自雷 着炮制之论,而后世之以药制药者,愈出而愈奇,但因此而失其本性者亦不少。
药之
有利必有弊,势也;病之资利不资弊,情也;用之去弊勿去利,理也。古方能使各遂其性,
如仲景小半夏汤类,凡生姜、半夏并用者,皆一时同入之,非先时专制之,正欲生半夏之得
尽其长,而复借生姜以随救其短。譬诸用人,自有使贪、使诈之权衡,不必胥天下之菲材而
尽桎梏之,使不得动也。各遂之妙如此。若后世专制之法,在临时修合丸散而即服者犹可,
倘
预制备售,则被制者之力已微,甚而至再、至三、至十余制,则取其质而 其性,其能去病
也几何?近见人治痰疟,于肆中求半贝丸服之无效,取生半夏、贝母为末,和姜汁,服之即
效,但微有烦状耳!于此可类推已。或薄古法为疏,盍思之!
凡中病之药,服后半日许,可验其当否者,大法有三∶一则药到病除。如《灵枢》不得
卧,
用半夏秫米,覆杯即卧,及他方所云一剂知二、剂已者是也。一则服药后别生他病,非药之
祟,正是病被药攻,拒之使然。如《伤寒论》太阴病服桂枝汤反烦,风湿相搏服术附汤,其
人
如冒状者是也。一则服药后所病反剧,非药之误,正是以药攻病,托之使然。如《证类本草
》成讷进 丸方表云∶臣弟诉患中风五年,服此丸至二千丸,所患愈加,不得忧虑,服至
四千丸必得复,至五千丸当复丁壮是也。第一验人所易知。其第二验恒易令人疑惑,自非识
病辨脉确有把握,必将改易方法,以致转辗贻误者有之。若第三验则必訾之议之,因而弃之
矣。然数十年目见耳闻,第三验最多,如伤寒初起及疟、痢方盛之时,投以中病之药,往往
增剧。第二验次之,第一验最少。世人狃于第一验之快,而欲以概其余。噫!此事真难言哉
。
Since Lei Xiao wrote his treatise on processing (Paozhi, 炮制), the methods of "processing drugs with drugs" (Yi Yao Zhi Yao, 以药制药) in later generations have emerged one after another, becoming increasingly ingenious. However, many cases have lost their original nature due to this practice.
Drugs inevitably have both advantages and disadvantages; this is their inherent tendency. Diseases benefit from the advantages but not the disadvantages; this is the nature of the disease condition. Using drugs to eliminate disadvantages while retaining advantages is the rational principle. Ancient prescriptions allowed each drug to fulfill its nature. For example, in Zhang Zhongjing's Xiao Banxia Tang (Minor Pinellia Decoction), whenever Shengjiang (Fresh Ginger) and Banxia (Pinellia Rhizome) were used together, they were added simultaneously during decoction, rather than being pre-processed separately. This was precisely to allow raw Banxia (Sheng Banxia, 生半夏) to fully exert its strengths, while borrowing Shengjiang to remedy its shortcomings. It is like employing people: there are appropriate measures for using those who are cunning or deceitful; it is unnecessary to shackle all mediocre talents in the world, rendering them immobile. The wonder of allowing things to follow their own nature lies here. If the method of pre-processing used in later generations is applied to pills and powders prepared temporarily and taken immediately, it may still be acceptable. However, if they are prepared in advance for sale, the efficacy of the processed drugs will already be diminished. Even worse, if subjected to two, three, or even more than ten processes, only the physical texture is retained while the medicinal nature is lost. How much efficacy would remain to cure diseases? Recently, I saw someone treating phlegm-malaria (Tan Nue, 痰疟). They bought Banbei Wan (Pinellia and Fritillaria Pill) from a pharmacy without effect. Then, they took raw Banxia (Sheng Banxia, 生半夏) and Beimu (Fritillaria Bulb) ground into powder, mixed with ginger juice, and took it orally, resulting in immediate efficacy, albeit with slight restlessness! From this, other situations can be inferred. Some might consider ancient methods crude; why not ponder this deeply!
For any drug that hits the target (Zhongbing, 中病), its appropriateness can usually be verified about half a day after administration. There are three general principles for verification: First, the disease is cured as soon as the medicine takes effect. For instance, in *Ling Shu* (Spiritual Pivot), for insomnia (Bude Wo, 不得卧), Banxia Shumi Tang (Pinellia and Millet Decoction) allows the patient to sleep within the time it takes to finish a cup. Similarly, other prescriptions mention seeing improvement after one dose and recovery after two doses. Second, new symptoms appear after taking the medicine. This is not a harm caused by the drug, but rather the body resisting the attack of the drug against the disease. For example, in *Shang Han Lun* (Treatise on Cold Damage), patients with Taiyin disease experience increased irritability after taking Guizhi Tang (Cinnamon Twig Decoction); patients with wind-dampness bi-syndrome experiencing mutual entanglement feel dizzy or disoriented after taking Zhufu Tang (Aconite and Atractylodes Macrocephala Decoction). Third, the existing symptoms worsen after taking the medicine. This is not an error of the drug, but the result of the drug attacking the disease and pushing it outward. For example, in *Zheng Lei Ben Cao* (Compendium of Materia Medica organized by Category), Cheng Ne presented a memorial regarding a pill formula stating: "My brother suffered from stroke for five years. After taking this pill up to two thousand units, his condition worsened. Do not worry. After taking four thousand units, he will surely recover. After taking five thousand units, he will regain robust health." The first type of verification is easily understood by people. The second type often causes confusion. Unless one has firm grasp in differentiating diseases and pulse diagnosis, one might change the treatment method, leading to further delays and errors. The third type is often criticized and abandoned due to suspicion and discussion. However, over decades of personal observation and hearing, the third type is the most common. For example, at the initial stage of Shanghan (Cold Damage) or during the peak of malaria and dysentery, administering a targeted drug often exacerbates the condition initially. The second type is less common, and the first type is the rarest. People are accustomed to the rapid effect of the first type and try to generalize it to others. Alas! This matter is truly difficult to explain.