余屈首受医,日惟有事于《素》、《难》、《病源》、《病机》、《甲乙》等书,俯而诵,仰而思,希心融贯
前哲秘旨而未逮也。若彼《局方》《袖珍》《惠济》等集,间用之参考,而不敢执泥。至临症,务虚心察
受病之因,始敢投剂,亦未尝执方以合病。以故执方之夫,往往见而骇之议之,谓如上方书之传,简易捷
径,大有便于后学,《素》、《难》诸书,固云精妙,乃涣漫艰深,力难究竟,胡子好难恶易,性与人殊?且
子诊病用药,类与方书悬异,有病同而剂异,有终始用一法而不殊,有三五变其方而不执,辄亦投剂获效
,此遵何道哉?或方书不足凭,而他有秘授欤,奚与诸医殊致也。余曰∶嘻!医何容易
谈哉。人之死生,关于呼吸间,余何敢师心自用,而HT 为也,古称用药如用兵,然齐步伐,肃部伍,
坐作进退,刺杀攻击,一定而不乱者,法也,胡可废也。乃若知己知彼,置伏设奇,临变不测,其
运用妙于一心。药之君臣佐使,味之甘苦寒凉,方之丸散汤引,着于载籍者,法也。察病之寒热虚实,
感之脏腑表里,所以君臣佐使,甘苦寒凉,补泻而丸散汤引者,不废方,亦可不执方也。故按图用兵
而不达变者,以卒与敌,执方治病而不察因者,未有能生人者也。虽然,不执方而又合法,亦匪易臻
也,脱非生平融通《素》、《难》、《本草》,仲景、洁古、守真、东垣、丹溪诸书,不可以语此秘密,医
何容易谈也!子徒以方书为快捷方式,盖亦未求之上古乎,上古之世无方,《扁鹊传》载长桑君以禁方
相授受,亦不载曰何方。春秋时秦缓医和,汉淳于公辈,以医名天下,亦未尝有方传也。至张仲景乃
始有方,是知东汉以前,医皆妙悟心法,察病投剂,未尝徇方也。彼岂私其方不欲授之人哉,诚惧后之
人拘执不变,必致误人尔。然立法处方,不过酌病机之详确,审经络之虚实,察药性之宜悖,明气味之
走守,合色脉,衍天和,调燮阴阳,参相造化,以一理贯之。理融则识真,识真则机顺,自然应变不胶
。方自吾心出,病可去而功可成,以成功而名方,谁曰不可。余何能,余仅守方而不执焉己,子宁以余
言为迂乎。
When I first bowed my head to study medicine, I devoted myself daily to the *Suwen* (Plain Questions), *Nanjing* (Classic of Difficult Issues), *Bingyuan* (Treatise on the Pathogenesis of Various Diseases), *Bingji* (Pathogenesis Principles), and *Jiayi* (The Systematic Classic of Acupuncture and Moxibustion). I recited with my head down and pondered with my head up, hoping to internally integrate the secret doctrines of the ancient sages, though I felt I had not yet fully attained this. As for collections such as the *Ju Fang* (Formulas of the Bureau of People's Welfare), *Xiuzhen* (Pocket Formulas), and *Hui Ji* (Beneficent Aid Formulas), I occasionally used them for reference but dared not adhere rigidly to them. When treating patients, I always humbly investigated the cause of the disease before prescribing, never mechanically applying formulas to fit diseases. Consequently, those who rigidly adhered to fixed formulas often reacted with shock and criticism upon seeing my methods, saying, "The formula books you mention are simple, quick, and highly beneficial for later learners. Although the *Suwen* and *Nanjing* are undoubtedly exquisite, they are diffuse, complex, and difficult to thoroughly master. Mr. Hu, do you prefer difficulty over ease? Your nature differs from others. Moreover, your diagnosis and prescription often differ significantly from standard formula books. There are cases where the disease is the same but the formula differs; there are cases where the same method is used from start to finish without change; there are cases where the formula is altered three or five times without rigidity, yet efficacy is still achieved. What Way do you follow? Are the formula books unreliable, and do you have other secret transmissions? Why do you differ so much from other physicians?"
I replied, "Alas! How difficult it is to discuss medicine. Human life and death hang in the balance of a breath. How dare I act subjectively and arbitrarily? The ancients said that using herbs is like using troops. However, marching in step, maintaining strict discipline, sitting, standing, advancing, retreating, stabbing, and attacking according to set rules without chaos—this is 'Fa' (Method/Law). How can this be discarded? Yet, knowing oneself and the enemy, setting ambushes, employing stratagems, and adapting to unpredictable changes—the subtlety of application lies in the mind. The roles of Sovereign, Minister, Assistant, and Envoy in herbal combinations, the flavors of sweet, bitter, cold, and cool, and the forms of pills, powders, decoctions, and teas recorded in texts constitute 'Fa'. Observing the cold, heat, deficiency, and excess of diseases, and the location of pathogens in the Zang-Fu organs and exterior/interior levels—determining the Sovereign-Minister-Assistant-Envoy roles, flavor properties, tonification/sedation, and pill/powder/decoction forms—does not discard formulas but also does not rigidly adhere to them. Therefore, one who uses troops according to a map without understanding adaptation will fight enemies with mere soldiers; one who treats diseases by rigidly adhering to formulas without investigating causes has never been able to save lives. Nevertheless, not adhering rigidly while still abiding by 'Fa' is not easily achieved. Unless one has thoroughly integrated the *Suwen*, *Nanjing*, *Bencao* (Materia Medica), and the works of Zhang Zhongjing, Jiegu (Zhang Yuansu), Shouzhen (Liu Wansu), Dongyuan (Li Gao), and Danxi (Zhu Zhenheng) throughout one's life, one cannot discuss these secrets. How easy is medicine to talk about! You merely view formula books as a shortcut, likely because you have not sought knowledge from antiquity. In ancient times, there were no fixed formulas. The *Biography of Bian Que* records Chang Sang Jun transmitting secret prescriptions to Bian Que, but does not specify which exact formula. Qin Huan (Bian Que) and Yi He in the Spring and Autumn period, and Chunyu Yi in the Han dynasty, were famous for their medical skills, yet left no fixed formulas behind. It was not until Zhang Zhongjing that formulas began to be transmitted. Thus, we know that before the Eastern Han Dynasty, physicians relied on intuitive insight and mental methods, observing diseases and prescribing accordingly, without following fixed formulas. Did they privately hoard formulas unwilling to teach others? No, they truly feared that later generations would become rigid and unchanging, inevitably leading to harm. However, establishing laws and formulating prescriptions merely involves carefully weighing the pathogenesis, examining the deficiency and excess of meridians, assessing the suitability or contradiction of drug properties, clarifying the directional movement of Qi and flavors, combining complexion and pulse, extending natural harmony, regulating Yin and Yang, and participating in the workings of creation, all unified by a single principle. When principles are integrated, true understanding arises; when true understanding arises, opportunities flow naturally, allowing for flexible adaptation without stagnation. The formula emerges from my heart; the disease can be cured, and merit achieved. If merit is achieved, why not name the formula? What ability do I possess? I merely uphold the principles of formulas without rigid adherence. Do you consider my words pedantic?"