病之分经络脏腑，夫人知之。于是天下遂有因经络脏腑之说，而拘泥附会，又或误认穿
凿，
并有借此神其说以欺人者。盖治病之法多端，有必求经络脏腑者，有不必求经络脏腑者。盖
人之气血，无所不通，而药性之寒热温凉，有毒无毒，其性亦一定不移，入于人身，其功能
亦无所不到。岂有其药止入某经之理？即如参 之类，无所不补。砒鸩之类，无所不毒，并
不专于一处也。所以古人有现成通治之方，如紫金锭、至宝丹之类，所治之病甚多，皆有奇
效。盖通气者，无气不通；解毒者，无毒不解；消痰者，无痰不消。其中不过略有专宜耳。
至张洁古辈，则每药注定云独入某经，皆属附会之谈，不足征也。曰∶然则用药竟不必分经
络脏腑耶？曰∶此不然也。盖人之病，各有所现之处；而药之治病必有专长之功。如此胡治
寒热往来，能愈少阳之病；桂枝治畏寒发热，能愈太阳之病；葛根治肢体大热，能愈阳明之
病。盖其止寒热，已畏寒，除大热，此乃柴胡、桂枝、葛根专长之事。因其能治何经之病，
后人即指为何经之药。孰知其功能，实不仅入少阳、太阳、阳明也。显然者尚如此，余则更
无影响矣。故以某药为能治某经之平凡则可，以某药为独治某经则不可。谓某经之病，当用
某药则可；谓某药不复入他经则不可。故不知经络而用药，其失也泛，必无捷效。执经络而
用药，其失也泥，反能致害。总之变化不一，神而明之，存乎其人也。
病证分属经络和脏腑，这是人们所熟知的。于是天下人便因为经络脏腑的说法，而拘泥附会，或者错误地认识并穿凿附会，更有借此把说法神化来欺骗人的。大概治病的方法多种多样，有必须探究经络脏腑的，也有不必探究经络脏腑的。大概人体的气血，无处不通达，而药性的寒热温凉，有毒无毒，其性质也是固定不变的，进入人体后，其功能也没有不到的地方。哪里有某种药物只进入某条经脉的道理？就像人参之类，没有不能补益的地方。砒霜、鸩毒之类，没有不能致毒的地方，并不专门作用于某一个部位。所以古人有现成的通用治疗方剂，如紫金锭、至宝丹之类，治疗的疾病很多，都有奇特的疗效。大概能通气的，没有气机不通畅的；能解毒的，没有毒素不解开的；能消痰的，没有痰浊不消除的。其中不过略有专门的适宜之处罢了。至于张洁古那一代人，则每味药都注定说它单独进入某条经脉，都属于附会的言论，不足以作为证据。问：那么用药竟然不必区分经络脏腑吗？答：这不对。大概人的疾病，各自有表现出的部位；而药物治病必须有专长功效。比如柴胡治疗寒热往来，能治愈少阳经的病；桂枝治疗畏寒发热，能治愈太阳经的病；葛根治疗肢体大热，能治愈阳明经的病。大概它们只是退寒热，解除畏寒，清除大热，这是柴胡、桂枝、葛根的专长。因为它们能治疗哪条经脉的病，后人就指称其为哪条经脉的药。谁知道它们的功能，实际上不仅限于进入少阳、太阳、阳明经。明显的情况尚且如此，其他的就更没有根据了。所以说认为某药能治疗某经的病是平常可以的，认为某药只治疗某经的病就不可以。说某经的病，应当用某药是可以的；说某药不再进入其他经脉就不可以。所以不知道经络而用药，它的失误在于宽泛，一定不会有迅速见效的效果。执着于经络而用药，它的失误在于拘泥，反而能导致危害。总之变化不一，要神妙地阐明它，取决于运用的人。
The differentiation of diseases into meridians and zang-fu organs is well known to everyone. Consequently, the world has fallen into rigid adherence and forced interpretations based on the theory of meridians and zang-fu organs, or even erroneous and far-fetched understandings, with some even mystifying these theories to deceive others. In fact, there are numerous methods for treating diseases; some require an investigation into meridians and zang-fu organs, while others do not. The qi and blood of the human body circulate without obstruction, and the properties of herbs—whether cold, hot, warm, or cool, toxic or non-toxic—are fixed and unchanging. Once entering the human body, their functions can reach anywhere. How could it be that a specific herb only enters a particular meridian? For instance, Ginseng Radix et Rhizoma (Renshen) tonifies everywhere. Arsenic (Pishuang) and poisoned fowl (Zhen) are toxic everywhere; they do not act exclusively in one location. Therefore, ancient physicians had ready-made universal formulas, such as Zijin Ding (Purple Gold锭) and Zhibao Dan (Precious Treasure Pill), which treat many diseases and yield miraculous effects. Those that promote the circulation of Qi have no stagnation they cannot resolve; those that detoxify have no poison they cannot eliminate; those that resolve Phlegm have no turbidity they cannot dissipate. Within these, there may be slight specific preferences. However, Zhang Jiegu and his contemporaries claimed that each herb uniquely enters a specific meridian; this is all forced interpretation and lacks evidentiary value. One might ask: Then, should medication not differentiate between meridians and zang-fu organs at all? I say: This is incorrect. Diseases manifest in specific locations in the body, and herbs possess specialized therapeutic efficacies. For example, Bupleuri Radix (Chaihu) treats alternating chills and fever and can cure Shaoyang disease; Cinnamon Twig (Guizhi) treats aversion to cold and fever and can cure Taiyang disease; Puerariae Radix (Gegen) treats intense limb heat and can cure Yangming disease. Their ability to resolve chills and fever, alleviate aversion to cold, and clear intense heat is their specialized function. Because they can treat diseases of certain meridians, later generations labeled them as herbs for those meridians. Who knows that their functions actually extend beyond just entering the Shaoyang, Taiyang, or Yangming meridians? Even in obvious cases like this, other instances are even less substantiated. Thus, it is acceptable to say that a certain herb can treat diseases of a certain meridian in a general sense, but unacceptable to say it exclusively treats that meridian. It is acceptable to state that for a disease of a certain meridian, a certain herb should be used; but it is unacceptable to claim that a herb never enters other meridians. Therefore, using herbs without understanding meridians leads to vagueness and inevitably fails to produce rapid effects. Rigidly adhering to meridians when using herbs leads to inflexibility and can cause harm. In summary, variations are endless; divine comprehension depends on the practitioner.