Library

Chen Yuan Gong said: After the "Ten Categories of Medicinal Actions" (Shi Ji), Tao Hongjing added two categories: "Cold" (Han) and "Heat" (Re). Although this view has some merit, Miao Zhongchun pointed out that Cold agents cannot always be used to treat Heat syndromes, nor can Heat agents always be used to treat Cold syndromes, because there are differences between Yin deficiency in Heat syndromes and Yang deficiency in Cold syndromes. This argument is superior to Tao Hongjing's, yet it does not mention whether the "Cold" and "Heat" categories should be deleted. Later generations, believing blindly in Tao Hongjing's unauthorized addition of these two categories, have strayed onto many divergent paths. They fail to realize that diseases involving Cold and Heat are numerous; what symptom is not related to Cold or Heat? Among the "Seven Forms of Prescriptions" (Qi Fang) and the "Ten Categories," which prescription or category cannot be used to treat Cold or Heat? If one were to rely solely on the "Cold" and "Heat" categories to treat such conditions, then what is suitable for Cold would necessarily be unsuitable for Heat, and vice versa. This approach would be too rigid and lacking in comprehensiveness. Therefore, simply dividing treatments into Cold and Heat categories to manage Cold and Heat diseases cannot serve as a valid principle.

Someone asked: Tao Hongjing’s addition of the "Cold" and "Heat" categories was quite insightful. Why do you side with Miao Zhongchun in advocating their deletion? Although it is true that the "Seven Forms" and "Ten Categories" can all be applied to treat Cold and Heat syndromes, people today are ignorant and unaware of which specific form or category to use. It would be better to add the "Cold" and "Heat" categories to make disease treatment easier for the public. Alas! Your words sound appealing, but they do not reflect the true meaning of prescribing medication. The variations in Cold and Heat syndromes are manifold. Clinging to only two categories to treat all Cold and Heat conditions is not saving lives, but taking them. My reason for deleting them is not merely to side with Miao Zhongchun.

Some doubt: Although the variations of Cold and Heat are numerous, they ultimately fall under the two broad categories of Cold and Heat diseases. Why is it impossible to establish "Cold" and "Heat" categories? I reply: Within Cold, there is Heat; within Heat, there is Cold. There are cases that appear like Heat but are actually Cold, and cases that appear like Cold but are actually Heat. There are cases of Excess Cold in the upper body and Excess Heat in the lower body, and vice versa. There are cases where Cold manifests in the morning and Heat in the evening, and those where Heat appears in the morning and Cold in the evening. There are cases where the exterior is not hot but the interior is biased towards Heat, and cases where the exterior is not cold but the interior is biased towards Cold. Furthermore, there are distinctions between Deficient Heat and Deficient Cold, Excess Heat and Excess Cold, Predominant Cold and Predominant Heat, and False Cold and False Heat. Without recognizing these nuances, how can one universally treat them using only "Cold" and "Heat" categories? Therefore, I firmly believe that the "Cold" and "Heat" categories must absolutely not be added to the "Ten Categories." Thus, I refute Tao Hongjing’s error and praise Miao Zhongchun’s correctness. ([Commentary] As stated above, the "Cold" and "Heat" categories must absolutely not be added.)

Some doubt: Since Cold and Heat are unpredictable, methods can be fixed, and clinical adaptation depends entirely on the physician, they do not accept that the "Cold" and "Heat" categories should not be added. Alas! To establish a method, one must first ensure it is free from flaws before it can be set as a standard for instruction. If a new method is added but is not a firm and unchangeable rule, what value is there in adding it? Therefore, it is preferable to delete it for clarity and ease.