Fri, Dec 4, 2026

侃去花間草，因曰：「天地間何善難培、惡難去？」 先生曰：「未培未去耳。」 少間，曰：「此等看善惡，皆從軀殼起念，便會錯。」 侃未達。 曰：「天地生意，花草一般，何曾有善惡之分？子欲觀花，則以花為善，以草為惡；如欲用草時，復以草為善矣。此等善惡，皆由汝心好惡所生，故知是錯。」 曰：「然則無善無惡乎？」 曰：「無善無惡者，理之靜；有善有惡者，氣之動。不動於氣，即無善無惡，是謂至善。」 曰：「佛氏亦無善無惡，何以異？」 曰：「佛氏著在無善無惡上，便一切都不管，不可以治天下。聖人無善無惡，只是『無有作好』、『無有作惡』，不動於氣。然『遵王之道』，『會其有極』，便自『一循天理』，便有個『裁成輔相』。」 曰：「草既非惡，即草不宜去矣。」 曰：「如此卻是佛、老意見。草若是礙，何妨汝去？」 曰：「如此又是作好、作惡。」 曰：「不作好惡，非是全無好惡，卻是無知覺的人。謂之不作者，只是好惡一循於理，不去又著一分意思。如此，即是不曾好惡一般。」 曰：「去草如何是一循於埋，不著意思？」 曰：「草有妨礙，理亦宜去，去之而已。偶未即去，亦不累心。若著了一分意思，即心體便有貽累，便有許多動氣處。」 曰：「然則善惡全不在物？」 曰：「只在汝心，循理便是善，動氣便是惡。」 曰：「畢竟物無善惡。」 曰：「在心如此，在物亦然。世儒惟不知此，舍心逐物，將『格物』之學錯看了，終日馳求於外，只做得個『義襲而取』，終身行不著、習不察。」 曰：「『如好好色，如惡惡臭』，則如何？」 曰：「此正是一循於理，是天理合如此，本無私意作好作惡。」 曰：「『如好好色，如惡惡臭』，安得非意？」 曰：「卻是誠意，不是私意。誠意只是循天理。雖是循天理，亦著不得一分意。故有所忿懥、好樂，則不得其正，須是廓然大公，方是心之本體。知此，即知『未發之中』。」 伯生曰：「先生云：『草有妨礙，理亦宜去。』緣何又是軀殼起念？」 曰：「此須汝心自體當。汝要去草，是甚麼心？周茂叔窗前草不除，是甚麼心？」

Source： https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E5%82%B3%E7%BF%92%E9%8C%84/%E5%8D%B7%E4%B8%8A
卷上·第101条

This is a direct reading: the original and source are kept; commentary will be added later.

然後知生於憂患，而死於安樂也。

Source： https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/孟子/告子下
告子下·十五

Those other parts of the produce of land, however, which afterwards afford rent, do not afford it always. Even in improved and cultivated countries, the demand for them is not always such as to afford a greater price than what is sufficient to pay the labour, and replace, together with its ordinary profits, the stock which must be employed in bringing them to market. Whether it is or is not such, depends upon different circumstances.

Source： https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3300
Book I, Chapter XI, paragraph 440

This is a direct reading: the original and source are kept; commentary will be added later.

敵近而靜者，恃其險也；遠而挑戰者，欲人之進也；其所居易者，利也；衆樹動者，來也；衆草多障者，疑也；鳥起者，伏也；獸駭者，覆也；塵高而銳者，車來也；卑而廣者，徒來也；散而條達者，樵采也；少而往來者，營軍也；辭卑而益備者，進也；辭強而進驅者，退也；輕車先出，居其側者，陣也；無約而請和者，謀也；奔走而陳兵者，期也；半進半退者，誘也；杖而立者，饑也；汲而先飲者，渴也；見利而不進者，勞也；鳥集者，虛也；夜呼者，恐也；軍擾者，將不重也；旌旗動者，亂也；吏怒者，倦也；粟馬肉食，軍無懸缻，而不返其舍者，窮寇也；諄諄翕翕，徐與人言者，失衆也；數賞者，窘也；數罰者，困也；先暴而後畏其衆者，不精之至也；來委謝者，欲休息也。兵怒而相迎，久而不合，又不相去，必謹察之。

Source： https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E5%AD%AB%E5%AD%90%E5%85%B5%E6%B3%95
行軍第九·第4则

This is a direct reading: the original and source are kept; commentary will be added later.

He found eventually that it was a French steel and that there was vanadium in it. We tried every steel maker in America--not one could make vanadium steel. I sent to England for a man who understood how to make the steel commercially. The next thing was to get a plant to turn it out. That was another problem. Vanadium requires 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The ordinary furnace could not go beyond 2,700 degrees. I found a small steel company in Canton, Ohio. I offered to guarantee them against loss if they would run a heat for us. They agreed. The first heat was a failure. Very little vanadium remained in the steel. I had them try again, and the second time the steel came through. Until then we had been forced to be satisfied with steel running between 60,000 and 70,000 pounds tensile strength. With vanadium, the strength went up to 170,000 pounds.

Source： https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7213
Chapter IV, excerpt 43

This is a direct reading: the original and source are kept; commentary will be added later.