬物。無天主則無物矣」。徵曰：吾儒謂誠者物之終始，不誠無物。其次致曲，曲能有誠，誠則形。乃至惟天下至誠為能化。至誠之道，可以前知。至誠如神，至誠能盡其性，能盡人物之性，贊化育而參天地。故先以二語定其宗趣，所謂「自誠明，謂之性；自明誠，謂之教。」而又結示性修不二，天人合一之旨，故曰：「誠則明矣，明則誠矣。」此真物化根源，非所謂天主也。若必立一天主，至靈至聖，無所不能，威權不二，則化育決無勞贊，而天地決不可參，豈理也哉！又彼所立有始有終、有始無終、無始無終三句，尤為不通。易曰：「形而上者謂之道，形而下者謂之器。」器則有始必有終，道則無終必無始。既許有始無終一句，何不并立無始有終一句耶？且草木與鳥獸，其不同甚矣，猶皆有始有終。人之所以異於禽獸者幾希耳，獨有始而無終，何耶？又世間之法，父子必相類，因果必相同。現見人決生人，鳥決生鳥，瓜不生豆，豆不生瓜。天主既生人也，人有始無終，天主亦必有始而無終矣。若天主靈妙，故無始，則人心亦靈妙，何謂獨有始乎？若人心靈妙，天主賦之，則天主靈妙，安知不亦有賦之者乎？又天主生人，則謂人之大父也。生鳥獸，不為鳥獸父乎？生草木，不為草木父乎？鳥、獸、草、木之父，亦何足為尊主乎？

> He said: "All things either have a beginning and an end, like grass, trees, birds, and animals; or they have a beginning but no end, like heaven, earth, spirits, ghosts, and the human soul. Only the Lord of Heaven has no beginning and no end, and is able to give beginning and end to all things. Without the Lord of Heaven, there would be no things." Master Zheng replied: In our Confucian tradition, it is said that Sincerity (Cheng) is the beginning and end of all things; without Sincerity, there are no things. Next, one extends sincerity to the smaller details; in the details, one can have sincerity, and with sincerity comes a tangible presence. Only the utmost Sincerity in the world can bring about transformation. The way of utmost Sincerity can foreknow events. One with utmost Sincerity is like a spirit; one with utmost Sincerity can fully realize their own nature, and fully realize the nature of people and things, assisting in the transformation and nourishment of life and joining with Heaven and Earth. Therefore, we begin with two phrases to establish the core principle: "From Sincerity to clarity is called nature; from clarity to Sincerity is called teaching." And finally, we conclude with the idea that nature and cultivation are not two separate things, and that humanity and Heaven are one: "Sincerity then becomes clarity; clarity then becomes Sincerity." This is the true root of the transformation of things—it is not what you call the "Lord of Heaven." If we must posit a Lord of Heaven who is supremely spiritual, supremely holy, all-powerful, and unparalleled in authority, then transformation and nourishment would need no assistance, and joining with Heaven and Earth would be impossible. How could that be reasonable? Furthermore, the three categories you propose—those with a beginning and an end, those with a beginning but no end, and those with no beginning and no end—are particularly illogical. The Book of Changes says: "What is above form is called the Way; what is below form is called a vessel." Vessels have a beginning and therefore must have an end; the Way has no end and therefore must have no beginning. Since you allow "a beginning but no end," why not also have "no beginning but an end"? Moreover, grass and trees are vastly different from birds and animals, yet they all have a beginning and an end. What distinguishes humans from animals is but a little; why then do humans alone have a beginning but no end? Again, consider the way of the world: fathers and sons must resemble each other; causes and effects must correspond. We see that humans always give birth to humans, birds always give birth to birds; melons do not produce beans, and beans do not produce melons. Since the Lord of Heaven created humans, and humans have a beginning but no end, the Lord of Heaven must also have a beginning but no end. If you say the Lord of Heaven is so spiritual and wondrous that he has no beginning, then the human mind is also spiritual and wondrous—why is it said to have a beginning only? If the human mind is spiritual and wondrous because the Lord of Heaven bestowed it, then the Lord of Heaven, being spiritual and wondrous, who knows? Might he not also have a bestower? Furthermore, if the Lord of Heaven created humans, then he is called the great father of humanity. But if he created birds and animals, is he not their father as well? If he created grass and trees, is he not their father too? A father of birds, animals, grass, and trees—how could he be considered a supreme lord?

其言曰：「譬如樹之花、果、枝、葉及榦，皆繇根生，無根則皆無。乃樹之根，固無他根所繇生也。天主是萬物根底。何所繇生？」徵曰：樹根必依地者也。天主獨能無所依乎？

> The text says: "For example, a tree's flowers, fruits, branches, leaves, and trunk all come from the root. Without the root, none of them would exist. Yet the tree's root itself does not come from any other root. The Lord on High is the root of all things. Does anything spawn Him?" He replied: "A tree's root must rely on the earth. Could the Lord on High alone exist without any support?"

其言曰：「天主當初欲生萬物，以為人用。先開闢天地，化生萬物之諸宗，然後化生一男一女等。」徵曰：天地未闢，尚未有人。云何欲生萬物以為人用乎？

> It says: "In the beginning, the Lord of Heaven wished to create all things for the use of humans. So He first opened up the heavens and the earth, bringing forth all kinds of creatures, and then created a man and a woman." But we ask: When heaven and earth were not yet opened and humans did not yet exist, how could He wish to create all things for the use of humans?

其言曰：「生前為善、為惡，其魂各以死後赴天主審判。」徵曰：若天主無形、聲、處所，則死者將何所赴？若可赴聽審判，殆如世間士師，亦如釋氏所稱閻羅。然設如士師，則士師亦父母所生，不免老死者也。設如閻羅，則閻羅亦眾生數目，不免輪迴者也，猶可稱無始無終，造物之真宰耶？

> They say: "Before death, whether one does good or evil, one's soul goes to the judgment of the Heavenly Lord after death." Wei Zheng asked: If the Heavenly Lord has no form, sound, or location, then where will the dead go? If they can go to hear the judgment, this resembles a worldly judge, or like what the Buddha's teachings call Yama. However, if you compare it to a worldly judge, that judge is also born of parents and cannot escape old age and death. If you compare it to Yama, Yama is also one among sentient beings and cannot escape reincarnation. How can such a being be called the beginningless and endless true Creator of all things?

其言曰：「天堂、地獄之報決不可免。所以定有後世。無有一人能憶前世事者，所以定無前世。」徵曰：執途之人而問以初生時事，亦無一人能憶之者，可謂并無初生事乎？初生雖不憶，不可謂無初生。前世雖不憶，又安知無前世也？

> He said: "The rewards of heaven and the punishments of hell are absolutely unavoidable. This proves that there must be an afterlife. But no one can remember their past lives, so this proves that there are no past lives." Zheng replied: "If you stopped a stranger on the street and asked them about the moment they were born, no one would remember that either. Does that mean that the event of their birth never happened? Although we don't remember being born, we cannot say that birth never occurred. Similarly, even if we don't remember our past lives, how can we be sure they never existed?"

其言曰：「仙、佛、菩薩，令人奉敬自己而抗天主之權。」徵曰：仙、佛、菩薩，雖非吾儒所宗，然必說有諸仙、諸佛、諸菩薩等以為世人所敬。又說天、地、日、月、星辰、鬼、神皆應奉事。則非專奉自己也。耶穌乃令人專奉一主，不得拜祭天、地、日、月等，其專利嫉妒不尤甚乎？

> Xu said: "The Daoist immortals, the Buddhas, and the Bodhisattvas instruct people to revere them and thus challenge the authority of the Lord of Heaven." In reply, it is noted: Although Daoist immortals, Buddhas, and Bodhisattvas are not venerated by us Confucians, the teachings still state that there are many immortals, many Buddhas, and many Bodhisattvas whom people should honor. They also say that Heaven, Earth, the sun, the moon, the stars, ghosts, and spirits should all be worshipped. Therefore, this is not about exclusively worshipping themselves. Jesus, on the other hand, commands people to worship only one Lord, forbidding them to bow down to Heaven, Earth, the sun, the moon, and so on. Is this not even more monopolistic and jealous?

天學再徵

> A Further Inquiry into the Heavenly Teachings