病之分经络脏腑,夫人知之。于是天下遂有因经络脏腑之说,而拘泥附会,又或误认穿
凿,
并有借此神其说以欺人者。盖治病之法多端,有必求经络脏腑者,有不必求经络脏腑者。盖
人之气血,无所不通,而药性之寒热温凉,有毒无毒,其性亦一定不移,入于人身,其功能
亦无所不到。岂有其药止入某经之理?即如参 之类,无所不补。砒鸩之类,无所不毒,并
不专于一处也。所以古人有现成通治之方,如紫金锭、至宝丹之类,所治之病甚多,皆有奇
效。盖通气者,无气不通;解毒者,无毒不解;消痰者,无痰不消。其中不过略有专宜耳。
至张洁古辈,则每药注定云独入某经,皆属附会之谈,不足征也。曰∶然则用药竟不必分经
络脏腑耶?曰∶此不然也。盖人之病,各有所现之处;而药之治病必有专长之功。如此胡治
寒热往来,能愈少阳之病;桂枝治畏寒发热,能愈太阳之病;葛根治肢体大热,能愈阳明之
病。盖其止寒热,已畏寒,除大热,此乃柴胡、桂枝、葛根专长之事。因其能治何经之病,
后人即指为何经之药。孰知其功能,实不仅入少阳、太阳、阳明也。显然者尚如此,余则更
无影响矣。故以某药为能治某经之平凡则可,以某药为独治某经则不可。谓某经之病,当用
某药则可;谓某药不复入他经则不可。故不知经络而用药,其失也泛,必无捷效。执经络而
用药,其失也泥,反能致害。总之变化不一,神而明之,存乎其人也。
The differentiation of diseases into meridians and zang-fu organs is well known to everyone. Consequently, the world has fallen into rigid adherence and forced interpretations based on the theory of meridians and zang-fu organs, or even erroneous and far-fetched understandings, with some even mystifying these theories to deceive others. In fact, there are numerous methods for treating diseases; some require an investigation into meridians and zang-fu organs, while others do not. The qi and blood of the human body circulate without obstruction, and the properties of herbs—whether cold, hot, warm, or cool, toxic or non-toxic—are fixed and unchanging. Once entering the human body, their functions can reach anywhere. How could it be that a specific herb only enters a particular meridian? For instance, Ginseng Radix et Rhizoma (Renshen) tonifies everywhere. Arsenic (Pishuang) and poisoned fowl (Zhen) are toxic everywhere; they do not act exclusively in one location. Therefore, ancient physicians had ready-made universal formulas, such as Zijin Ding (Purple Gold锭) and Zhibao Dan (Precious Treasure Pill), which treat many diseases and yield miraculous effects. Those that promote the circulation of Qi have no stagnation they cannot resolve; those that detoxify have no poison they cannot eliminate; those that resolve Phlegm have no turbidity they cannot dissipate. Within these, there may be slight specific preferences. However, Zhang Jiegu and his contemporaries claimed that each herb uniquely enters a specific meridian; this is all forced interpretation and lacks evidentiary value. One might ask: Then, should medication not differentiate between meridians and zang-fu organs at all? I say: This is incorrect. Diseases manifest in specific locations in the body, and herbs possess specialized therapeutic efficacies. For example, Bupleuri Radix (Chaihu) treats alternating chills and fever and can cure Shaoyang disease; Cinnamon Twig (Guizhi) treats aversion to cold and fever and can cure Taiyang disease; Puerariae Radix (Gegen) treats intense limb heat and can cure Yangming disease. Their ability to resolve chills and fever, alleviate aversion to cold, and clear intense heat is their specialized function. Because they can treat diseases of certain meridians, later generations labeled them as herbs for those meridians. Who knows that their functions actually extend beyond just entering the Shaoyang, Taiyang, or Yangming meridians? Even in obvious cases like this, other instances are even less substantiated. Thus, it is acceptable to say that a certain herb can treat diseases of a certain meridian in a general sense, but unacceptable to say it exclusively treats that meridian. It is acceptable to state that for a disease of a certain meridian, a certain herb should be used; but it is unacceptable to claim that a herb never enters other meridians. Therefore, using herbs without understanding meridians leads to vagueness and inevitably fails to produce rapid effects. Rigidly adhering to meridians when using herbs leads to inflexibility and can cause harm. In summary, variations are endless; divine comprehension depends on the practitioner.