陈远公曰∶十剂之后，陶隐居增入寒热二剂。虽亦有见，缪仲醇辟寒有时不可以治热，
热有
时不可以治寒，以热有阴虚而寒有阳虚之异也。此论更超出陶隐居，但未尝言寒热二剂之宜
删也。后人偏信陶隐居妄自增寒热二剂，又多岐路之趋，不知寒热之病甚多，何症非寒热也
。七方十剂之中，何方、何剂不可以治寒热。若止用寒热二剂以治寒热，则宜于寒必不宜于
热，宜于热必不宜寒，亦甚拘滞而不弘矣。故分寒热以治寒热，不可为训。
或问陶隐居增入寒热二剂，甚为有见，吾子何党仲醇而删之。虽曰七方十剂俱可治寒热，然
世人昧焉不察，从何方何剂以治之乎。不若增寒热二剂，使世人易于治病也。嗟乎。子言则
美矣，然非用剂之义也。寒热之变症多端，执二剂以治寒热，非救人，正杀人也。予所以删
之，岂党仲醇哉。
或疑寒热之变端虽多，终不外于寒热之二病，安在不可立寒热之二剂耶。曰∶寒之中有
热。
热之中有寒。有寒似热而实寒，有热似寒而反热。有上实寒而下实热，有上实热而下实寒。
有朝作寒而暮作热，有朝作热而暮作寒。有外不热而内偏热，有外不寒而内偏寒。更有虚
热虚寒之分，实热实寒之异，偏寒偏热之别，假寒假热之殊。不识寒热二剂，何以概治之耶
。予所以信寒热二剂断不可增于十剂之内，故辟陶隐居之非，而嘉缪仲醇之是也。（〔批〕
如此说来，寒热二剂断不可增。）
或疑寒热不常，方法可定，临症通变，全在乎人，不信寒热二剂之不可增也。嗟乎。立
一方
法，必先操于无弊，而后可以垂训，乃增一法，非确然不可移之法，又何贵于增乎，故不若
删之为快耳。
陈远公说：在“十剂”之后，陶隐居增加了“寒”、“热”两种剂型。虽然这种看法也有一定道理，但缪仲醇指出，寒有时不能用来治疗热病，热有时也不能用来治疗寒病，这是因为热证中有阴虚的情况，而寒证中有阳虚的区别。这一论述比陶隐居更为高明，但他并没有说明应该删除“寒”、“热”二剂。后人片面相信陶隐居擅自增加“寒”、“热”二剂的说法，又走向了许多歧途，不知道患有寒热病症的人非常多，什么症状不属于寒热范畴呢？在“七方”和“十剂”之中，哪一种方、哪一种剂不可以用来治疗寒热病症呢？如果仅仅依靠“寒”、“热”二剂来治疗寒热病症，那么适宜治寒的必然不适宜治热，适宜治热的必然不适宜治寒，这也过于拘泥僵化而不宏大通达了。因此，单纯区分寒热二剂来治疗寒热病症，是不可作为准则的。
有人问：陶隐居增加“寒”、“热”二剂，非常有见地，您为什么偏袒缪仲醇而主张删除它们呢？虽然说“七方”、“十剂”都可以用来治疗寒热病症，然而世人愚昧不明，不知从哪种方、哪种剂去治疗呢？不如增加“寒”、“热”二剂，使世人更容易治病啊。唉！您的话听起来很美，但这不符合用药的本义。寒热变化的症状多种多样，执着于仅用“寒”、“热”二剂来治疗所有寒热病症，不是在救人，而是在杀人啊。我之所以删除它们，难道是偏袒缪仲醇吗？
有人怀疑：寒热的变化端虽多，终究离不开寒、热这两种病，哪里不可以设立“寒”、“热”二剂呢？回答说：寒症中夹杂热症，热症中夹杂寒症。有看似热症实则寒症的，有看似寒症实则热症的。有上部实寒而下部实热的，有上部实热而下部实寒的。有早晨发作寒症而傍晚发作热症的，有早晨发作热症而傍晚发作寒症的。有体表不热而体内偏热的，有体表不寒而体内偏寒的。更有虚热与虚寒的区别，实热与实寒的不同，偏寒与偏热的差异，假寒与假寒的特殊情况。如果不识别这些细微差别，仅凭“寒”、“热”二剂，怎么能概括性地治疗它们呢？所以我坚信“寒”、“热”二剂绝对不可增加到“十剂”之内，因此批驳陶隐居的错误，并称赞缪仲醇的正确。（〔批注〕照这样说来，“寒”、“热”二剂绝对不可增加。）
有人怀疑：寒热变化无常，治疗方法可以确定，临证时灵活变通全在于医生，所以不相信“寒”、“热”二剂不可增加。唉！确立一种方药法则，必须先做到没有弊端，然后才可以流传作为准则。如果增加一种方法，却不是确凿不移的方法，又有什么可贵值得增加的呢？所以不如删除它来得痛快罢了。
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.