陶隐居名医别录云。古秤惟有铢两而无分名。今则以十黍为一铢。六铢为一分。四分成一两。十六两为一斤。虽有
子
谷黍之制。从来均之已久。根据此用之。汉书律历志云。虞书曰。同律度量衡。所以齐远近。立民信也。
一曰备数。二曰和声。三曰审度。四曰嘉量。五曰权衡。五数者。一十百千万也。五声者。宫商角征羽也。
五度者。分寸尺丈引也。五量者。龠合升斗斛也。五权者。铢两斤钧石也。权者。所以称物平施。知轻
重也。本起于黄钟之重。一龠容千二百黍。重十二铢。两之为两。二十四铢为两。十六两为斤。三十斤为钧。
四钧为石。铢者。物由微成着。可殊异也。两者。两黄钟之重也。二十四铢而成两者。二十四气之象也。
斤者。明也。三百八十四铢。易两篇之爻。阴阳变动之象也。十六两成斤者。四时乘四方之象也。钧者。
均也。阳施其气。阴化其物。皆得成就平均也。三十斤成钧者。一月之象也。石者。大也。权之大者也。
四钧为石者。四时之象也。重百二十斤者。十二月之象也。此班固之说也。其以千二百黍为十二铢。是以百
黍为一铢。而陶隐居以十黍为一铢。乃十之一耳。自西汉至梁。虽多历年所。其多寡之不同。乃若是耶。
恐不能无误谬也。李巡云。黑黍中之一稃二米者曰 。古之定律者。以上党 黍之中者。累之以生律度量衡。
后人以此黍定之。终不协律。或曰 乃黍之中者。一稃二米。此黍得天地中和之气而生者。盖不常有。有
则一穗皆同二米。粒并均匀而无大小。故可定律。他黍则不然矣。此黍粒大小不同之辨也。而其多寡之殊。
自当以班志为准。陶说为非矣。至于斤两之不同。乃今古异制。所以轻重绝殊。后人不加考订。故有古方不
可治今病之说耳。按唐苏恭云。古秤皆复。今南秤是也。后汉以来。分一斤为二斤。一两为二两。古方惟张
仲景而已。若用古秤。则较为殊少矣。元李东垣云。六铢为一分。即二钱半也。二十四铢为一两。古云三两。
即今之一两云。二两。即今之六钱半也。李时珍曰。蚕初吐丝曰忽。十忽曰丝。十丝曰 。四 曰HT 。十 曰
分。六HT 曰字。二分半也。十HT 曰铢。四分也。四字曰钱。十分也。六铢曰分。二钱半也。四分曰两。二十四铢
也。
八两曰锱。二
锱曰斤。二十四两曰镒。一斤半也。准官秤十二两。三十斤曰钧。四钧曰石。一百二十斤也。今古异制。古之
一两。今用一钱可也。愚谓二十四两。准官秤十二两。即后汉一斤分为二斤。一两分为二两之说也。
东垣谓古云三两。即今之一两。又非一斤分二斤。一两分二两之法。乃一两分三两矣。则二十四两。岂能准
官秤之十二两哉。宋沈括梦溪笔谈辨钧石法云。石者。五权之名。重百二十斤。后人以一斛为一石。
自汉已如此。所谓饮酒一石不乱是也。挽蹶弓弩。古人以钧石率之。今人乃以粳米一石之重为石。
凡石者。以九十二斤半为法。乃汉秤三百四十一斤也。以此较之。则汉之一两。约宋之二钱七分。
若以古之三两计之。则宋之八钱也。又不及东垣李氏所谓古之三两。即今之一两矣。笔谈又云。予
考乐律。及受诏改铸浑仪。求秦汉以前之度量斗。每斗计六斗。即当今一斗七升九合也。秤三斤。当今十三两也。一斤。
当今四两三分两之一也。一两。当今六铢半。乃二钱六分也。为升。则中方古尺二寸五分十分分之三。即今尺一寸八
分百分分之四十五强也。又以此与钧石法较之。则秦汉以前之法。较汉秤又觉稍轻。而实相去不远矣。若统论之。李
东垣之一两。准古秤三两。犹未详加考较。尚觉粗疏。失之太重。不若沈存中以儒臣兼理天文乐律。奉诏改铸浑仪。制
熙宁晷漏。象数历法。靡不通晓。则其理深学博。运思精密。有非东垣李氏之所能几及者。又如李时珍之所谓今古异
制。古之一两。今用一钱可也。此言非由考订而来。乃以臆见强断之词也。倘据此用之。宁毋失之太少乎。若果如此说。
如仲景之五泻心汤。及小陷胸汤中之黄连。旋复代赭汤中之代赭石。桂枝大黄汤中之大黄。桃花汤中之干姜。皆用
古秤一两而分三次服之。若以一钱准之。又分为三次服。则每服止三分三 矣。其何以治最剧最险之危证乎。
恐不若以宋秤准之。犹是二钱六七分。尚有三次分服之理。又恐今秤更重于宋元秤。并不得二钱七分矣。但一时无从考
较耳。如东垣但据隋唐间复古之权量。所谓三而当一者。而不知宋时之权量已大于唐。元时之权量又大于宋矣。
东垣元人。竟不知宋时制度。今有明三百年来。其立法之更换。人事之变迁。又不同矣。岂可以今比昔。
而曰古方不可治今病哉。况汉之一两。为宋之二钱七分。至元则约二钱半矣。越有明以来。恐又不及二钱半矣。
其水之一升。即以寻常升斗之升。当以二合半准之。约即今之一饭瓯也。药之升合。即刀圭方寸匕中之升合也。
当以陶隐居之升法准之。见小柴胡汤加减法中。
陶弘景在《名医别录》中说：古代的秤只有“铢”和“两”，没有“分”这个单位。现在则规定十粒黍米重为一铢，六铢为一分，四分为一两，十六两为一斤。虽然有子、谷、黍等不同的计量标准，但长期以来已经统一使用这一标准，因此依据此标准来应用。
《汉书·律历志》记载：《尚书·虞书》说：“统一音律、长度、容量和重量标准，以此来协调远近差异，确立百姓的信任。”
这包括五个方面：一是备数（数量），二是和声（音律），三是审度（长度），四是嘉量（容量），五是权衡（重量）。
所谓的“五数”，是指十、百、千、万、亿。
所谓的“五声”，是指宫、商、角、徵、羽。
所谓的“五度”，是指寸、分、尺、丈、引。
所谓的“五量”，是指龠、合、升、斗、斛。
所谓的“五权”，是指铢、两、斤、钧、石。
“权”就是用来称量物体、平衡施力，以知晓轻重的工具。它起源于黄钟律管的重量。一龠的容积能容纳一千二百粒黍米，重量为十二铢。两倍于此即为“两”，二十四铢为一两，十六两为一斤，三十斤为一钧，四钧为一石。
“铢”字，意指事物由微小逐渐变得显著，可以区分差异。
“两”字，指两个黄钟律管的重量。二十四铢构成一两，象征二十四节气。
“斤”字，意为明察。三百八十四铢，对应《易经》上下两篇共三百八十四爻，象征阴阳变化的景象。十六两构成一斤，象征四季配合四方运行的景象。
“钧”字，意为均衡。阳气施行其气，阴气化育其物，都能得到成就并达到平均。三十斤构成一钧，象征一个月的时间。
“石”字，意为大，是重量中较大的单位。四钧构成一石，象征四季。重一百二十斤，象征十二个月。这是班固的说法。
班固认为一千二百粒黍米重十二铢，即一百粒黍米重一铢；而陶弘景认为十粒黍米重一铢，仅为前者的十分之一。从西汉到梁朝，虽然历经多年，但计量单位的多少差异竟然如此之大，恐怕其中难免有误谬。
李巡说：黑黍中果皮内有两粒米的称为“秬黍”（此处原文缺字，通常指一种特定的黍）。古代制定律吕的人，选用上党地区的这种中等大小的秬黍，累积起来以生成律、度、量、衡的标准。后人用这种黍来测定，始终与音律不协调。有人说，“秬黍”是黍中的上等品，一壳两米，这种黍得天地中和之气而生，并不常见。如果有的话，一穗上的米粒都相同，都是两粒米，颗粒均匀且大小一致，所以可以用来制定标准。其他种类的黍则不是这样。这是关于黍米颗粒大小不同的辨析。至于计量单位多少的差异，自然应当以《汉书·律历志》为准，陶弘景的说法是错误的。
至于斤两重量的不同，是因为古今制度不同，所以轻重差别极大。后人不加考证订正，因此产生了“古方不能治疗今病”的说法。
据唐代苏恭所说：古代的秤都是双倍的，也就是现在的南秤。自东汉以来，将一斤分为两斤，一两分为二两。古方中只有张仲景的方子保留了原貌。如果使用古秤，药量就显得非常少了。
元代李东垣说：六铢为一分，即现在的二钱半。二十四铢为一两，古方所说的三两，相当于现在的一两。古方的二两，相当于现在的六钱半。
李时珍说：蚕刚吐丝时极细，称为“忽”。十忽为一丝，十丝为一厘，四厘为一毫，十毫为一分，六毫为一字（二分半），十毫为一铢（四分），四字为一钱（十分），六铢为一分（二钱半），四分为一两（二十四铢）。八两为一锱，二锱为一斤（二十四两为一镒，即一斤半）。折合官秤十二两。三十斤为一钧，四钧为一石，重一百二十斤。古今制度不同，古代的一两，现在用一钱即可。
我认为：二十四两折合官秤十二两，即东汉时期“一斤分为二斤，一两分为二两”的说法。李东垣说古方三两相当于现在一两，这又不是“一斤分二斤、一两分二两”的方法，而是变成了一两分作三两了。那么二十四两怎么能折合官秤的十二两呢？
宋代沈括在《梦溪笔谈》中辨析钧石法说：“石”是五种重量单位之一，重一百二十斤。后人将一斛称为一石，自汉代起就是这样，所谓“饮酒一石不乱”就是指此。拉弓弩时，古人用钧石来衡量力度，现代人却用一石粳米的重量作为“石”的标准。凡是称为“石”的，以九十二斤半为法度，这相当于汉秤的三百四十一斤。以此比较，汉代的一两，大约相当于宋代的两钱七分。如果按古方的三两计算，则是宋代的八钱。这又不及李东垣所说的“古方三两即今一两”了。
《梦溪笔谈》又说：我考察乐律，以及奉诏改铸浑仪时，查找秦汉以前的度量斗，每斗计六斗，即相当于当今的一斗七升九合。秤三斤，相当于当今十三两。一斤相当于当今四两三钱一分（原文“三分两之一”疑为衍文或特定算法，结合后文“一两当今六铢半”推算，此处应指斤两换算关系，译文依逻辑修正为约数描述，或直译：一斤相当于当今四两多）。一两相当于当今六铢半，即二钱六分。至于容量，中方古尺的二寸五分零三厘，即当今的一尺一寸八分四十五厘强。再以此与钧石法比较，秦汉以前的方法，比汉秤又显得稍轻，但实际上相差不远。
总的来说，李东垣认为一两折合古秤三两，还没有详细考证，显得粗略疏漏，失之过重。不如沈括身为儒臣兼理天文乐律，奉诏改铸浑仪，制作熙宁晷漏，对象数历法无所不通，其理论深厚、学识渊博，思维精密，这不是李东垣所能企及的。
又如李时珍所说的“古今异制，古之一两，今用一钱即可”，这话并非经过考证得来，而是凭主观臆断强行做出的结论。如果据此用药，岂不是药量太少了？如果真的像他说的这样，比如张仲景的五泻心汤，以及小陷胸汤中的黄连，旋复代赭汤中的代赭石，桂枝大黄汤中的大黄，桃花汤中的干姜，都使用古秤一两，并分三次服用。如果以一钱折算，再分三次服用，那么每次服药仅三分三厘多一点。这怎么能治疗最严重、最危险的危重症呢？
恐怕不如用宋秤来折算，还有二钱六七分，尚可分三次服用。又担心现在的秤比宋元时期的秤更重，甚至达不到二钱七分。只是目前一时难以确切考证罢了。
李东垣只依据隋唐间复古的重量标准，所谓“三当一”（即古三等于今一），却不知道宋时的重量标准已经大于唐代，元时的重量标准又大于宋代。李东垣是元代人，竟然不知道宋时的制度。如今明朝已有三百年，立法的变化、人事的变迁，又有所不同了。怎么能拿现在去比过去，就说古方不能治疗今病呢？
况且汉代的一两，相当于宋代的两钱七分，到了元代则约为二钱半。过了明代以来，恐怕又不足二钱半了。至于水的“一升”，即以寻常升斗的升来计算，应当以二合半折算，大约相当于现在的一饭碗水。药物的“升合”，即刀圭、方寸匕中的升合，应当以陶弘景的升法为标准，详见小柴胡汤加减法中。
Tao Hongjing stated in the *Bielu of Famous Physicians* that ancient weights only had "zhu" (1/24 liang) and "liang" (ounce), without the unit "fen". Currently, it is stipulated that ten grains of millet weigh one zhu, six zhu make one fen, four fen make one liang, and sixteen liang make one jin (catty). Although there are different standards involving seeds, grains, and millet, a uniform standard has been used for a long time; therefore, this standard is adopted for application.
The *Book of Han: Treatise on Music and Measures* records: The *Book of Documents* states, "Unify musical tones, length, capacity, and weight standards to harmonize distances far and near and establish public trust."
This encompasses five aspects: first, numerical order; second, harmonic tones; third, measurement of length; fourth, standard capacity; fifth, weighing and balance.
The "five numbers" refer to ten, hundred, thousand, ten thousand, and hundred million.
The "five tones" refer to Gong, Shang, Jue, Zhi, and Yu.
The "five lengths" refer to cun, fen, chi, zhang, and yin.
The "five capacities" refer to yue, he, sheng, dou, and hu.
The "five weights" refer to zhu, liang, jin, jun, and shi.
"Quan" refers to the tool used to weigh objects and balance force to determine lightness and heaviness. It originated from the weight of the Huangzhong pitch pipe. One yue can hold 1,200 grains of millet, weighing 12 zhu. Twice this amount constitutes "liang"; 24 zhu equal one liang, 16 liang equal one jin, 30 jin equal one jun, and 4 jun equal one shi.
The character "zhu" implies that things grow from minute to significant, allowing for differentiation.
The character "liang" refers to the weight of two Huangzhong pipes. Twenty-four zhu form one liang, symbolizing the twenty-four solar terms.
The character "jin" means clarity. Three hundred and eighty-four zhu correspond to the 384 lines (yao) of the upper and lower trigrams of the *I Ching*, symbolizing the changes of Yin and Yang. Sixteen liang form one jin, symbolizing the four seasons coordinating with the four directions.
The character "jun" means equilibrium. Yang energy exerts its influence, and Yin energy transforms matter, both achieving completion and average balance. Thirty jin form one jun, symbolizing one month.
The character "shi" means large; it is a major unit of weight. Four jun form one shi, symbolizing the four seasons. Weighing 120 jin, it symbolizes the twelve months. This is Ban Gu's theory.
Ban Gu believed that 1,200 grains of millet weigh 12 zhu, meaning 100 grains weigh one zhu; whereas Tao Hongjing believed that 10 grains of millet weigh one zhu, which is only one-tenth of the former. From the Western Han to the Liang dynasty, although many years passed, the discrepancy in the quantity of these units was so great that errors are inevitable.
Li Xuan said: Among black millet, those with two kernels per husk are called "ju shu" (a specific type of millet). Ancient makers of pitch pipes selected medium-sized ju shu from Shangdang to generate standards for tones, length, capacity, and weight. Later generations tried to use this millet for calibration but failed to align with the musical tones. Some argue that "ju shu" represents the finest millet, having two kernels per husk, born of the harmonious Qi of Heaven and Earth, which is rare. If present, every grain on a spike would be identical, with two kernels each, uniform in size, making it suitable for setting standards. Other millets do not possess these characteristics. This clarifies the distinction in millet kernel sizes. Regarding the differences in unit quantities, the *Book of Han* should be the standard, and Tao Hongjing's view is incorrect.
As for the difference in the weight of jin and liang, it is due to different systems in ancient and modern times, resulting in significant disparities in heaviness. Later generations failed to verify and correct this, leading to the saying that "ancient prescriptions cannot treat modern diseases."
According to Su Gong of the Tang Dynasty: Ancient weights were double what is now known as the Southern scale. Since the Eastern Han, one jin was divided into two jins, and one liang into two liang. Only Zhang Zhongjing's prescriptions retained the original forms. Using ancient weights, the dosage appears very small.
Li Dongyuan of the Yuan Dynasty stated: Six zhu equal one fen, which is equivalent to 2.5 qian today. Twenty-four zhu equal one liang; three liang in ancient texts equate to one liang today. Two liang in ancient texts equate to 6.5 qian today.
Li Shizhen stated: When silkworms first spin silk, it is called "hu". Ten hu make one si, ten si make one li, four li make one hao, ten hao make one fen, six hao make one zi (2.5 fen), ten hao make one zhu (4 fen), four zi make one qian (10 fen), six zhu make one fen (2.5 qian), four fen make one liang (24 zhu). Eight liang make one zi, two zi make one jin (24 liang make one yi, i.e., 1.5 jin). Converted to official scales, this equals 12 liang. Thirty jin make one jun, four jun make one shi, weighing 120 jin. Due to differing ancient and modern systems, one ancient liang corresponds to approximately one qian today.
I believe: 24 liang convert to 12 liang on official scales, consistent with the Eastern Han practice of dividing one jin into two and one liang into two. Li Dongyuan's claim that three ancient liang equal one modern liang contradicts the "one becomes two" method, implying instead that one ancient liang became three. Thus, how could 24 ancient liang equate to 12 modern liang?
Shen Kuo in *Dream Pool Essays* analyzed the jun and shi methods: "Shi" is one of the five weight names, weighing 120 jin. Later, one hu was called one shi, a practice starting from the Han dynasty, as seen in the phrase "drinking one shi of wine without disorder." Drawing bows and crossbows was measured by jun and shi in ancient times, but people now use the weight of one shi of rice. The standard for "shi" is 92.5 jin, which equals 341 jin on Han scales. Comparing this, one Han liang is approximately 0.27 Song qian. Calculating based on three ancient liang yields 0.8 Song qian, which differs from Li Dongyuan's assertion that three ancient liang equal one modern liang.
*Dream Pool Essays* further states: I examined musical laws and, upon being ordered to recast the armillary sphere, searched for pre-Qin and Han measures. Each ancient dou held six dou, equivalent to 1.79 dou today. Three jin weighed as thirteen liang today. One jin weighed as slightly over four liang today. One liang weighed as 6.5 zhu, or 0.26 qian. In terms of volume, the ancient Chinese chi of 2.5 cun plus 3 fen equals roughly 1.18 chi today. Comparing this with the jun/shi method, pre-Han methods were slightly lighter than Han scales but not significantly different.
In summary, Li Dongyuan's conversion of one liang to three ancient liang lacks detailed verification and is too heavy. Shen Kuo, a scholar-official versed in astronomy and music who recast instruments, possessed deeper theoretical knowledge and precise thinking, surpassing Li Dongyuan.
Li Shizhen's statement that "one ancient liang equals one qian today" is an arbitrary conclusion without verification. Using this ratio would result in insufficient dosages. For instance, in Zhang Zhongjing's Five Xi Xin Decoctions, Xiao Xian Xiong Tang (Small Chest Trap Decoction) using Huanglian (Coptidis Rhizoma), Xuan Fu Dai Zhe Tang (Inula, Oyster Shell, and Magnetite Decoction) using Daizheshi (Magnetitum), Guizhi Dahuang Tang (Cinnamon Twig and Rheum Decoction) using Dahuang (Rhei Radix et Rhizoma), and Taohua Tang (Peach Blossom Decoction) using Ganjiang (Zingiberis Rhizoma), all use one ancient liang divided into three doses. If converted to one qian and divided into three doses, each dose would be only about 0.33 qian. How could this treat critical conditions?
It is better to use Song scales, where the dose would be around 0.6-0.7 qian, allowing for three divided doses. However, modern scales may be heavier than Song or Yuan scales, potentially yielding less than 0.27 qian. Verification is currently difficult.
Li Dongyuan relied on Sui-Tang revival standards where "three equals one," unaware that Song weights exceeded Tang weights, and Yuan weights exceeded Song weights. As a Yuan scholar, he ignored Song systems. Ming dynasty laws and practices have changed further over 300 years. One cannot simply compare the present with the past to claim ancient prescriptions are ineffective.
Han liang equaled 0.27 Song qian, dropping to approx. 0.25 qian in the Yuan dynasty, and likely less in the Ming. Water measurements of one sheng should be calculated using standard measures, equating to 0.25 he, roughly one bowl of rice. Herbal volumes (sheng/he) refer to those in Dao Gui or Fang Cun Bi, and should follow Tao Hongjing's standards, as detailed in the modifications of Xiaochaihu Tang (Minor Bupleurum Decoction).