晓来江行稍暇，复取手教而读之。
This morning, as the boat proceeds along the Yangtze River, I am somewhat at leisure and so took your letter to read again.
来教云；“见道固难，而体道尤难。
Your letter says, “To see the Way is of course difficult, but personally to demonstrate it is even more so.
道诚未易明，而学诚不可不讲：恐未可安于所见而遂以为极则也。”
Truly it is not easy to apprehend, but the learning thereof cannot but be discussed.
I fear that I cannot rest merely in what I see and thereupon consider myself as having realized the utmost.
其敢自以为极则而安之乎？
How can I venture to consider myself as having realized the utmost and as resting therein ?
正思就天下之道以讲明之耳。
I really think that I should improve this time, when the Empire is in possession of the truth, plainly to discuss it.
而数年以来，闻其说而非笑之者有矣，诟訾之者有矣，置之不足较量辨议之者有矣，其肯遂以教我乎？
For a number of years those who have heard my discussion of the truth have ridiculed it, or taunted and slandered it, or put it aside as inadequate to test and discuss. +Under such circumstances, who would be willing to instruct me ?
其肯遂以教我，而反复晓谕，恻然惟恐不及救正之乎？
Would they be willing to instruct me and explain again and again and compassionately feel that it might be too late for them to save and correct me?
然则天下之爱我者，固莫有如执事之心深且至矣，感激当何如哉！
However, among those who hold me in high, esteem, there surely is none that does so as profoundly as you.
How grateful I should be!
夫“德之不修，学之不讲”，孔子以为忧。
Confucius regarded as causes for concern not cultivating virtue and not discussing thoroughly what is learned.
而世之学者稍能传习训詀，即皆自以为知学，不复有所谓讲学之求，可悲矣！
But scholars of today all regard themselves as learned as soon as they have acquired some instruction and have reviewed it, or have gained some knowledge of textual criticism, and proceed no further to seek learning.How pitiable!
夫道必体而后见，非已见道而后加体道之功也：道必学而后明，非外讲学而复有所谓明道之事也。
This doctrine of the sages must first be investigated and after that it will be apprehended: it is not a case of first apprehending and after that adding investigation.
The truth must first be learned and after that it will be understood: it is not
然世之讲学者有二，有讲之以身心者，有讲之以口耳者。
There are two types among those who investigate learning.
Some use personality and mind; others merely mouth and ears.
讲之以口耳，揣摸测度，求之影响者也：讲之以身心，行著习察，实有诸己者也。
Those who pursue it with their mouths and ears grope and imagine; they seek after what is apparent.Those who pursue it with their bodies and minds act with understanding and do so habitually with examination; they sincerely and concretely realize the Way in themselves.
知此，则知孔门之学矣。
He who knows this understands the learning of the Confucianists.
〔2〕来教谓某“《大学》古本之复，以人之为学但当求之于内，而程、朱‘格物’之说不免求之于外，遂去朱子之分章，而削其所补之传。”
(2) Your letter says that I revived the old text of the Great Learning because I believe that in the task of learning people should seek learning only from within, whereas according to the doctrine of the investigation of things of Ch'eng I and Chu Hsi, they should seek it in external things, and that I therefore omitted Master Chu's division into chapters and deleted his commentary which was intended to supplement the text.
学岂有内外乎？
Is learning subject to the category of space ?
《大学》古本乃孔门相传旧本耳。
The old text of the Great Learning is the original text transmitted from generation to generation in the Confucian school.
朱子疑其有所脱误而改正补缉之，在某则谓其本无脱误，悉从其旧而已矣。
Master Chu, suspecting that parts have been lost and errors have crept in, corrected and mended it.To me, there has been neither loss nor error.I follow the old text entirely, as it originally was, that is all.
失在于过信孔子则有之，非故去朱子之分章而削其传也。
It is possible that I am wrong in believing too much in Confucius, but I did not purposely omit Master Chu's chapter divisions or delete his commentary.
夫学贵得之心，求之于心而非也，虽其言之出于孔子，不敢以为是也，而况其未及孔子者乎？
It is good that learning is acquired in the mind.
If it is sought in the mind and there is something wrong, though the words are those of Confucius, the mind will not accept it as correct.
How much more is this true in the instance of anyone who
求之于心而是也，虽其言之出于庸常，不敢以为非也，而况其出于孔子者乎？
If words are examined in the mind and found to be correct, although they have come from the mouth of ordinary people, I dare not regard them as wrong.
How much less those of Confucius!
且旧本之传数千载矣，今读其文词，即明白而可通，论其工夫，又易简而可人：亦何所按据而断其此段之必在于彼，彼段之必在于此，与此之如何而缺，彼之如何而补？
Moreover, the old text has been handed down for several thousand years.As we read its words, we find them to be clear and consistent, and as we view its method of moral cultivation, we find it to be easy, simple, and workable.On what evidence did Chu Hsi decide that this paragraph must be here and that one there, and that this was lost and that must be mended, and forthwith correct it and mend it ?
而遂改正补缉之，无乃重于背朱而轻于叛孔已乎？
Are you not taking my opposition to Chu Hsi too seriously but taking his rebellion against Confucius too lightly?
〔3〕来教谓“如必以学不资于外求，但当反观、内省以为务，则‘正心诚意’四字亦何不尽之有，何必于入门之际，便困以‘格物一段工夫也？”
(3) Your letter says: ‘'If it really is necessary in the interest of learning not to trust to external investigation but to depend upon careful internal investigation, why are rectifying the mind and making the purpose sincere not exhaustive ?
Why