凡执事所以致疑于「格物」之说者：必谓其是内而非外也；必谓其专事于反观、内省之为，而遗弃其讲习、讨论之功也；必谓其一意于纲领、本原之约，而脱略于支条、节目之详也；必谓其沉溺于枯、槁、虚、寂之偏，而不尽于物理、人事之变也。审如是，岂但获罪于圣门、获罪于朱子，是邪说诬民，叛道乱正，人得而诛之也，而况于执事之正直哉？审如是，世之稍明训诂，闻先哲之绪论者，皆知其非也，而况执事之高明哉？凡某之所谓「格物」，其于朱子九条之说，皆包罗统括于其中；但为之有要，作用不同，正所谓毫厘之差耳。然毫厘之差，而千里之缪，实起于此，不可不辨。
您之所以对「格物」之说致疑，一定是以为它是内而非外；一定以为它专务反观内省而遗弃讲习讨论之功；一定以为它一味于纲领本原之简约，而疏略于支条节目之详；一定以为它沉溺于枯槁虚寂之偏，而不尽物理人事之变。果真如此，岂止获罪于圣门、获罪于朱子，那是邪说诬民、叛道乱正，人人得而诛之，何况您这样正直的人？果真如此，世上稍明训诂、闻先哲绪论的人，都知道它错，何况您这样高明的人？我所谓的「格物」，对朱子九条之说都包罗统括于其中；只是做事有要领、作用不同，正是所谓毫厘之差。然而毫厘之差而千里之谬，正起于此，不可不辨。
Your doubts about the doctrine of investigating things must be these: that it affirms the inner and condemns the outer; that it gives itself wholly to introspection and abandons lecture and discussion; that it cleaves to the bare outline and root and slights the branches and details; that it wallows in arid vacancy and stillness and fails the variety of principles and affairs. Were it so, I should offend not the school and Zhu Xi alone — it were doctrine beguiling the people, rebellion against the Way: any man might execute me, and you, upright as you are, before all. Were it so, anyone with a gloss or two and an ear to the philosophers' lees would know it false — and you, of all men, brilliant. My investigating things embraces and compasses the whole of Zhu's nine propositions; only the handling has its key and differs in working — the hairspread, as I said. But the hairspread is where the thousand miles begin: it cannot go undiscriminated.