此节诸家注释,皆随文敷衍,惟尤在径以“酸入肝”以下十五句,谓“疑非仲景原文,后人谬添注脚,编书者误收
之也。细按语意,‘见肝之病’以下,是答“上工治未病”之辞,“补用酸”三句,乃别出肝虚正治之法,观下文“肝虚
则用此法,实则不在用之”,意可见矣。烈谓在泾所云注脚之说,可称千古只眼,惟是此节专为“治未病”而设,“补用
酸”三句,非皆肝虚之治,兼出实脾之法,盖言肝若虚者,用酸补之,若实者,用焦苦补火以助土,甘味直益其土也。
“酸入肝”三句,与上三句针对,尚可为上三句申明其义,可毋谓之谬注。“脾能伤肾”以下十二句,无论补脾以伤肾,
纵火以烁金,然后使肝无伐,获益者少,受伤者反多,已属不经,且于治法亦隔四脏,迂回极矣。更脾得补而生肺金来
克木,仅隔二脏,脾土胜而克水少于涵木,亦隔二脏,忘其近者,而以迂远之说强为穿凿,谬注显然。况凡“脏病惟虚
者受之,而实者不受;脏邪惟实者能传,而虚者不传。”故治肝虚者,直补其肝,以御外侮;治肝实者,先实脾土,以防
滋蔓,此正治也。“肝虚则用此法,实则不在用之”二句,愚见亦以为谬注,删此十四句,则下文虚虚实实等句,一气贯
穿矣。
《金匮》第十三节“清邪居上,浊邪居下,大邪中表,小邪中里”之下,魏柏乡诸本作“ 饪之邪”,徐忠可诸本作
“ 之邪”,医以“ 字读作“谷”字者居多,以致《金匮心典》竟作“谷 之邪”矣。盖因梅诞生《字汇》无此“ ”
字,而“ ”字注云∶面裹属,故误以“谷”字配之,而为难化之物也。考《康熙字典》“ ”字注云∶读与“ ”同,
即以《金匮》 饪之邪”句实之。按“饪为烹调生熟之节,则此句当作馨香可口,过食之而停滞,应读“ (音馨)饪”
为是。以“ ”读“谷”,以“饪”作“ ”,及竟作“谷 ”者,皆非也。
In this section, various commentaries merely elaborate on the text superficially. Only You Zaijing (You Yizhong) argued that the fifteen sentences starting from "Sour enters the Liver" are suspected not to be Zhang Zhongjing's original text, but rather annotations added erroneously by later generations, which were mistakenly included by the compilers. Upon careful examination of the meaning, the content following "When seeing liver disease..." is a response to the concept of "Shang Gong treats Wei Bing (The superior physician prevents the transmission of disease before it occurs)." The three sentences "Tonify with sour..." present an alternative primary treatment method for Liver Deficiency. This is evident from the subsequent statement: "If the Liver is deficient, use this method; if it is excess, do not use it." I consider You Zaijing's view that these are annotations to be a unique insight of the ages. However, since this section is specifically designed to expound on "treating Wei Bing," the three sentences "Tonify with sour..." do not solely address Liver Deficiency; they also introduce the method of strengthening the Spleen (to control Liver Wood). The general idea is: if the Liver is deficient, use sour flavors to tonify it; if the Liver is excess, use scorched-bitter flavors to tonify Fire to assist Earth (Heart Fire generates Spleen Earth), and sweet flavors directly benefit Earth. The three sentences "Sour enters the Liver..." correspond to the previous three sentences and can serve to clarify their meaning; thus, they should not be dismissed as erroneous annotations.
Regarding the twelve sentences starting from "The Spleen can injure the Kidney," whether one argues that tonifying the Spleen injures the Kidney, or that assisting Fire melts Metal thereby protecting the Liver, the benefits are few while the injuries are many; this is already absurd. Moreover, therapeutically, this approach involves four organs in sequence, which is extremely circuitous. Furthermore, if the Spleen is tonified, it generates Lung Metal, which then controls Liver Wood, involving only two intervening organs; if Spleen Earth becomes excessive and fails to nourish Liver Wood due to insufficient Kidney Water, this also involves two intervening organs. Forgetting the immediate path and forcing interpretations through distant logic clearly constitutes erroneous annotation. Additionally, it is a principle that "Zang diseases are accepted only by deficiency patterns, not by excess patterns; Zang pathogens transmit only through excess patterns, not through deficiency patterns." Therefore, when treating Liver Deficiency, one directly tonifies the Liver to resist external invasion; when treating Liver Excess, one first solidifies Spleen Earth to prevent the spread of pathology. This is the correct treatment. I also consider the two sentences "If the Liver is deficient, use this method; if it is excess, do not use it" to be erroneous annotations. Deleting these fourteen sentences would allow the subsequent discussions on deficiency-excess imbalances to flow coherently.
Below the thirteenth section of the *Jin Gui Yao Lue* ("Clear pathogens reside above, turbid pathogens reside below, major pathogens strike the exterior, minor pathogens strike the interior"), the editions by Wei Boxiang et al. read "Ren zhi xie (Pathogen of cooking/food)," while those by Xu Zhongke et al. read "[Character] zhi xie." Physicians mostly pronounced the character as "Gu (grain)," leading the *Jin Gui Xin Dian* to render it as "Gu Ren zhi xie." This error arose because Mei Dingzuo's *Zi Hui* lacked this character, and its annotation described it as related to "wheat-based foods," causing an erroneous association with "Grain" and classifying it as indigestible food. Consulting the *Kangxi Dictionary*, the annotation states that the character is pronounced like "Xin (fragrant)." Thus, using the phrase "Ren zhi xie" from the *Jin Gui* confirms this. Since "Ren" refers to the degree of cooking raw and cooked food, this sentence should be interpreted as "aromatic and palatable food, which causes stagnation if overconsumed." Therefore, reading it as "Xin Ren" (Fragrant Cooking/Food) is correct. Pronouncing the character as "Gu," interpreting "Ren" differently, or rendering it as "Gu Ren" are all incorrect.