Library

Diseases have a "root" (Ben, the fundamental cause) and a "branch" (Biao, the manifest symptoms). The root is the source of the disease, while the branch represents its variations. There is only one root to a disease, which is hidden and difficult to discern; however, there are many manifestations of the disease, which are obvious and easy to see.

Therefore, many contemporary practitioners do not understand the relationship between the root and the branch, relying solely on immediate symptoms for treatment, which constitutes a major flaw in the medical art. Furthermore, I have recently heard some physicians frequently recite the maxim: "In acute cases, treat the branch; in chronic or mild cases, treat the root." They pass this saying among themselves, regard it as an immutable principle, and believe they have grasped the essence of treatment. Upon hearing this view and examining it closely, I find that while the statement has imprecise aspects, it also has merit. The imprecision lies in treating "treating the branch" and "treating the root" as mutually exclusive opposites, suggesting one must choose either one or combine them arbitrarily. If this were true, what would be the meaning of the statement in the *Neijing* (Classic of Internal Medicine): "In treating diseases, one must seek the root"? Moreover, the *Neijing* states: "The principles of Yin and Yang, their deviation and compliance, and the concepts of Root and Branch appear small yet have vast implications, and seem shallow yet are profound; from these, one can understand the harms of hundreds of diseases. By understanding the shallow, one comprehends the deep; by observing the near, one knows the far. Discussing the Branch and the Root involves simple principles that must not be neglected." It further says: "If a disease occurs first and then leads to Qi reversal, treat the root. If Qi reversal occurs first and then leads to disease, treat the root. If cold sensation occurs first and then disease arises, treat the root. If disease arises first and then cold sensation appears, treat the root. If heat occurs first and then disease arises, treat the root. If disease arises first and then heat appears, treat the root. If disease arises first and then diarrhea ensues, treat the root. If diarrhea occurs first and then other diseases arise, treat the root. If heat occurs first and then epigastric fullness develops, treat the branch. If disease arises first and then epigastric fullness develops, treat the branch. If epigastric fullness occurs first and then irritability arises, treat the root. In cases of difficulty in urination and defecation, treat the branch; if urination and defecation are unobstructed, treat the root. If difficulty in urination and defecation occurs first and then disease arises, treat the root." From this, we can see that all diseases should be treated by addressing the root, with the exception of epigastric fullness and difficulty in urination/defecation, which require treating the branch. This is because epigastric fullness obstructs the Upper Jiao (Upper Burner), and difficulty in urination/defecation obstructs the Lower Jiao (Lower Burner); thus, it is necessary to treat the branch to clear the pathways, facilitating the ascending and descending of Qi. Therefore, although it is called treating the branch, it is essentially serving to treat the root. Apart from these instances, if Root and Branch are viewed as strict opposites, then treating the branch and treating the root should be balanced equally. Hence, I consider the statement imprecise for this reason. However, I acknowledge its merit lies in the distinction between "acute" (Ji) and "chronic/mild" (Huan), which indeed requires careful differentiation. Even in the cases of epigastric fullness and difficulty in urination/defecation, there are distinctions of acuteness and chronicity. Acute conditions cannot be managed as chronic, and chronic conditions cannot be managed as acute. Within this, there is also a distinction of Root and Branch; one must not mistakenly generalize these matters. Currently, I observe that people not only fail to understand Root and Branch but also fail to distinguish between Acute and Chronic. Not understanding Root and Branch means seeing only the form/symptoms without perceiving the nature/essence. Not distinguishing Acute and Chronic means focusing urgency on the disease itself while ignoring the greater urgency of preserving life. Consequently, people often mistake the branch for the root and the chronic for the acute, leading to confusion and disorder, completely losing the grand principles of these four concepts. For gentlemen who value life, such matters must be examined with utmost caution.