问：「良知一而已，文王作《彖》，周公系《爻》，孔子赞《易》，何以各自看理不同？」
先生曰：「圣人何能拘得死格？大要出于良知同，便各为说何害？且如一园竹，只要同此枝节，便是大同；若拘定枝枝节节都要高下大小一样，便非造化妙手矣。汝辈只要去培养良知；良知同，更不妨有异处。汝辈若不肯用功，连笋也不曾抽得，何处去论枝节？」
问：「良知只有一个，文王作《彖辞》，周公系《爻辞》，孔子赞《易》，为什么各自所见的理不同？」
先生说：「圣人怎能让死格式拘住？大要出于良知相同，各说各的又有什么妨害？比如一园的竹子，只要同此枝节，便是大同；若拘定枝枝节节都要高下大小一样，就不是造化的妙手了。你们只要去培养良知；良知相同，更不妨有差异。你们若不肯用功，连笋都还没抽出来，到哪里去论枝节？」
Asked: 'Innate knowledge is one — why then did King Wen's Tuan, the Duke of Zhou's lines, Confucius's commentaries each see the Changes differently?'
The Master said: 'How could the sages be held by dead molds? The great point issuing from the same innate knowledge — what harm in each speaking his own? As a garden of bamboo: shared joint and node is the great sameness; insist every joint match in height and girth, and you have no hand of creation. You need only cultivate innate knowledge: it being one, differences do no harm. Refuse the work, and you have not yet sprouted a shoot — where will you debate joints and nodes?'