甚哉!读书之难，无过于医书矣。我辈学文，必先读书，所读不外于十三经。其书皆圣
贤删
定，无敢改易，即后贤注释，间有不同，不至过于差谬，况有钦定十三经注疏，果能诵习，
即是通人，虽外有诸子，不过以供博雅，不能惑乱所宗主也。乃若医者，自神农时先师祖僦
贷季造《上经》，今仅存七十字，喻西昌虽注释之，已不足用矣，自当以轩歧《内经》为宗
主。其书精深奥妙，非圣贤不能创作，后学本难领会。唐王太仆，讳冰，号启元子，始有
撰注，加以宋高保衡、林亿辈补注。学人从此究心，临症时引经断症，可以无误。乃自成无
己另为注释，从此注《内经》者又增十数家，勉强增易，其意不过攀龙附骥，借此传名，其
实未必善于王注，徒令后学无所适从。
至后汉张仲景先师，天生医中圣人。其《伤寒论》三百九十七法，一百一十三方，实为
医方
之祖。后世医方，不可以数计，而总不能出其范围。惟其书文义古奥，不易明通，必有资于
注释。乃自成无己注释后，接踵者几至百家，议见多歧，有如聚讼，徒乱人意。予读至喻氏
《尚论篇》，以为明白晓畅矣。乃见柯氏三书，彼又以喻氏为歧说，意在菲薄前人，则后来
居上。其实柯氏实不及喻氏，即其书不以六经名篇，而以症名篇，自觉得仲景心法，然乎否
乎?
予以为《内经》竟以王注为主。我辈诊病，非同考据。每诊一症，但有经文一二句可靠
，即
可无讹，惟在《内经》要语能熟记耳!近如李士材《内经知要》、汪 庵《灵素类纂》，果
能熟读，尽彀诊病。如看注疏，近有薛一瓢《医经原旨》，以王注为主，间有采择各家，兼
有案说，可谓尽善。至《伤寒论》究以喻嘉言《尚论篇》为善，其书深入显出，非天人交尽
者不能。必要参看各家，则有本朝《医宗金鉴》，以成注为主，而各家可取者，无不备载。
果能考核，即是通医，亦不必泛求注疏也。我辈作文，责简炼以为揣摩，学医亦如之。安见
难读者，不几于易读哉?
太可悲了！读书之难，没有比读医书更难的了。我们学习文章，必须先读书，所读的书籍不外乎十三经。这些书都是圣贤删减审定过的，没有人敢随意改动，即使是后世贤人的注释，偶尔有不同之处，也不会过于差谬，况且还有钦定的十三经注疏，如果能诵读研习，就是通达之人，虽然外面有诸子百家的著作，不过是为了展示博学雅正，不能迷惑我们所尊崇的主旨。至于医者，自从神农时代先师祖僦贷季创作《上经》，现在仅存七十字，喻西昌虽然对此进行了注释，已经不足以使用了，自然应当以轩辕、歧伯的《内经》为宗主。这本书精深奥妙，不是圣贤不能创作，后学本来难以领会。唐代王太仆，名冰，号启元子，开始撰写注释，加上宋代高保衡、林亿等人补注。学者从此用心研究，临症时引用经典判断病症，可以不出错。然而自成无己另外进行注释，从此注释《内经》的人又增加了十几家，勉强增减修改，他们的意图不过是攀附权贵，借此流传名声，其实未必比得上王的注释，白白让后学无所适从。
到了后汉张仲景先师，天生是医学中的圣人。他的《伤寒论》三百九十七法，一百一十三方，实在是医方的始祖。后世的医方，数不胜数，但总不能超出它的范围。只是这本书文义古奥，不容易明白通晓，必须有赖于注释。然而自成无己注释之后，接踵而至的几乎接近百家，议论见解多有分歧，如同争论不休，白白扰乱人心。我读到喻氏的《尚论篇》，认为它明白晓畅了。但是看到柯氏的三本书，他又认为喻氏的说法有偏差，意在轻视前人，那么后来者居上。其实柯氏实在不如喻氏，即使他的书不以六经命名篇章，而以症状命名篇章，自觉得到了仲景的心法，是这样吗？
我认为《内经》竟然以王的注释为主。我们诊断疾病，不同于考证考据。每次诊断一个病症，只要有经文一二句可靠，就可以没有错误，只要在《内经》的要语能熟记罢了！近如李士材的《内经知要》、汪昂的《灵素类纂》，如果能熟读，足够诊断疾病。如果看注疏，近来有薛一瓢的《医经原旨》，以王的注释为主，偶尔采纳选择各家，兼有案说，可以说是尽善尽美。至于《伤寒论》究竟以喻嘉言的《尚论篇》为好，这本书深入显出，不是天人交尽的人不能做到。一定要参考各家，则有本朝的《医宗金鉴》，以成的注释为主，而各家可取的，无不备载。如果能考核，就是通医，也不必广泛寻求注疏了。我们写文章，要求简练作为揣摩，学医也是这样。怎么见得难读的，不几乎等于易读的呢？
Alas! The difficulty of reading is nowhere greater than in medical books. When we study literature, we must first read books, and the books we read are none other than the Thirteen Classics (Shisan Jing). These texts were edited and finalized by sages and worthies; no one dares to alter them. Even when later scholars provide annotations, occasional differences do not lead to significant errors. Moreover, with the imperial commissioning of the Annotations and Subcommentaries on the Thirteen Classics, if one can recite and study them, one becomes a learned person. Although there are works from the Hundred Schools of Thought outside, they merely serve to demonstrate erudition and cannot confuse the principles we revere. However, for physicians, since the time of Shennong, our ancestral master Jiu Daiji created the *Shangjing* (Classic of Upper Origins), of which only seventy characters remain today. Although Yu Xichang provided annotations, they are now insufficient for use. Therefore, we should naturally take Xuanyuan and Qibo's *Neijing* (Inner Canon) as our primary authority. This text is profound and mysterious; it could only have been composed by sages, making it inherently difficult for later learners to comprehend. Wang Taipu of the Tang Dynasty, whose personal name was Bing and pseudonym was Qiyuanzi, was the first to write annotations, followed by supplementary notes from Song dynasty figures such as Gao Baoheng and Lin Yi. Scholars thereafter devoted themselves to studying these works, citing classics to diagnose conditions during clinical practice, thereby avoiding errors. However, Cheng Wujie independently provided his own annotations, leading to an increase of over ten additional commentators on the *Neijing*. Their modifications were forced and arbitrary; their intent was merely to attach themselves to prestigious names to gain fame. In reality, they were likely inferior to Wang’s annotations, leaving later learners bewildered and without a clear direction.
Later came Master Zhang Zhongjing of the Eastern Han Dynasty, born a sage among physicians. His *Shanghan Lun* (Treatise on Cold Pathogenic Diseases) contains 397 methods and 113 prescriptions, truly serving as the ancestor of all medical formulas. Subsequent medical formulas are countless, yet none can escape its scope. However, the language and meaning of this book are archaic and obscure, difficult to understand clearly, necessitating reliance on annotations. Since Cheng Wujie’s commentary, nearly a hundred subsequent commentators emerged, offering divergent opinions like a heated debate, merely confusing people’s minds. I read Yu’s *Shanglun Pian* (Discourse on Ancient Discussions) and found it clear and fluent. Yet, upon seeing Ke’s three books, he criticized Yu’s views as deviant, intending to belittle predecessors while claiming superiority for later generations. In truth, Ke was inferior to Yu. Although Ke titled his chapters by symptoms rather than the Six Channels (Liujing), claiming to grasp Zhongjing’s core methodology, whether this claim holds true is questionable.
I believe that for the *Neijing*, Wang’s annotations should be taken as primary. Our diagnosis of diseases is not akin to textual research. For each symptom diagnosed, if even one or two sentences from the classic text are reliable, errors can be avoided; it suffices to memorize the key phrases of the *Neijing*. Recently, Li Shicai’s *Neijing Yao Yao* (Essential Knowledge of the Inner Canon) and Wang Ang’s *Lingsu Leizuan* (Compilation of Ling Shu and Su Wen), if studied thoroughly, are sufficient for diagnosing illnesses. Regarding commentaries, Xue Yipiao’s *Yijing Yuanzhi* (Original Meaning of Medical Classics) is recent; it takes Wang’s annotations as primary, occasionally incorporating selections from various schools, accompanied by case discussions, making it nearly perfect. As for the *Shanghan Lun*, Yu Jiayan’s *Shanglun Pian* is considered the best; its depth is made accessible, achievable only by those who have fully mastered both heaven and humanity. If one must consult various schools, the Qing dynasty’s *Yizong Jinjian* (Golden Mirror of the Medical Tradition) is recommended; it takes Cheng’s annotations as primary and comprehensively includes valuable points from other schools. If one carefully examines these, one becomes a proficient physician, without needing to seek widely scattered commentaries. Just as writing essays requires conciseness for refinement, so too does learning medicine. How can one say that what is difficult to read is not almost equivalent to what is easy to read?