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」。非敢然也。学岂有内外乎？《大学》古本乃孔门相传旧本耳。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。失在于过信孔子则有之，非故去朱子之分章而削其传也。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？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？且旧本之传数千载矣，今读其文词，既明白而可通；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？而遂改正补缉之，无乃重于背朱而轻于叛孔已乎？
来信说我「恢复《大学》古本，是认为人为学只当求之于内，而程朱『格物』之说不免求之于外，于是去掉朱子的分章，削去他补的传」。不敢当。学哪有内外？《大学》古本只是孔门相传的旧本。朱子疑它有脱误而加以改正补缉；在我看来，它本来没有脱误，只是完全依从旧文而已。要说过失在于过于信从孔子，那是有的；并不是故意去掉朱子的分章、削他的传。学贵在心中求得。求之于心而非，即使这话出自孔子，也不敢认为是；何况还不如孔子的？求之于心而是，即使这话出自平常人，也不敢认为非；何况出自孔子的？况且旧本流传数千年了，如今读它的文词，既明白可通；论它的功夫，又简易可行。又有什么依据断定这段必定在那边、那段必定在这边，这里如何缺了、那里如何该补？于是去改正补缉，岂不是重于背朱而轻于叛孔了吗？
Your letter says I restored the old text of the Great Learning because I hold learning must be sought within, while the Cheng-Zhu doctrine of investigating things seeks without; and so I discarded Zhu's re-chaptering and cut his supplemented commentary. I presume no such thing. Has learning an inner and an outer? The old text is simply the text handed down in the school of Confucius. Zhu, suspecting omissions and errors, corrected and patched it; to me it had none — I merely follow it wholly as it stands. If my fault is over-trusting Confucius, so be it; it was not a willful removal of Zhu's chapters and commentary. Learning is prized for what the heart attains. What the heart finds wrong, though the words be Confucius's own, I dare not call right — still less words beneath Confucius. What the heart finds right, though from the commonplace, I dare not call wrong — still less from Confucius. And the old text has come down several thousand years: its language reads clear and coherent, its program of work simple and practicable. On what warrant decide this passage must stand there, that one here, this lacking thus, that to be patched so — and so correct and re-stitch? Would that not weigh betraying Zhu heavily and betraying Confucius lightly?