Chuan Xi Lu (傳習錄) · Volume 5

○來書云；下手工夫，分比心無時寧靜，妄心固動也，照心亦動也；心既恆動，則蕪刻足停也。是有意於求寧靜，是以愈不寧靜耳。夫妄心則動也，照心非動也；照照則恆動恆靜，天地之所以恆久而不已也；照心固照也，妄心亦照也。其為物不貳，則其生物下息，有刻暫停，則息矣，非至誠無息之學矣。

You wrote: In applying effort, I feel that this mind has no time of tranquility. The false mind moves, and so does the illuminating mind; since the mind is constantly moving, there is no moment of stopping. This is having an intention to seek tranquility, and so it is all the more untranquil. The false mind moves; the illuminating mind does not move. Constant illumination is constant movement and constant stillness, which is why Heaven and Earth are lasting and do not cease. The illuminating mind of course illuminates, and the false mind also illuminates. Its being as a thing is not dual, so its producing things does not rest; if there were a moment of pause there would be rest, and it would no longer be the learning of utmost sincerity without rest.

○來書云：良知亦有起處，云云。此或聽之末審；良知者，心之本體，即前所謂恆照者也。心之本體，無起無不起。雖妄念之發，而良知未嘗不在，但人不知存，則有時而或放耳：雖昏塞之極，而良知未嘗不明，但人不知察，則有時而或蔽耳。雖有時而或放，其體實未嘗不在也，存之而已耳：雖有時而或蔽，其體實未嘗不明也，察之而已耳。若謂真知亦有起處，則是有時而不在也，非其本體之謂矣。

You wrote: Innate knowing too has a point of arising, and so on. This may be from not listening carefully. Innate knowing is the original substance of the mind, that is, what was earlier called constantly illuminating. The original substance of the mind has neither arising nor not arising. Even when false thoughts arise, innate knowing is not absent; only if one does not know to preserve it, it is sometimes let go. Even in the extreme of dullness and blockage, innate knowing is never not bright; only if one does not know to examine it, it is sometimes obscured. Though it is sometimes let go, its substance is in truth never absent, and one need only preserve it; though it is sometimes obscured, its substance is in truth never not bright, and one need only examine it. If one says that innate knowing too has a point of arising, then it is sometimes absent, and that cannot be called its original substance.

○來書云：前日精一之論，即作聖之功否？「精一」之「精」以理言，「精神」之「精」以氣言。理者，氣之條理；氣者，理之運用。無條理則不能運用；無運用則亦無以見其所謂條理者矣。精則精，精則明，精則一，精則神，精則誠，一則精，一則明，一則神，一則誠，原非有二事也。但後世儒者之說與養生之說各湍於一隔，是以不相為用。前日「精一」之論，雖為原靜愛養精神而發，然而怍聖之功，實亦不外是矣。

You wrote: The previous discussion of refinement and unity, is it the effort of becoming a sage? The "refined" in "refinement and unity" speaks in terms of principle; the "essence" in "essence and spirit" speaks in terms of qi. Principle is the order of qi, and qi is the working of principle. Without order there can be no working, and without working there is no way to see what is called order. If refined, then refined; if refined, then bright; if refined, then unified; if refined, then spiritual; if refined, then sincere; if unified, then refined; if unified, then bright; if unified, then spiritual; if unified, then sincere: originally these are not two things. But the theories of later Confucians and the theories of life nurturing each stick to one corner, so they do not serve each other. The previous discussion of "refinement and unity," though it arose because Yuanjing loves to nourish his spirit and essence, in fact the effort of becoming a sage does not go beyond this.

○來書云：元神，元氣，元精必各有寄藏發生之處：又有真陰之精，真陽之氣，云云。夫良知一也，以其妙用而言謂之神，以其流行而言謂之氣，以其凝聚而壬呈昍之精，安可形象方斫求哉？真陰之精，即真陽之氣之母，真陽之氣，即真陰之精之父：陰根陽，陽桹陰，亦非有二也：苟吾良知之說明，即凡若此類，皆可以不言而喻；不然，則如來書所云三關、七返、九還之屬，尚有無窮可疑者也。

You wrote: The original spirit, original qi, and original essence must each have a place where they are stored and arise; there are also the essence of true yin and the qi of true yang, and so on. Innate knowing is only one: speaking of its wondrous function, we call it spirit; speaking of its flowing, we call it qi; speaking of its condensing, we call it essence; how can one seek it in forms and places? The essence of true yin is the mother of the qi of true yang; the qi of true yang is the father of the essence of true yin. Yin is rooted in yang and yang is rooted in yin; these are also not two. If my teaching of innate knowing is made clear, then all such things become self-evident without being spoken; otherwise, as in what you said about the three passes, seven returns, and nine revolutions, there are endless things to doubt.

○來書云：良知，心之本體，即所謂性善也，未發之中也，寂然不動之體也，廓然大公也，何常人皆不能而必待於學邪？中也，寂也，公也，既以屬心之二體，則良知是矣。今驗之於心，知無不良，而中、寂、大公實未有也，豈良知復超然於體用之外乎？性無不善，故知無不良。真知即是未發之中，郥是廓然大公，寂然不動之本體，人人之所同具者也：怛不能不昏蔽於物欲，故須學以去其昏蔽；然於良知之本體，初不能有帕損於毫末也。知無不良，而中、寂、大公未能全者，是昏蔽之未盡去，而存之未純耳。體既良知之體，用即良知之用，寧復有超然於體用之外者乎？

You wrote: Innate knowing, the original substance of the mind, is what is called the goodness of nature, the mean before it is aroused, the substance that is still and unmoving, open and perfectly impartial. Why can ordinary people not have it, and why must they wait for learning? Since the mean, stillness, and impartiality already belong to the original substance of the mind, then innate knowing is that. Now testing it in the mind, my knowing is all good, yet the mean, stillness, and great impartiality are actually not present; could innate knowing be outside both substance and function? Nature is entirely good, so knowing is entirely good. Innate knowing is the mean before it is aroused, the substance that is open, perfectly impartial, still, and unmoving, and it is possessed in common by every person. Only people cannot avoid being darkened and obscured by material desires, so they need learning to remove the darkening and obscuring; yet to the original substance of innate knowing nothing can be added or subtracted in the least. That knowing is all good while the mean, stillness, and great impartiality are not yet complete means that the darkening and obscuring have not been entirely removed, and preservation is not yet pure. Since the substance is the substance of innate knowing, the function is the function of innate knowing; how could there be anything beyond substance and function?

○來書云：周子曰「主靜」，程子曰「動亦定，靜亦定」，先生曰「定者心之本體」，是靜定也，決非不親不聞，無燕思無蕪為、二謂，必常知常存，常主於理之謂也。失常知常存、常主於理，明是動也，已發也，何以謂之靜？何以謂之本體？豈是靜定也，又有以貫乎心之動靜者邪？理無動者也。常知常存、常主於理，即不靚不聞，無思無為之謂也。不靚不聞，無思無為，非稿木死灰之謂也：靚聞思為一於理，而未嘗有所靚聞思為，即是動而未嘗動也；所謂「動亦定靜亦定」，體用一原者也。

You wrote: Master Zhou says "emphasize stillness," Master Cheng says "in movement also settled, in stillness also settled," and you say "settledness is the original substance of the mind." This stillness and settledness are surely not a matter of not seeing and not hearing, of no thought and no action, but must mean constantly knowing, constantly preserving, and constantly being governed by principle. Since one constantly knows, constantly preserves, and is constantly governed by principle, it is clearly moving, already aroused; why call it stillness? Why call it the original substance? Is there then something in this stillness and settledness that runs through both movement and stillness of the mind? Principle does not move. Constantly knowing, constantly preserving, and constantly being governed by principle is what is meant by not seeing and not hearing, no thought and no action. Not seeing and not hearing, no thought and no action do not mean withered wood and dead ashes: seeing, hearing, thinking, and acting are all unified in principle, while there has never been any seeing, hearing, thinking, or acting; that is moving yet never having moved; and what is called "in movement also settled, in stillness also settled" is substance and function from one source.

○來書云；此心未發之體，其在已發之前乎？其在已發之中而為之主乎，其無前後、內外而渾然之體者乎？今謂心之動、靜者，其主有事，無事而言乎？其主寂然，感通而言乎其主循理，從欲而吉乎？若以循理為靜，從欲為動，則於所謂「動中有靜，靜中有動，動極而靜，靜極而動」者，不可通矣。若以有事而感通為動，無事而寂然為靜，則於所謂「動而無動，靜而無靜」者，不可通矣。若謂未發在已發之先，靜而生動，走至試有息也，聖人有復也，人不可矣。若謂未發在已發之中，則不知未發，已發俱當主靜乎？抑未發為靜而已發為動乎？抑未發、已發俱無動無靜乎？俱有動有靜乎？幸教。未發之中，即良知也，無前後內外，而渾然一體者也。有事、無事可以言動、靜，而良知無分於有事、無事也；寂然、感通可以言動、靜，而良知無分於寂然、感通也。動、靜者，所遇之時；心之本體，固無分於動、靜也。理無動者也，動即為欲。循理則雖酬酢萬變，而未嘗動也。從欲則雖槁心一念，而未嘗靜也；「動中有靜，靜中有動」，又何疑乎？有事而感通，固可以言動，然而寂然者未嘗有增也。無事而寂然，固可以言靜，然而感通者未嘗有減也：「動而無動，靜而無靜」，又何疑乎？無前後內外而厙然一體，則至誠有息之疑，不待解矣：未狻在已發之中，而已發之中未嘗別有未發者在，已發在未發之中，而未發之中未嘗別有已發者存；是未嘗無動、靜，而不可以動、靜分者也。凡觀古人言語，在以意逆志而得其大旨：若必拘湍於文義，則「靡有孑遺」者，是周果無遺民也。周子「靜極而動」之說，荀不善觀，亦未免有病；蓋其意從「太極動而生陽，靜而生陰」說來。太極生生之理，妙用無息，而常體不易。太極之生生，即陰陽之生生。

You wrote: This original state of the mind before it is aroused, is it before the arousal? Or is it within the arousal and acting as its master? Or is it a unified whole without before and after, inside and outside? Now when we speak of the mind's movement and stillness, are we speaking of there being affairs or none? Of stillness and responsiveness? Or of following principle and following desire? If following principle is stillness and following desire is movement, then it cannot be reconciled with the saying "within movement there is stillness, within stillness there is movement; at the extreme of movement there is stillness, at the extreme of stillness there is movement." If having affairs and responding is movement and having none and being still is stillness, then it cannot be reconciled with "moving yet without movement, still yet without stillness." If the not-yet-aroused is before the aroused, and stillness gives rise to movement, then utmost sincerity has rest, and the sage has return, which makes no sense. If the not-yet-aroused is within the aroused, I do not know whether both the not-yet-aroused and the aroused should emphasize stillness; or whether the not-yet-aroused is stillness and the aroused is movement; or whether both the not-yet-aroused and the aroused have neither movement nor stillness; or both have movement and stillness. I ask for your instruction. The mean before it is aroused is innate knowing, which has no before or after, inside or outside, but is a unified whole. Having affairs or none can be spoken of as movement and stillness, but innate knowing makes no distinction between having affairs and none; stillness and responsiveness can be spoken of as movement and stillness, but innate knowing makes no distinction between stillness and responsiveness. Movement and stillness are the time one encounters; the original substance of the mind certainly makes no distinction between movement and stillness. Principle does not move; movement is desire. If one follows principle, though one responds to ten thousand changes, one has never moved; if one follows desire, though the mind is withered with a single thought, one has never been still. "Within movement there is stillness, within stillness there is movement": what is there to doubt in this? When there are affairs and one responds, one can certainly speak of movement, but the stillness has never increased; when there are no affairs and one is still, one can certainly speak of stillness, but responsiveness has never decreased. "Moving yet without movement, still yet without stillness": what is there to doubt in this? Since it is a unified whole without before and after, inside and outside, the doubt about utmost sincerity having rest needs no resolution. The not-yet-aroused is within the aroused, yet within the aroused there is never a separate not-yet-aroused; the aroused is within the not-yet-aroused, yet within the not-yet-aroused there is never a separate aroused; so there is never an absence of movement and stillness, yet it cannot be divided into movement and stillness. In reading the words of the ancients, one should grasp their general purport by letting meaning meet intention; if one must cling to the literal meaning, then in "not a single survivor remained," the Zhou truly had no remaining people. Master Zhou's saying "at the extreme of stillness, movement" may also be flawed if not read well; for his meaning comes from saying "the Supreme Ultimate moves and produces yang, rests and produces yin." The principle of the Supreme Ultimate's ceaseless producing has a wondrous function that does not rest, while its constant substance does not change. The Supreme Ultimate's producing is the producing of yin and yang.

就其生生之中，指其妙用無息者而謂之動，謂之陽之生，非謂動而徒生陽也：就其生生之中，指其常體不易者而謂十「靜，謂之陰之生，非謂靜而後生陰也；若果靜而後生隆，動而後生陽，則是陰陽動靜，截然各自為一物矣。陰陽一氣也，一氣屈伸而為陰陽：動靜一理也，一理隱顯而為動、靜。春夏可以為隅錢為動，而未嘗無陰與靜也：秋冬可以為陰、為靜，而未嘗無陽與動也。春夏此不息，秋冬此不息，皆可謂十「陽，謂之動也：春夏此常體，秋冬此常體，皆可謂之陰，謂之靜也。自元、會、運、世、哉、月、日、時以至刻、杪、忽、微，莫不皆然。所謂動靜無端，陰陽無始，在知道者默而識之，非可以言語窮也。若只牽文泥句，比擬仿像，則所謂心從法華轉，非是轉法華矣。

(The Master continued:) Within that producing, pointing to its wondrous function that does not rest we call it movement and call it the production of yang; this does not mean that after moving, yang is produced; within that producing, pointing to its constant substance that does not change we call it stillness and call it the production of yin; this does not mean that after resting, yin is produced. If it were truly that after rest yin is produced and after movement yang is produced, then yin and yang, movement and stillness, would each be sharply separate things. Yin and yang are one qi, which bends and extends to become yin and yang; movement and stillness are one principle, which is hidden and manifest as movement and stillness. Spring and summer can be taken as yang and movement, yet are never without yin and stillness; autumn and winter can be taken as yin and stillness, yet are never without yang and movement. In spring and summer this does not cease, in autumn and winter this does not cease, and all can be called yang and movement; in spring and summer this is the constant substance, in autumn and winter this is the constant substance, and all can be called yin and stillness. From the yuan, hui, yun, and shi, years, months, days, and hours, down to the moment, second, hu, and wei, everything is so. What is called movement and stillness having no beginning and yin and yang having no origin is something those who know the Way grasp in silence, not something that words can exhaust. If one only clings to texts and sticks to sentences, comparing and imitating, then it is as the saying goes, the mind is turned by the Lotus Sutra, and is not turning the Lotus Sutra.

○來書云：嘗試於心，喜、怒、憂、懼之感發也，雖動氣之極，而吾心良知一覺，即罔然消阻，或遏於初，式制於中，式悔於後。然則良知常若居優閒無事之地而為之主，於喜、怒、憂、懼若不與焉者，何歟？知此，則知末發之中、寂然不動之體，而有狻而中節之和、感而遂通之妙矣。然謂「良妯常若居於懮閒無事之地」，語尚有病。蓋良知雖不端於喜、怒、憂、懼，而喜、怒、憂、懼亦不外於良知也。

You wrote: I have tried examining my mind: when joy, anger, sorrow, and fear arise, though my qi is stirred to the extreme, as soon as my innate knowing is aware, it suddenly dissolves and is blocked, whether restrained at the start, or checked in the midst, or regretted afterward. Then innate knowing seems always to dwell in a place of leisure with nothing to do and act as the master, as if not taking part in joy, anger, sorrow, and fear; why is this? Knowing this, one knows the mean before it is aroused, the substance that is still and unmoving, and also the harmony of being aroused and hitting the proper measure, and the wonder of responding and then penetrating. Yet to say that "innate knowing always seems to dwell in a place of leisure with nothing to do" still has a flaw. For though innate knowing is not stuck in joy, anger, sorrow, and fear, joy, anger, sorrow, and fear are also not outside innate knowing.

○來書云：夫子昨以良知為照心。竊謂良知心之本體也，照心人所用功，乃戒慎恐催之心也。猶思也，而遂以戒慎恐催為良知，何歈？能戒慎恐懼者，是良知也。

You wrote: Yesterday you took innate knowing to be the illuminating mind. I humbly suppose that innate knowing is the original substance of the mind, while the illuminating mind is what people use in effort, the mind of caution and apprehension, like thought. Yet you then take caution and apprehension to be innate knowing; why? That which can be cautious and apprehensive is innate knowing.

○來書云：先生又曰：「照心非動也。」豈以其循理而謂之靜歟？「妄心亦照也。」豈以其良知未常不在於其中，未常不明於其中，而視聽言動之不過則者，皆天理歟？且既曰妄心，則在妄心可謂之照，而在照心則謂之妄矣。妄與息何異？今假妄之照以續至試之無息，竊所未明，幸再啟蒙。「照心非動」者，以其蒰於本體明覺之自然，而未嘗有斫動也：有岓動即妄矣：「妄心亦照」者，以其本體明覺之自然者，未嘗不在於其中，但有所動耳；無所動即照矣。無妄、無照，非以妄為照，以照為妄也。照心為照，妄心為妄，是猶有妄、有照也。有妄、有照，則猶貳也，貳則息矣。無妄、無照則不貳，不貳則不息矣。

You wrote: You also said, "The illuminating mind does not move." Is that because it follows principle and so is called still? "The false mind also illuminates": is that because innate knowing is never absent from it and never not bright within it, and the seeing, hearing, speaking, and moving that do not exceed the standard are all Heavenly Principle? Moreover, since it is called the false mind, in the false mind one can say it illuminates, while in the illuminating mind one calls it false. How do falsity and illumination differ? Now to borrow the illumination of falsity to continue the ceaselessness of utmost sincerity, I do not yet understand; please enlighten me again. The "illuminating mind does not move" because it follows the natural brightness and awareness of the original substance and has never moved; if there is something moved, that is falsity. "The false mind also illuminates" because the natural brightness and awareness of its original substance is never absent from it, only it has something moved; if nothing is moved, it is illumination. There is no falsity and no illumination; it is not taking falsity as illumination or illumination as falsity. To take the illuminating mind as illumination and the false mind as falsity is still to have falsity and illumination. If there is falsity and illumination, there is still duality, and duality means rest. With no falsity and no illumination there is no duality, and with no duality there is no rest.

○來書云：養生以清心寡慾為要。夫清心寡慾，作聖之功畢矣。然欲寡則心自清，清心非舍辛人事而獨居求靜之謂也：蓋欲使此心純乎天理，而無一毫人慾之私耳。今欲為此之功，而隨人慾生而克之，則病根常在，未危滅於東而生於西：若欲刊剝洗盪於釆欲未萌之先，則又無所用其力，徒使此心之不清。且欲未萌而搜剔以求去之，是猶引太上堂而逐之也，念不可矣。必欲此心純乎天理，而無一毫人慾之私，此阼聖之功也：必欲此心純乎天理，而蛀二毫人慾之私，非防於未萌之先而克於方萌之際不能也。防於未萌之先而克於方萌之際，此正《中庸》「戒慎恐懼」、《大學》「致知恪物」之功：舍此之外，無別功矣：夫謂滅於東而生於西、引太上堂而逐之者，是自私自利、將迎意必之為累，而非克治洗盪之為患也。今日「養生以清心寡慾為要」，只養生二字，便是自私自利、將迎意必之根。有此病桹潛伏於中，宜其有滅於東而生於西、引犬上堂而逐之之患也。

You wrote: In nurturing life, clearing the mind and reducing desires is the essential. When the mind is cleared and desires are reduced, the effort of becoming a sage is complete. Yet when desires are reduced, the mind is clear by itself; clearing the mind does not mean abandoning human affairs to live alone and seek stillness: it only means making this mind purely Heavenly Principle without the slightest private human desire. If one wishes to do this work and conquers desires as they arise, the root of the disease is always there, and it inevitably is extinguished in the east and arises in the west; if one wishes to peel off and wash out desires before they have sprouted, there is nowhere to apply effort, and it merely makes this mind unclear. Moreover, searching out and scraping away desires before they have sprouted is like leading a dog into the hall and chasing it out, which certainly cannot be done. One must make this mind purely Heavenly Principle without the slightest private human desire: this is the effort of becoming a sage; but to make this mind purely Heavenly Principle without the slightest private human desire is not possible without guarding before they sprout and conquering at the moment they sprout. Guarding before they sprout and conquering at the moment they sprout is exactly the effort of "caution and apprehension" in the Doctrine of the Mean and "extending knowledge and investigating things" in the Great Learning: apart from this there is no other effort. What is called being extinguished in the east and arising in the west, and leading a dog into the hall and chasing it out, is the burden of selfishness, of welcoming and escorting, of arbitrariness and insistence, and not the trouble of conquering and washing out. Now to say that "nurturing life is to clear the mind and reduce desires," just the two words "nurturing life" are already the root of selfishness, of welcoming and escorting, of arbitrariness and insistence. With this root of disease hidden within, it is only to be expected that there is the trouble of being extinguished in the east and arising in the west, and leading a dog into the hall and chasing it out.

○來書云：佛氏於「不思善，不思惡，時認本來面」，於吾儒「隨物而格」之功不同。吾若於不思善，不思惡時，用玫知之功，則已涉于思善矣。欲善惡不思，而心之良知清靜臺在，惟有寐而方醒之時耳。斯正孟子「夜氣」之說。但於斯光景不能久，倏忽之際，思慮已生：不知用功久者，其常寐初醒而思未起之時否乎？今澄欲求寧靜，念不寧靜，慾念無生，則念念生，如之何而能使此心前念易減，後念不生，良知獨顯，而與造物者遊乎？「不思善、不思惡，時認本來面目。」此佛氏為未識本來面目者設此方便：本來面目郥吾聖門斫謂真知；今訞認得真知明白，即已不消如北欣矣。「隨物而格」，是致知之功，即佛氏之「常惺惺」，亦是常存他本來面目耳，體段工夫大略相似，但佛氏有個自私自利之心，所以便有不同耳。今欲善惡不思，而心之良知清靜自在，此便有自私自利、將迎意必之心，所以有「不思善、不思惡時，用致知之功，則已涉于思善」之患。孟子說「夜氣」，亦只是為矢其良心之人指出個良心萌動處，使他從此培養將去，今已知得良知明白，常用致知之功，即已不消說「夜氣」：卻是得兔後不知守兔，而仍去守枺，免將復先之矣。欲求寧靜，慾念無生，此正是自私自利、將迎意必之病，是以念愈生而愈不寧靜。良知只是一個良知，而善惡自瓣，更有何善何惡可思﹗良知之體本自寧靜，今卻又添一個求寧靜，本自生生，今卻又添一個欲無生，非獨聖門致知之功不如此，雖佛氏之學亦未如此將迎意必也。只是一念良知，徹頭徹尾，無始無終，即是前念不滅，後念不生，今卻欲前念易滅，而後念不生，是佛氏所謂斷滅種性，人於槁木死灰之謂矣。

You wrote: The Buddhists, in "when not thinking of good and not thinking of evil, recognize your original face," differ from the effort of our Confucian "investigating things as they come." If I apply the effort of extending knowledge when not thinking of good or evil, it already involves thinking of good. If I wish not to think of good or evil and have the innate knowing of my mind be clear, still, and at ease, there is only the moment just on waking from sleep. This is exactly Mencius's saying about "the night qi." But this state does not last, and in an instant thoughts have already arisen. I do not know whether those who have long applied effort can often be in the time just waking from sleep before thought has arisen. Now, if I try to clarify desires and seek tranquility, I am all the more untranquil; if I wish thoughts not to arise, thoughts arise all the more. How can I make this mind such that the former thought is easily extinguished and the latter thought does not arise, innate knowing alone shines, and I roam with the Creator? "When not thinking of good and not thinking of evil, recognize your original face": this is an expedient set up by the Buddhists for people who do not yet recognize their original face. The original face is what our sagely school calls innate knowing. Now that you already clearly recognize innate knowing, there is no need to speak this way. "Investigating things as they come" is the effort of extending knowledge, which is the Buddhist "constant alertness," also merely constantly preserving their original face; in form and effort they are roughly similar, but the Buddhists have a mind of selfishness, and so there is a difference. Now to wish not to think of good or evil and have the innate knowing of the mind be clear, still, and at ease is to have a mind of selfishness, welcoming and escorting, arbitrariness and insistence, and so there is the trouble of "applying the effort of extending knowledge when not thinking of good or evil already involves thinking of good." When Mencius speaks of the "night qi," it is also only to point out to people who have lost their good mind the place where the good mind sprouts, so that they can cultivate it from there. Now that you already clearly know innate knowing and constantly apply the effort of extending knowledge, there is no need to speak of the "night qi": that would be, having got a hare, not knowing to keep the hare and still going to guard the stump, so the hare would be lost again. To seek tranquility and to wish thoughts not to arise is precisely the ailment of selfishness, welcoming and escorting, arbitrariness and insistence, and so thoughts arise all the more and one is all the more untranquil. Innate knowing is only one innate knowing, and good and evil are distinguished by themselves; what good or evil more is there to think of! The substance of innate knowing is originally tranquil by itself, yet now you add a seeking of tranquility; it is originally ever-producing, yet now you add a wish for no production. Not only does the effort of extending knowledge in the sagely school not work like this, even the Buddhists' learning is not so full of welcoming, escorting, arbitrariness, and insistence. It is only one thought of innate knowing, from beginning to end, with no start and no finish, which is the former thought not perishing and the latter thought not arising. Now you wish the former thought to be easily extinguished and the latter thought not to arise, which is what the Buddhists call cutting off the seed nature and entering withered wood and dead ashes.

○來書云：佛氐人有常提念頭之說，其猶孟子所謂「必有事」，夫子所謂「玫良知」之說乎？其印「常惺惺，常記得，常知得，常存得」者乎？於此念頭提在之時，而事至物來，應之必有其道。但恐此念頭提起時少，放下時多，則工夫間斷耳。且念頭放矢，多因私慾客氣之動而始，忽然驚醒而後提，其放而未提之問心之昏雜多不臺覺，今欲日精日明，常提不放，以何道乎？只此常提不放，即全功乎？押於常提不放之中，更宜加省克之功乎？雖日常提不放，而不加戒懼克治之功，恐私慾不去：若加戒懼克治之功焉，又為「思善」之事，而於「本來面目」人未迭一問也。如之何則可？戒懼克治即是常提不放之功，即是「必有事焉」，豈有兩事邪！此節所問，前一段已自說得分曉，末後卻是自生迷惑，說得支離，及有「『本來面目』未達一間」之疑，都是自私自利、將迎一意必之為病，去此病自無此疑矣。

You wrote: The Buddhists also have the teaching of constantly raising a thought; is it like Mencius's "there must be work" and the Master's "extending innate knowing"? Or is it also "constantly alert, constantly remembering, constantly knowing, constantly preserving"? When this thought is raised and affairs come and things arrive, there must be a way to respond. But I fear that this thought is raised seldom and put down often, so that effort is interrupted. Moreover, thoughts that are let go are mostly begun by the stirring of private desire and external qi, and then suddenly one is startled awake and raises it again. In between being let go and raised, the dullness and confusion of the mind often cannot be noticed. Now, to wish to become more refined and more clear day by day, constantly raising it without letting go, by what way? Is this constant raising without letting go the whole effort? Or should one, within constantly raising without letting go, further add the effort of examining and conquering? Though one says constantly raising without letting go, without the effort of caution, apprehension, and conquest I fear private desires will not be removed; if one adds the effort of caution, apprehension, and conquest, it is again a matter of "thinking of good," and one is still a hair's breadth from the "original face." How may it be done? Caution, apprehension, and conquest are exactly the effort of constantly raising without letting go, and are "there must be work"; how could they be two things! In this passage, the earlier part has already explained clearly, but at the end you give rise to confusion and speak in a fragmented way, even producing the doubt that one is "a hair's breadth from the original face"; this is all the ailment of selfishness, welcoming and escorting, arbitrariness and insistence. Remove this ailment and the doubt will naturally disappear.

○來書云：質美者明得盡，渣滓便渾化。如何謂明得盡？如何而能便渾化？良知本來自明。氣質不美者，渣滓多，障蔽厚，不易開明：賈美者，渣滓原少，無多障蔽，略加致知之功，此良知便自瑩徹，些少渣滓，如湯中浮雪，如同能怍障蔽。此本不甚難曉，原靜所以致疑於此，想是因一「明」字不明白，亦是稍有欲速之心。向曾面論明善之義，明則誠矣，非若後懦所謂明善之淺也。

You wrote: For those of fine endowment, when they are bright to the full, the dregs are fully dissolved. What does it mean to be bright to the full? How can they be fully dissolved? Innate knowing is originally bright by itself. Those with poor endowment have many dregs and thick obstruction, and are not easily opened; those of fine endowment have originally few dregs and not much obstruction, and with only a little effort of extending knowledge this innate knowing becomes translucent by itself, and the few dregs are like snow floating in hot water, how could they act as obstruction. This is not hard to understand. Yuanjing's doubt here is probably because the word "bright" is not clear to him, and also because he has a slight wish to hurry. Previously I discussed the meaning of brightening goodness face to face: if bright, then sincere; it is not as shallow as what later Confucians call brightening goodness.

○來書云：聰明睿知，果質乎？仁義禮智果性乎？車怒哀樂果情乎？私慾客氣呆一物乎？二物乎？古之其才，若子房、仲舒、叔度、孔明、文中、韓、範諸么，德業表著，皆良知中所發也，而不得謂之聞道者，果何在乎？苟曰此特生質之美耳，則生知安行者，不念於學知、困勉者乎？愚意竊雲謂諸公見道偏則可，謂全無聞則恐後儒崇尚記誦訓詁之近也。然乎否乎？性一而已。仁、義、禮、知，性之性也，聰、明、睿、知，性之質也，喜、怒、哀、樂，性之情也，私慾、客氣，性之蔽也：質有清濁，故情有過不及，而蔽有淺深也：私慾、客氣，一病兩痛，非二物也。張、黃、諸葛及韓、範諸公，皆天質之美，自多堷合道妙，雖末可盡謂之知學，盡謂之聞道，然亦自其有學，違道不遠者也：使其聞學知道，即伊、傅、周、召矣。若文中子則又不可謂之不知學者，其書雖多出於其徒，亦多有未是虛，然其大略則亦居然可見，但今相去遼遠，無有的然憑證，不可懸斷其所至矣。夫良知即是道。良知之在人心，不但聖貿、雖常人亦無不如此，若無有物慾牽蔽，但佰著真知發用流行將去，郥無不是道：但在常人多為物慾牽蔽，不能循得良知。如數公者，天質既自清明，自少物慾為之牽蔽，則其良知之發用流行處，自然是多，自然違道不遠。學者學循此良知而已。謂之知學，只是知得專在學循良知。數公雖未知專在良知上用功，而或氾濫於多岐，疑迷於影響，是以或離或合而末純：若知得時，便是聖人矣。後懦嘗以數子者，尚皆是氣質用事，末免於行不著，習不察：此亦未為過論。但後懦之所謂著、察者，亦是狃於聞見之俠，蔽於沿習之非，而依擬仿像於影響形跡之間，尚非聖門之所謂著、察者也。則亦安得以己之昏昏，而求人之昭昭也乎？所謂生知、安行，知、行二字，亦是就用功上說；

You wrote: Are intelligence, brightness, perceptiveness, and wisdom really endowment? Are benevolence, righteousness, ritual propriety, and wisdom really nature? Are joy, anger, sorrow, and happiness really feelings? Are private desires and external qi really one thing? Or two things? Among the gifted men of the past, such as Zifang, Zhongshu, Shudu, Kongming, Wenzhong, Han and Fan, whose virtue and achievements were manifest, all arose from innate knowing, yet they cannot be said to have heard the Way; where does the fault lie? If one says this was merely fine natural endowment, then are those who know by birth and practice with ease not superior to those who learn to know and those who strive in hardship? In my humble opinion, it is acceptable to say that these gentlemen saw the Way in a partial way, but to say that they heard nothing at all is perhaps the fault of later Confucians who esteem recitation and philology. Is this right? Nature is only one. Benevolence, righteousness, ritual propriety, and wisdom are the nature of nature; intelligence, brightness, perceptiveness, and wisdom are the endowment of nature; joy, anger, sorrow, and happiness are the feelings of nature; private desires and external qi are the obscuring of nature. Endowment may be clear or turbid, so feelings may be excessive or deficient, and obscurations shallow or deep. Private desires and external qi are one ailment with two aches, not two things. Zhang Liang, Huang Xian, Zhuge, Han Qi, Fan Zhongyan, and the other gentlemen all had fine natural endowment and mostly accorded by coincidence with the wonder of the Way; though it cannot be said that they entirely knew learning or entirely heard the Way, they also had their learning and were not far from the Way. Had they heard of learning and known the Way, they would have been like Yi Yin, Fu Yue, the Duke of Zhou, and the Duke of Shao. As for Wenzhongzi, he cannot be said not to have known learning; though his book mostly came from his disciples and has many errors, its general outline can still plainly be seen, but now so far in time, with no definite evidence, one cannot decide in advance what he reached. Innate knowing is the Way. Innate knowing in people's minds is such not only in sages and worthies but in ordinary people too. If there is no obstruction by material desires and one only follows innate knowing as it arises and flows, then everything is the Way. But in ordinary people, they are mostly obstructed by material desires and cannot follow innate knowing. As for these several gentlemen, since their natural endowment was clear and bright and they had little obstruction by material desires, the places where their innate knowing arose and flowed were naturally many, and they were naturally not far from the Way. Students merely learn to follow this innate knowing. To be called knowing learning is just to know to focus on learning to follow innate knowing. Though these gentlemen did not know to focus effort on innate knowing, and sometimes overflowed into many paths and were confused by shadows and echoes, so they were sometimes apart and sometimes joined and not yet pure; had they known, they would have been sages. Later Confucians have said that these gentlemen still let endowment take charge, and could not avoid not manifesting in action and not examining in practice, which is also not an exaggerated view. But what later Confucians call manifesting and examining are also bound by narrow hearing and seeing, obscured by the errors of habit, and merely imitate shadows and echoes among forms and traces, and are still not what the sagely school calls manifesting and examining. How then can one use one's own dimness to seek others' clarity? What is called knowing by birth and practicing with ease, the two words "knowing" and "practicing" are also spoken of in terms of applying effort.

若是知、行本體即是良知、良能，雖在困勉之人，亦皆可謂之生知、安行矣。知、行二字更宜精察。

(The Master continued:) If the original substance of knowing and practicing is innate knowing and innate ability, then even those who strive in hardship can all be called knowing by birth and practicing with ease. The two words "knowing" and "practicing" should be examined all the more closely.

○來書云：昔周茂叔每令伯淳尋仲尼，顏子樂處。敢問是樂也，與七情之樂同乎、否乎、若同，則常人之一遂所欲，皆能樂矣，何必聖賢？若別有真樂，則聖賢之遇大憂、大怒、大驚、大懼之事，此樂亦在否乎？且君子之心常存戒懼，是蓋終身之憂也，惡得樂？澄平生多悶，未常見真樂之走，令切願尋之。樂是心之本醴，雖不同於七情之樂，而亦不外於七情之樂；雖則聖賢別有真樂，而亦常人之所同有，但常人有之而不自知，反自求許多憂苦，自加迷棄。雖在憂苦迷棄之中，而此樂又未嘗不存，但一念開明，反身而誠，則即此而在矣。每與原靜論，無非此意，而原靜尚有「何道可得」之問，是猶未免於騎驢覓驢之蔽也。

You wrote: Formerly Zhou Maoshu always had Boshun (Cheng Hao) seek the joy of Confucius and Yan Zi. May I ask whether this joy is the same as the joy of the seven feelings, or not? If the same, then ordinary people can all be joyful whenever their desires are fulfilled, so why need sages and worthies? If there is a separate true joy, then when sages and worthies meet great grief, great anger, great fright, or great fear, is this joy still there? Moreover, the gentleman's mind always keeps caution and apprehension, which is a lifelong worry; how can there be joy? I, Cheng, have been mostly gloomy in my life and have never seen the taste of true joy, and now I earnestly wish to seek it. Joy is the original substance of the mind; though it is not the same as the joy of the seven feelings, it is also not outside the joy of the seven feelings; though sages and worthies have a separate true joy, it is also shared by ordinary people, only ordinary people have it without knowing it, and instead seek much worry and suffering and add confusion and abandonment to themselves. Even in the midst of worry, suffering, confusion, and abandonment, this joy has never been absent, and with one thought of opening and clearing, turning back to oneself and being sincere, it is right there. Whenever I discuss with Yuanjing, it is all to this effect, yet Yuanjing still asks, "By what way can it be obtained?" which is still not free from the blindness of riding a donkey looking for a donkey.

○來書云：《大學》以「心有好樂、忿懥、憂患，恐懼」為「不得其正」，而程子亦謂「聖人情順萬事而無情。」所謂有者，《傳習錄》中以病瘧譬之，極精切矣：若程子之言，則是聖人之付不生於心而生於物也，何謂耶？且事感而情應，則是走非非可以就格；事或未感時，謂之有則未形也，謂之無則病根在有無之間，何以玫吾知乎？學務魚情，累雖輕，而出儒入佛矣，可乎？聖人致知之功，至誠無息；其良知之體，皦如明鏡，略無纖翳，妍媸之來，隨物見形，而明鏡曾無留染：所謂「情順萬事而無情」也。「無所斫住而生其心」佛氏曾有是言，未為非也；明鏡之應物，妍者妍，媸者媸，一照而皆真，即是生其心處：妍者妍，媸者媸，一過而不留，即是無所住處。病瘧之喻，既已見其精切，則此節所問可以釋然，病瘥之人，瘧雖未發，而病根自在，則亦安可以其瘧之未發而遂忘其服藥調理之功乎？若必待瘥蒰而後服藥調理，則既晚矣；致知之功，無間於有事、無事，而豈論於病之已發、未發邪？大抵原靜所疑，前後雖若不一，然皆起於自私自利、將迎意必之為崇：此恨一去，則前後所疑，自將冰消霧澤，有不待於問辨者矣。

You wrote: The Great Learning takes "the mind having fondness, joy, anger, worry, or fear" as "not being correct," while Master Cheng also said, "The sage's feelings follow ten thousand things and yet are without feeling." As for what is called having feelings, the Chuanxilu compares it to suffering from malaria, which is extremely precise. As for Master Cheng's words, they would mean the sage's feelings do not arise from the mind but from things; how should that be explained? Moreover, if affairs move one and feelings respond, then right and wrong cannot be investigated in advance; when affairs have not yet moved one, to say there is feeling is to say it has not taken form, and to say there is none is to say the root of the disease lies between having and not having; how then to extend my knowing? If learning aims at having no feeling, though the burden is light, one leaves Confucianism and enters Buddhism; is that acceptable? The sage's effort of extending knowledge is utmost sincerity without rest; the substance of his innate knowing is bright like a clear mirror, without the least shade, so when beauty and ugliness come, forms are shown according to the object, and the clear mirror has never retained any stain: this is what is meant by "feelings follow ten thousand things and yet are without feeling." "Having no place to rest, yet the mind arises": the Buddhists have said this, and it is not wrong. When a clear mirror responds to things, the beautiful is beautiful and the ugly is ugly, and one illumination makes all true, which is where "the mind arises"; the beautiful is beautiful and the ugly is ugly, and once passed they are not retained, which is "having no place to rest." Since you have seen how precise the analogy of malaria is, the question in this passage can be resolved. A person who has recovered from illness, though the malaria has not yet recurred, still has the root of the disease in him, so how can one forget the effort of taking medicine and taking care because the malaria has not yet recurred? If one must wait until the disease flares up to take medicine and take care, it is already too late. The effort of extending knowledge makes no distinction between having affairs and having none, so how can it discuss whether the disease has flared or not? In general, the doubts of Yuanjing, though they seem different earlier and later, all arise from the haunting of selfishness, welcoming and escorting, arbitrariness and insistence. Once this root is removed, the earlier and later doubts will naturally melt like ice and dissolve like mist, with no need to ask and debate.

錢德洪跋：答原靜書出，讀者皆喜澄善問師善答，皆得聞所未聞。師曰：「原靜所是知解上轉，不得已與之逐節分疏：若信得良知，只在良知上用工，雖千經萬典無不朏合，異端典學一勘盡破矣，何必如此節節分解！佛家有『撲人逐塊』之喻，見塊撲人，則得人矣，見塊逐塊，於塊奚得哉？」在座諸友聞之，惕然皆有惺悟。此學貴反求，非知解可人也。

Postscript by Qian Dehong: When the reply to Yuanjing came out, readers all delighted that Cheng asked well and the Master answered well, and each heard what he had never heard before. The Master said: "What Yuanjing asked turns around in intellectual understanding, and I had no choice but to analyze it for him point by point. If one believes in innate knowing and applies effort only on innate knowing, then though there are a thousand classics and ten thousand canons, none will fail to match, and heterodox and crooked learning is entirely refuted at one examination; why need such point-by-point analysis! The Buddhists have an analogy of 'striking the man or chasing the clod': one who sees a man striking and goes after the man gets the man; one who sees a clod and chases the clod, what can he get from the clod?" The friends present who heard this were startled and all awakened. This learning values turning back to seek within, and cannot be entered by intellectual understanding.

○崇一來書云；師云：「德性之良知，非由於聞見，若曰多擇其車者而從之，多見而識之」，則是專求之見聞之未，而已落在第二義。」竊意良知雖不由見聞而有，然學者之知，未常不由見聞而發：滯於見聞固非，而見聞亦良知之用也；今日「落在第二義」，恐為寺以幾聞為學者而古，若玫其良知而求之見問，似亦知，行合一、二功矣：如何？良知不由見聞而有，而見聞莫非良知之用；故良知不滯於見聞，而亦不離於見聞。孔子云：「吾有知乎哉？無知也。」良知之外，別無知矣；故「致良知」是學問大頭腦，是聖人教人第一義：今雲專求之見聞之末，則是先卻頭惱，而已落在第二羕矣。近時同志中，蓋已莫不知有「致良妯」之說，然其功夫尚多鶻突者，正是欠此一問。大抵學問功夫只要主意頭惱是當：若主意頭惱專以「致良知」為事，則凡多聞、多見，莫非「致良知」之功；蓋日用之間，見聞醅酢，雖千頭萬緒，莫非良知之發竅用流行，除卻見聞醅酢，亦無良知可致矣；故只是一事：若曰致其良知而求之見聞，則語意之間未免為二。此與專求之見聞之末者雖稍不同，其為未得精一之旨，則一而已。「多聞擇其善者而從之，多見而識之。」既雲擇，又云識，其真知亦未嘗不行於其間：但其用意乃專在多聞多見上去擇、識，則已失卻頭惱矣。崇一於此等處見得當已分曉，今日之間，正為發明此學，於同志中極有益；但語意未瑩，則毫釐千里，亦不容不精察之也。

Chongyi wrote: The Master says, "The innate knowing of virtuous nature does not come from hearing and seeing. If one says, 'listen widely and choose the good to follow; see widely and remember it,' then one seeks only the tip of hearing and seeing, and has already fallen to a secondary meaning." I humbly think that although innate knowing does not exist because of hearing and seeing, the knowledge of a student has never failed to arise through hearing and seeing. Being stuck in hearing and seeing is of course wrong, but hearing and seeing are also functions of innate knowing. When it is now said that it "falls to a secondary meaning," I fear this is said of people who study by relying solely on hearing and seeing. If one extends innate knowing and seeks it in hearing and seeing, that also seems to be the effort of the unity of knowing and acting. What do you think? Innate knowing does not exist because of hearing and seeing, yet hearing and seeing are all functions of innate knowing; so innate knowing is not stuck in hearing and seeing, and also is not apart from hearing and seeing. Confucius said: "Do I have knowledge? I have no knowledge." Apart from innate knowing there is no other knowing. So "extending innate knowing" is the main point of learning and the first meaning in the sage's teaching of people. Now to say one seeks solely the tip of hearing and seeing is to lose the main point first, and to have already fallen to a secondary meaning. Among recent friends of like mind, there are none who do not know of the teaching of "extending innate knowing," yet their effort is still mostly muddled, precisely because this question is lacking. In general, the effort of learning only needs the main point to be right. If the main point is solely to make "extending innate knowing" one's business, then all the more hearing and seeing is nothing but the effort of "extending innate knowing." In daily life, in seeing, hearing, and responding, though there are a thousand threads and ten thousand strands, none is not the arising and flowing of innate knowing; apart from seeing, hearing, and responding there is no innate knowing to extend. So it is only one thing. If one says to extend innate knowing and seek it in hearing and seeing, then in the sense of the words it is inevitably two. Although this is slightly different from seeking solely the tip of hearing and seeing, it is the same in not having obtained the meaning of refinement and unity. "Listen widely and choose the good to follow; see widely and remember it." Since it says to choose, and also says to remember, innate knowing too has never failed to act within it; but if the intention is solely to choose and remember in much hearing and much seeing, then the main point has been lost. Chongyi has probably seen clearly in such places. Today's question is just what clarifies this learning and is very beneficial to friends of like mind; but if the sense of the words is not translucent, a hair's breadth becomes a thousand li, and one cannot but examine carefully.

○來書云：師云：「『罊』」言「何思何慮」，是言所思所慮只是天理，更無別思別慮耳，非謂無蕪思無慮也。心之本骷即是天理，有何丁思慮得！學者用功，雖千思萬慮，只是要復他本付，不走以私意去安排思索出來：若安排思索，便是自私用智矣。」學者之蔽，大率非沉空守寂，則安排思索。德辛壬之歲著前一病，近又著後一病。但思索亦是良知發用，其與私意安排者何所取別？恐認賊作子，惑而不知也。「思日睿，睿作聖。」「心之官則思，思則得之。」思其可少乎？沉空守寂，與安排思索，正是自私用智，其為喪失良知一也。良知是天理之昭明靈覺處。故良知即是天理，思是良知之發用。若是良知發用之思，則所思莫非天理矣。良知發用之思，自然明白簡易，良知亦自能知得。若是私意安排之思，自是紛紜勞擾，良知亦自會分別得。蓋思之是非邪正，良知無有不自知者。所以認賊怍子，正為致知之學不明，不知在良知上體認之耳。

You wrote: You said, "When the Xici says 'what thinking, what worrying,' it means that what is thought and worried about is only the Heavenly Principle, and there is no other thinking or worrying; it does not mean no thinking and no worrying. The original substance of the mind is Heavenly Principle; what is there to think or worry about! When a student applies effort, though he thinks a thousand thoughts and worries ten thousand worries, he only wishes to restore its original substance, and not to arrange and ponder it out by private will. If one arranges and ponders, that is selfishly using cleverness." The students' ailments are generally either sinking into emptiness and guarding stillness, or arranging and pondering. In the years Xin and Ren I suffered from the former ailment, and recently I have suffered from the latter. But pondering is also an arising function of innate knowing; how does it differ from arranging by private will? I fear mistaking a thief for a son, confused and not knowing. "Thought is called perceptive, and perceptive makes a sage." "The organ of the mind is thinking, and by thinking it obtains." Can thinking be dispensed with? Sinking into emptiness and guarding stillness, and arranging and pondering, are precisely selfishly using cleverness, and the loss of innate knowing is the same in both. Innate knowing is the place where Heavenly Principle is bright and aware, so innate knowing is Heavenly Principle, and thinking is the arising function of innate knowing. If it is thinking arising from innate knowing, then what is thought is all Heavenly Principle. The thinking that arises from innate knowing is naturally clear and simple, and innate knowing itself can know it. If it is thinking arranged by private will, it is naturally tangled and toilsome, and innate knowing can also distinguish it. For whether thinking is right or wrong, correct or crooked, innate knowing never fails to know it by itself. So mistaking a thief for a son is precisely because the learning of extending knowledge is not clear, and one does not know how to recognize it in innate knowing.

○來書又云：師云：「為學終身只是一事，不論有事無事，只是這一件。若說寧不了事，不可不加培養，卻是分為兩事也。」寂意覺籵力衰弱，不足以終豐者，良知也。寧不了事，且加休冬，玫知也。如何卻為兩豐？若事變之來，有事勢不容不了而精力雖衰，稍鼓舞亦能支持，則持志以帥氣可矣。然言動終無氣力，畢事則困憊已甚，不幾於暴其氣已乎？此其輕重緩急，良知固未嘗不知，然或迫於事勢，安能傾精力？或因於精力，安能傾事券？如之何則可？「寧不了事，不可不加培養之」意，且與初學如此詬亦不為無益。但怍兩事看了，挭有病扁。在孟子言必有事焉，則君子之學終身只是「集義」一事。義者，宜也，心得其宜之謂義。能致良知則心得其宜矣，故「集義」亦只是致良知，君子之酬酢萬變，當行則行，當止則止，當生則生，當死則死，斟酌調停，無非是致其真知，以求自慊而已。故「君子素其位而行」，「思不出其泣」。凡謀其力之所不及，而強其知之所不能者，皆不得為致真知，而凡「勞其筋骨，餓其體膚，空乏其身，行拂亂其所為，動心忍性以增益其所不能」者，皆所以致其真知也。若雲寧不了事，不可不加培養者，亦是先有功利之心，計較成敗利鈍而愛憎取捨於其間，是以將了事自阼一事，而培養又別怍一事，此便有是內、非外之意，便是自私用智，便是「義外」，便有「不得於心，勿求於氣」之病，便不是致真知以求自慊之功矣。所云「鼓舞支持，畢事則困憊已甚」，又云「迫於事勢，因於精力」，皆是把怍兩事做了，所以有此。凡學問之功，一則誠，二則為。凡此皆是致真知之意，欠誠一真切之故。《大學》言「誠其意者，如惡惡臭，如好好色，此之謂自慊。」曾見有惡惡臭，好好色，而須鼓舞支持者乎？曾見畢事則困憊已甚者乎？曾有迫於事勢，因於精力者乎？

Your letter also says: "You, Master, said, 'In learning, for one's whole life there is only one thing, whether or not there are affairs to deal with; there is just this one matter. To say that one would rather leave a task unfinished but must not fail to nourish oneself is to divide it into two things.' It seems to me that the feeling of being weak in energy and unable to finish the task is liangzhi (innate knowing), and preferring to leave the task unfinished and rest and recover is extending knowing. Why then are these two things? If, when events arrive, there is a situation in which the task cannot but be finished, and even though one's energy is weak, a little rousing can hold one up, then holding to one's resolve to lead the vital energy can see it through. Yet in speech and movement there is in the end no strength, and when the task is done one is utterly exhausted; does this not come close to abusing one's vital energy? On the weight and urgency of such things, liangzhi surely does not fail to know, but sometimes one is pressed by circumstances, and how could one disregard one's energy? Or one is limited by one's energy, and how could one disregard circumstances? What is the right way? The idea of 'rather leave the task unfinished but do not fail to nourish oneself' is not without benefit when said to beginners. But if it is seen as two things, then it becomes a fault. Mencius said 'there must be work to be done,' so the learning of the gentleman is for one's whole life just the one matter of 'accumulating righteousness.' Righteousness means appropriateness; when the mind attains what is appropriate, that is called righteousness. If one can extend liangzhi, the mind attains what is appropriate, so 'accumulating righteousness' is also just extending liangzhi. In the countless changes of response, the gentleman acts when he should act, stops when he should stop, lives when he should live, and dies when he should die; in weighing and adjusting, it is nothing other than extending his liangzhi in order to be content in himself. Hence 'the gentleman acts according to his position' and 'his thoughts do not go beyond his position.' Whoever plans what is beyond his strength or forces what his knowing cannot reach is not extending liangzhi; and whatever 'toils his sinews and bones, starves his body, leaves him in want, and frustrates what he does, stirring his mind and toughening his nature to increase what he cannot do,' is all the means of extending his liangzhi. To say 'rather leave the task unfinished but do not fail to nourish' means that one already has a mind of utility and profit, calculating success, failure, sharpness, and dullness, and loving, hating, taking, and rejecting among them, so that one makes finishing the task one thing and nourishing another. This then has the sense of the inner being right and the outer being wrong, which is using selfish cleverness, which is 'righteousness as external,' which has the fault of 'what is not gained in the mind, do not seek in the vital energy,' and it is no longer the work of extending liangzhi to be self-content. What you say about 'rousing and holding up, and then being utterly exhausted after the task' and also 'pressed by circumstances, limited by energy' all comes from making it two things. In all work of learning, there is one thing that is sincerity and another that is falsity. All this comes from the lack of sincere unity and earnestness in the intent to extend liangzhi. The Great Learning says: 'To make one's intentions sincere is like hating a bad smell and loving a beautiful color; this is called being self-content.' Have you ever seen someone hating a bad smell and loving a beautiful color who needed to rouse and hold himself up? Ever seen someone utterly exhausted when it was done? Ever seen someone pressed by circumstances or limited by energy?"

此可以知其受病之所從來矣。

(The Master continued:) From this one can know where the illness comes from.

○來書又有云：人情機詐百出，御之以不疑，往往為所欺，覺則自人於逆、億。夫逆詐，印詐也，億不信，印非信也，為人欺，又非覺也：不逆，不億而常先覺，其惟良知瑩徹乎。然而出入毫忽之閒，背覺合詐者多矣。不逆、不意而先覺，此孔子因當時人專以逆詐、億不信為心，而自陷於詐與不信，又有不逆、不憶者，然不知致良知之功，而往往又為人岓欺詐，故有是言：非教人以是存心，而專欲先覺人之詐與不信也。以是存心，即是後世猜忌險薄者之事：而只此一念，已不可與入堯、舜之道矣。不逆、不憶而為人所欺者，尚亦不先為善：但不如能致其良知，而自然先覺者之尤為賢耳。崇一謂「其惟良知瑩徹」者，蓋已得其旨矣。然亦穎悟斫及，恐未實際也。蓋良知之在人心，亙萬古、塞宇宙而不同；不慮而知，恆易以知險，不學而能，恆簡以知阻：「先天而天不違，天且不違，而況於人乎？況於鬼神乎？」夫謂背覺合詐者，是雖不逆人而或未能自欺也，雖不憶人而或未能果自信也，是或常有先覺之心，而未能常自覺也。常有求先覺之心，即已流於逆、億而足以自蔽其良知矣，此背覺合詐之所以未免也。君子學以為己：未嘗虞人之欺己也，恆不自欺其良知而已。是故不欺則良知無所偽而誠，誠則明矣：自信則良知無所惑而明，明則誠矣。明、誠相生，是故良知常覺，常照：常覺，常照則如明鏡之懸，而物之來者自不能遁其妍榿矣。何者？不欺而誠，則無所容其欺，荀有欺焉而覺矣：自信而明，則無所容其不信，苟不信焉而覺矣。

Your letter also says: "The tricks of human nature are endless; if one meets them with no suspicion, one is often deceived; if one becomes aware, one falls into anticipating deceit and presuming bad faith. To anticipate deceit is itself to deceive, and presuming bad faith is itself to lack good faith; yet being deceived by others is also not awareness. To neither anticipate nor presume and yet always be aware beforehand, is that not only possible through the perfect clarity of liangzhi? But in the space of a hair's breadth, many turn against awareness and fall in with deceit." As for not anticipating and not presuming yet being aware beforehand, Confucius said this because the people of his time took anticipating deceit and presuming bad faith as their mind, and so fell into deceit and bad faith themselves; and there were others who neither anticipated nor presumed but did not know the work of extending liangzhi and were often deceived, so he said these words. It was not to teach people to hold this in mind and to devote themselves to becoming aware beforehand of others' deceit and bad faith. To hold this in mind is the business of the suspicious and mean-spirited of later ages, and with this single thought alone one can no longer enter the Way of Yao and Shun. One who neither anticipates nor presumes yet is deceived still does not cease to be good; he is simply not as worthy as one who can extend his liangzhi and be naturally aware beforehand. Chongyi said 'only through the perfect clarity of liangzhi,' which has indeed grasped the point. Yet this is also something reached by quick insight and perhaps not yet real. For liangzhi in the human mind spans ten thousand ages and fills the universe without changing; knowing without thinking, it constantly and easily knows danger; able without learning, it constantly and simply knows obstruction. "He acts before Heaven and Heaven does not oppose him; if Heaven does not oppose him, how much less will men, and how much less will spirits?" As for those who turn against awareness and fall in with deceit, though they do not anticipate others, they may not yet be able to avoid deceiving themselves; though they do not presume bad faith in others, they may not yet truly trust themselves; thus they may often have the wish to be aware beforehand yet cannot be constantly self-aware. To constantly have the wish to be aware beforehand already slides into anticipating and presuming, and is enough to obscure one's own liangzhi; this is why turning against awareness and falling in with deceit cannot be avoided. The gentleman learns for his own sake: he never worries about being deceived by others, and only ever does not deceive his own liangzhi. So when one does not deceive, liangzhi has nothing false and is sincere, and with sincerity there is clarity; when one trusts oneself, liangzhi has nothing confused and is clear, and with clarity there is sincerity. Clarity and sincerity produce each other, and so liangzhi is constantly aware and constantly illuminating. Constantly aware and illuminating, it is like a bright mirror hung up, and things that come before it cannot hide their beauty or ugliness. Why? When one does not deceive and is sincere, there is no room for deceit, and if there is any deceit one becomes aware of it; when one trusts oneself and is clear, there is no room for distrust, and if there is any distrust one becomes aware of it.

是謂易以知險，簡以知阻，子思所謂「至誠如神，可以前知」者也，然子思謂「如神」，謂「可以前知」，猶二而言之，是蓋推言思誠者之功效，是猶為不能先覺者說也：若就至誠而言，則至誠之妙用，即謂之「神」，不必言「如神」，至誠則「無知而無不知」，不必言「可以前知」矣。

(The Master continued:) This is what is meant by easily knowing danger and simply knowing obstruction, and what Zisi called "Utmost sincerity is like the spirits and can foreknow." Yet Zisi said "like the spirits" and said "can foreknow" as two separate phrases; this probably extends the effects for those who think on sincerity, and is still said for those who cannot be aware beforehand. If one speaks of utmost sincerity itself, then the wondrous function of utmost sincerity is itself called "spirit," and there is no need to say "like" the spirits; with utmost sincerity there is "no knowing yet nothing unknown," and there is no need to say "can foreknow."

○某頓首啟：昨承教及《大學》，撥舟匆匆，未能奉答。曉來江行稍暇，復取手教而讀之。恐至贛後人事復紛沓，先具其略以請。來教雲；「見道固難，而體道尤難。道誠未易明，而學詼不可不講：恐未可安於所見而遂以為極則也。」幸甚幸甚！何以得聞斮言乎？其敢自以為極則而安之乎？正思就天下之道以講明之耳。而數年以來，聞其說而非笑之者有矣，詬訾之者有矣，置之不是較量辨議之者有矣，其肯遂以教我乎？其肯遂以教我，而反覆曉諭，惻然惟恐不及救正之乎？然則天下之愛我者，固莫有如執事之心深且至矣，感激當同如哉！夫「德之不修，學之不講」，孔子以為憂。而世之學者稍能傳習訓詀，即皆自以為知學，不復有所謂講學之求，可悲矣！夫道必體而後見，非已見道而後加體道之功也：道必學而後明，非外講學而復有所謂明道之事也。然世之講學者有二，有講之以身心者，有講之以口耳者。講之以口耳，揣摸測哽，求之影響者也：講之以身心，行著習察，實有諸己者也。知此，則知孔門之學矣。

I bow my head and report: yesterday I received your instruction and the Great Learning, but I was poling the boat in haste and could not reply. This morning, traveling on the river with a little leisure, I took up your letter again and read it. Fearing that after I reach Gan, affairs will again be tangled and numerous, I set out a brief reply first. You wrote: "Seeing the Way is truly hard, and embodying the Way is harder still. The Way is truly not easy to understand, and learning must truly be discussed. I fear one must not rest content in what one has seen and take it for the final standard." How fortunate, how fortunate! How could I have heard these words? Would I dare take my view as the final standard and rest content in it? I want precisely to take the Way of the world and discuss it and make it clear. But over the past several years, there have been those who, hearing my teaching, have mocked it, those who have reviled it, and those who have set it aside and disdained to weigh or debate it; would any of them be willing to instruct me? Would any be willing to instruct me, explaining again and again, and with compassion fearing only that they could not correct me in time? Then those in the world who care for me have surely none whose heart is as deep and thorough as yours, and how grateful I should be! "Virtue not cultivated and learning not discussed" were what Confucius worried about. Yet the scholars of the world, as soon as they can pass on some textual glosses, all take themselves to know learning and no longer seek what is called discussing learning; how sad! The Way must be embodied before it is seen; it is not that one first sees the Way and then adds the work of embodying it. The Way must be learned before it is clear; it is not that apart from discussing learning there is a further matter called making the Way clear. But those in the world who discuss learning are of two kinds: those who discuss it with body and mind, and those who discuss it with mouth and ear. Those who discuss with mouth and ear conjecture and speculate, seeking it in shadows and echoes; those who discuss with body and mind practice and examine, truly having it in themselves. Knowing this, one knows the learning of Confucius's school.

○來教謂某「《大學》古本之復，以人之為學但當求之於內，而程、朱『格物』之說不免求之於外，遂去朱子之分章，而削其所補之傳。」非敢然也。學豈有內外乎？《大學》古本乃孔門相慱舊本耳。朱子疑其有所脫誤而改正補緝之，在某則謂其本無脫誤，悉從其舊而已矣。失在於過信孔子則有之，非故去朱子之分章而削其慱也。失學貴得之心，求之於心而非也，雖其言之出於孔子，不敢以為是也，而況其未及孔子者乎？求之於心而是也，雖其言之出於庸常，不敢以為非也，而況其出於孔子者乎？且舊本之傳數千載矣，今讀其文詞，郥明白而可通，論其工夫，又易簡而可人：亦何所按據而斷其此段之必在於彼，彼段之必在於此，與此之如何而缺，彼之如何而補？而遂改正補緝之，無乃重於背朱而輕於叛孔已乎？

Your letter says of me: "The restoration of the old text of the Great Learning is because people in learning should seek only within, while the Cheng-Zhu theory of 'investigating things' inevitably seeks outside, and so he removed Zhu Xi's division into chapters and cut the commentary he supplemented." I do not dare do so. How could learning have an inside and outside? The old text of the Great Learning is simply the old text transmitted in Confucius's school. Zhu Xi suspected it had omissions and errors, and corrected and supplemented it; I hold that it originally had no omissions or errors, and follow the old entirely. If there is a fault, it is in trusting Confucius too much, not in deliberately removing Zhu Xi's chapter divisions and cutting his commentary. Learning prizes what is attained in the mind. If, seeking it in the mind, I find it not right, though the words come from Confucius I do not dare take them as right, let alone words that do not reach Confucius. If, seeking it in the mind, I find it right, though the words come from an ordinary person I do not dare take them as wrong, let alone words from Confucius. Moreover the old text has been handed down for thousands of years, and reading its wording now it is clear and makes sense; discussing its practice, it is simple and easy to enter. On what basis, then, could one assert that this passage must be there and that passage must be here, and how this one is missing and how that one is supplied, and then correct and supplement it? Is this not being heavier in turning away from Zhu Xi but lighter in rebelling against Confucius?

○來教謂「如必以學不資於外求，但當反觀、內省以為務，則『正心誠意』四字亦何不盡之有，何必於入門之際，便困以『格物一段工夫也？」誠然誠然！若語其要，則「惰身」二字亦足矣！何必又言「正心」？「正心」二字亦足矣，何必又言「誠意」？「誠意」二字亦足矣，何必又言「致知」，又言「格物」？惟其工夫之詳密，而要之只是一事，此斫以為「精一」之學，此正不可不思者也。夫理無內外，性無內外，故學無內外。講習、討論，未嘗非內也；反觀、內省，未嘗遺外也。夫謂學必資於外求，是以己性為有外也，是「義外」也，用智者也；謂反觀、內省為求之於內，是以己性為有內也，是有我也，自私者也：是皆不知性之無內外也。故日：「精義入神，以致用也；利用安身，以崇德也」：「性之德也，合內外之道也。」此可以知「格物」之學矣。「格物」者，《大學》之實下手處，徹首徹尾，自始學至聖人，只此工夫而已，非但入門之際有此一段也。夫「正心」、「誠意」、「致知」、「挌物」，皆所以「修身」：而「格物」者，其所用力，日可見之地。故「格物」者，格其心之物也，格其意之物也，挌其知之物也：「正心」者，正其物之心也：「誠意」者，誠其物之意也：「致知」者，致其物之知也。此豈有內外彼此之分哉？理一而已：以其理之凝聚而言則謂之「性」，以其凝聚之主宰而言則謂之「、心」，以其主宰之狻動而言則謂之「意」，以其猣動之明覺而言則謂之「知」，以其明覺之感應而言則謂之「物」：故就物而言謂之「格」，就知而言謂之「致」，就意而言謂之「誠」，就心而言謂之「正」。正者，正此也；誠者，誠此也；致者，致此也；格者，格此也；皆所謂窮理以儘性也；天下無性外之理，無性外之物。

Your letter says: "If learning must not rely on seeking outside, and one should take only turning to look within and self-examination as the task, then the four words 'rectifying the mind and making the intention sincere' would be sufficient; why at the very beginning of entering the way trouble people with the work of investigating things?" Truly so, truly so! If one speaks of the essentials, then the two words "cultivating the self" suffice; why add "rectifying the mind"? The two words "rectifying the mind" suffice; why add "making the intention sincere"? The two words "making the intention sincere" suffice; why add "extending knowing" and "investigating things"? It is just that the work is detailed and thorough, yet in essence it is only one matter, and this is what is meant by the learning of "refinement and unity," which one cannot but reflect on. Principle has no inside and outside, nature has no inside and outside, and so learning has no inside and outside. Study and discussion are never not inner; turning to look within and self-examination never leave out the outer. To say that learning must rely on seeking outside is to take one's own nature as having an outside, which is "righteousness as external" and using cleverness; to say that turning to look within and self-examination are seeking within is to take one's own nature as having an inside, which is having an ego and being selfish: both fail to know that nature has no inside and outside. Hence it is said: "Refining righteousness to enter the spirit is for the sake of application; applying it benefits and settles the body is for the sake of exalting virtue." "It is the virtue of nature, the way that joins inner and outer." From this one can know the learning of "investigating things." "Investigating things" is where the Great Learning truly puts the hand to work, thoroughly from beginning to end, from the beginning of learning to the sage, this work and nothing else, not only a section at the beginning of entering the way. "Rectifying the mind," "making the intention sincere," "extending knowing," and "investigating things" are all means to "cultivating the self," and "investigating things" is where one applies effort and sees results day by day. Thus "investigating things" means investigating the things of the mind, investigating the things of the intention, investigating the things of knowing; "rectifying the mind" means rectifying the mind of the things; "making the intention sincere" means making the intention of the things sincere; "extending knowing" means extending the knowing of the things. How could there be a division of inner and outer, this and that? Principle is only one: speaking of principle as condensed, it is called "nature"; of that condensation as the master, it is called "mind"; of the master as it stirs, it is called "intention"; of the stirring as clear awareness, it is called "knowing"; of the clear awareness as it responds, it is called "thing." So with regard to the thing it is called "investigating," with regard to knowing it is called "extending," with regard to intention it is called "making sincere," and with regard to the mind it is called "rectifying." To rectify is to rectify this; to make sincere is to make this sincere; to extend is to extend this; to investigate is to investigate this: all of it is what is called exhausting principle to fulfill nature. There is no principle beyond nature in the world, and no thing beyond nature.

學之不明，皆由世之懦者認理為外，認物為外，而不知「義外」之說，孟子蓋嘗闢之，力至襲陷其內而不覺，豈非亦有似是而難明者歟？不可以不察也！

(The Master continued:) That learning is not clear is all because the Confucian scholars of the world take principle as external and things as external, and do not know that Mencius refuted the theory of "righteousness as external," and even fall into it without noticing; is that not also something that seems right and is hard to see through? One must not fail to examine it!

○凡執事所以致疑於「格物」之說者，必謂其是內而非外也，必謂其專事於反觀、內省之為，而遺棄其講習討論之功也，必謂其一意於綱領、本原之約，而脫略於支條、節目之詳也，必謂其沉溺於枯槁、虛寂之偏，而不盡於物理、人事之變也。審如是，豈但獲罪於聖門，獲罪於朱子，是邪說誣民，叛道亂正，人得而誅之也：而況於執事之正直哉？審如是，世之稍明訓詁，聞先哲之緒論者，皆知其非也：而況執事之高明哉？凡某之所謂「挌物」，其於朱子九條之說，皆包羅統括於其中：但為之有要，作用不同，正所謂毫釐之差耳。無毫釐之差，而千里之繆，實起於此，不可不辨。

Where you doubt the theory of "investigating things," you must say it affirms the inner and denies the outer, that it devotes itself solely to turning to look within and self-examination and discards the work of study and discussion, that it is single-minded about the brevity of the guiding principles and original source while neglecting the detail of the branches and particulars, and that it sinks into the one-sidedness of dry stillness and empty quiet, not exhausting the principles of things and the changes of human affairs. If it were really so, not only would it offend against the school of Confucius and against Zhu Xi, it would be a heterodox doctrine deceiving the people, rebelling against the Way and confusing what is right, and people could rightly punish it, let alone one as upright as yourself. If it were really so, anyone in the world with some understanding of glosses who had heard the remarks of earlier sages would know it was wrong, let alone one as perceptive as you. What I call "investigating things" includes and embraces all of Zhu Xi's nine-point theory; but there is an essential in doing it, and the application differs, which is exactly what is called a hair's-breadth difference. Without a hair's-breadth difference, an error of a thousand li arises from just here, and one must distinguish it.

○孟子闢揚、墨，至於「無父、無君」。二子亦當時之賢者，使與孟子並世而生，未必不以之為貿；墨子兼愛，行仁而過耳，，楊子為我，行義而過耳，此其為說亦豈誠滅理亂常之甚，而足以眩天下哉？而其流之弊，孟子則比於禽獸、夷狄，所諝以學術殺天下後世也。今世學術之弊，其謂之學仁而過者乎？謂之學義而過者乎？抑謂之學不仁、不義而過者乎？吾不知其於洪水、猛獸何如也。孟子云；「予豈好辯哉？予不得已也。」楊、墨之道塞天下。孟子之時，天下之拿信楊、墨，當不下於今日之崇尚朱之說：而孟子獨以一人呶呶於其閒，噫，可哀矣！韓氏云：「佛、老之害甚於楊、墨。」韓愈之賢不及孟子，孟子不能救之於未壞之先，而韓愈乃欲全之於已壞之後，其亦不量其力，且見其身之危，莫之救以死也。嗚呼！若某者，其尤不量其力，果見其身之危，莫之救以死也矣！夫眾力嘻嘻之中，而猶出涕嗟若，舉世恬然以趨，而獨疾首蹙額以為憂，此其非病狂喪心，殆必誠有大苦者隱於其中，而非天下之至仁，其孰能察之。其為「朱子晚年定論」，蓋亦不得已而然。中間年歲早晚，誠有所未考，雖不必盡出於晚年，固多出於晚年者矣。然大意在委曲調停，以明此學為重。平生於朱子之說，如神明蓍龜，一日一與之背馳，心誠有所未忍，故不得已而為此。「知我者諝我心憂，不知我者謂我何求。」蓋不忍牴牾朱子者，其本心也，不得已而與之牴牾者，道固如是，不直則道不見也。執事所謂「決與朱子異」者，僕敢自欺其心哉？夫道，天下之公道也，學，天下之公學也，非朱子可得而私也，非孔子可得而私也，天下之公也，公言之而已矣。故言之而是，雖異於己，乃益於己也言。之而非，雖同於己，適損於己也。益於己者，己必喜之：損於己者，己必惡之；然則某今日之論，雖或於朱子異，未必非其所喜也。

Mencius refuted Yang and Mo, to the point of saying they were "without father and without ruler." The two were also worthy men of their time; if they had lived alongside Mencius, he might well have considered them worthy. Mozi's universal love was benevolence carried too far; Yang Zhu's "for oneself" was righteousness carried too far. How could their doctrines really have destroyed principle and thrown the constants into disorder so severely as to dazzle the world? Yet for the harm of their offshoots Mencius compared them to beasts and barbarians, saying they killed the world and later ages through learning. The harm of today's learning: shall it be called going too far in learning benevolence? Too far in learning righteousness? Or going too far in learning non-benevolence and non-righteousness? I do not know how it compares with flood and savage beasts. Mencius said: "Do I love to argue? I have no choice." The ways of Yang and Mo filled the world. In Mencius's time the world fully believed Yang and Mo, probably no less than today's reverence for Zhu Xi's teaching; yet Mencius alone, one man, chattered away among them. Alas, how sad! Han Yu said: "The harm of Buddhism and Daoism is worse than that of Yang and Mo." Han Yu was not as worthy as Mencius; Mencius could not save the world before it was ruined, while Han Yu wanted to preserve it after it was ruined, also failing to measure his strength, and saw his own life in danger with no one to save him from death. Alas! Someone like me fails to measure his strength even more, and indeed sees his life in danger with no one to save him from death! While the crowd is laughing merrily, he still weeps and sighs; while the whole world rushes on in ease, he alone knits his brow and worries. If this is not madness and loss of heart, then surely there is some great suffering hidden within, and without the utmost benevolence in the world, who could discern it? As for my "Zhu Xi's Final Conclusions in His Later Years," I also did it only because I had no choice. In the dating of earlier and later years there are indeed matters I have not examined, and though not all come from his later years, many do. But the main intent was to adjust and reconcile in a roundabout way in order to make this learning clear. All my life I have taken Zhu Xi's teachings like the spirits and the milfoil and tortoise; suddenly to go against them, my heart truly could not bear it, and so I did this because I had no choice. "Those who know me say my heart is troubled; those who do not know me ask what I seek." That I cannot bear to contradict Zhu Xi is my original heart; that I am forced to contradict him is because the Way is so: if it is not straightforward, the Way does not appear. You say I "decisively differ from Zhu Xi"; would I dare deceive my own heart? The Way is the public Way of the world; learning is the public learning of the world; it cannot be privately owned by Zhu Xi or by Confucius. What belongs to the world publicly can only be spoken of publicly. So when what is said is right, though it differs from oneself, it benefits oneself; when what is said is wrong, though it agrees with oneself, it only harms oneself. What benefits oneself, one is sure to delight in; what harms oneself, one is sure to dislike. Then my discussion today, though it may differ from Zhu Xi, is not necessarily something he would not delight in.

君子之過，如日月之食，其更七人皆仰之：而小人之過也必文。某雖不肖，固不敢以小人之心事朱子也。

(The Master continued:) The faults of the gentleman are like eclipses of the sun and moon; when he corrects them, all look up to him; the faults of the petty man are always dressed up. Though I am unworthy, I surely dare not serve Zhu Xi with the heart of a petty man.

○執事所以教，反覆數百言，皆以未悉鄙人「格物」之說；若鄙說一明，則此數百言皆可以不待辨說而釋然無滯，故今不敢縷縷，以滋瑣屑之洹，然鄙脫非面陳囗析，斷亦未能了了於紙筆閒也。嗟乎！執事所以開導啟迪於我者，可謂懇到詳切矣，人之愛我，寧有如執事者乎！僕雖甚愚下，寧不知所感刻佩服：然而不敢遽舍其中心之誠然而姑以聽受雲者，正不敢有負於深愛，亦思有以報之耳。秋盡東還，必求一面，以卒所請，千萬終教！

Your instruction, repeated in several hundred words, all arises because you have not yet fully understood my theory of "investigating things." If my theory is made clear, these several hundred words can be resolved without debate and without obstruction. Therefore I do not dare go into every detail now, lest I add to trivial annoyance. But my theory, unless presented in person, cannot be made fully clear on paper. Alas! What you have done to open and enlighten me is sincere and thorough. Could anyone's affection for me be like yours? Though I am very foolish and low, how could I not feel it deeply and keep it engraved in my mind? Yet I do not dare suddenly abandon what is truly in my heart merely to accept your words for now, precisely because I dare not fail your deep affection and hope to repay it. At the end of autumn I will return east and must seek a meeting to fulfill your request; please teach me to the end!

○春閒遠勞迂途，枉顧問證，惓倦此情，何可當也！已期二三同志，更處靜地，扳留旬囗，少效其鄙見，以求切劘之益：而公期俗絆，勢有不能，別去極怏怏如有所矢。忽承箋惠，反覆千餘言，讀之無甚浣慰，中間推許太過，蓋亦獎掖之盛心，而規礪真切，思欲納之於買聖之域，又托諸崇一以致其勤勤懇懇之懷，此非深交篤愛何以及是：知感知媿，且懼其無以堪之也。雖然，僕亦何敢不自鞭勉，而徒以感媿辭讓為乎哉！其謂「思、孟、周、程無意相遭於千載之下，與其盡信於天下，不若真信於一人；道固自在，學亦自在，天下信之不為多，一人信之不為少」者，斮固君子「不見是而無悶」之心，豈世之認譾屑屑者知足以及之乎！乃僕之情，則有大不得已者存乎其間，而非以計人之信與不信也。

In spring you took the trouble of a roundabout journey from afar to visit and question me, and your earnest sentiment, how could I deserve it! I had hoped to keep two or three like-minded friends in a quiet place for ten days, to offer a little of my humble views and seek the benefit of mutual refinement; but official dates and worldly ties made it impossible, and parting from you I felt dejected as if I had lost something. Suddenly I received your gracious letter, over a thousand words, and reading it again and again I was beyond measure refreshed and comforted. The overpraise in it is also the generous heart of encouragement; and your sincere admonitions, wishing to bring me into the realm of the sages, and entrusting Chongyi to convey your earnest and heartfelt care, who but a deep and loving friend could do this? I know gratitude and shame, and fear I cannot live up to it. Even so, how could I dare not spur myself on, and merely decline out of gratitude and shame? You say that "Zisi, Mencius, Zhou Dunyi, and the Cheng brothers had no intention of meeting across a thousand years, and rather than be fully trusted by the world, it is better to be truly trusted by one person; the Way is there of itself, learning is there of itself, and the world's believing it is not much, one person's believing it is not little." This is surely the heart of the gentleman who "is not troubled when unrecognized," and how could it be reached by the petty and paltry people of the world! As for my own feelings, there is something I cannot help in them, not a matter of counting whether people believe or not.

○夫人者，天地之心，天地萬物本吾一體者也。生民之困苦荼毒，孰非疾痛之切於吾身者乎？不知吾身之疾痛，無是非之心者也；是非之心，不慮而知，不學而能，所謂「良知」也：良知之在人心，無間於聖愚，天下古今之所同也，世之君子惟務其良知，則自能公是非，同好惡，視人猶己，視國猶家，而以天地萬物為一體，求天下無冶，不可得矣。古之人所以能見善不啻若己出，見惡不啻若己人，視民之飢猶己之飢溺，而一夫不獲若己推而納諸溝中者，非故為是而以蘄天下之信己也，務致其良知求自慊而已矣。堯、舜、三王之聖，言而民莫不信者，致其良知而言之也；行而民莫不說者，致其真知而行之也。是以其民熙熙皞皞，殺之不怨，利之不庸，施及蠻貊，而凡有血氣者莫不尊親；為其良知之同也。嗚呼！聖人之治天下，何其簡且易哉！○後世良知之學不明，天下之人用其私智以相比軋，是以人各有心，而偏瑣僻陋之見，狡偽陰邪之術，至於不可勝說：外假仨義之名，而內以行其自私自利之實，洈辭以阿俗，嬌行以幹譽：損人之善而襲以為己長，訐人之私而竊以為己直：忿以相勝而猶謂之徇義，險以相頄而猶謂之疾惡；妒賢忌能而猶自以為公是非，恣情縱欲而猶自以為同好惡；相陵相賊，自其一家骨肉之親，已不能無爾我勝負之意、彼此藩籬之形，而況於天下之大，民物之眾，又何能一體而視之，則無怪於紛紛籍籍而禍亂相尋於無窮矣。

Humans are the mind of heaven and earth. Heaven, earth, and the ten thousand things are originally one body with me. The hardship and bitter suffering of the common people, which of them is not an acute pain in my own body? To not know the pain in one's own body is to be a person without a sense of right and wrong. The sense of right and wrong, known without thinking and capable without learning, is what is called liangzhi. Liangzhi in the human mind makes no difference between sage and fool, and is the same throughout the world and all ages. If the gentlemen of the world only devote themselves to their liangzhi, they will naturally share the same judgments of right and wrong and the same likes and dislikes, regard others as themselves, regard the state as their home, and take heaven, earth, and the ten thousand things as one body; then to seek that the world not be well governed would be impossible. The reason the ancients could see goodness as though it came from themselves and see evil as though it had entered themselves, could regard the people's hunger and drowning as their own hunger and drowning, and when one man was not provided for felt as if they had pushed him into a ditch, was not that they did this deliberately to make the world trust them, but that they devoted themselves to extending their liangzhi to be content in themselves. The sagehood of Yao, Shun, and the Three Kings was such that when they spoke, the people all believed, because they spoke by extending their liangzhi; when they acted, the people all rejoiced, because they acted by extending their liangzhi. Hence their people were joyful and content, did not resent being killed and did not credit being benefited, and their influence reached the barbarians, so that all who have blood and breath honored and loved them: because their liangzhi was the same. Alas! How simple and easy the sages' governing of the world was! In later ages, the learning of liangzhi was not clear, and people of the world used their private cleverness to rival and crush one another, so that each person had his own mind, and narrow, petty, and crude views and cunning, false, and sinister arts are beyond counting. Outwardly borrowing the name of benevolence and righteousness, inwardly they carry out their own selfishness and self-interest; they use deceitful words to flatter the vulgar and feign conduct to seek reputation; they diminish others' goodness and seize it as their own strength, expose others' private matters and steal it as their own uprightness; they win through anger and yet call it following righteousness, they bring each other down through treachery and yet call it hating evil; they envy the worthy and begrudge the able and yet take themselves to share the same judgments of right and wrong, they indulge their feelings and desires and yet take themselves to share the same likes and dislikes. They trample and harm one another, so that even among one's own family and flesh and blood there cannot but be the idea of you and me, winning and losing, and the form of a fence between this side and that; how much less could they regard the vast world and its multitude of people and things as one body? It is no wonder that confusion and disorder, calamity and chaos follow one another without end.

○僕詼賴天之靈，偶有見於良知之學，以為必由此而後天下可得而治。是以每念斯民之陷溺，則為之戚然痛心，忘其身之不肖，而思以此救之，亦不自知其量者。天下之人見其若是，遂相與非笑而詆斥之，以為是病狂喪心之人耳。嗚呼，是奚足恤哉！吾方疾痛之切體，而瑕計人之非笑乎？人固有見其父子兄弟之墜溺於深淵者，呼號匍匐，裸跣顛頓，扳懸崖壁而下拯之。士之見者，方相與揖讓談笑於其旁，以為是棄其禮貌衣冠而呼號顛頓若此，是病珏喪心者也。故夫揖讓談笑於溺人之旁而不知救，此惟行路之人，無親戚骨肉之情者能之，然已謂之無惻隱之心，非人矣；若失在父子兄弗之愛者，則固未有不痛心疾首，狂奔盡氣，匍匐而拯之，彼將陷溺之禍有不顧，而況於病狂喪心之識乎？而又況於蘄人信與不信乎？嗚呼！今之人雖謂僕為病狂喪心之人，亦無不可矣。天下之人，皆吾之心也：天下之人猶有病狂者矣，吾安得而非病狂乎？猶有喪心者矣，吾安得而非喪心乎？

By the grace of Heaven's spirit, I happened to catch sight of the learning of liangzhi, and I believed that only through it can the world be well governed. So whenever I think of the people sunk and drowning, I am grieved and pained for them, forgetting my own unworthiness and thinking to save them by this, not knowing my own limits either. People of the world, seeing me like this, mock and revile me together, taking me for a man who has gone mad and lost his heart, nothing more. Alas, why should this be a concern! I am feeling the sharp pain in my own body; do I have leisure to count others' mockery? Suppose someone sees his father, sons, and brothers fallen into a deep abyss, crying and crawling, barefoot and stumbling, clinging to the cliff wall to climb down and rescue them. A scholar who sees this stands bowing politely and chatting and laughing beside them, saying that he has cast off his courtesy and robe and cap and cries and stumbles like this, that he is mad and has lost his heart. To bow politely and chat and laugh beside a drowning person without knowing to save him is something only passers-by with no feeling of kinship or flesh and blood can do, and even they are said to lack a heart of compassion and not to be human. As for those in the love of father and son or brothers, there is none who would not be pained to the heart and head, run wildly until out of breath, and crawl to rescue them. They would not care about the calamity of falling in and drowning, to say nothing of the ridicule of madness and loss of heart! And much less would they seek whether others believe them or not! Alas! Today people may call me a man who is mad and has lost his heart, and I could not object. The people of the world are all my own heart. If the people of the world still include those who are mad, how can I not be mad? If there are still those who have lost their heart, how can I not have lost my heart?

○昔者孔子之在當時，有議其為陷者，有譏其為佞者，有毀其未賢，詆其為不知禮，而侮之以為東家丘者，有嫉而沮之者，有惡而欲殺之者，晨門、荷蕢之徒，皆當時之賢士，且曰「是知其不可而為之者歟？」「鄙哉硜硜乎！莫己知也，斯已而已矣。」雖子路在升堂之列，尚不能無疑於其所見，不悅於其所欲往，而且以之為迂，則當時之不信夫子者，豈特十之二三而已乎？然而夫子汲汲遑遑，若求亡子於道路，而不暇於暖席者，寧以蘄人之知我、信我而已哉？蓋其天地萬物一體之仁，疾痛迫切，雖欲已之而自有所不容已，故其言曰：「吾非期人之徒與而誰與？」「欲潔其身而亂大倫。」「果哉，末之難矣！」嗚呼！此非誠以天地萬物為一體者，孰能以知夫子之心乎？若其遯世無悶，樂天知命者，則固無人而不自得，道並行而不相悖也。

Long ago, when Confucius was in his time, some criticized him as a flatterer, some mocked him as glib, some slandered him as not worthy, some decried him as not knowing ritual and insulted him as 'Qiu of the eastern neighbors,' some envied and obstructed him, some hated him and wished to kill him. The gatekeeper and the basket carrier were worthy men of the time, and they said: 'Is he the one who knows it cannot be done and yet does it?' and 'How petty and stubborn! No one knows him, so he should just stop.' Even Zilu, who was among those who had ascended the hall, could not but doubt what he saw, was displeased at where he wished to go, and thought him impractical; so those who did not believe the Master in his time were certainly not merely two or three in ten. Yet the Master hurried about restlessly as if searching for a lost son on the road, without leisure to warm his mat; was it merely to seek others' knowing and trusting him? It was because his benevolence of one body with heaven, earth, and the ten thousand things was so pained and urgent that though he wished to stop he could not, and so he said: 'If I am not a companion of these people, with whom shall I be?' 'To wish to keep oneself clean is to throw the great human relations into disorder.' 'How resolute! Nothing is hard for him then!' Alas! Who but one who truly takes heaven, earth, and the ten thousand things as one body could know the Master's heart? As for those who withdraw from the world without distress and delight in Heaven and know their fate, they are indeed content wherever they go, with ways that run together without conflict.

○僕之不肖，何敢以夫子之道為己任；顧其心亦已稍加疾扁之在身，是以彷徨四顧，將求其有助於我者，相與講去其病耳。今誠得豪傑同志之士，扶持匡翼，共明良知之學於天下，使天下之人皆知自致其良知，以柑安相養，去其自私自利之蔽，一洗讒妒勝忿之習，以濟於大同，則僕之狂病固將睨然以愈，而終免於喪心之患矣，豈不快哉？嗟乎！今誠欲求豪傑同志之士於天下，非如吾文蔚者，而誰望之乎？如吾文蔚之才與志，誠足以援天下之溺者，今又既知其具之在我，而無假於外求矣，循是而充，若決河注海，孰得而御哉？文蔚所謂一人信之不為少，其又能遜以委之何人乎？

Unworthy as I am, how would I dare take the Master's Way as my own responsibility; but my heart is already somewhat as if illness were in my body, so I wander and look around, seeking those who can help me, to discuss together and rid ourselves of this illness. Now if I could truly obtain heroic and like-minded gentlemen to support and assist me, to make clear the learning of liangzhi together throughout the world, so that the people of the world all know to extend their own liangzhi, support and nourish one another, remove the obscuration of selfishness and self-interest, wash away the habits of slander, envy, and contentiousness, and so reach the Great Unity, then my mad illness would be cured at once and in the end I would be spared the trouble of losing my heart; would that not be a joy? Alas! Now if I truly wished to find heroic, like-minded gentlemen in the world, if not one like our Wenwei, in whom would I place my hope? Wenwei's talent and will are truly enough to rescue the drowning of the world, and now that he already knows that the means are within himself and need no borrowing from outside, following this and extending it would be like breaching a river to pour into the sea; who could hold it back? What Wenwei called "one person's believing it is not little," to whom else could he humbly entrust it?

○會稽素啑山水之區，深林長谷，信步皆是，寒暑晦明，無時不宜，安居飽食，塵囂無擾，良朋四集，道蓑日新，懮哉遊哉，天地之閒寧復有樂於是者？孔子云：「不怨天，不尤人，下學而上達。」僕與二三同志力將請事斯語，奚暇外慕？燭其切膚之痛，乃有未能恝然者，輒復云云爾。咳疾暑毒，書札絕懶，盛使遠來，遲留經月，臨歧執筆，又不覺累紙，蓋於相知之深，雖已縷縷至此，殊覺有所未能盡也。

Kuaiji has long been known as a land of hills and waters, with deep forests and long valleys wherever one strolls, suitable at every season, in cold or heat, in dim or bright, where one can live in peace and eat one's fill, undisturbed by the dust and noise of the world, with good friends gathering from all sides, and Dao and righteousness renewed day by day, leisurely and carefree; between heaven and earth, is there any joy greater than this? Confucius said: "Not resenting Heaven, not blaming men, studying what is below and reaching what is above." I and two or three like-minded friends are about to put these words into practice; what leisure do I have to long for things outside? It is only that the pain that cuts to the skin is something I cannot simply set aside, and so I have gone on like this again. With a cough and summer heat, I am quite lazy about letters; your envoy came from far away and has stayed a month, and at the parting of ways, taking up my brush I find I have filled many pages without noticing. With such deep understanding between us, though I have gone on in detail to this extent, I still feel there is much I have not been able to say fully.