来书云：「此心未发之体，其在已发之前乎？其在已发之中而为之主乎？其无前后、内外而浑然之体者乎？今谓心之动、静者，其主有事、无事而言乎？其主寂然、感通而言乎？其主循理、从欲而言乎？若以循理为静，从欲为动，则于所谓『动中有静，静中有动，动极而静，静极而动』者，不可通矣。若以有事而感通为动，无事而寂然为静，则于所谓『动而无动，静而无静』者，不可通矣。若谓未发在已发之先，静而生动，是至诚有息也，圣人有复也，又不可矣。若谓未发在已发之中，则不知未发、已发俱当主静乎？抑未发为静而已发为动乎？抑未发、已发俱无动无静乎？俱有动有静乎？幸教。」
未发之中，即良知也，无前后内外，而浑然一体者也。有事、无事可以言动、静，而良知无分于有事、无事也；寂然、感通可以言动、静，而良知无分于寂然、感通也。动、静者，所遇之时；心之本体，固无分于动、静也。理无动者也，动即为欲。循理则虽酬酢万变而未尝动也，从欲则虽槁心一念而未尝静也。「动中有静，静中有动」，又何疑乎？有事而感通，固可以言动，然而寂然者未尝有增也；无事而寂然，固可以言静，然而感通者未尝有减也。「动而无动，静而无静」，又何疑乎？无前后内外而浑然一体，则至诚有息之疑，不待解矣。未发在已发之中，而已发之中未尝别有未发者在，已发在未发之中，而未发之中未尝别有已发者存。是未尝无动、静，而不可以动、静分者也。
凡观古人言语，在以意逆志而得其大旨，若必拘滞于文义，则「靡有孑遗」者，是周果无遗民也。周子「静极而动」之说，苟不善观，亦未免有病。盖其意从「太极动而生阳，静而生阴」说来。太极生生之理，妙用无息，而常体不易。太极之生生，即阴阳之生生。就其生生之中，指其妙用无息者而谓之动，谓之阳之生，非谓动而徒生阳也，就其生生之中，指其常体不易者而谓之静，谓之阴之生，非谓静而后生阴也。若果静而后生阴，动而后生阳，则是阴阳、动静，截然各自为一物矣。阴阳一气也，一气屈伸而为阴阳；动静一理也，一理隐显而为动、静。春夏可以为阳、为动，而未尝无阴与静也；秋冬可以为阴、为静，而未尝无阳与动也。春夏此不息，秋冬此不息，皆可谓之阳，谓之动也；春夏此常体，秋冬此常体，皆可谓之阴，谓之静也。自元、会、运、世、岁、月、日、时，以至刻、杪、忽、微，莫不皆然。所谓动静无端，阴阳无始，在知道者默而识之，非可以言语穷也。若只牵文泥句，比拟仿像，则所谓心从《法华》转，非是转《法华》矣。
来信说：「此心未发之体，是在已发之前呢？还是在已发之中作主宰呢？还是无前后内外、浑然一体呢？如今说心的动静，是就有事无事说的呢？是就寂然感通说的呢？还是就循理从欲说的呢？若以循理为静、从欲为动，那么对所谓『动中有静，静中有动，动极而静，静极而动』，就讲不通了。若以有事感通为动、无事寂然为静，那么对所谓『动而无动，静而无静』，就讲不通了。若说未发在已发之先，静而生动，那至诚就有息的时候、圣人也有复的时候，又不对了。若说未发在已发之中，那么不知未发已发都主静呢，还是未发为静而已发为动呢，还是都无动无静、都有动有静呢？请赐教。」
未发之中就是良知，无前后内外，浑然一体。有事无事可以说动静，而良知不分有事无事；寂然感通可以说动静，而良知不分寂然感通。动静是所遭遇的时机，心的本体本不分动静。理是不动的，动就是欲。循理则虽酬酢万变而未尝动；从欲则虽槁心一念而未尝静。「动中有静，静中有动」，又有什么可疑？有事感通固然可以说是动，然而寂然者未尝有所增；无事寂然固然可以说是静，然而感通者未尝有所减。「动而无动，静而无静」，又有什么可疑？无前后内外而浑然一体，那么至诚有息的疑问，就不待解了。未发在已发之中，而已发之中未尝另有个未发在；已发在未发之中，而未发之中未尝另有个已发存。这是未尝无动静，而不可以动静来分的。
凡看古人的言语，在于以意逆志而得其大旨；若必拘泥于文义，那么「靡有孑遗」就是周朝果真没有遗民了。周子「静极而动」之说，若不善于看，也未免有毛病。它的意思是从「太极动而生阳，静而生阴」来的。太极生生之理，妙用无息，而常体不易。太极的生生，就是阴阳的生生。就其生生之中，指出那妙用无息的叫作动、叫作阳之生，不是说动而后才生出阳；就其生生之中，指出那常体不易的叫作静、叫作阴之生，不是说静而后才生出阴。若果真是静而后生阴、动而后生阳，那阴阳动静就截然各自为一物了。阴阳本是一气，一气屈伸而为阴阳；动静本是一理，一理隐显而为动静。春夏可以为阳、为动，但未尝没有阴与静；秋冬可以为阴、为静，但未尝没有阳与动。春夏此不息，秋冬此不息，都可以叫阳、叫动；春夏此常体，秋冬此常体，都可以叫阴、叫静。从元、会、运、世、岁、月、日、时，直到刻、杪、忽、微，无不如此。所谓动静无端、阴阳无始，懂道的人默而识之，不是言语所能穷尽的。若只牵文泥句、比拟仿像，那就是所谓心被《法华》转，而不是转《法华》了。
Your letter says: 'This mind's not-yet-aroused substance — before the already-aroused? Or amid the aroused as their master? Or without before-or-after, inner-or-outer, one seamless whole? And when we say movement and stillness, is it of having-affairs or none? Of stillness-versus-penetrating-response? Of following principle or following desire? If following principle is stillness and desire movement, then movement holding stillness, stillness holding movement, movement at extremity passing into stillness and stillness into movement will not parse. If responding amid affairs is movement and quiet without affairs stillness, then moving yet not moving, still yet not still will not parse. If the not-yet-aroused precedes the aroused, stillness begetting movement, then utmost sincerity has cessation and the sage a recovering — wrong again. If the not-yet-aroused lies within the aroused, do both abide in stillness? Or is the not-yet-aroused still and the aroused moving? Or neither moving nor still, or both? Pray instruct.'
The equilibrium before arousal is innate knowledge: no before-or-after, inner-or-outer, one seamless whole. With-affairs and without can be called moving and still; innate knowledge divides not between them. Stillness and penetrating-response can be called moving and still; innate knowledge divides not between them. Movement and stillness are the times one meets; the mind's substance divides not between them. Principle does not move; to move is desire. Following principle, one engages ten thousand changes yet never moves; following desire, one sits in dead quiet with a single thought yet never is still. Movement holding stillness, stillness holding movement — where is the doubt? Response amid affairs may be called movement, yet the still is never thereby augmented; quiet without affairs may be called stillness, yet the responding is never thereby diminished. Moving yet not moving, still yet not still — where is the doubt? No before-or-after, one seamless whole: the doubt over utmost sincerity's ceasing dissolves unbidden. The not-yet-aroused is within the aroused, yet the aroused never harbor a separate not-yet-aroused; the aroused are within the not-yet-aroused, yet the not-yet-aroused never store a separate aroused. There is never lack of movement and stillness — but they cannot be cut apart by movement and stillness.
In reading the ancients, meet the intent and take the great purport; cleave to the letter and no man left would mean Zhou truly had no survivors. Zhou's stillness-at-extremity-begetting-movement, badly read, is also faulty. It comes from the Great Ultimate moving begets yang, still begets yin. The Ultimate's life-begetting principle, wondrous-working without rest, its constant substance unchanging. The Ultimate's life-begetting is yin-and-yang's life-begetting. Within that life-begetting, pointing to the wondrous unresting, call it movement, yang's birth — not that movement then births yang; pointing to the constant unchanging, call it stillness, yin's birth — not that stillness then births yin. Were yin truly born after stillness and yang after movement, yin-yang, movement-stillness would be two things cut apart. Yin and yang are one breath, one breath folding and stretching into yin and yang; movement and stillness are one principle, one principle hiding and showing as movement and stillness. Spring and summer may be yang and movement, yet never lack yin and stillness; autumn and winter yin and stillness, yet never lack yang and movement. The unresting of spring-summer and of autumn-winter may all be called yang, called movement; the constant substance of both may all be called yin, called stillness. From aeon, epoch, cycle and age down through year, month, day and hour to the mark, the moment, the flicker, the mote — all is so. Movement and stillness without beginning, yin and yang without start: who knows the Way holds it silently — words cannot exhaust it. Tug at phrases and copy likenesses, and it is the mind turned by the Lotus Sutra, not turning the Lotus.