侃去花间草，因曰：「天地间何善难培、恶难去？」
先生曰：「未培未去耳。」
少间，曰：「此等看善恶，皆从躯壳起念，便会错。」
侃未达。
曰：「天地生意，花草一般，何曾有善恶之分？子欲观花，则以花为善，以草为恶；如欲用草时，复以草为善矣。此等善恶，皆由汝心好恶所生，故知是错。」
曰：「然则无善无恶乎？」
曰：「无善无恶者，理之静；有善有恶者，气之动。不动于气，即无善无恶，是谓至善。」
曰：「佛氏亦无善无恶，何以异？」
曰：「佛氏著在无善无恶上，便一切都不管，不可以治天下。圣人无善无恶，只是『无有作好』、『无有作恶』，不动于气。然『遵王之道』，『会其有极』，便自『一循天理』，便有个『裁成辅相』。」
曰：「草既非恶，即草不宜去矣。」
曰：「如此却是佛、老[1]意见。草若是碍，何妨汝去？」
曰：「如此又是作好、作恶。」
曰：「不作好恶，非是全无好恶，却是无知觉的人。谓之不作者，只是好恶一循于理，不去又著一分意思。如此，即是不曾好恶一般。」
曰：「去草如何是一循于埋，不著意思？」
曰：「草有妨碍，理亦宜去，去之而已。偶未即去，亦不累心。若著了一分意思，即心体便有贻累，便有许多动气处。」
曰：「然则善恶全不在物？」
曰：「只在汝心，循理便是善，动气便是恶。」
曰：「毕竟物无善恶。」
曰：「在心如此，在物亦然[2]。世儒惟不知此，舍心逐物，将『格物』之学错看了，终日驰求于外，只做得个『义袭而取』，终身行不著、习不察。」
曰：「『如好好色，如恶恶臭』，则如何？」
曰：「此正是一循于理，是天理合如此，本无私意作好作恶。」
曰：「『如好好色，如恶恶臭』，安得非意？」
曰：「却是诚意，不是私意。诚意只是循天理。虽是循天理，亦著不得一分意。故有所忿懥、好乐，则不得其正，须是廓然大公，方是心之本体。知此，即知『未发之中』。」
伯生曰：「先生云：『草有妨碍，理亦宜去。』缘何又是躯壳起念？」
曰：「此须汝心自体当。汝要去草，是甚么心？周茂叔窗前草不除，是甚么心[3]？」
薛侃在锄花间的草，顺便问：「天地间为什么善难培、恶难去？」
先生说：「只是没培没去罢了。」
过了一会儿，又说：「这样看善恶，都是从躯壳上起念，便会错。」
薛侃不明白。
先生说：「天地的生机，对花草一律平等，何曾有善恶之分？你要赏花，便以花为善、以草为恶；若要用草时，又以草为善了。这样的善恶，都是由你心中的好恶所生，所以知道是错。」
问：「那么就无善无恶了？」
答：「无善无恶，是理的静态；有善有恶，是气的动态。不被气动，就无善无恶，这才叫至善。」
问：「佛家也讲无善无恶，有什么不同？」
答：「佛家执着在无善无恶上，便一切都不管了，不能治理天下。圣人无善无恶，只是『不有意为好』、『不有意为恶』，不被气牵动。然而『遵循先王之道』、『会归于中正』，便自然『一循天理』，便有『裁成辅相』的功夫。」
问：「草既然不是恶，那草就不该锄了。」
答：「这样便是佛老的意见。草若是有妨碍，锄掉它又有何妨？」
问：「这样又是有意为好恶了。」
答：「不有意为好恶，并不是全无好恶，那是没有知觉的人。所谓『不作』，只是好恶完全遵循于理，不再额外添一分意思。这样，就好像不曾好恶过一般。」
问：「锄草怎样才是循理而不添加意思？」
答：「草有妨碍，按理就该去掉，去掉就是了。一时没去掉，也不挂碍于心。若添了一分意思，心体便有了拖累，便有许多动气的地方。」
问：「那么善恶完全不在事物上？」
答：「只在你心上：循理便是善，动气便是恶。」
问：「毕竟事物本身无善恶。」
答：「在心如此，在物也是这样。世俗儒者正因不知此，舍心逐物，把『格物』之学看错了，终日向外驰求，只做得个『义袭而取』，终身行而不明、习而不察。」
问：「那么『如好好色，如恶恶臭』又当如何？」
答：「这正是完全循理，是天理本该如此，本来没有私意去好去恶。」
问：「『如好好色，如恶恶臭』，怎能不是意念？」
答：「那是诚意，不是私意。诚意只是循天理。虽是循天理，也添不得一分意。所以有所愤怒、有所喜好，便不得其正；必须是廓然大公，才是心的本体。知道这个，就知道『未发之中』。」
伯生说：「先生说『草有妨碍，按理就该去掉』，为什么又说是从躯壳起念？」
答：「这须你自己的心去体察。你要锄草，是什么心？周茂叔窗前的草不除，又是什么心？」
Xue Kan, weeding among the flowers, asked: 'Why under heaven is good so hard to nurture and evil so hard to weed out?'
The Master said: 'It is only that they are not nurtured and not weeded.' Then after a moment: 'To see good and evil thus is to start from the body's perspective, and there one goes wrong.'
Kan did not follow.
'The creative life of heaven and earth makes no distinction between flower and grass — when was there good and evil? Wishing to view flowers, you call the flower good and the grass evil; wanting grass, you call the grass good. Such good and evil spring from your mind's likes and dislikes — hence the error.'
'Then there is no good and no evil?'
'No good and no evil is principle at rest; good and evil are the stirrings of vital energy. Unmoved by energy, there is no good and no evil — this is called the highest good.'
'The Buddhists also say no good no evil — how do they differ?'
'The Buddhists fix upon no-good-no-evil and let everything go — they cannot govern the world. The sage's no good and no evil is only not deliberately approving, not deliberately disapproving, unmoved by energy; yet following the king's way and converging on due measure, he moves wholly by heavenly principle, with the work of regulating and assisting. As for grass: if it obstructs, what harm in removing it?'
'But that again is deliberate liking and disliking.'
'Not to do it deliberately is not to lack liking and disliking — that would be a thing without feeling. Not doing means only that liking and disliking wholly follow principle, with not one extra scrap of intention added — as if there had been no liking or disliking at all.'
'How is weeding grass following principle without added intention?'
'If the grass obstructs, by principle it should go: remove it and be done. If for the moment it is not removed, let it not burden the mind. Add one scrap of intention, and the mind-substance is encumbered and stirred.'
'Then good and evil are not in things at all?'
'Only in your mind: following principle is good, being stirred by energy is evil.'
'After all, things have no good and evil.'
'In the mind it is so; in things likewise. Common scholars, not knowing this, quit the mind and chase things, mistaking the study of investigating things, galloping outward all day, achieving only a righteousness snatched by surprise — lifelong acting without understanding, practicing without awareness.'
'Then what of loving a good sight as one loves beauty, hating a stench?'
'That is wholly following principle: heavenly principle is so of itself, with no private intention to like or dislike.'
'How can that not be intention?'
'It is sincere intention, not private intention. Sincere intention only follows heavenly principle — and even then not one scrap of intent may be added. Hence with anger or fondness clinging, the mind is not rectified; only vast impartiality is the mind's substance. Know this and you know the equilibrium before arousal.'
Bosheng said: 'You said: if the grass obstructs, by principle remove it — why did you call that starting from the body?'
'That you must examine in your own mind. When you weed the grass, what mind is it? And Zhou Maoshu leaving the grass before his window uncut — what mind was that?'
- 王本，「老」作「氏」。
- 王本，「亦然」之后，有「本无内外，本无彼此」八字。
- 王守仁此处言「物无善恶」，又言「无善无恶，是谓至善」。