来书云：「《大学》以『心有好乐、忿懥、忧患、恐惧』为『不得其正』，而程子亦谓『圣人情顺万事而无情』。所谓有者，《传习录》中以病疟譬之，极精切矣。若程子之言，则是圣人之情不生于心而生于物也，何谓邪？且事感而情应，则是是非非可以就格；事或未感时，谓之有则未形也，谓之无则病根在有无之间，何以致吾知乎？学务无情，累虽轻，而出儒入佛矣，可乎？」
圣人致知之功，至诚无息。其良知之体，皦如明镜，略无纤翳，妍媸之来，随物见形，而明镜曾无留染，所谓「情顺万事而无情」也。「无所所住而生其心」，佛氏曾有是言，未为非也。明镜之应物，妍者妍，媸者媸，一照而皆真，即是生其心处，妍者妍，媸者媸，一过而不留，即是无所住处。病疟之喻，既已见其精切，则此节所问可以释然。病疟之人，疟虽未发，而病根自在，则亦安可以其疟之未发而遂忘其服药调理之功乎？若必待疟发而后服药调理，则既晚矣。致知之功，无间于有事、无事，而岂论于病之已发、未发邪？大抵原静所疑，前后虽若不一，然皆起于自私自利、将迎意必之为崇，此根一去，则前后所疑，自将冰消雾释，有不待于问辨者矣。
钱德洪跋：答原静书出，读者皆喜澄善问，师善答，皆得闻所未闻。师曰：「原静所问只是知解上转，不得已与之逐节分疏。若信得良知，只在良知上用工，虽千经万典无不脗合，异端曲学一勘尽破矣。何必如此节节分解！佛家有『扑人逐块』之喻，见块扑人，则得人矣，见块逐块，于块奚得哉？」在座诸友闻之，惕然皆有惺悟。此学贵反求，非知解可入也。[1]
来信说：「《大学》把『心有好乐、忿懥、忧患、恐惧』看作『不得其正』，而程子也说『圣人情顺万事而无情』。所谓『有』，《传习录》中用病疟作比喻，已极精切。至于程子的话，那圣人之情便不是生于心而是生于物了，这是什么道理？而且事情感召而情应，是是非非可以就事格正；事情未来时，说有则未成形，说无则病根在有无之间，怎样致我的知呢？为学务求无情，牵累虽轻，却出入于儒佛之间了，可以吗？」
圣人致知的功夫，至诚无息。其良知之体皎如明镜，没有丝毫云翳，美丑之来，随物见形，而明镜不曾有滞留沾染，这就是所谓「情顺万事而无情」。「无所住而生其心」，佛家曾有这话，不算错。明镜照物，美的照出美，丑的照出丑，一照皆真，这就是「生其心」处；美的自美，丑的自丑，一过而不留，这就是「无所住」处。病疟的比喻既已见其精切，此节所问可以释然了。病疟之人，疟虽未发，而病根自在，怎能因为疟未发作，就忘了服药调理的功夫呢？若必待疟发而后服药调理，就晚了。致知的功夫，不分有事无事，哪里论病之已发未发呢？大抵原静所疑，前后虽似不同，都起于自私自利、将迎意必在作祟。这个根一去，前后所疑，自将冰消雾释，不待问辨了。
钱德洪跋：答原静书一出，读者都称道原静善问、老师善答，都听到了前所未闻的道理。老师说：「原静所问，只是在知解上打转，我不得已才逐节分疏。若信得良知，只在良知上用功，那么即使千经万典无不吻合，异端曲学一勘便破，何必这样节节分解！佛家有『扑人逐块』的比喻：见狗咬人便打狗，就得其人了；见狗追石块便追石块，对石块又能怎么样呢？」在座诸友听了，惕然都有醒悟。这门学问贵在反求，不是知解所能进入的。
Your letter says: 'The Great Learning counts fondness, anger, anxiety and fear in the heart as loss of rectitude, and Chengzi too says the sage's feelings follow the myriad affairs yet are no feelings. Of the having, your Record's malaria figure is exact and fine. But Chengzi's words make the sage's feelings born not of the mind but of things — how so? When affairs stir and feeling answers, right and wrong can be set right in the affair; but before affairs stir, to say the feelings are there — nothing yet formed; to say not there — the root hovers between being and non-being: how then extend my knowledge? To strive for feeling-lessness lightens the burden but crosses out of Confucianism into Buddhism — is that permissible?'
The sage's work of extension is utmost sincerity unceasing. His innate knowledge's substance is bright as a mirror without a film: beauty and ugliness coming take shape as they are, and the mirror keeps no stain — feelings following the myriad affairs, yet none clung to. Arousing the mind while dwelling nowhere — the Buddhists said it, and not wrongly. The mirror mirroring things: the fair fair, the foul foul, one gleam all true — there is the arousing of the mind; the fair fair, the foul foul, passing and not staying — there is the dwelling nowhere. The malaria figure having served so well, this question too may rest. The malaria sufferer between fits still carries the root: can he, because the fit is quiet, forget the medicine and regimen? To wait for the fit before dosing is too late. The work of extension knows no with-affairs or without — where would it discuss the illness broken out or not? Your doubts, Yuanjing, various as they seem, all arise from the haunting of self-serving, forestalling and presumption: root that out and the doubts melt like ice and lift like fog, with no need of question and answer.
Qian Dehong's postscript: When the reply to Yuanjing appeared, readers all praised Yuanjing's questioning and the master's answering — hearing what they had never heard. The master said: 'Yuanjing's questions only turn on intellectual construction; I perforce untangled them section by section. Trust innate knowledge, work at it alone, and the thousand classics and ten thousand canons all accord — one probe and heterodoxy and twisted learning shatter. Why such section-by-section analysis! The Buddhists have the figure of the dog that bites men: strike the dog that bites and you have the thing itself; chase the stone it chases, and what have you gained of the stone?' All friends present started into wakefulness. This learning prizes turning back to seek within; intellection cannot enter it.
- 此段系钱德洪按语。