Chuan Xi Lu (傳習錄) · Volume 4

○志道問，「荀子云，『養心莫善於誠』。先儒非之，何也」？先生曰，「此亦未可便以為非。『誠』字有以工夫說者。誠是心之本體。求復其本體，便是思誠的工夫。明道說『以誠敬存之』，亦是此意。大學『欲正其心，先誠其意』。荀子之言固多病，然不可一例吹毛求疵。大凡看人言語，若先有個意見，便有過當處。『為富不仁』之言，孟子有取於陽虎。此便見聖賢大公之心」。

Zhidao asked: "Xunzi said 'for nourishing the heart nothing is better than sincerity.' The former scholars criticized him; why?" The Master said: "This cannot be taken at once as wrong. The word 'sincerity' is sometimes used in the sense of work. Sincerity is the original substance of the heart. Seeking to restore its original substance is the work of reflecting on sincerity. Mingdao (Cheng Hao) said 'preserve it with sincerity and reverence,' which is also this meaning. The Great Learning says 'wishing to rectify the heart, first make the intention sincere.' Though Xunzi's words have many faults, one cannot find fault with everything by splitting hairs. In general, when looking at what others say, if one first has a view, one will go too far. 'He who seeks wealth is not humane': Mencius took this from Yang Hu. This shows the impartial heart of sages and worthies."

○蕭惠問，「己私難克。奈何」？先生曰，「將汝己私來替汝東」。又曰，「人頂有為己之心，方能克己。能克己，方能成己」。蕭惠曰，「惠亦頗有為己之心。不知緣何不能克己」？先生曰，「且說汝有為己之心是如何」。惠良久曰，「惠亦一心要做好人。便自謂頗有為己之心。今思之，看來亦只是為得個軀殼的己。不曾為個真己」。先生曰，「真己何曾離著軀殼？恐汝連那軀殼的己也不曾為。且道汝所謂軀殼的己，豈不是耳目囗鼻四肢」？惠曰，「正是為此，目便要色，耳便要聲，囗便要味，四肢便要逸樂，所以不能克」。先生曰，「美色令人目盲。美聲令人耳聾。美味令人囗爽。馳騁田獵令人發狂，這都是害汝耳目囗鼻四肢的。豈得是為汝耳目囗鼻四肢？若為看耳目囗鼻四肢時，便須思量耳如何聽，目如何祝，囗如何言，四肢如何動。必須非禮勿視聽言動，方才成得個耳目囗鼻四肢。這個才是為著耳目囗鼻四肢。汝今終日向外馳求，為名為利一逼都是為著軀殼外面的物事。汝若為著耳目囗鼻四肢，要非禮勿視聽言動時，豈是汝之耳目囗鼻四肢自能勿視聽言動？須由汝心。這視聽言動，皆是汝心。汝心之動發竅於目。汝心之聽發竅於耳。汝心之言發竅於囗。汝心之動發竅於四肢。若無汝心，便無耳目囗鼻。所謂汝心，亦不專是那一團血肉。若是那一團血肉，如今已死的人，那一團血肉還在。緣何不能視聽言動？所謂汝心，卻是那能視聽言動的。這個便是性，便是天理。有這個性，才能生這性之生理。便謂之仁。這性之生理，發在目便會視。發在耳便會聽。發在囗便會言。發在四肢便會動。都只是那天理髮生。以其主宰一身，故謂之心。這心之本體，原只是個天理。原無非禮。這個便是汝之真己。這個真己，是軀殼的主宰。若無真己，便無軀殼。真是有之即生，無之即死。

Xiao Hui asked: "It is hard to overcome the private self; what should I do?" The Master said: "Bring me your private self and I will overcome it for you." He also said: "A person must have a heart for the self before he can overcome the self. Only one who can overcome the self can complete the self." Xiao Hui said: "I too have quite a heart for the self. I do not know why I cannot overcome the self." The Master said: "Tell me, what is it like, your having a heart for the self?" After a long time Hui said: "I too wholeheartedly want to be a good person, and so I said I had quite a heart for the self. Now thinking it over, it seems I was only acting for the self of the bodily shell, not for the true self." The Master said: "When has the true self ever been apart from the bodily shell? I fear you have not even acted for the self of the bodily shell. Tell me, is the self of the bodily shell not your ears, eyes, mouth, nose and limbs?" Hui said: "It is for them. The eyes want color, the ears want sound, the mouth wants flavor, and the limbs want ease and pleasure, so I cannot overcome them." The Master said: "Beautiful colors make people blind, beautiful sounds make people deaf, fine flavors dull the mouth, and galloping and hunting drive people mad; these all harm your ears, eyes, mouth, nose and limbs; how can they be for them? If you were acting for your ears, eyes, mouth, nose and limbs, you would have to think how the ears should hear, how the eyes should see, how the mouth should speak, and how the limbs should move. You must not look, listen, speak or move contrary to ritual, and only then are the ears, eyes, mouth, nose and limbs completed. This is truly acting for the ears, eyes, mouth, nose and limbs. Now you gallop outward all day, for fame and profit, and all of it is for things outside the bodily shell. If you were acting for the ears, eyes, mouth, nose and limbs and wanted not to look, listen, speak or move contrary to ritual, could your own ears, eyes, mouth, nose and limbs not look, listen, speak or move by themselves? It must come from your heart. This looking, listening, speaking and moving are all your heart. The looking of your heart issues through the eyes, the listening of your heart issues through the ears, the speaking of your heart issues through the mouth, and the moving of your heart issues through the limbs. Without your heart there would be no ears, eyes, mouth or nose. What I call your heart is also not just that lump of flesh and blood. If it were that lump of flesh and blood, then in a person now dead that lump of flesh and blood would still be there; why can it not look, listen, speak or move? What I call your heart is what can look, listen, speak and move. This is nature, and this is Heavenly principle. Only with this nature can the life principle of this nature arise, and that is called humaneness. When this life principle of nature issues in the eyes it can see, in the ears it can hear, in the mouth it can speak, and in the limbs it can move, and all of this is just Heavenly principle arising. Because it is master of the whole body, it is called the heart. The original substance of this heart is originally only Heavenly principle, and originally has nothing contrary to ritual. This is your true self. This true self is the master of the bodily shell. Without the true self there is no bodily shell. Truly, with it one lives and without it one dies.

汝若真為那個軀殼的己，必須用著這個真己。便須常常保守著這個真己的本體。戒慎不《睹》，恐懼不聞。惟恐虧損了他一些。才有一毫非禮萌動，便如刀割，如針刺。忍耐不過。必須去了刀，拔了針。這才是有為己之心，力能克己。汝今正是認賊作子。緣何卻說有為己之心，不能克己」？

(The Master continued:) If you truly act for that self of the bodily shell, you must make use of this true self, and so you must always keep and guard the original substance of this true self, being cautious about what you do not see and apprehensive about what you do not hear, only fearing to damage it in the slightest. As soon as the least thing contrary to ritual stirs, it is like a knife cutting or a needle pricking, unbearable, and one must remove the knife and pull out the needle. This is having a heart for the self, and only then can one overcome the self. Now you are exactly taking a thief to be your son. Why then do you say you have a heart for the self but cannot overcome it?"

○有一學者病目。慼慼甚憂。先生曰，二苖乃貴目賤心」。

A student had a disease of the eyes and was very anxious and sorrowful. The Master said: "You are valuing the eyes and despising the heart." (The base text has a mistaken character here, to be read as 'you'.)

○蕭惠好仙釋。先生警之曰，「吾亦自幼篤志二氏。自謂既有所得，謂儒者為不足學。其後居夷三載，貝得聖人之學若是其簡易廣大。始自嘆悔錯用了三十年氣力。大抵二氏之學，其妙與聖人只有毫釐之間。汝今所學，乃其土苴。輒自信自好若此。真鴟鴞竊腐鼠耳」。惠請問二氏之妙。先生曰，「向汝說聖人之學簡易廣大。汝卻不問我悟的。只問我悔的」。惠慚謝。請問聖人之學。先生曰，「汝今只是了人事問。待汝辨個真要求為聖人的心來與汝說」。惠再三請。先生曰，「已與汝一句道盡。汝尚自不會」。

Xiao Hui was fond of immortals and Buddhas. The Master warned him, saying: "From youth I too was devoted to the two schools of Buddhism and Daoism, and I said I had attained something and thought Confucian scholars not worth learning from. Later, banished for three years among the barbarians, I saw that the sages' learning is so simple, easy, broad and great, and only then did I sigh with regret at having wasted thirty years of effort. In general the wonder of the two schools differs from the sages' only by a hair's breadth. What you now study is the dregs of it, and you are so self-confident and self-satisfied; you are truly an owl that has stolen a dead rat." Hui asked about the wonder of the two schools. The Master said: "I just told you that the sages' learning is simple, easy, broad and great, yet you do not ask about what I awakened to and ask only about what I regretted." Hui was ashamed and apologized, and asked about the sages' learning. The Master said: "For now you only ask me in a perfunctory way. When you have sorted out a heart that truly seeks to become a sage, I will tell you." Hui asked again and again. The Master said: "I have already told you everything in one sentence, and you still do not understand."

○劉觀時問，「未發之中是如何」？先生曰，「汝但戒慎不《睹》，恐懼不聞，養得此心純是天理，便自然見」。觀時請略示氣象。先生曰，「啞子吃苦瓜，與你說不得。你要知此苦，還須你自吃」。時曰仁在傍曰，「如此才是真知即是行矣」。一時在座諸友皆有省。

Liu Guanshi asked: "What is the center before it is manifested like?" The Master said: "Just be cautious about what you do not see and apprehensive about what you do not hear, and nourish this heart until it is purely Heavenly principle, and you will naturally see it." Guanshi asked for a brief indication of its character. The Master said: "It is like a mute eating bitter melon: I cannot tell you about it. If you want to know this bitterness, you must eat it yourself." At that time Xu Ai was present and said: "This is what it means that true knowing is acting." All the friends present had an awakening at that moment.

○蕭惠問死生之道。先生曰，「知晝夜，即知死生」。問晝夜之道。曰，「知晝則知夜」。曰，「晝亦有所不知乎」？先生曰，「汝能知晝，懵懵而興，蠢蠢而食。行不著，習不察。終日昏昏，只是夢晝。惟『息有養，瞬有存』。此心惺惺明明，天理無一忌間斷，才是能知晝。這便是天德。便是通乎晝夜之道而知。更有甚麼死生」？

Xiao Hui asked about the Way of death and life. The Master said: "Know day and night, and you know death and life." He asked about the Way of day and night. The Master said: "Know the day and you know the night." He asked: "Is there also something one does not know about the day?" The Master said: "Can you know the day? You get up in a daze, eat in a stupor, act without knowing and practice without examining, are muddled all day, and only dream through the day. Only with 'in each breath there is nourishing, in each blink there is preserving,' this heart alert and bright, Heavenly principle without a breath of interruption, can one be said to know the day. This is Heavenly virtue, and is knowing by penetrating the Way of day and night. What more is there of death and life?"

○馬子莘問，「修道之教，舊說謂聖人品節吾性之固有，以為法於天下，若禮樂刑政之屬。此意如何」？先生曰，「道即性即命。本是完完全全，增減不得，不假修飾的。何須要聖人品節？卻是不完全的對象。禮樂刑政是治天下之法，固亦可謂之教。但不是子思本旨。若如先儒之說，下面由教入道的，緣何舍了聖人禮樂刑政之教，別說出一段戒慎恐懼工夫？卻是聖人之敢為虛設矣」。子莘請問。先生曰，「子思性道教，皆從本原上說。天命於人，則命便謂之性。率性而行，則性便謂之道。修道而學，則道便謂之教。率性是誠者事。所謂『自誠明，謂之性』也。修道是誠之者事。所謂「自明誠，謂之教』也。聖人率性而行，即是道。聖人以下，未能率性於道。未免有過不及。故須修道，修道則賢知者不得而過，愚不肯者不得而不及。都要循著這個道，則道便是個教。此『教』字與『天道至教。風雨霜露，無非教也』之『教』同。『修道』字與『修道以仁』同。人能修道，然後能不違於道，以復其性之本體。則亦是聖人率性之道矣。下面戒慎恐懼便是修道的工夫。中和便是復其性之本體。如易所謂『窮理盡性，以至於命』。中和位育，便是儘性至命」。

Ma Zishen asked: "The old explanation of 'cultivating the Way is called teaching' says that the sages regulate what is inherent in my nature and take it as a model for the world, such as ritual, music, punishment and government. What do you think of that?" The Master said: "The Way is nature and is destiny; it is originally complete and whole, cannot be increased or reduced, and needs no cultivation or adornment. What need is there for sages to regulate it? That would make it something incomplete. Ritual, music, punishment and government are methods for governing the world and can indeed be called teaching, but this is not Zisi's original meaning. If it were as the former scholars said, then why, in the part below about entering the Way by teaching, did he leave aside the sages' teaching of ritual, music, punishment and government and speak instead of a section on the work of caution and apprehension? That would make the sages' teaching an empty setup." Zishen asked for instruction. The Master said: "When Zisi speaks of nature, the Way and teaching, he speaks from the source. What Heaven commands to people is called destiny; following nature in action is called the Way; cultivating the Way and learning it is called teaching. Following one's nature is the business of the sincere, as in 'from sincerity to understanding is called nature'; cultivating the Way is the business of one who makes himself sincere, as in 'from understanding to sincerity is called teaching.' The sage acts by following his nature, and that is the Way. Below the sage, none can follow nature in the Way without some excess or deficiency, so they must cultivate the Way. By cultivating the Way, the worthy and wise cannot go too far and the foolish and unworthy cannot fall short, and all follow this Way, so the Way is itself a teaching. This word 'teaching' is the same as in 'Heaven's Way is the highest teaching; wind, rain, frost and dew are all teaching.' The words 'cultivating the Way' are the same as in 'cultivate the Way with humaneness.' When a person can cultivate the Way, then he can avoid departing from the Way and restore the original substance of his nature, and that is also the sage's Way of following nature. The caution and apprehension below are the work of cultivating the Way, and centrality and harmony are restoring the original substance of nature. As the Changes says, 'exhaust principle and fulfill nature, in order to reach destiny.' Centrality, harmony, the placing of Heaven and Earth and the nurturing of the myriad things are fulfilling nature and reaching destiny."

○黃誠甫問，「先儒以孔子告顏淵為邦之問，是立萬世常行之道。如何」？先生曰，「顏子具體聖人。其於為邦的大本大原，都已完備。夫子平日知之已深。到此都不必言。只就制度文為上說。此等處亦不可忽略。須要是如此方盡善。又不可因自己本領是當了，便於防範上疏闊。須是要『放鄭聲，遠佞人』蓋顏子是個克己向裡德上用心的人。孔子恐其外面末節，或有疏略，故就他不足處幫補說。若在他人，須告以為政在人，取人以身，修身以道，修道以仁，達道九經，及誠身許多工夫，方始做得這個，方是萬世常行之道。不然，只去行了夏時，乘了殷輅，服了周冕，作了韶舞，天下便治得。後人但見顏子是孔門第一人，又問個為邦，便把做天大事看了」。

Huang Chengfu asked: "The former scholars took Confucius's answer to Yan Yuan's question about governing a state to be establishing the Way of constant practice for ten thousand generations. What do you think?" The Master said: "Yan Zi embodied the sage in his whole being, and in regard to the great root and source of governing a state he was already complete. The Master had long known this, so here there was no need to say it, and he spoke only of institutions and observances. These places also must not be neglected, and only in this way is it perfectly good. Moreover, one cannot, because one's own foundation is secure, become lax in guarding against danger. One must 'banish the music of Zheng and keep far from glib talkers.' Because Yan Zi was a man who overcame himself, turned inward, and put his heart into virtue, Confucius feared that he might have overlooked outer details, so he supplemented where he was lacking. For another person, he would have had to tell him that government depends on people, one gets people by one's own person, one cultivates the person by the Way, one cultivates the Way by humaneness, the nine standards of the universal Way, and the many works of making oneself sincere, and only then could he accomplish this; only that is the Way of constant practice for ten thousand generations. Otherwise, merely practicing the Xia calendar, riding the Yin carriage, wearing the Zhou cap and performing the Shao dance, could the world be governed? Later people only saw that Yan Zi was the first in Confucius's school and that he asked about governing a state, and so they treated it as a matter as great as Heaven."

○蔡希淵問，「文公大學新本，先格致而後誠意工夫。似與首章次第相合。若如先生從舊本之說，即誠意反在格致之前。於此尚未釋然」。先生曰，「大學工夫即是明明德。明明德只是個誠意。誠意的工夫只是格物致知。若以誠意為主，去用格物致知的工夫，即工夫始有下落。即為善去惡，無非是誠意的事。如新本先去窮格事物之理。即茫茫蕩蕩，都無著落處。須用添個敬字，方才牽扯得向身心上來。然終是沒根原。若須用添個敬字，緣何孔門倒將一個最緊要的字落了，直待千餘年後要人來補出？正謂以誠意為主，即不須添敬字。所以舉出個誠意來說。正是學問的大頭腦處。於此不察，真所謂毫釐之差，千里之繆。大抵中庸工夫只是誠身。誠身之極便是至誠。大學工夫只是誠意。誠意之極便是至善。工夫總是一般。今說這裡補個敬字，那裡補個誠字，未免晝蛇添足」。

Cai Xiyuan asked: "In Master Wen's new edition of the Great Learning, the work of investigating things and extending knowledge comes before sincere intention, which seems to fit the order of the first chapter. If one follows your view, Master, of the old edition, then sincere intention comes before investigating things and extending knowledge. I am still not at ease about this." The Master said: "The work of the Great Learning is to illustrate illustrious virtue. Illustrating illustrious virtue is only sincere intention. The work of sincere intention is only investigating things and extending knowledge. If one takes sincere intention as the main thing and uses the work of investigating things and extending knowledge, then the work has somewhere to land. Doing good and removing evil is nothing but a matter of sincere intention. In the new edition, one first exhausts and investigates the principles of things, and it is vague and drifting, with nowhere to land. One must add the word reverence, and only then is it pulled toward body and heart, yet it is still without a root. If one must add the word reverence, why did Confucius's school drop the most essential word and wait over a thousand years for someone to supply it? Precisely if one takes sincere intention as the main thing, there is no need to add the word reverence. So raising sincere intention is exactly the great guiding point of learning. If one does not see this, it is truly a difference of a hair leading to an error of a thousand li. The work of the Doctrine of the Mean is only making oneself sincere, and the utmost of making oneself sincere is perfect sincerity; the work of the Great Learning is only sincere intention, and the utmost of sincere intention is the highest good. The work is always the same. To say now that here one should add a word reverence and there a word sincerity is to draw feet on a snake."

德洪曰：昔南元善刻《博習錄》于越，凡二冊。下冊摘錄之。先師手書，凡八篇。其答徐成之二書，吾師自謂「天下是朱非陸，論定既久，一旦反之為難﹔二書姑為調渟兩可之說，便人自思得之。」故元善錄為下冊之首者，意亦以是歟？今朱、陸之耕明於天下久矣；洪刻先師文錄，置二書於外集者，示未全也，故今不復錄。其餘指知，行之本體，莫詳於答人論學與答周道通、陸清伯、歐陽崇一四書；而謂格物為學者用力日可見之地，莫詳於答羅年庵一書。平生冒天下之非詆，推陷萬死，一生遑遑然不忘講學，惟恐吾人不聞斯道，流於功利、機智以日墮於匈狄、禽獸而不叫，其一體同物之心，譊譊終身，至於斃而後已；此孔、孟以來賢聖苦心，雖門人子弗未足以慰其情也；是情也，莫貝於笞聶文蔚之第一書：此皆仍元善所錄之舊：而揭「必有事焉」即「致良知」功夫，明白簡切，使人言下即得入手，此又莫詳於答文蔚之第二書，故增錄之。元善當時洶洶，乃能以身明斯道，卒至遭奸被斥，油油然惟以此生得聞斯學為慶，而絕無有纖芥憤鬱不平之氣。斯錄之刻，人見其有功於同志甚大，而不知其虎時之甚艱也。今所去取，裁之時義則然，非忍有所加損於其間也。

Qian Dehong said: Formerly Nan Yuanshan printed the Instructions for Practical Living in Yue, in two volumes. The second volume excerpts our late master's handwritten letters, eight pieces in all. Among them the two letters in reply to Xu Chengzhi, our master himself said: "The world holds that Zhu is right and Lu is wrong, the judgment having long been settled, and it is hard to reverse it at once; the two letters provisionally offer a conciliatory view that could go either way, so that people may think it through and obtain it themselves." So Yuanshan put them at the head of the second volume, probably with this intention. Now the debate between Zhu and Lu has been clear to the world for a long time; when I printed our late master's Collected Writings, I put these two letters in the outer collection, to show that they are not complete, so I do not include them again here. As for the others, nothing explains the original substance of knowing and acting more fully than the four letters, the Reply to a Person on Learning and the replies to Zhou Daotong, Lu Qingbo and Ouyang Chongyi; and nothing explains more fully that investigating things is the place where students can see their effort day by day than the letter to Luo Zhengan. Our late master, throughout his life, braved the world's criticism and slander and was thrust into ten thousand deaths, yet in all his hurried life he did not forget to lecture on learning, fearing only that we would not hear this Way and would drift into utility and cleverness, sinking day by day into barbarism and beastliness without knowing it; his heart of being one body with all things went on pleading to the end of his life, until death; this was the bitter heart of the sages and worthies since Confucius and Mencius, and even his disciples and students were not enough to comfort his feelings. Nothing shows these feelings more than the first letter in reply to Nie Wenwei: these all follow Yuanshan's old record. And what raises the work of "one must work at it" as "extending innate knowing" (extending the naturally knowing brightness of the heart's substance to every affair and thing), clear, simple and urgent, so that one can get a grip on it as soon as it is spoken, nothing is fuller than the second letter in reply to Wenwei, so I have added it. Yuanshan, in the turbulent times, was able to make this Way clear by his own person, and in the end was slandered and dismissed by treacherous men, yet cheerfully took it only as a cause for celebration that in this life he had heard this learning, without the slightest trace of resentment or discontent. When this record was printed, people saw that it greatly benefited fellow students, but did not know how hard his situation was at the time. What is kept and what is dropped now was decided according to the demands of the time, and not because I was cruelly adding to or subtracting from it.

○來書云：近時學者務外遺內，博而寡要，故先生特倡「試意」一義，鉽砭千育，誠大惠也吾子洞貝時弊如此矣，亦將同以救之乎？然則鄙人之心，吾子固已一句道盡，復何言哉！復同言哉！若「詼意」之說，自是聖門教人用功第一義：但近世學者乃作第二義看，故稍與提掇緊要出來，非鄙人所能特倡也。

Your letter says: Recently students pursue externals and neglect the inner, are broad but lack the essential, so you, Master, have especially advocated the single idea of "sincere intention," lancing the sickness deep within; truly a great kindness. If you see the faults of the age so clearly, how then will you save it? Then as for my heart, you have already said it all in one sentence; what more is there to say! What more is there to say! As for the teaching of "sincere intention," it was originally the first principle by which the sages' school taught people to apply effort; but students of recent times have treated it as a secondary matter, so I have only slightly raised its importance, and it is not something I could specially advocate.

○來書云：但恐立說太高，用功太捷，後生師傅，影響謬誤，未免墜於佛氏明心、見性，定慧，頓悟之機拭，無怪聞者見疑。區區格，致、詖、正之說，是就學者本心、日用事為間，體究踐履，實地用功，是多少次第、多少積累在，正與空虛頓悟之說相反；聞者本無求為聖人之志，又未嘗講突其詳，篴以見疑，亦無足怪：若吾子之高明，自當一語之下挭瞭然矣：力亦謂立說太高，用功太捷，何邪？

Your letter says: I only fear that the doctrine is set too high and the effort is too quick, and that the young will pass it along, and the echoes will be mistaken, so that they will unavoidably fall into the Buddhist cleverness of illuminating the mind and seeing the nature, and sudden awakening of concentration and wisdom, and it is no wonder that listeners are suspicious. My teaching of investigating things, extending knowledge, making intention sincere, and rectifying the heart is about students' original hearts and the daily activities, embodying, investigating, practicing and working on actual ground, with many steps and much accumulation in between, and is exactly the opposite of the teaching of empty sudden awakening. The listeners originally had no will to seek to become sages and had not studied its details, so they are suspicious, which is not strange. With your brilliance, you ought to understand it at once in a single sentence; yet you also say the doctrine is set too high and the effort too quick; why?

○來書云：所喻知，行並進，不宜分別前後，即《中庸》尊德性而道問學之功，交養互發，內外本末，以寸之之道。然工夫次第，不能無先後之差：如知食乃食，知湯乃飲，知路乃行。未有不見是物，先有是事：此亦毫釐倏忽之間，非謂有等今日知之，而明日乃行也。既雲「交養互發，內外本末一以貫之」，則知行並進之說，無復可疑矣。又云「工夫次第能不無先後之差。」無乃自相矛盾已乎？知食乃食等說，此尤明白易見。但吾子為近聞障蔽自不察耳。夫人必有欲食之心，然後知食，欲食之心即是意，即是行之姶矣：食味之美惡待人口而後知，豈有不待入口而已先知食味之美惡者邪？必有欲行之心，然後知路，即是意、即是行之姶矣：路岐之險夷，必待身親履歷而後知，豈有不待身親履歷而已先知路岐之險夷者邪？知湯「飲，知衣服，以此例之，皆無可疑。若如吾子之喻，是乃所謂不見是物，而先有是事者矣。吾子又謂「此亦毫釐倏忽之間，非謂截然有等今日知之，而明日乃行也是亦察之尚有未精。然就加吾子之說，則知行之為合一併進，亦自斷無可疑矣。

Your letter says: What you have said about knowing and acting advancing together, not distinguishing before and after, is the work of "honoring the virtuous nature and pursuing inquiry and study" in the Doctrine of the Mean, mutually nourishing and mutually developing, the one Way that penetrates inner and outer, root and branch. Yet in the order of the work there cannot be no difference of before and after: for example, one knows food and then eats, knows soup and then drinks, knows the road and then walks. There is never an act before one sees the thing. This too is within a hair and an instant, not that one knows today and acts only tomorrow, with a sharp division. Since you say "mutually nourishing and mutually developing, the one Way that penetrates inner and outer, root and branch," there can be no further doubt about knowing and acting advancing together. Yet you also say "in the order of the work there cannot be no difference of before and after"; is that not self-contradictory? The saying that one knows food and then eats is especially clear and easy to see, but you are obstructed by what you have recently heard and do not examine it yourself. A person must have the heart to eat before he knows food; the heart to eat is intention, and is the beginning of acting. Whether the flavor of the food is good or bad is only known after it enters the mouth; how could one already know the flavor before it enters the mouth? A person must have the heart to walk before he knows the road; the heart to walk is intention, and is the beginning of acting. Whether the road forks and is dangerous or easy is only known after one has personally traveled it; how could one already know the dangers and ease of the road before personally traveling it? Knowing soup and then drinking, knowing clothes and then wearing, by this example there is no doubt in any of them. If it were as in your analogy, that would indeed be what is called having the act before seeing the thing. You also say "this too is within a hair and an instant, not that one knows today and acts only tomorrow, with a sharp division," which is again not examined quite precisely. Still, as you say, that knowing and acting are united and advance together is also beyond doubt.

○來書云：真知即所以為行，不行不足謂之知，此為學者吃緊立教，俾務躬行則可。若真謂行即是知，恐其專求本心，遂遺物理，必有闇而不達之處，抑豈聖門知行並進之成法哉？知之真切篤實處。既是行，行之明覺精察處。即是知，知行工夫，本不可離。只為後世學者分作兩截用功，先卻知、行本體，故有合一併進之說，真知即所以為行，不行不足謂之知。雲「知茛乃食」等說，可見前已略言之矣。此雖吃緊救弊而發，然知、行之體本來加是。非以己意抑揚其間，姑為是說，以苟一時之效者也。「專求本心，遂遺物理，」此蓋先其本心者也：夫物理小外於吾心，外吾心而求物理，無物理矣。遺物理而求吾心，吾心又何物邪？心之體，性也，性既理也。故有孝親之心，即有孝之理，無孝親之心，即無孝之理矣。有忠君之心，即有忠之理，無忠君之心，即無忠之理矣。理豈外於吾心邪？晦庵謂人之所以為學者與理而已：心雖主乎一身，而實管乎天下之理：理雖散在萬事，而實不外乎一人之心。是其一分一合之間，而未免已啟學者心、理為二之弊。此後世所以有「專求本心，遂遺物理」之患，正由不知心即理耳。夫外心以求物理，是以有誾而不達之處：此告子義外之說，孟子所以謂之不知義也。心一而已，以其全體惻怛而言，謂之仁，以其得宜而言謂之義，以其條理而言謂之理。不可外心以求仁，不可外心以求義，獨可外心以求理乎？外心以求理，此知、行之斫以二也。求理於吾心，此聖門知、行合一之教，吾子又何疑乎！

Your letter says: True knowing is acting, and what is not acted on is not enough to be called knowing; this is an urgent teaching for students, to make them devote themselves to personal practice, and so it is acceptable. But if one truly says that acting is knowing, I fear that by seeking only the original heart one will neglect the principles of things and surely have places that are dark and impenetrable; how could that be the established method of the sages' school for advancing knowing and acting together? The genuine and sincere part of knowing is acting, and the clear and careful part of acting is knowing. The work of knowing and acting can originally not be separated. It is only because later students made two sections of their efforts and lost the original substance of knowing and acting that there is a teaching of unity and advancing together. True knowing is acting, and what is not acted on is not enough to be called knowing. As for the saying "one knows food and then eats," it was already roughly explained above. Although this was said as an urgent remedy for a fault, the original substance of knowing and acting is indeed like this, and it is not that I have raised or lowered it by my own opinion and provisionally set up this saying to seek a momentary effect. "By seeking only the original heart one neglects the principles of things" probably describes those who have lost their original heart. The principles of things are not outside my heart; to seek the principles of things outside my heart is to have no principles of things; and to neglect the principles of things and seek my heart, what then is my heart? The substance of the heart is nature, and nature is principle. So when there is a heart of filial piety toward parents, there is the principle of filial piety, and when there is no heart of filial piety toward parents, there is no principle of filial piety; when there is a heart of loyalty toward the ruler, there is the principle of loyalty, and when there is no heart of loyalty toward the ruler, there is no principle of loyalty. How could principle be outside my heart? Hui'an (Zhu Xi) said that what people study is only heart and principle: the heart, though it governs one body, in fact rules the principles of the world; principle, though scattered in ten thousand things, in fact is not outside one person's heart. This separating and joining already opens the door to the fault of students treating heart and principle as two matters. This is why in later ages there is the trouble of "seeking only the original heart and neglecting the principles of things," precisely from not knowing that the heart is principle. Seeking the principles of things outside the heart gives rise to the places that are dark and impenetrable: this is Gaozi's theory that righteousness is external, which is why Mencius said he did not know righteousness. The heart is only one. Speaking of its whole body as compassionate and sorrowful, it is called humaneness; speaking of its attaining what is proper, it is called righteousness; speaking of its order, it is called principle. One cannot seek humaneness outside the heart, and one cannot seek righteousness outside the heart; can one alone seek principle outside the heart? Seeking principle outside the heart is exactly why knowing and acting are split into two sections. Seeking principle in my heart is the teaching of the unity of knowing and acting of the sages' school; what doubt could you have about it!"

○來書云．所釋大學古本謂「致其本體之知」。此固孟子盡心之旨。朱子亦以虛靈知覺為此心之量。然盡心由於知性。致知在於格物。「盡心由於知性。致知在於格物」。此語然矣。然而推本吾子之意，則其所以為是語者，尚有未明也。朱子以盡心知性知天為物格知致。以存心養性事天為誠意正心修身。以殀壽不貳修身以俟為知至仁盡。聖人之事。若鄙人之見，則與朱子正相反矣。未盡心知性知天者，生知安行，聖人之事也。存心養性事天者，學知利行，賢人之事也。殀壽不貳，修身以俟者，困知勉行，學者之事也。豈可專以盡心知性為如，存心養性為行乎？吾子驟聞此言，必又以為大駭矣。然其間實無可疑者。一為吾子言之。夫心之體，性也。性之原，天也。能盡其心，是能盡其性矣。中庸云，「惟天下至誠。為能盡其性」。又云，「知天地之化育」。「質諸鬼神而無疑，知天也」。此惟聖人而後能然。故曰，此生知安行，聖人之事也。存其心者，未能盡其心者也。故須加存之之功。必存之既久，不待於存，而自無不存，然後可以進而言盡。蓋知天之如，如知州知縣之知。知州，則一州之事皆己事也。知縣，則一縣之事皆己事也。是與天為一者也。事天則如子之事父，臣之事君。猶與天為二也。天之所以命於我者，心也，性也。吾但存之而不敢失，養之而不敢害，如「父母全而生之，子全而歸之」者也。故曰，此學知利行，賢人之事也。至於殀壽不貳，則與存其心者又有間矣。存其心者，雖未能盡其心，固己一心於為善。時有不存，則存之而已。今使之殀壽不貳，是猶以殀壽貳其心者也。猶以殀壽貳其心，是其為善之心猶未能一也。存之尚有所未可，而何盡之可云乎？今且使之不以殀壽貳其為善之心。若日死生殀壽，皆有定命，吾但一心於為善，修吾之身以俟天命而已。是其平日尚未知有天命也。

Your letter says: Your explanation of the old text of the Great Learning, that it means "extending the knowledge of the original substance," is of course the purport of Mencius's "exhausting the mind." Master Zhu too took the empty, spiritual awareness as the measure of this mind. Yet exhausting the mind comes from knowing the nature, and extending knowledge lies in investigating things. "Exhausting the mind comes from knowing the nature, and extending knowledge lies in investigating things": that saying is right. But when I weigh what you mean by it, there are still points that are not clear. Master Zhu took exhausting the mind, knowing the nature and knowing Heaven as the investigation of things and the extension of knowledge; he took preserving the mind, nourishing the nature and serving Heaven as making the will sincere, rectifying the mind and cultivating the person; and he took "not doubting whether one's life be short or long, but cultivating oneself and awaiting it" as the perfection of knowledge and benevolence, the affair of the sage. By my own view, this is exactly the opposite of Master Zhu. Exhausting the mind, knowing the nature and knowing Heaven is knowing at birth and practicing with ease, the affair of the sage; preserving the mind, nourishing the nature and serving Heaven is knowing by learning and practicing with advantage, the affair of the worthy; not doubting whether life be short or long, and cultivating oneself to await it, is knowing through hardship and practicing with effort, the affair of the learner. How can one take exhausting the mind and knowing the nature exclusively as knowing, and preserving the mind and nourishing the nature as practice? Hearing this suddenly, you will surely be greatly startled. Yet there is really nothing to doubt in it, and let me explain. The substance of the mind is the nature, and the origin of the nature is Heaven. One who can exhaust his mind can exhaust his nature. The Doctrine of the Mean says, "Only the one in the world who is perfectly sincere can exhaust his nature," and also, "he knows the transforming and nourishing of Heaven and earth," "he can put it to the test with the spirits and have no doubts: this is to know Heaven." Only a sage can do this. So I say this is knowing at birth and practicing with ease, the affair of the sage. One who preserves his mind is one who has not yet been able to exhaust his mind, so he must add the effort of preserving it. Only when he has preserved it for a long time, so that without waiting to preserve it, it is spontaneously never not preserved, can he go on to speak of exhausting it. The "knowing" in knowing Heaven is like the "zhi" in zhizhou, prefect, and zhixian, magistrate. A prefect treats all the affairs of a prefecture as his own affairs; a magistrate treats all the affairs of a county as his own affairs. This is being one with Heaven. Serving Heaven is like a son serving his father or a minister serving his ruler, which is still being two with Heaven. What Heaven has bestowed on me is the mind and the nature. I only preserve it and dare not lose it, nourish it and dare not harm it, as in "the parents gave birth to the child whole, and the child must return it whole." So I say this is knowing by learning and practicing with advantage, the affair of the worthy. As for not doubting whether life is short or long, that is a further step apart from preserving the mind. One who preserves his mind, though he has not yet been able to exhaust his mind, is already single-minded in doing good, and when it is at times not preserved, he simply preserves it again. Now to make someone not doubt about long or short life is to say he is still allowing length of life to make him doubt in his mind; if his mind is doubted by length of life, then his mind for doing good is not yet single. If even preserving is not yet attainable, what can be said of exhausting? Now one is made merely not to let length of life cause doubt in the mind to do good, and to say that life and death, short life and long life all have a fixed decree, and that I should just be single-minded in doing good and cultivate myself to await Heaven's decree; this means that in ordinary days he does not yet know there is a Heavenly decree.

事天雖與天為二，然己真知天命之所在。但惟恭敬奉承之而已耳。若俟之雲者，則尚未能真知天命之所在，猶有所俟者也。故曰，所以立命。立者，創立之立。如立德，立言，立功，立名之類。凡言立者，皆是昔未嘗有，而今始建立之謂。孔子所謂「不知命，無以為君子」者也。故日，此困知勉行，學者之事也。今以盡心知性知天為格物致知，使初學之士，尚未能不貳其心者。而遽責之以聖人生知安行之事。如捕風捉影，茫然莫知所措。其心幾何而不至於「率天下而路」也？今世致知格物之弊，亦居然可見矣。吾子所謂務外遺內，博而寡要者，無乃亦是過歟？此學問最緊要處。於此而差，將無往而不差矣。此鄙人之所以冒天下之非笑，忘其身之陷於罪戮，呶呶其言，其不容己者也。

(The Master continued:) Although serving Heaven is being two with Heaven, one has already truly known where Heaven's decree lies, and only reverently follows it. As for what the word "await" means, one has not yet truly known where Heaven's decree lies, and still has something to wait for. That is why it says "so as to establish one's destiny." "Establish" is the "li" of founding, as in establishing virtue, establishing words, establishing merit, establishing name. Wherever "establish" is said, it means something that never existed before and is only now founded. This is what Confucius meant by "without knowing destiny, one cannot be a gentleman." So I say this is knowing through hardship and practicing with effort, the affair of the learner. Now if one takes exhausting the mind, knowing the nature and knowing Heaven as the investigation of things and extension of knowledge, and demands of beginning students who cannot yet keep their minds free of doubt the affair of the sage who knows at birth and practices with ease, it is like catching the wind and clutching at shadows, utterly at a loss what to do, and how many of their minds will fail to "lead the world to run about on the road"? The faults of the investigation of things and extension of knowledge in the present age can also plainly be seen. What you call attending to the outer and neglecting the inner, being broad but lacking essentials, is probably this same mistake. This is the most critical point of learning. If one errs here, one will err everywhere. This is why I brave the ridicule of the world, forget that I am falling into the danger of punishment and death, and still keep on talking and cannot stop myself.

○來書云：聞語學者，乃謂「即物窮理」之說亦是玩物喪志，人取萁「厭繁就約」「涵養本原」數說標示學者，指為晚年定論，此亦恐非。朱子所謂格物雲者，在即物而窮其理也。即物窮理是就事事物物上求其所謂定理者也，是以吾心而求理於事事物物十「中，忻心與理為二矣；夫求理於事事物物者，如求孝之理於其親之謂也：求孝之理於其親，則孝之理其果在於吾之心邪？抑果在於親之身邪？假而果在於親之身，則親沒之後，吾心遂無孝之理歟？見孺子之入井，必有惻隱之理；是惻隱之理果在於孺子之身歟？抑在於吾心之良知歟？其或不可以從之於井歟？其或可以手而援之歟？是皆所謂理也。是果在於孺子之身歟？抑果出於吾心之良知歟？以是例之，萬事萬物之理莫不皆然。是可以知析心與理為二之非矣。夫析心與理而為二，此告於義外之說，孟子之所深闢也：「務外遺內，博而寡要」，吾子既已知之矣，是果何謂而然哉？謂之玩物喪志，尚猶以為不可歟？若鄙人所謂致知格物者，致吾心之良知於事事物物也。吾心之良知，即所謂「天理」也。致吾心良知之「天理」於事事物物，則事事物物皆得其理矣。致吾心之良知者，致知也。事事物物皆得其理者，格物也。是合心與理而為一者也。合心與理而為一，則凡區區前之所云，與朱子晚年之論，皆可以不言而喻矣。

Your letter says: I hear that in teaching students you say that even "investigating principle through things" is trifling with things and losing one's will; and you also take such expressions as "disliking the complicated and preferring the simple" and "nourishing the original source" and put them forward to students, designating them as Master Zhu's final conclusions, which I also fear is not right. What Master Zhu called the investigation of things lies in approaching things and exhausting their principle. Investigating principle through things means seeking the so-called fixed principle in each thing and event, that is, using my mind to seek principle within each thing and event, which splits mind and principle into two. To seek principle in things and events is like seeking the principle of filial piety in one's parents. If one seeks the principle of filial piety in one's parents, does the principle of filial piety then truly lie in my mind, or truly lie in the person of my parents? If it truly lies in the parents' persons, then after the parents die, does my mind then have no principle of filial piety? When one sees a child about to fall into a well, there is bound to be the principle of compassion; does this principle of compassion truly lie in the child's person, or in the good knowing of my mind? Perhaps one cannot follow the child into the well? Perhaps one can reach out a hand to rescue? These are all what is called principle. Does it truly lie in the child's person, or truly come from the good knowing of my mind? Take this as an example, and the principle of the ten thousand things is just the same. From this we know that splitting mind and principle into two is wrong. To split mind and principle into two is Gaozi's doctrine that righteousness is external, which Mencius deeply refuted. "Attending to the outer and neglecting the inner, being broad but lacking essentials": you already know it, and what truly causes it to be so? Is it still wrong to call it trifling with things and losing one's will? According to what I call extending knowledge and investigating things: it is extending the good knowing of my mind to every thing and event. The good knowing of my mind is what is called "Heavenly principle." To extend the Heavenly principle of my mind's good knowing to every thing and event is to make every thing and event obtain its principle. To extend the good knowing of my mind is to extend knowledge; for every thing and event to obtain its principle is to investigate things. This is to unite mind and principle as one. When mind and principle are united as one, then everything I said earlier, and Master Zhu's late views, can be understood without being spoken.

○來書云：人之心體，本無不明。而氣拘物蔽，鮮有不昏。非學問思辨，以明天下之理，則善惡之機，真妄之辨，不能自覺，任情恣意。其害有不可勝言者矣。此段大略，似是而非。蓋承沿舊說之弊。不可以不辨也夫學間思辨行，皆所以為學。末有學而不行者也。如言學孝，則必服勞奉養，躬行孝道，然後謂之學。豈徒懸空口耳講說，而遂可以謂之學孝乎？學射，則必張弓挾矢，引滿中的。學書，則必伸紙執筆，操觚染翰。盡天下之學，無有不行而可以言學者。則學之始，固已即是行矣。篤者，敦實篤厚之意。義行矣。而敦篤其行，不息其功之謂爾。蓋學之不能以無疑，則有間。間印學也，即行也。又不能無疑，則有思。思即學也，即行也。又不能無疑，則有辨。辨即學也，即行也。辨既明矣，思既慎矣，間即審矣，學既能矣，又從而不息其功焉，斯之謂篤行。非謂學問思辨之後而始措之於行也。是故以求能其事而言，謂之學。以求解其惑而言，謂之間。以求通其說而言，謂之思。以求精其察而言，謂之辨。以求履其實而言，謂之行。蓋析其功而言，則有五。合其事而言，則一而已。此區區心理合一之體，知行並進之功，所以異於後世之說者，正在於是。今吾子特舉學問思辨以窮天下之理，而不及篤行。是專以學問思辨為如，而謂窮理為無行也已。天下豈有不行而學者邪？豈有不挽而遂可謂之窮理者邪？明道云，「只窮理便儘性至命」。故必仁極仁，而後謂之能窮仁之理。義極義，而後謂之能窮義之理。仁極仁，則盡仁之性矣。義極義，則盡義之性矣。學至於窮理至矣，而尚未措之於行。天下寧有是邪？是故知不行之不可以為學，則知不行之不可以為窮理矣。知不行之不可以為窮理，則知知行之合一併進，而不可以分為兩箾事矣。夫萬事萬物之理，不外於吾心。而必日窮天下之埋。

Your letter says: The substance of man's mind is originally without darkness, but it is bound by material force and obscured by things, and few are not clouded. Without study, questioning, reflection and discrimination to illuminate the principles of the world, the springs of good and evil and the distinction between true and false cannot be perceived, and when one indulges feelings and gives rein to will, the harm is beyond telling. This passage is, in outline, plausible but wrong; it follows the fault of old theories and must be distinguished. Study, questioning, reflection, discrimination and practice are all ways of learning, and there has never been learning without practice. If one speaks of learning filial piety, one must serve with toil and provide support and personally practice filial piety, and only then is it called learning; how can merely discussing it in the air with mouth and ear be called learning filial piety? To learn archery, one must draw the bow, fit the arrow, pull it full and hit the target; to learn writing, one must spread the paper, hold the brush, and take up the tablet and dip the ink. In all the learning under heaven, there is none that can be called learning without practice. So the beginning of learning is already practice. "Earnest" means sincere and substantial. It means that one has already practiced, and further makes the practice earnest and does not rest in the effort. Since learning cannot be without doubt, there is questioning; questioning is itself learning and itself practice. Since one again cannot be without doubt, there is reflection; reflection is itself learning and itself practice. Since one again cannot be without doubt, there is discrimination; discrimination is itself learning and itself practice. When discrimination is clear, reflection careful, questioning thorough, and learning competent, and one then goes on without resting in effort, this is called earnest practice. It does not mean that only after study, questioning, reflection and discrimination does one begin to put things into practice. So in terms of seeking to be able to do the thing, it is called learning; in terms of seeking to resolve doubt, it is called questioning; in terms of seeking to make sense of the theory, it is called reflection; in terms of seeking to refine the examination, it is called discrimination; in terms of seeking to tread on the reality, it is called practice. Analyzed by effort there are five, and combined by the matter there is only one. This is exactly where my substance of the unity of mind and principle and my effort of knowledge and action advancing together differ from the theories of later ages. Now you specifically cite study, questioning, reflection and discrimination to exhaust the principles of the world and do not mention earnest practice, which is to take study, questioning, reflection and discrimination exclusively as knowing and to say that exhausting principle has no practice. How can there be learning without practice in the world? How can one call it exhausting principle without practice? Mingdao said, "Only exhaust principle and one fulfills the nature and reaches destiny." So one must be benevolent to the utmost, and only then is one called able to exhaust the principle of benevolence; one must be righteous to the utmost, and only then is one called able to exhaust the principle of righteousness. Being benevolent to the utmost fulfills the nature of benevolence; being righteous to the utmost fulfills the nature of righteousness. Could it be that learning reaches the utmost exhaustion of principle and yet has not been put into practice? So knowing that without practice one cannot call it learning, one knows that without practice one cannot call it exhausting principle; and knowing that without practice one cannot call it exhausting principle, one knows that knowledge and action are united and advance together and cannot be divided into two separate matters. The principles of the ten thousand things do not lie outside my mind, yet you insist on speaking of exhausting the principles of the world.

是殆以吾心之良知為未足，而必外求於天下之廣，以裨補增益之。是猶析心與理而為二也。夫學問思辨篤行之功，雖其困勉至於人一己百，而擴充之極，至於儘性知天，亦不過致吾心之良知而已。良知之外，豈復有加於毫末乎？今必曰窮天下之理，而不知反求諸其心，則凡所謂善惡之機，真妄之辨者，舍吾心之良知，亦將何所致其體察乎？吾子所謂氣拘物蔽者，拘此蔽此而已。今欲去此之蔽，不知致力於此，而欲以外求。是猶目之不明者，不務服．樂調理以治其目，而徒倀倀然求明於其外。明豈可以自外而得哉？任情恣意之害，亦以不毻精察天埋於此心之良知而已。此誠毫釐千里之謬者，不容於不拂。吾子毋謂其論之太刻也。

(The Master continued:) This is probably to regard the good knowing of my mind as insufficient, and to seek necessarily outside it in the breadth of the world to supplement and augment it, which still splits mind and principle in two. Though the effort of study, questioning, reflection, discrimination and earnest practice is such that one may do a hundred times what another does once, even to the utmost extension that fulfills the nature and knows Heaven, it amounts to nothing more than extending the good knowing of my mind. Apart from good knowing, is there anything that can add even a hair's breadth? Now if one insists on speaking of exhausting the principles of the world and does not know to seek back in one's own mind, then what are called the springs of good and evil and the distinction of true and false, apart from the good knowing of my mind, what else could one use to examine them? What you call being bound by material force and obscured by things is simply being bound and obscured in this. Now to remove this obscuration, not knowing to apply effort here and wishing to seek outside is like a man whose eyes are not clear, who does not take medicine and take care to treat his eyes, but vainly and blindly seeks light outside. How can light be obtained from outside? The harm of indulging feelings and giving rein to will also comes only from being unable to examine Heavenly principle in the good knowing of this mind. This is truly an error of a hair's breadth that becomes a thousand li, and cannot but be distinguished. Please do not think my words too harsh.

○來書云：教人以致知明德，而戒其即物窮理，試使昏闇之士，深居端坐，不聞教告，遂能至於知玫而德明乎？縱令靜而有覺，稍悟本性，則亦定慧無用之見：果能知十今，達事燮而玫用於天下國家之實否乎？其曰：「知者意之骷，物者意之用，格物如格君心之非之格。」語雖超悟，獨得不踵陳見，抑恐於道未相胳合？區區論致知恪物，正所以窮理，未嘗戒人窮理，使之深居端坐而一無所事也。若謂即物窮理，如前所云務外而遺內者，則有所不可耳。昏誾之士，果能隨事隨物精察此心之天理，以致其本然之良知，則雖愚必明，雖柔必強，大本立而達道行，九經之屬，可一以貫之而無遺矣：尚何患其無致用之實乎？彼頑空虛靜之徒，正惟不脬隨事隨物精察此心之天理，以致其本然之良知，而遺棄倫理、寂滅虛無以為常，是以要之不可以治家國天下。孰謂聖人窮理盡性之學，而亦有是弊哉！心者，身之主也，而心之虛靈明覺，即所謂本然之良知也。其虛靈明覺之良知應感而動者，謂之意。有知而後有意，無知則無意矣。知非意之體乎？意之所用，必有其物，物即事也。如意用於事親，既事親為一物，意用於治民，即治民為一物，意用於讀書，即讀書為一物，意用於聽訟，郥聽訟為一物。凡意之所用，無有無物者：有是意即有是物，無是意即無是物矣。物非意之用乎？「格」字之義，有以「至」字之訓者，如「格於文祖」，「有苗來格」，是以「至」訓者也。然「恪於文祖」，必純孝詼敬，幽明之間無一不得其理，而後謂之「格」：有苗之頑，實以文德誕敷而後格，則亦兼有「正」字之義在其間，未可專以「至」字盡之也。加「格其非心」，「大臣挌君心之非」之類，是則一皆「正其不正以歸於正」之義，而不可以「至」字為訓矣。且《大學》「格物」之訓，又安知其不以「正」字為訓，而必以「至」字為義乎？

Your letter says: You teach people to extend knowledge and illumine virtue and warn them against investigating principle through things; if you let a benighted scholar sit upright in deep seclusion, hearing no teaching, can he reach the extension of knowledge and the illumination of virtue? Even if in stillness there is awareness and he slightly awakens to his original nature, that too is the useless view of fixed concentration and wisdom, and can he really know the present age fully, comprehend the changes of affairs, and apply it truly to the state and the world? You also say: "Knowing is the substance of the will, things are the function of the will, and investigating things is the 'investigating' in 'rectifying the ruler's mind's wrongs.'" Though the words are transcendent and insightful, singularly not following old views, I fear they may not yet match the Way. When I discuss extending knowledge and investigating things, it is precisely to exhaust principle, and I have never warned people against exhausting principle or made them sit upright in deep seclusion doing nothing at all. If investigating principle through things means attending to the outer and neglecting the inner, as I said above, then it cannot be accepted, that is all. A benighted scholar who truly can, in each event and thing, closely examine the Heavenly principle of this mind and so extend his original good knowing will, however foolish, become bright, and however weak, become strong; the great root is established and the universal Way is carried out, and the nine constants and the like can be linked through with nothing left out; what then does he worry about in lacking real application? Those who cling to empty void and stillness are precisely the ones who cannot examine in each event and thing the Heavenly principle of this mind to extend their original good knowing, and who discard human relations and take extinction and nothingness as constant, so in the end they cannot govern family, state, or the world. Who says the sage's learning of exhausting principle and fulfilling the nature could have this fault! The mind is the master of the body, and the empty, spiritual brightness and awareness of the mind is what is called the original good knowing. That which the empty, spiritual, bright, aware good knowing moves in response to a stimulus is called the will. Only when there is knowing is there will; without knowing there is no will. Is knowing not the substance of the will? Wherever the will is applied there must be a thing, and a thing is an event. If the will is applied to serving parents, serving parents is a thing; if the will is applied to governing the people, governing the people is a thing; if the will is applied to reading, reading is a thing; if the will is applied to hearing lawsuits, hearing lawsuits is a thing. Wherever the will is applied there is never no thing: where there is this will there is this thing, and where there is not this will there is not this thing. Are things not the function of the will? As for the meaning of the word "ge," some explain it as "to arrive," as in "to arrive at the cultured ancestors" and "the Miao came to arrive." But "arriving at the cultured ancestors" requires pure filial piety and sincere reverence, with everything between the unseen and the seen finding its principle, and only then is it called "arriving"; the stubbornness of the Miao was truly arrived at only after cultural virtue was widely spread, so it also contains the meaning of "rectify," and cannot be exhausted by "arrive" alone. In cases like "rectify his wrong mind" and "a great minister rectifies the wrong in his ruler's mind," the meaning is invariably "to rectify what is not right and return it to the right," and "arrive" cannot serve as the explanation. Moreover, in the Great Learning's explanation of "investigating things," how do you know it does not take "rectify" as the explanation, and must take "arrive" as the meaning?"

如以「至」字為義者，必日「窮至事物之理」，而後其說始通。是其用功之要，全在一「窮」字，用力之地，全在一「理」字也。若上去一窮，下去一理字，而直曰「致知在至物」，其可通乎？夫「窮理盡性」，聖人之成訓，見於繄辭者也。荀「恪物」之說而果即「窮理」之義，則聖人何不直口「致知在窮理」，而必為此轉折不完之語，以啟後世之弊邪？蓋《大學》「挌物」之說，自與「繄辭，」「窮理」大旨雖同，而微有分辨：「窮理」者，兼格致誠正而為功也。故言「窮理」，則挌、致、誠、正之功皆在其中，言「恪物」，則必兼舉致知、誠意、正心，而後其功始備而密。今偏舉「格物」而遂謂之「窮理」，此所以專以「窮理」屬「知」，而謂「格物」未常有行。非惟不得「恪物」之旨，並「窮理」之義而矢之矣。此後世之學所以析知、行為先後兩截，日以支離決裂，而聖學益以殘晦者，其端實始於此。吾子蓋亦未免承沿積習，則見以為「於道未相吻合」，不為過矣。

(The Master continued:) If "arrive" is taken as the meaning, one must say "exhaust and arrive at the principle of things," and only then does the saying make sense. Then the key to effort lies entirely in the one word "exhaust," and the place to apply strength lies entirely in the one word "principle." If one removes the "exhaust" above and the "principle" below and says directly "extending knowledge lies in arriving at things," does that make sense? "Exhausting principle and fulfilling the nature" is a ready-made teaching of the sage, found in the Appended Remarks. If the doctrine of "investigating things" truly meant "exhausting principle," why did the sage not say directly "extending knowledge lies in exhausting principle," and instead make this roundabout, incomplete statement that opened the abuse of later ages? The Great Learning's doctrine of "investigating things" and the Appended Remarks' "exhausting principle" are the same in main purport, but there is a slight distinction: "exhausting principle" works through investigating, extending, making sincere and rectifying together. So when one speaks of "exhausting principle," the efforts of investigating, extending, making sincere and rectifying are all in it; when one speaks of "investigating things," one must also bring up extending knowledge, making the will sincere and rectifying the mind, and only then is the effort complete and close. Now to single out "investigating things" and call it "exhausting principle" assigns "exhausting principle" exclusively to "knowing" and says that "investigating things" never had practice. This not only fails to grasp the point of "investigating things" but also loses the meaning of "exhausting principle." That is why the learning of later ages splits knowing and acting into two separate sections, one before and one after, becoming more fragmented and broken day by day, and the sages' learning more damaged and obscure; the beginning of it truly lies here. You have probably not been able to avoid following the accumulated habits, so that you see it as "not yet matching the Way," and that is no great fault.

○來書云：謂致知之功，將如何為溫清、如何為奉養即是「誠意」，非別有所謂「格物」，此亦恐非。此乃吾子自以己意揣度鄙見而為是說，非鄙人之所以告吾子者矣。若果如吾子之言，寧復有可通乎！蓋鄙人之見，則謂意欲溫清、意欲奉養者．所謂「意」也，而未可謂之「誠意」：必實行其溫清奉養之意，務求自慷而無自欺，然後謂之「誠意」。知如何而為溫清之節．知如何而為奉養之宜者，所謂「知」也，而未可謂之「致知」：必致其知如何為溫清之節者之知，而實以之溫清，致其知如何為奉養之宜者之知，而實以之奉養，然後謂之「致知」。溫清之事，奉養之事，所謂「物」也而未可謂之「格物」：必其於溫清之事也，一如其良知之所知當如何為溫清之節者而為之，無一毫之不盡，於奉養之事也，一如其良知之所知當如何為奉養之宜者而為之，無一毫之不盡，然後謂之「格物」。溫清之物格，然後知溫清之良知始致：奉養之物格，然後知奉養之良知始致。故日「物格而後知至」：致其知溫清之良知，而後溫清之意始誠：致其知奉養之良知，而後奉養之意始誠。故曰「知至而後意誠誠」；此區區「誠詼意、致知、格物」之說蓋如此：吾子更熟思之，將亦無可疑者矣。

Your letter says: You say that the effort of extending knowledge is, for example, how to keep parents warm and cool and how to support them, which is "making the will sincere," and not some separate "investigating things"; I fear this is also not right. This is you speculating on my view with your own ideas and making this statement; it is not what I told you. If it were truly as you say, would it make sense! By my view, wanting to keep parents warm and cool and wanting to support them is what is called the "will," but it cannot yet be called "making the will sincere": one must actually carry out that will to keep them warm and cool and support them, striving to be self-satisfied and without self-deception, and only then is it called "making the will sincere." Knowing how to keep them warm and cool in proper measure and how to support them suitably is what is called "knowing," but it cannot yet be called "extending knowledge": one must extend the knowledge of how to keep them warm and cool in proper measure and actually warm and cool them with it, extend the knowledge of how to support them suitably and actually support them with it, and only then is it called "extending knowledge." The matter of keeping them warm and cool and the matter of supporting them are what is called "things," but it cannot yet be called "investigating things": in the matter of warming and cooling, one must do exactly as his good knowing knows how to warm and cool in proper measure, without a hair's breadth of shortfall; in the matter of support, one must do exactly as his good knowing knows how to support suitably, without a hair's breadth of shortfall, and only then is it called "investigating things." Only when the thing of warming and cooling is investigated is the good knowing of warming and cooling extended; only when the thing of supporting is investigated is the good knowing of supporting extended. So it says, "Things are investigated, and then knowledge is complete." Only after the good knowing of warming and cooling is extended is the will to warm and cool sincere; only after the good knowing of supporting is extended is the will to support sincere. So it says, "Knowledge is complete, and then the will is sincere." This is roughly my doctrine of "making the will sincere, extending knowledge, investigating things." Think about it again carefully, and you will have nothing left to doubt.

○來書云：道之大瑞，易於明臺，所謂「良知，良能」，愚夫愚埽可與及者。至於節目時燮之詳，毫釐千里之謬，必待學而後知。今語孝於溫泠定省，孰不知之？至於舜之不告而娶，式之不葬而興師，養志、冬口，小杖，大杖，剖股，廬墓等事，處常，處燮，過與不及之，必須討論是非，以為制事之本，然後心體無蔽，臨事無失。道之大端易於明白，此語誠然。顧後之學者忽其易於明白者而弗由，而求其難於明白者以為學，此其所以「道在邇而求諸遠，事在易而求諸難「也。孟子云：「夫道若大路然，豈難知哉？人病不由耳。」良知、良能，愚夫、愚婦與聖人同：但惟聖人能致其良知，而愚夫、愚婦不能致，此聖愚之所由分也。節目時變，聖人夫豈不知，但不專以此為學：而其所謂學者，正惟致其真知，以精審此心之天理，而與後世之學不同耳。吾子未暇真知之致，而汲汲焉顧是之憂，此正求其離於明白者以為學之蔽也。夫良知之於節目時變，猶規矩尺度之於方圓長短也：節目時變之不可預定，猶方圓長短之不可勝窮也。故規矩誠立，則不可欺以方圓，而天下之方圓不可勝用矣：尺度誠陳，則不可欺以長短，而天下之長短不可勝用矣：良知誠致，則不可欺以節目時變，而天下之節目時變不可勝應矣。毫釐千里之繆，不於吾心真知一念之微而察之，亦將何所用其學乎！是不以規矩而欲定天下之方圓，不以尺哽而欲盡天下之長短，吾見其乖張謬戾，日勞而無成也已。吾子謂「語孝於溫清定省，孰不知之。」然而能致其知者鮮矣。若謂粗知溫清定省之儀節，而遂謂之能致其知，則凡知君之當仁者，皆可謂之能致其仁之知，知臣之當忠者，皆可謂之能致其忠之知，則天下孰非致知者邪？以是而言可以知致知之必在於行，而不行之不可以為致知也，明矣。知、行合一之體，不益較然矣乎？

Your letter says: The main points of the Way are easy to understand, as in what are called "good knowing and good ability," which foolish men and women can reach. But the details of procedure and changes of circumstance, and errors of a hair's breadth that become a thousand li, must await learning before they are known. Now, in speaking of filial piety, who does not know about keeping warm and cool and attending morning and evening? But for such cases as Shun marrying without informing his parents, King Wu raising an army without burying his father, nourishing the will versus nourishing the mouth and body, the small stick and the large stick, cutting flesh from the thigh and living in a hut at the grave, whether in ordinary or exceptional circumstances, in excess or in shortfall, one must discuss right and wrong and take them as the basis for managing affairs, and only then is the substance of the mind free of obscuration and does one make no error when facing affairs. That the main points of the Way are easy to understand is indeed true. But later learners neglect what is easy to understand and do not follow it, and instead seek what is hard to understand and take it as learning, which is why it is said "the Way is near, yet people seek it afar; the affair is easy, yet people seek it in what is difficult." Mencius said: "The Way is like a great road; how hard is it to know? The trouble is that people do not follow it." Good knowing and good ability are the same in foolish men and women as in sages; only the sage can extend his good knowing, while foolish men and women cannot extend it, and this is where sage and fool diverge. As for details and changes of circumstance, how could the sage not know them? But he does not take them as the sole object of learning; what he calls learning is precisely extending his good knowing in order to examine closely the Heavenly principle of this mind, and in that it differs from the learning of later ages. You have not yet had leisure for extending good knowing and are anxiously concerned with these things, which is exactly the obscuration of seeking what is hard to understand and taking it as learning. Good knowing in relation to details and changes of circumstance is like the compass, square, and rule in relation to squares, circles, and lengths: the impossibility of fixing details and changes in advance is like the impossibility of exhausting all squares, circles, and lengths. So if the compass and square are truly established, one cannot be deceived about squares and circles, and the world's squares and circles cannot be used up; if the rule is truly laid out, one cannot be deceived about lengths, and the world's lengths cannot be used up; if good knowing is truly extended, one cannot be deceived about details and changes, and the world's details and changes cannot be fully responded to. If one does not examine the errors of a hair's breadth that become a thousand li in the subtle single thought of the good knowing of my own mind, then what else can one use one's learning for! This is wanting to fix all the world's squares and circles without a compass and square, and to measure all the world's lengths without a rule, and I see it as perverse and contradictory, laboring daily and achieving nothing. You say "in speaking of filial piety, who does not know about warming and cooling and morning and evening attendance," yet few can extend their knowledge of it. If one says that roughly knowing the forms of warming, cooling and attendance means being able to extend knowledge, then everyone who knows that a ruler should be benevolent can be called able to extend the knowledge of benevolence, and everyone who knows that a minister should be loyal can be called able to extend the knowledge of loyalty; then who in the world is not someone who extends knowledge? From this one can see that extending knowledge necessarily lies in practice, and that without practice one cannot be said to extend knowledge, and this becomes clear. Is the substance of the unity of knowing and acting not all the more evident?

夫舜之不告而娶，豈舜之前已有不告而娶者為之準則，故舜得以考之何典，問諸何人，而為此邪？抑亦求諸其心一念之真知，權輕重之宜，不得已而為此邪？武之不葬而興師，豈武之前已有不葬而興師者為之準則，故武得以考之何典，問諸何人，而為此邪？抑亦求諸其心一念之良知，權輕重之宜，不得已而為此邪？使舜之心而非誠，武之心而非誠於為救民，則其不告而娶與不葬而興師，乃不孝．不忠之大者。而後之人不務致其良知，以精察義理於此心感應酬酢之間，顧欲懸空討論此等變常之事，執之以為制事之本，以求臨事之無失，其亦遠矣。其餘數端，皆可類推，則古人致知之學，從可知矣。

(The Master continued:) When Shun married without informing his parents, was there already someone before Shun who had married without informing, serving as his standard, so that Shun could look up what canon and ask what person before doing this? Or did he seek in the single thought of good knowing in his own mind, weigh what was fitting between the lighter and the weightier, and do this because he had no choice? When King Wu raised an army without burying his father, was there already someone before Wu who had raised an army without burial, serving as his standard, so that Wu could look up what canon and ask what person before doing this? Or did he seek in the single thought of good knowing in his own mind, weigh what was fitting between the lighter and the weightier, and do this because he had no choice? Had Shun's heart not been truly sincere in longing for his parents, and Wu's heart not truly sincere in saving the people, then their marrying without informing and raising an army without burial would have been among the gravest unfilial and disloyal acts. Yet people of later ages, not striving to extend their good knowing so as to examine righteousness and principle closely in the stimulus and response of this mind, wish instead to discuss in the air these exceptional matters, and to hold on to them as the basis for managing affairs so as to make no error when facing events; that is far off the mark. The other points can all be inferred by analogy, and from this one can know the learning of extending knowledge as practiced by the ancients.

○來書云：謂《大學》「格物」之說，專求本心，猶可牽合：至於六經、四書所載「多閃多見」，「前古往行」，「好古敏求」，「博學審問」，「，溫故知新」、「博學詳說」，「奸問好察」，是皆明臺求於事為之際、資於論說之間者，用功節目固不容紊矣。「格物」之義，前已詳悉，牽合之疑，想已不俟復解矣。至於「多聞多見」，乃孔子因子張之務外好高，徒欲以多聞多見為學，而不能求諸其心，以闕疑殆，此其言行所以不免於尤悔，而所謂見聞者，適以資其務外好高而已：蓋所以救子張多聞多見之病，而非以是教之為學也：夫子嘗曰：「蓋有不知而作之者，我無是也。」是猶孟子「是非之心，人皆有之」之義也。此言正所以明德性之良知非由於聞見耳。若日「多聞擇其善者而從之，多見而識之」，則是專求諸見聞之末，而已落在第二義矣，故日「如之次也。」夫以見聞之知為次，則所謂知之上者果安所指乎？是可以窺聖門致知用力之地矣。夫子謂子貢曰：「賜也，汝以予為多學而識之者歟？非也，予一以貫之。」使誠在於「多學而識」，則夫子胡力謬為是說，以欺子貢者邪？「一以貫之」，非致其良知而何？《易》曰：「君子多識前言往行，以畜其德。」夫以畜其德為心，則凡多識前言往行者，孰非畜德之事：此正知、行合一之功矣。「好古敏求」者，好古人之學，而敏求此心之理耳。心即理也。學者，學此心也：求者，求此心也。盂子云：「學問之道無他，求其放心而已矣。」非若後世廣記博誦古人之言詞，以為好古，而汲汲然惟以求功名利達之具於外者也。「博學、審問」，前言已盡。「溫故、知新」，朱子亦以「溫故」屬之「摩德性」矣：德性豈可以外求哉？惟夫「知新」必由於「溫故」，而「溫故」乃所以「知新」，則亦可以驗知、行之非兩節矣。「博學而詳說之者，將以反說約也。

Your letter says: You say that the Great Learning's doctrine of "investigating things" exclusively seeks the original mind, which can still be forced to fit; but as for what is recorded in the Six Classics and Four Books, such as "hearing much and seeing much," "former sayings and past deeds," "loving antiquity and seeking diligently," "studying broadly and inquiring carefully," "reviewing the old and knowing the new," "studying broadly and explaining in detail," "loving to ask and loving to examine," these plainly seek in the course of affairs and draw support from discussion and explanation, and the stages of effort must of course not be confused. The meaning of "investigating things" has been explained in detail before, and the doubt about forced fitting hardly needs further explanation. As for "hearing much and seeing much," it was said by Confucius because Zizhang concentrated on the outside and loved the lofty, and wanted merely to take much hearing and seeing as learning, and could not seek in his own mind, so as to leave doubt aside and avoid risk; thus his words and actions could not avoid fault and regret, and what he saw and heard served only to feed his attention to the outside and love of loftiness: it was to cure Zizhang's illness of much hearing and seeing, and not to teach him this as learning. The Master said: "There may be people who act without knowing, but I am not like that." This is still the meaning of Mencius's "the mind of right and wrong is in everyone." These words precisely make clear that the good knowing of one's moral nature does not come from hearing and seeing. As for "hear much, choose what is good and follow it; see much and remember it," this is seeking exclusively in the tip of hearing and seeing, already fallen to the second rank, so it is called "the next level of knowing." If the knowing of hearing and seeing is the next level, then what does the highest level of knowing actually refer to? From this one can glimpse where the sage's school applied effort in extending knowledge. The Master said to Zigong: "Ci, do you think I am one who learns much and remembers it? No, I link it all with one thread." If it truly lay in "learning much and remembering," why would the Master falsely say this to deceive Zigong? What is "linking all with one thread" if not extending good knowing? The Book of Changes says: "The gentleman learns much of former sayings and past deeds, so as to accumulate his virtue." With accumulating virtue as the aim, everyone who learns much of former sayings and past deeds is engaged in nothing but accumulating virtue: this is precisely the effort of the unity of knowing and acting. "Loving antiquity and seeking diligently" means loving the learning of the ancients and diligently seeking the principle of this mind. The mind is principle. Learning is learning this mind; seeking is seeking this mind. Mencius said: "The way of learning is nothing other than seeking one's lost mind." It is not like later ages, memorizing and reciting the ancients' words widely and calling that loving antiquity while anxiously seeking only the tools of fame and advancement outside. "Studying broadly and inquiring carefully" has been fully explained earlier. As for "reviewing the old and knowing the new," Master Zhu too assigned "reviewing the old" to "honoring the moral nature": how can the moral nature be sought outside? Only that "knowing the new" must come from "reviewing the old," and "reviewing the old" is precisely how one "knows the new," which also verifies that knowing and acting are not two stages. "Studying broadly and explaining in detail is to return to explaining in summary.

」若無「反約」之云，則「博學．詳說」者，果何事邪？舜之「好問好察」，惟以用中而致其精一於道心耳。道心者，良知之謂也。君子之學，何嘗離去事為而廢論說：但其從事於事為、論說者，要皆知、行合一之功，正所以致其本心之良知，而非若世之徒事口耳談說以為知者，分知、行為兩事，而果有節目先後之可言也。

(The Master continued:) If there were no saying about "returning to the summary," what then would "studying broadly and explaining in detail" be about? Shun's "loving to ask and loving to examine" is merely taking the mean and extending the refinement and singleness of the mind of the Way. The mind of the Way is what is meant by good knowing. In the gentleman's learning, when has he ever left affairs and abandoned discussion? Only that what he does in affairs and discussion is all the effort of the unity of knowing and acting, precisely to extend the good knowing of his original mind, and is not like those in the world who merely engage in talk by mouth and ear and take it for knowing, dividing knowing and acting into two matters and truly having stages of before and after to speak of.

○來書云：楊、墨之為仁義，鄉愿之亂忠信，堯舜子之之禪讓，湯，武，楚項之放伐，周公，莽操之攝輔，謾無印證，又焉適從？且於古今事變，禮樂、名物，未常考識，使國家欲興明堂，建辟雍，制歷律，草封禪，人將何所玫其用乎？故《論語》曰「生而知之」者，義理耳。若夫禮樂，名物，古今事變，亦必待學而後有以驗其行事之實。此則可謂定論矣；所喻楊、墨、鄉愿、堯、舜、子之、湯、武、楚項、周公、莽、操之辨，與前舜、武之論，大略可以類推，古今事變之疑，前於良知之說，已有規矩尺度之喻，當亦無俟多贅矣。至於明堂、辟雍諸事，似尚未容於無言者：然其說甚長，姑就吾子之言而取正焉，則吾子之惑將亦可少釋矣。失明堂．辟雍之制，始見於呂氏之「月令」，漢濡之訓疏，六經、四書之中，未嘗詳及也。豈呂氏、漢懦之知，乃賢於三代之賢聖乎？齊宣之時，明堂尚有未毀，則幽、厲之世，周之明堂皆無恙也。堯、舜茅茨土階，明堂之制末必備，而不害其為治幽、厲之明堂，固猶文武成康之舊，而無救於其亂：何邪？豈能「以不忍人之心，而行不忍人之政」，則雖茅茨土階，固亦明堂也：以幽、厲之心，而行幽、厲之政，則雖明堂，亦暴政所自出之地邪？武帝肇講於漢，而武盾盛作於唐，其治亂何如邪？天子之學日辟雍，諸侯之學日汻宮，皆象地形而為之名耳。然三代之學，其要皆所以明人倫，非以肝不肝，汻不汻為重輕也。孔子云：「人而不仁，如禮何！人而不仁，如樂何！」制禮作樂，必具中和之德，聲為律而身為度者，然後可以語此。若夫器數之末，樂工之事，祝史之守。故曾子曰：「君子所貴乎道者三，籩豆之事，則有司存也。」堯「命羲和，欽若昊天，曆象日月星！星辰」，其重在於「敬授入時」也。舜「在璇璣玉衡」，其重在於「以齊七政」也。

Your letter says: Yang Zhu and Mo Di's benevolence and righteousness, the village worthy's confusion of loyalty and good faith, the abdications of Yao, Shun and Zizhi, the banishing and attacking by Tang, Wu and the Chu and Xiang Yu, the regency and assistance of the Duke of Zhou versus Wang Mang and Cao Cao, there is no verification at all, so what is one to follow? Moreover, if one has not examined the changes of ancient and present affairs, rites and music, names and things, and the state wishes to build the Hall of Light, set up the Bi Yong, fix the calendar and musical pitches, or discuss the feng and shan sacrifices, to what use will people put their ability? So the Analects' "born with knowledge" refers only to righteousness and principle. As for rites and music, names and things, ancient and present changes, one must also wait to learn and then be able to verify the truth of practice. This can be called a settled conclusion. The distinctions you mention, among Yang, Mo, the village worthy, Yao, Shun, Zizhi, Tang, Wu, Chu and Xiang Yu, the Duke of Zhou, Mang and Cao, can roughly be inferred from the earlier discussion of Shun and Wu. The doubt about the changes of ancient and present affairs has been answered earlier in the analogy of the compass, square and rule in the doctrine of good knowing, and needs no more elaboration. As for the Hall of Light, Bi Yong and the like, it seems I cannot leave them without comment: but the discussion is very long, so let me take your words as a basis for correction, and your confusion may be somewhat resolved. The institutions of the Hall of Light and the Bi Yong first appear in Lu's Monthly Ordinances and the commentaries of Han scholars and are not discussed in detail in the Six Classics or Four Books. Could the knowledge of Lu and the Han scholars surpass that of the worthy sages of the Three Dynasties? In the time of King Xuan of Qi, the Hall of Light was still not destroyed, so in the age of Kings You and Li, the Zhou Hall of Light was all intact. Under Yao and Shun, with thatched roofs and earthen steps, the institutions of the Hall of Light were probably not complete, and yet it did not harm their governing; in the age of Kings You and Li, the Hall of Light was still the old one of Wen, Wu, Cheng and Kang, yet it did nothing to save them from disorder: why? Is it not that if one can "use a heart that cannot bear the suffering of others to carry out government that cannot bear the suffering of others," then even thatched roofs and earthen steps are truly a Hall of Light, while with the heart of You and Li carrying out the government of You and Li, even a Hall of Light is the very place from which tyranny arises? Emperor Wu began lecturing at it in Han and Empress Wu built it grandly in Tang; how was their order and disorder? The Son of Heaven's school is called Bi Yong and the lords' school is called Pan Gong, both simply named after the shape of the ground. But the main purpose of the schools of the Three Dynasties was always to illumine human relations, and not to weigh importance by whether it was Bi or not Bi, Pan or not Pan. Confucius said: "A person without benevolence, what has he to do with ritual! A person without benevolence, what has he to do with music!" To make rites and compose music, one must have the virtue of centered harmony, with his voice making the pitch and his person making the measure, and only then can one speak of this. As for the tip of vessels and numbers, that is the work of musicians and the charge of invocators and scribes. So Zengzi said: "What the gentleman values in the Way is three things; as for the matter of the bamboo and wooden vessels, there are officials for that." Yao "commanded Xi and He, reverently following august Heaven, to calculate and delineate the sun, moon and stars," and the emphasis was on "reverently giving the seasons to the people"; Shun "observed the jade armillary sphere and crossbar," and the emphasis was on "regulating the seven governors."

是皆汲汲然以仁民之心而行其養民之政，治歷明時之本，固在於此也。羲和歷數之學，皋、契未必能之也，禹、稷未必能之也，堯、舜之知而不偏物，雖堯、舜亦未必能之也：然至於今循羲和之法而世修之，雖曲知小慧之人，星術淺陋之士，亦能推步占侯而無所忒。則是後世曲知小慧之人，反賢於禹、稷、堯、舜者邪？「封禪」之說尤為不經，是乃後世佞人諛士所以求媚於其上，倡為誇侈，以蕩君心而靡國贊：蓋欺天罔人無恥之大者，君子之所不道，司馬相如之所以見譏於天下後世也。吾子乃以是為懦者所宜學，殆亦未之思邪？夫聖人之所以為聖者，以其生而知之也。而釋論語者曰：「『生而知之』者，義理耳。若夫禮樂、名物、占今事變：亦必待學而後有以驗其行事之實；」失禮樂、名物之類，果有關於作聖之功也，而聖人亦必待學而後能知焉，則是聖人亦不可以謂之「生知」矣。謂聖人為「生知」者，專指義理而言，而不以禮樂、名物之類，則是禮樂、名物之類無關於作聖之功矣，聖人之所以謂之「生知」者，專指義理而不以禮堤、名物之類，則是「學而知之」者，亦惟當學知此義理而已。「困而知之」者，亦惟當困知此義理而已。今學者之學聖人，於聖人之所能知者，未能「學而知之」，而顧汲汲焉求知聖人之所不能知者以為學，無乃失其所以希聖之方歟？凡此皆就吾子之聽惑者而稍為之分釋，末及乎拔本塞源之論也。

(The Master continued:) All of these were done with the anxious mind of benevolence toward the people, carrying out the government of nurturing the people, and the root of ordering the calendar and clarifying the seasons truly lies here. The learning of calendar calculation of Xi and He was probably not something Gao Yao or Xie could do, nor Yu or Ji; Yao and Shun, whose knowledge did not extend to every thing, could not necessarily do it either: yet to this day, following the methods of Xi and He, and cultivating them in each age, even a person of petty knowledge and small cleverness, or a man of shallow skill in star technique, can calculate and divine without error. Then are the petty-knowing people of later ages more worthy than Yu, Ji, Yao and Shun? The doctrine of "feng and shan" is especially groundless; it was put forward by flatterers of later ages seeking to please their rulers, promoting extravagance to dissolve the ruler's heart and waste the state's resources: it is the greatest of shameless deceptions of Heaven and men, which the gentleman does not speak of, and for which Sima Xiangru was ridiculed by the world and later ages. That you take this as what Confucians should study probably means you have not thought about it. The reason the sage is a sage is that he was born knowing. And the interpreters of the Analects say: "'Born with knowledge' refers only to righteousness and principle. As for rites and music, names and things, ancient and present changes, one must also wait to learn and then be able to verify the truth of practice." If rites and music, names and things and the like truly bear on the work of becoming a sage, and the sage too must wait to learn before knowing them, then the sage cannot be called "born knowing." If to call the sage "born knowing" refers only to righteousness and principle and not to rites and music, names and things, then rites and music, names and things have no bearing on the work of becoming a sage. If the sage is called "born knowing" with reference only to righteousness and principle and not to rites and music, names and things, then those who "know by learning" should only learn to know this righteousness and principle, and those who "know through hardship" should only come through hardship to know this righteousness and principle. Now learners, in learning from the sage, have not yet been able to "know by learning" what the sage can know, but anxiously seek to know what the sage cannot know and take it as learning; is that not losing the way to aspire to sagehood? All this only partly resolves what confuses you, and has not yet reached the doctrine of pulling out the root and stopping the source.

○夫拔本塞源之論不明於天下，則天下之學聖人者，將日繁日難，斯人倫於禽獸夷夥，而猶自以為聖人之學：吾之說雖或暫明於一時，終將凍解於西而冰堅於東，霧釋於前而云滃於後，呶呶焉危困以死，而卒無救於天下之分毫也已。夫聖人之心，以天地萬物為一體，其視天下之人，無外內遠近：凡有血氣，皆其昆弟赤子之親，莫不欲安全而教養之，以遂其萬物一體之念。天下之人心，其始亦非有異於聖人也，特其間於有我之私，隔於物欲之蔽，大者以小，通者以塞，人各有心，至有視其父、子、兄、弗如仇讎者。聖人有憂之，是以推其天地萬物一體之仁以教天下，使之皆有以克其私，去其蔽，以復其心體之同然。其教之大端，則堯、舜、禹之相授受，所謂「道心惟微，惟精惟一，允執厥中」：而其節目，則舜之命契，斫謂「父子有親，君臣有義，夫婦有別，長幼有序，胡友有信」五者而已。唐、虞、三代之世，教者惟以此為教，而學者惟以此為學。當是之時，人無異見，家無異習，安此者謂之聖，勉此者謂之貿，而背此者，雖其啟明如朱，亦謂之不肖。下至閭井、田野、農、工、商、賈之賤，莫不皆有是學，而惟以成其德行為務。何者？無有聞見之雜，記誦之煩，辭章之靡濫，功利之馳逐，而但使孝其親，弟其長，信其朋友，以復其心體之同然：是蓋性分之所固有，而非有假於外者，則人亦孰不能之乎？學挍之中，惟以成德為事：而才能之異，或有長於禮樂，長於政教，長於水土播值者，則就其成德，而因使益精其能於學挍之中。迨夫舉德而任，則使之終身居其職而不易。用之者惟知同心一德，以共安天下之民，視才之稱否，而不以崇卑為輕重，勞逸為美惡：效用者亦惟知同心一德，以共安天下之民，苟當其能，則終身扈於煩劇而不以為勞，安於卑瑣而不以為琖。

If the doctrine of pulling out the root and stopping the source is not made clear in the world, then those in the world who study the sages will grow more numerous and more difficult day by day, and these people will sink into the state of beasts and barbarians while still thinking they are practicing the learning of the sages. Although my teaching may be clear for a time, in the end it will be like ice melting in the west while freezing hard in the east, mist clearing in front while clouds surge behind, and I will talk on and on, in danger and hardship to the death, and in the end I will not help the world by even a hair. The sage's mind takes Heaven, earth and the ten thousand things as one body, and sees all the people of the world without distinction of inside and outside, far and near: whatever has blood and breath is a brother, a newborn child in his kinship, and he wishes to keep them all safe and teach and nourish them, to fulfill his thought of the oneness of the ten thousand things. At the beginning the minds of the world's people were not different from the sage's, but were interposed by the selfishness of having a self and separated by the obscuration of material desire; what was large became small, what was open became blocked, each person had his own mind, and some even viewed their fathers, sons, and brothers as enemies. The sage was troubled by this, so he extended his benevolence of oneness with Heaven, earth and the ten thousand things to teach the world, so that all could overcome their selfishness and remove their obscuration, and recover the mind's substance that is the same in all. The main points of his teaching are what Yao, Shun and Yu handed down to each other: "The mind of the Way is subtle; be refined, be single, and hold fast to the mean"; and its details are what Shun commanded Xie: "Between father and son there is affection, between ruler and minister there is righteousness, between husband and wife there is distinction, between elder and younger there is order, between friends there is good faith," these five only. In the age of Tang, Yu and the Three Dynasties, the teachers taught only this and the learners learned only this. At that time people had no different views, and families no different practices; those at ease in it were called sages, those striving at it were called worthies, and those who turned against it, though they were as enlightened as Danzhu, were called unworthy. Down to the village wells, the fields, and the lowly farmers, artisans and merchants, none was without this learning, and all strove only to perfect virtue and conduct. Why? There was no confusion of hearing and seeing, no tedium of memorization, no excess of embellished writing, no racing after profit and merit, but only making them filial to parents, respectful to elders and faithful to friends, to recover the mind's substance that is the same in all: this is what the nature originally has and does not borrow from outside, so who could not do it? In the schools they concerned themselves only with perfecting virtue; and if talents differed, so that some excelled in rites and music, in government and teaching, or in water, soil and sowing, then according to their perfected virtue they were helped to refine their ability further in the schools. When virtue was selected and given office, they were made to remain in that post for life without change. Those who employed them knew only to be of one mind and one virtue to bring peace to the people of the world, looking at whether the talent was suitable and not treating high or low rank as heavy or light, or toil or ease as good or bad; those who served knew only to be of one mind and one virtue to bring peace to the people of the world, and if the post fit their ability, they stayed in a burdensome post their whole lives without thinking it toil, and were content in a humble, petty post without thinking it lowly.

當是之時，天下之人熙熙皞皞，皆相視如一家之親。其才質之下者，則安其農、工、商、賈之分，各勤其業，以相生相養，而無有乎希高慕外之心。其才能之異，若皋、夔、稷、契者，則出而各效其能。若一家之務，或營其衣食，或通其有無，或傭其器用，集謀併力，以求遂其仰事俯育之願，惟恐當其事者之或怠而重己之累也。故復勤其稼，而不恥其不知教，視契之善教，即己之善教也：夔司其樂，而不恥於不明禮，視其夷之通禮，郥己之通禮也。蓋其心學純明，而有以全其萬物一體之仁，故其精神流貫，志氣通達，而無有乎己之分，物我之間：譬之一人之身，目視，耳聽，手持，足行，以濟一身之用，目不恥其無聰，而耳之所涉，目必營焉，是不恥其無執，而手之所探，足必前焉：蓋其元氣充同，血脈牒暢，是以癢痾呼吸，感觸神應，有不言而喻之妙。此聖人之學斫以至易至簡，易知易從，學易能而才易成者，正以大端惟在復心體之同然，而知識技能非斫與論也。

(The Master continued:) At that time the people of the world were happy and peaceful, all regarding each other as kin of one family. Those of lower talent were content with their lot as farmers, artisans and merchants, each diligent in his work, supporting and nourishing one another, without any heart to aspire upward or yearn for what was outside. Those of different ability, such as Gao Yao, Kui, Ji and Xie, came forward and each used his ability. It was like the affairs of one household, in which some manage clothing and food, some exchange what is present and absent, some prepare utensils, gathering plans and uniting strength to fulfill the wish to serve those above and nourish those below, only afraid that one in charge of a matter might grow negligent and increase his own burden. So Ji was diligent in farming and was not ashamed at not knowing how to teach, and regarded Xie's skill in teaching as his own skill in teaching; Kui was in charge of music and was not ashamed at not understanding ritual, and regarded Bo Yi's mastery of ritual as his own mastery of ritual. Their learning of the mind was pure and bright, and so they were able to complete the benevolence of the oneness of the ten thousand things; therefore their spirit flowed through and their aspiration reached everywhere, and there was no division of self and other, no gap between others and things: like the body of one person, where the eyes see, the ears hear, the hands hold and the feet walk to serve the whole body. The eyes are not ashamed at lacking hearing, and what the ears reach, the eyes will attend to; the hands are not ashamed at lacking walking, and where the hands reach, the feet will move forward: because the original qi fills the body and the blood vessels flow freely, so itching, illness, breathing, and touch are met with spiritual response, with a wondrous understanding that is felt without being spoken. This is why the sage's learning is extremely easy and simple, easy to know and easy to follow, easy to learn and easy to bring talent to completion, precisely because its main point lies in recovering the mind's substance that is the same in all, and knowledge and skills are not what is discussed.

○三代之衰，王道熄而霸術倡：孔、孟既沒，聖學晦而邪說橫：教者不復以此為教，而學者不復以此為學，霸者之徒，竊取先王之近似者，假之於外以內濟其私己之慾，天下靡然而宗之，聖人之道遂以蕪塞。相仿相效，日求所以富強之說，傾詐之謀，攻伐之計，一切欺天罔人，荀一時之得，以獵取聲利之術，若管、商、蘇、張之屬者，至不可名數。既其久也，鬥爭劫奪，不勝其禍，斯人惀於禽獸、夷狄，而霸術亦有所不能行矣。世之懦者慨然悲傷，搜臘先聖王之典一草法制而掇拾修補於煨燼之餘，蓋其為心頁亦欲以挽回先王之道。聖學既遠，霸術之慱積已深，雖在賢知，皆不免於習染，其所以講明修飾，以求宣暘光復於世者，僅是以增霸者之藩癱，而聖學之門穡，遂不復可靚：於是乎有訓詀之學，而慱之以為名，有記誦之學，而言之以為博，有詞章之學，而侈之以為麗：若是者，紛紛籍籍，堊超角立於天下，又不知其幾家，萬徑千蹊，莫知所適。世之學者如人百戲之場，讙謔跳踉、騁奇鬥巧、獻笑爭妍者，四面而競出，前瞻後盼，應接不遑，而耳目眩瞀，精神恍惑，日夜遨遊淹息其間，如病狂喪心之人，莫自知其家業之所歸：時君世主亦皆昏迷顛倒於其說，而終身從事於無用之虛文，莫自知其聽謂。間有覺其空疏謬妄：支離牽滯，而卓然自奮，欲以見諸行事之實者，極其所抵，亦不過為富強功利、五霸之事業而止。聖人之學囗遠日晦，而功利之習愈趨愈下：其間雖嘗瞽惑於佛、老，而佛、老之說卒亦未能有以勝其功利之心：雖又嘗折衷於群懦，而群濡之論終亦未能有以破其功利之見。蓋至於今，功利之毒淪浹於人之心髓，而習以成性也，幾千年矣。

With the decline of the Three Dynasties, the kingly way faded and the hegemonic arts were promoted; after Confucius and Mencius died, the sages' learning grew obscure and heterodox theories ran rampant. Teachers no longer taught this, and learners no longer learned this. The followers of the hegemons stole what resembled the former kings' ways and borrowed them externally to supply their private desires within, and the world followed and revered them in a wave, so that the sages' Way was overgrown and blocked. They imitated one another and sought every day theories of wealth and strength, schemes of deceit, plans of attack, all the arts of deceiving Heaven and men, of grasping a momentary gain and hunting for fame and profit, such as Guan, Shang, Su and Zhang, too many to name or count. After a long time, struggles, robbery and plunder brought unbearable disasters, and these people sank to the state of beasts and barbarians, and even the hegemonic arts could no longer be carried out. The Confucians of the world were grieved and sorrowful and collected the canons and institutions of the former sage kings, gathering and mending them from the embers, and their intention too was to restore the Way of the former kings. But the sages' learning was already distant, and the hidden accumulation of the hegemonic arts was deep, so that even among the worthy and the wise, none escaped being tainted, and what they discussed and polished in order to promote and restore it to the world only added to the hedges of the hegemons, while the gate and wall of the sages' learning could no longer be seen. Thus there arose the learning of exegesis, boasted of as fame; the learning of memorization, spoken of as breadth; the learning of rhetoric and composition, indulged in as beauty. Such schools, crowded and jostling, stood against one another in the world, and one does not know how many families there were, ten thousand paths and a thousand tracks, none knowing where to go. The learners of the world were like people who had entered a place of hundred entertainments, where noisy jesting and leaping, showing off wonders and competing in tricks, offering laughter and vying for beauty came from all sides, and they looked front and back and could not respond to it all, their eyes and ears dazzled and their spirits confused, and day and night they roamed and lingered there like people mad and out of their minds, none knowing where his family and work lay. The rulers of the age too were all confused and inverted by these theories, and for their whole lives engaged in useless empty forms, none knowing what he was doing. Among them some perceived that it was empty, erroneous, fragmented and cramped, and, rousing themselves with distinction, wished to show it in the reality of action, but the furthest they reached was merely wealth, strength, merit and profit, the enterprises of the Five Hegemons. The learning of the sages grew more distant and obscure each day, and the habit of merit and profit sank lower the more it was pursued. In the meantime they were at times deluded by Buddhism and Daoism, but the teachings of Buddhism and Daoism in the end could not overcome their heart of merit and profit; and at times they sought a compromise among the many Confucians, but the discussions of the Confucians in the end could not break their views of merit and profit. By today the poison of merit and profit has soaked into the marrow of people's minds and has become habit and second nature, for several thousand years already.

相矜以知，相軋以勢，相爭以利，相高以技能，相取以聲譽：其出而仕也，理錢榖者則欲兼夫兵刑，典禮樂者又欲與於銓軸，處郡縣則思藩臬之高，居臺諫則望宰執之要。故不能其事則不得以兼其官，不通其說則不可以要其譽：記諵之廣，適以長其放他：知識之多，適以行其惡也：聞見之博，適以肆其辨也：辭章之富，適以飾其為也。是以梟、夒、復、契所不能兼之事，而今之初學小生皆欲通其說，究其術。其稱名僭號，未嘗不囗吾欲以共成天下之務，而其誠心實意之所在，以為不如是則無以濟其私而滿其欲也。嗚呼，以若是之積染，以若是之心志，而又講之以若是之學術，宜其聞吾聖人之教，而視之以為贅疣衲鑿：則其以良知為未是，而謂聖人之學為無所用，亦其勢有所必至矣！嗚呼，士生期世，而尚同以求聖人之學乎！尚同以論聖人之學乎！土生斯世，而欲以為學者，不亦勞苫而繁難乎！不亦拘湍而險艱乎！嗚呼，可悲也已！所幸天理之在人心，終有所不可泯，而良知之明，萬占一日，則其聞吾拔本塞源之論，必有惻然而悲，戚然而痛，憤然而起，沛然若決匚河，而有岓不可御者矣。非夫豪傑之士，無所待而興起者，吾誰與望乎？

(The Master continued:) They boast to one another of knowledge, crush each other by power, contend with each other for profit, vie with each other in skill, and compete for reputation. When they go out to hold office, those who manage money and grain wish also to handle the military and punishments, those who administer rites and music also wish to take part in appointments, those in commanderies and counties think of the height of provincial offices, and those in the censorate and remonstrance posts long for the key posts of chief ministers. So when they cannot do the work, they cannot hold concurrent posts; if they do not understand a doctrine, they cannot seek its reputation: breadth of memorization only increases their arrogance, much knowledge only helps them carry out their evil, wide hearing and seeing only lets them indulge in argument, and richness of rhetoric only decorates their falsehood. So things that even Gao Yao, Kui, Ji and Xie could not take on together, today's beginners and young students all wish to master in theory and exhaust in technique. In claiming titles and styles, they never fail to say "I wish to help complete the affairs of the world," but where their sincere hearts and true intentions lie, they think that without it they cannot serve their private ends and satisfy their desires. Alas, with such accumulated taint, such minds and aims, and then taught such scholarship, no wonder that when they hear the teaching of our sages they regard it as a wart or a square peg in a round hole; that they take good knowing as insufficient and say that the sages' learning has no use is also the inevitable course of things! Alas, born into this age, how can a scholar still seek the sages' learning! How can he still discuss the sages' learning! Born into this age and wishing to study, is it not toilsome and difficult! Is it not cramped and dangerous! Alas, how sad! Fortunately the Heavenly principle in human hearts can never be wholly extinguished in the end, and the brightness of good knowing is the same through ten thousand ages; so those who hear my doctrine of pulling out the root and stopping the source will surely feel pity and sorrow, grief and pain, rise in indignation, and like a flood breaking the river dikes, will be irresistible. Apart from heroic men who rise without waiting for anything, whom can I look to?

○吳、曾兩生至，備道道通懇切為道之意，殊慰相念。若道通真可謂篤信好學者矣。憂病中會不能與兩生細論，然兩生亦自有志向、肯用功者，，每見輒覺有進，在區區誠不能無負於兩生之遠來，在兩生則亦庶幾無負其遠來之意矣。臨別以此冊致道通意，請書數語。荒憒無可言者，輒以道通來書中所問數節，略下轉語奉酬。草草殊不詳細，兩生當亦自能口悉也。來書云：用工夫只是「立志」，近來於先生每吉時時骷檢，念益明臺。然於朋友不能一時相離。若得朋友講習，則此志繞精健闊大，才有生意：若三五日不得朋友相講，便覺微弱，遏事便會困，亦時會忘。乃今蕪朋友相講之日，還只靜坐，或看書，或遊衍經行，凡寓目、措身，悉取以培養志，頗覺意思和適：然終不如朋友講聚，精神流動，生意更多也。林本索居之人，當更有何法以處之？此段足驗道通日用工夫聽得，工夫大略亦只是如此用，只要無間斷，到得純熟後，意思又自不同矣。大抵吾人為學，緊要大頭惱，只是「立志」所謂「困、忘」之病，亦只是志欠真切。今好色之人，未嘗病於困忘，只是一真切耳。自家痛庠，自家須會知得，自家須會搔摩得；既自知得痛癢，自家須不能不搔摩得。佛家謂之「方便法門」，須是自家調停斟酌，他人總難與力，亦更無別法可設也。

Wu and Zeng, the two students, came and told me in full of Daotong's earnest intention in pursuing the Way, which comforted me and made me think of him. Daotong may truly be called a man of firm faith and love of learning. In my illness and worry I could not discuss things in detail with the two students, yet they have their own aims and are willing to work hard, and each time I see them I feel they have advanced. I cannot but feel that I have failed the two students who came from afar, and the two students, for their part, may well not have failed the purpose of their long journey. On parting, they gave me this album with Daotong's message, asking me to write a few words. I am confused and have nothing to say, so I will simply offer brief replies to the several points Daotong asked about in his letter. These are hasty and not at all detailed, and the two students should be able to relate the details orally. You wrote: In applying effort, there is only "establishing the will." Recently, since you, Master, often speak of checking oneself at all times, the meaning has become clearer to me. Yet I cannot be apart from friends even for a moment. If I have friends to discuss and practice with, this will becomes refined, vigorous, broad, and full of life; if I go three or five days without friends to discuss with, I feel it weak, I become stuck when I meet affairs, and I often forget. On days when I have no friends to discuss with, I still sit quietly, or read, or stroll and walk about; whatever meets my eyes and wherever I place my body, I take it to nourish this will, and I feel quite comfortable; yet it is still not as good as gatherings with friends, where the spirit flows and life is greater. For a person living apart from the group, what method should be used to handle it? This passage is enough to verify what Daotong has gained in his daily effort; effort is roughly used just like this, and one only needs to keep it unbroken, and after it becomes fully familiar, the meaning will be different again. Generally, in our learning the essential main point is only "establishing the will." The ailments of what you call "getting stuck and forgetting" also simply come from the will lacking sincerity and earnestness. Take a man fond of women now: he has never suffered from getting stuck or forgetting; it is only that he is sincere and earnest. One must know one's own pain and itch, and one must be able to scratch and rub them oneself; having known one's own pain and itch, one cannot but scratch and rub. The Buddhists call this "the gate of expedient means," which one must adjust and weigh for oneself; others can hardly lend a hand, and there is no other method to set up.

○來書云：上蔡常問天下何思何慮。伊川雲；「有此理，只是發得太早。」在學者工夫，固是「必有事焉而勿忘」，然亦須識得「何思何慮」底氣象，一併看為是。若不識得這氣象，便有正與助長之病；若認得「何思何慮」，而忘「必有事焉」工夫，恐人墮於「無」也。須是不滯於「有」，不墮於「無」。然乎否也？所論亦相去不遠矣，只是契悟未盡。上蔡之問，與伊川之答，亦只是上蔡、尹川之意，與孔子「繄辭」原旨稍有不同。「繄」言「何思何慮」，是言斫思所慮只是一個天理，更無別思別慮耳，非謂無思無慮也。故曰：「與歸而殊途，一致而百慮，天下何思何慮。」雲「殊途」，雲「百慮」，則豈謂無思無慮邪？心之本體即是天理。天理只是一個，更有何可思慮得？天理原自寂然不動，原自感而遂通，學者用功，雖千思萬慮，只是要復他本來體用而已，不是以私意去安排思索出來。故明道云：「君子之學，莫若廓然而大公，物來而順應。」若以私意去安排思索便是用智自私矣。「何思何慮」正是工夫。在聖人分上，便是自然的：在學者分上，便是勉然的。尹川卻是把作效驗看了，斫以有「發得太早」之說。既而云：「卻好用功」，則已自覺其前言之有未盡矣。濂溪主靜之論亦是此意。今道通之言，雖已不為無見，然亦未免尚有兩事也。

You wrote: Shangcai (Xie Liangzuo) once asked, "What thinking and what worrying does the world have?" Yichuan said: "There is this principle, but it is expressed too early." For a student's effort, it is of course "there must be work, yet do not forget it," but one must also recognize the atmosphere of "what thinking, what worrying" and look at them together. If one does not recognize that atmosphere, there is the ailment of forcing and helping growth; if one recognizes "what thinking, what worrying" and forgets the effort of "there must be work," I fear one would fall into "nothingness" again. One must not be stuck in "being" nor fall into "nothing." Is this right? What you say is not far off, but your realization is not complete. The question of Shangcai and the answer of Yichuan are only the ideas of Shangcai and Yichuan, and differ a little from Confucius's original meaning in the Xici. When the Xici says "what thinking, what worrying," it means that what is thought and worried about is only the one Heavenly Principle, and there is no other thinking or worrying; it does not say there is no thinking and no worrying. Hence it says: "They arrive at the same place by different paths, and reach one conclusion through a hundred considerations; what thinking and worrying does the world have?" Since it speaks of "different paths" and also of "a hundred considerations," how could it mean no thinking and no worrying? The original substance of the mind is the Heavenly Principle. The Heavenly Principle is only one; what more is there to think or worry about? The Heavenly Principle is originally still and unmoving, and originally responds and then penetrates. When a student applies effort, though he may think a thousand thoughts and worry ten thousand worries, he only wishes to restore its original substance and function, and not to arrange and ponder it out by private will. Therefore Mingdao said: "The learning of the gentleman is nothing better than being open, vast, and perfectly impartial, and responding smoothly as things come." If one arranges and ponders by private will, that is using cleverness for selfishness. "What thinking, what worrying" is precisely the effort. In the case of the sage, it is natural; in the case of the student, it is by exertion. Yichuan took it as an effect, so he had the saying "expressed too early." Then he again said, "It is good effort," so he had already felt that his earlier words were not complete. The theory of Lianxi (Zhou Dunyi) of emphasizing stillness has the same meaning. Daotong's words now, though not without insight, still cannot avoid some remaining duality.

○來書云：凡學者才曉得做工夫，便要識得聖人氣象。蓋認得聖人氣象，把做準的，乃就寧地做工夫去，才不會差，才是作聖工夫。未知走不？先認聖人氣象，昔人嘗有是言矣，然亦欠有頭惱，聖人氣象自是聖人的，我從何處識認？若不就自己良知上真切體認，如以無星之稱而權輕重，未開之鏡而照妍榿，真斫謂以小人之腹，而度君子之心矣。聖人氣象何由認得自己良知原與聖人一般，若體認得自己良知明白，郥聖人氣象不在聖人而在我矣。程子嘗雲；「覷著堯學他行事，無仙許多聰明睿智，安能如彼之動容周旋中禮？」又云：「心通於道，然後能辨是非。」今且說通於道在何處？聰明睿智從何處出來？

You wrote: Whenever a student has just learned to apply effort, he must recognize the atmosphere of the sage. Having recognized the atmosphere of the sage and taken it as a standard, he can then go to work on solid ground without going wrong, and this is the effort of becoming a sage. I do not know whether this is right? Recognizing the sage's atmosphere first is something people of old said, but it lacks a main point. The atmosphere of the sage belongs to the sage; where would I recognize it? If one does not truly and earnestly recognize it on one's own innate knowing, it is like weighing heavy and light with a scale that has no marks, or reflecting beauty and ugliness with a mirror that has not been polished; it truly is measuring a gentleman's heart by a petty man's belly. How could one recognize the atmosphere of the sage? One's own innate knowing is originally the same as the sage's; if one clearly recognizes one's own innate knowing, then the atmosphere of the sage is not in the sage but in me. Master Cheng once said: "Looking at Yao and learning his conduct, without his many kinds of intelligence and wisdom, how could one be like him in moving with composure and turning about in accord with ritual?" He also said: "When the mind penetrates the Way, one can then distinguish right and wrong." Now tell me: where does penetrating the Way lie? From where do intelligence and wisdom come?

○來書古云：事上磨練。一日之內，不管無事，只一意培養本原。若遇事來感，或自己有惑，心上既有覺，安可謂無事？但因事凝心一會，大段覺得事理當如此，只如無事處之，盡吾心而已。然仍有處得善與未善，何也？人或事來得多，須要次第與處，每因才力不足，輒為所困，雖極力扶起而精神已千衰弱。遇此未免要十分退省，寧不了事，不可不加培冬。如何？所說工夫，就道通分上也只是如此用，然未免有出入在。凡人為學，終身只為這一事。自少至老，自朝至暮，不論有事無事，只是做得這一件，所謂「必有事焉」者也。若說「寧不了事，不同不加培養」，卻是尚為兩事也。「必有事焉而勿忘勿助」，事物之來，但盡吾心之良知以應之，所謂「忠恕違道不遠」矣。凡處得有善有未善及有困頓失次之患者，皆是牽於譭譽得喪，不能實致其良知耳。若能實致其良知，然後見得平日所謂善者未必是善，所謂末善者，卻恐正是牽於譭譽得喪，自賊其真知者也。

You wrote: Training oneself in affairs. Within a day, whether there are affairs or none, I only single-mindedly cultivate the original root. If affairs come to move me, or I have doubts myself, since my mind is already aware, how can it be said there are no affairs? But in each affair I concentrate my mind for a while, feel that for the most part the principle of the matter should be so, and treat it just as if there were no affairs, only doing my utmost. Yet there is still handling that is good and not good; why? When many people or affairs come, they must be dealt with in turn, and since my ability is insufficient, I am often hampered by them; though I strive to prop myself up, my spirit has already weakened first. Meeting this, I cannot but retreat and reflect fully, preferring not to finish the affair than to fail to cultivate myself. How about that? The effort you describe is, in Daotong's case, used just like this, but there is inevitably some deviation. All people in learning are, throughout life, only for this one thing. From youth to old age, from morning to night, whether there are affairs or none, one only does this one thing; this is what is meant by "there must be work." If one says, "Better not to finish the affair than not to cultivate," then these are still two things. "There must be work, yet neither forget nor force it": when affairs and things come, one only exhausts the innate knowing of one's own mind in responding to them, which is what is called "loyalty and reciprocity are not far from the Way." All those who handle things with some good and some not good, and with the ailment of being stuck and disordered, are only pulled by praise and blame, gain and loss, and cannot truly extend their innate knowing. If one can truly extend one's innate knowing, then one sees that what one ordinarily took to be good is not necessarily good, and what one took to be not good may exactly be what, pulled by praise, blame, gain, and loss, harms one's own innate knowing.

○來書云：致知之說，春間再承誨益，已頗知用力，覺得比舊尤為簡易。但鄙心則謂與初學吉之，還須帶「格物」意思，使之知下手處。本來「致知」「格物一一併下，但在初學未知下手用功，還說與「格物」，方曉得「致知」云云。「格物」是「致知」功夫，知得「致知」便已知得「格物」：若是未知「格物」，則是「致知」工夫亦未嘗知也。近有一書與友人論此頗悉，今往一通，細觀之，當自見矣。

You wrote: The teaching of extending knowledge, which I received from you again in the spring, I have already come to know how to apply effort in, and feel it is even simpler than before. But in my own opinion, when speaking of it to beginners, one must still carry the sense of "investigating things," so that they know where to start. Originally "extending knowledge" and "investigating things" go down together, but in beginners who do not yet know where to apply effort, one still tells them of "investigating things," and then they can understand "extending knowledge," and so on. "Investigating things" is the effort of "extending knowledge"; if one knows "extending knowledge," one already knows "investigating things"; if one does not yet know "investigating things," then one has never known the effort of "extending knowledge" either. Recently I wrote a letter to a friend discussing this in considerable detail, and I now send you a copy; read it carefully and you will see for yourself.

○來書云：今之為朱，陸之辨者尚未已：每對朋友吉，正學不明已久，且不須枉費心力為朱，陸爭是非，只依先生「．二志」二字點化人。,若其人果能辨得此志來，決意要知此學，已走大段明臺了；朱，陸雖不辨，彼自能分得。又常見朋友中見有人議先生之言者，輒為動氣；昔在朱，陸二先生所以近後世紛紛之議者，亦見二先生工夫有未純熟，分明亦有動氣之病：若明道則無此矣。觀其典吳師禮論介甫之學云：「為我盡達諸介甫，不有益於他，必有益於我也。」氣象何竽從容！常見先生與人書中亦引此言，願朋友皆如此，如何？此節議論得極是極是，願道通遍以告於同志，各自且論自己是非，莫論朱、陸是非也。以言語謗人，其謗淺，若自己不能身體實踐，而徒入耳出口，呶呶哽日，是以身謗也，其謗深矣。凡今天下之論議我者，苟能取以為善，皆是砥礪切磋我也，則在我無非譥惕修省進德之地矣。昔人謂攻吾之短者是吾師，師又可惡乎？

You wrote: The debate over Zhu and Lu has still not ended. Whenever I speak to friends, I say that correct learning has long been unclear, and there is no need to waste effort on contesting the rights and wrongs of Zhu and Lu, but only to enlighten people according to your two words "establishing the will." If a person can really discern this will and is resolved to know this learning, he already understands a great deal; even if he does not debate Zhu and Lu, he can distinguish them himself. I have also often seen that among friends, when someone criticizes your words, they immediately become angry. The reason Zhu and Lu came close to the many arguments of later generations is that the effort of the two masters was not yet fully ripe, and they clearly also had the ailment of anger; Mingdao did not have this. Look at how he discussed Jiefu (Wang Anshi)'s learning with Wu Shili, saying: "Tell Jiefu everything on my behalf; if it does not benefit him, it will surely benefit me." What composure! I have often seen that you also quote this saying in letters to people, and I wish that friends would all be like that; what do you think? What you say in this passage is exactly right. I hope Daotong will tell it to all those of like mind, and have each discuss their own rights and wrongs and not those of Zhu and Lu. To slander others with words is a shallow slander; if one cannot personally put it into practice, and merely lets it in at the ear and out of the mouth, chattering all day, that is slander with one's own body, and it is deep. If today all those in the world who criticize me can take what is good from it, then all of it is whetting and polishing me, and for me it is all ground for alertness, reflection, and the advancement of virtue. People of old said that one who attacks my shortcomings is my teacher; may a teacher be hated?

○來書云﹕有引程子「人生而靜，以上不容說，才說性便已不是性。」何故不容說.．何故不是性？晦庵答云：「不容說者，未有性之可言：不是性者，已不能無氣仃之雜矣。」二先生之言皆未能曉，每看書至此，輒為一惑，請問。「生之謂性」，生字即是氣字，猶言「氣即是性」也：氣即是性；「人生而靜，以上不容說」，才說「氣即是性」，即已落在一邊，不是性之本原矣。孟子性善，是從本原上說。然性善之端，須在氣上始見得，若無氣亦無可見矣。惻隱、羞惡、辭讓、是非即是氣。程子謂「論性不論氣，不備；論氣不論性，不明。」亦是為學者各認一邊，只得如此說。若見得自性明白時，氣即是性，性即是氣，原無性、氣之可分也。

You wrote: Someone cited Master Cheng's "Before birth, in stillness, nothing can be said; as soon as one speaks of nature, it is already not nature." Why can nothing be said? Why is it not nature? Huian answered: "What cannot be said means there is not yet a nature to speak of; what is not nature means it can no longer be without the mixture of material endowment." I do not understand the words of either master, and each time I read to this place I am confused; may I ask? "What is born is called nature": the character "born" is the character "qi," as if saying "qi is nature." Qi is nature. "Before birth, in stillness, nothing can be said": as soon as one says "qi is nature," it has already fallen to one side and is not the original source of nature. Mencius's goodness of nature speaks from the original source. Yet the beginnings of the goodness of nature must be seen in qi; without qi there would be nothing to see. Compassion, shame, deference, and discernment of right and wrong are just qi. Master Cheng said, "To speak of nature and not of qi is incomplete; to speak of qi and not of nature is unclear," which is also because students each recognize one side, so he had to put it this way. If one clearly sees one's own nature, qi is nature and nature is qi, and originally there is no division of nature and qi.