唐虞乃始也。唐虞书不过数百言耳。而黄帝书。乃至数千万言乎。且前民利用之事。皆五帝以前。圣人所为。何
他事一无书文可考。而独治病之
书。详而尽如是耶。又内经一书。文气坚峭。如先秦诸子。而言理该博。绝似管荀。造词质奥。又类鬼谷。非秦
时人书而何。或又曰。人有此等学问。曷不自着姓名。而假托古人耶。曰。如汲冢越绝等书。此人止求其书之传。
不必名之着。犹前人质朴之意也。若今世人一无所见。便妄自居乎作者之林矣。（庆符堂集）
杭世骏曰。李珠问。黄帝咨于岐伯作内经。今之内经。果是当年之书欤，抑后人所记欤。答云。内经刘向编
七录时。已有之。秦焚诗书。内经想以方术得存。其书深奥精密。非后人所能伪托。（质疑）
魏荔彤曰。轩岐之书。类春秋战国人所为，而托于上古。文顺义泽。篇章联贯。读之俨如礼经也。（伤寒
论本义序）
张志聪曰。坟典乃史臣记述之书。先言义理精微。次叙君臣咨访。本欲斯道彰明。永垂金石。故其文词。
或加敷衍。至于阴阳之离合盛衰。血气之生始出入。其神灵睿圣。恶能洞彻隔垣乎。
又曰。阴阳之理。论焉列焉。总归于一。推之数之。可万可千。是以全经文义。或同中示异。或异中见同
。词若盾矛。理无枘凿。
冯舒曰。素问一书。通篇有韵。（诗纪匡缪）
四库全书简明目录曰。黄帝素问。原本残阙。王冰采阴阳大论以补之。其书云出于上古。固未必然。然亦
必周秦间人。传述旧闻。着之竹帛。故通贯三才。包括万变。虽张李刘朱诸人。终身钻仰。竟无能罄其蕴奥焉。韩
曰。秦汉以前。有说无方。故内经诸书，郑重 缕。亦多累世附会窜杂之言。（医通）
刘奎曰。内经多系后人假托。观其文章可见。即如尚书断自唐虞。其文辞佶屈赘牙。非注解猝莫能醒。内
经若果系黄帝时书。其文辞之古奥。又不知更当如何者。今观其笔墨。半似秦汉文本。其为后人假托不少。况乃
屡经兵火。不无错简鲁鱼。势所必然。孟子于武成尚取其二三策。况乃他焉者乎。（温疫论类编）
姚际恒曰。汉志有黄帝内经十八卷。隋志始有黄帝素问九卷。唐王冰为之注。冰以汉志有内经十八卷。以素
问九卷。灵枢九卷。当内经十八卷。实附会也。故后人于素问系以内经者。非是。或后人得内经。而衍其说为素
问。亦未可知。素问之名。人难卒晓。予按汉志阴阳家，有黄帝泰素。此必取此素字。又以与岐伯问。故曰素问
也。其书后世宗之。以为医家之祖。然其言实多穿凿。至以为黄帝与岐伯对问。盖属荒诞。无论隋志之素问。即
汉志所载黄帝内外经。并根据托也。他如神农轩辕风后力牧之属尽然。岂真有其书乎。或谓。此书有失侯失王之语。
秦灭六国。汉诸侯王国除。始有失侯王者。予按其中言黔首，又藏气法时。曰夜半。曰平旦。曰日出。曰日中。
曰日 。曰下晡。不言十二支。当是秦人作，又有言岁甲子。言寅时。则又汉后人所作。故其中所言。有古近之
分。未可一概论也。（古今伪书考）
何梦瑶曰。昔人谓内经。非岐黄书。乃后人之假托。要未必出于一手。故有醇有疵。分别观之可耳。（医
碥）
薛雪曰。黄帝作内经。史册载之。而其书不传。不知何代明夫医理者。托为君臣问答之辞。撰素问灵枢二
经传于世。想亦闻陈言于古老。敷衍成之。虽文多败阙。实万古不磨之作。窥其立言之旨。无非窃拟壁经。故多
繁辞。然不迨
拜手赓扬。都俞吁 之风。远矣。且是时。始命大挠作甲子。其千支节序占候。岂符于今日。而旨酒溺生。禹始
恶之。尝其玄酒味澹。人谁嗜以为浆。以致经满络虚。肝浮胆横耶。至于十二经配十二水名。彼时未经地平天成
。何以江淮河济。方隅畛域。竟与后世无岐。如此罅漏。不一而足。（医经原旨绪言）
按先子曰。汉书艺文志。载黄帝内经十八卷。外经三十七卷。及白氏扁鹊内外经之目。内外。犹易内外卦。
及春秋内外传。庄子内外篇。韩非内外储说。以次第名焉者。不必有深意。内字。诸家有说。不可从也。素问名。
林亿等以为问太素之义是也。史记殷本纪。伊芳尹从汤。言素王及九主之事。索隐曰。素王者。太素上皇。其道质
素。故称素王。列子干凿度并云。太素者。质之始也。汉艺文志。黄帝泰素二十篇。刘向别录云。言阴阳五行。
以为黄帝之道。故曰太素。素问。乃为太素之问答。义可以证焉。其不言问素。而名素问者。犹屈原有天问。是
倒置而下字尔。全元起解义未太明。吴昆等以为平素讲求问答之义。晁氏读书志曰。昔人谓素问。以素书黄帝之
问。犹言素书也。俱臆度之见而已。至云笈七签。神仙通鉴云。天降素女。以治人疾。帝问之。作素问。荒诞极
矣。盖内经之目。 见于汉志。而素问之名。出张仲景伤寒论序。曰。素问九卷。九卷。即今之灵枢。以素灵二
书为内经者。出皇甫谧甲乙经序。而后历代诸家。无复异论焉。胡应麟特谓素问。今又称内经。然隋志止名素问。
盖黄帝内外经五十五卷。六朝亡逸。故后人缀缉。易其名耳。此最有理。然晋去汉未远。皇甫氏之所序。或者古
来相传之说。亦不可废也。第七卷。已亡于晋。皇甫谧甲乙经序曰。亦有亡失。隋志载梁七录亦云。止存八卷。
据林亿等说。全元起所注本。乃无第七。而王冰为旧藏之卷。补七篇。与素问余篇文。 然不同。其论运气。与
六节脏象论七百十八字。全然别是一家言。林亿等以为阴阳大论之文。王冰取以补所亡。今考王叔和伤寒例所引
。阴阳大论之文。曾无所见。林说难从。而若其篇
第。不知古经为奈何。据林亿等校正之说。全元起本八卷。共六十八篇。至王冰补七篇。又分为八十一篇者。仿
道德经难经也。是书实医经之最古者。往圣之遗言存焉。晋皇甫谧以来。历代医家。断为岐黄所作。此殊不然也
。医之言阴阳尚矣。庄子谓疾为阴阳之患。左传医和论六气曰。阴淫寒疾。阳淫热疾。班固云。医经者。原人血
脉经络。骨髓。阴阳表里。以起百病之本。死生之分。可以见也。而汉之时。凡说阴阳者。必系之于黄帝。淮南子
曰。黄帝生阴阳。又云。世俗之人。多尊古而贱今。故为道者。必托之于神农黄帝。而后能入说。高诱注云。说
。言也。言为二圣所作。乃能入其说于人。人乃用之。刘向云。言阴阳五行。以为黄帝之道。汉志。阴阳医卜之
书。冠黄帝二字者。凡十有余家。此其证也。是书设为黄帝岐伯之问答者。亦汉人所撰述无疑。方今医家。或牵
合衍赘。以为三坟之一。或者诋毁排斥。以为赝伪之书者。俱为失矣。
唐尧、虞舜的时代算是较早的了。唐尧、虞舜时期的书籍不过几百字罢了。而黄帝的书籍，竟然多达数千万字吗？况且前代百姓利用的事物，都是五帝以前圣人创立的。为什么其他事情都没有文献可以考证，唯独治病的书籍详细完备到这种地步呢？另外，《内经》一书，文风刚健峻峭，像先秦诸子百家的著作；其义理广博精深，极像《管子》和《荀子》；用词质朴深奥，又类似《鬼谷子》。这如果不是秦代人的作品，还能是什么呢？有人又说：这个人有如此学问，为什么不自己署名，而要假托古人呢？回答说：就像汲冢出土的《竹书》、《越绝书》等，这些人只求他们的书能流传下去，不必让名字显赫，这也符合前人质朴的心意。如果是当今世人，一无所见，便狂妄地自居为作者行列了。（出自《庆符堂集》）
杭世骏说：李珠问：黄帝向岐伯请教并撰写《内经》，现在的《内经》，果然是当年的原书呢，还是后人所记录的呢？回答说：《内经》在刘向编纂《七略》时就已经存在了。秦始皇焚毁诗书，《内经》大概因为属于方术之书得以保存。这本书深奥精密，不是后人所能伪造假托的。（出自《质疑》）
魏荔彤说：轩辕、岐伯的书籍，类似于春秋战国时期的人所作，而假托于上古时代。文章顺承义理，润泽流畅，篇章连贯，读起来俨然如同《礼经》一样。（出自《伤寒论本义序》）
张志聪说：三坟五典是史官记述的书籍，先阐述义理的精微，其次叙述君臣之间的咨询访问，本意是要使这一道术彰明，永远刻在金石之上。所以它的文辞，或许加以铺陈发挥。至于阴阳的离合盛衰，气血的生始出入，那种神灵睿圣的境界，怎么能洞察隔着墙垣的事物呢？
他又说：阴阳的道理，论述陈列出来，总归于一，推演计算它，可以是万，可以是千。所以整部经文的意义，有时在同中显示差异，有时在异中见到相同。言辞似乎矛盾，但道理并无不合。
冯舒说：《素问》一书，通篇都有韵律。（出自《诗纪匡缪》）
《四库全书简明目录》说：《黄帝素问》原本残缺，王冰采集《阴阳大论》来补充它。这本书声称出于上古时代，固然未必确实，但也一定是周秦之间的人，传述旧闻，写在竹帛上。所以贯通天地人三才，包括万千变化，即使是张机、李杲、刘完素、朱震亨等人，终身钻研仰慕，最终也不能穷尽其中的深奥。韩曰：秦汉以前，只有理论没有具体方剂，所以《内经》诸书，郑重详尽，也多有累世附会窜杂的言论。（出自《医通》）
刘奎说：《内经》多系后人假托，从它的文章可以看出。就像《尚书》断限始于唐尧、虞舜，其文辞曲折生硬，不注解几乎无法读懂。如果《内经》果真是黄帝时代的书，其文辞的古奥，又不知该到什么程度。现在看它的笔墨，一半像秦汉时期的文本，它是后人假托无疑。何况经过多次兵火，难免有简牍错乱、文字讹误的情况，这是势所必然的。孟子对于《武成》篇尚且只取其中两三片简，何况其他的呢？（出自《温疫论类编》）
姚际恒说：《汉书·艺文志》记载有《黄帝内经》十八卷。《隋书·经籍志》才开始有《黄帝素问》九卷。唐代王冰为之作注。王冰认为《汉书·艺文志》中有《内经》十八卷，于是将《素问》九卷和《灵枢》九卷合起来，当作《内经》十八卷，这实际上是附会。所以后人将《素问》归属于《内经》名下，是不对的。或者是后人得到了《内经》，而衍生出它的学说成为《素问》，也未可知。《素问》这个名字，人们难以一下子明白。我考察《汉书·艺文志》阴阳家类，有《黄帝泰素》二十篇，这必定是取了“素”这个字，又因为是岐伯问答，所以叫《素问》。这本书被后世尊崇，作为医家的始祖。然而书中的言论实在多有穿凿附会之处，甚至认为是黄帝与岐伯的对问，简直荒诞不经。无论《隋书·经籍志》中的《素问》，还是《汉书·艺文志》所载的《黄帝内外经》，都是根据假托而成的。其他的如神农、轩辕、风后、力牧之类，全都是这样，难道真有其书吗？有人说，这本书中有“失侯失王”的话语。秦灭六国，汉朝废除诸侯王国，才开始有失去侯爵王位的人。我考察其中提到“黔首”，又在《藏气法时论》中提到夜半、平旦、日出、日中、日昳、下晡，不说十二地支，应当是秦人作的。又有提到岁甲子、寅时，则是汉以后的人所作。所以其中所言，有古老和近代之分，不能一概而论。（出自《古今伪书考》）
何梦瑶说：过去的人说《内经》不是岐黄之书，而是后人的假托。大概未必出于一人之手，所以有的纯正，有的有瑕疵，分别观察就可以了。（出自《医碥》）
薛雪说：黄帝撰写《内经》，史册上有记载，但原书已失传。不知道是哪一代精通医理的人，假托君臣问答的形式，撰成《素问》、《灵枢》两经流传于世。想必也是听闻老辈人的陈述，敷衍而成。虽然文章多有残缺，实则是万古不朽之作。窥探它立言的宗旨，无非是窃取古代壁中藏书的意思，所以多用繁复的文辞。然而比不上拜手赓歌、都俞吁咈的风貌，相差甚远。而且那个时代，才命令大挠制定甲子，其干支节序占卜候气，哪里符合今天的历法？美酒溺毙生命，是大禹开始厌恶的，品尝玄酒味道淡薄，谁喜欢把它当浆喝，以致经脉满络虚，肝浮胆横呢？至于十二经配十二水名，那时大地尚未平整安定，怎么江淮河济四方疆域，竟与后世没有差别？这样的漏洞，不止一处。（出自《医经原旨绪言》）
按：先父说：《汉书·艺文志》记载《黄帝内经》十八卷，《外经》三十七卷，以及白氏、扁鹊《内外经》的名目。“内”、“外”，就像《易经》的内卦、外卦，以及《春秋》内外传，《庄子》内外篇，《韩非子》内外储说，只是按次第命名罢了，不必有深意。“内”字的解释，各家说法不一，不可盲从。“素问”之名，林亿等人认为询问太素之义是正确的。《史记·殷本纪》记载伊尹跟随商汤，谈论素王及九主之事。司马贞索隐说：素王者，太素上皇，其道质素，所以称素王。《列子·杨朱》和《列子·天瑞》（注：原文干凿度应为《列子·天瑞》或相关纬书，此处依原文译）并说：太素者，质的开始。《汉书·艺文志》有《黄帝泰素》二十篇。刘向《别录》说：讲述阴阳五行，认为是黄帝的道术，所以叫太素。《素问》，就是太素的问答，义理可以证明这一点。它不说“问素”，而叫“素问”，就像屈原的《天问》，是倒置而下字罢了。全元起的注解意义不太明确。吴昆等人认为是在平素讲求问答的意义。晁公武《郡斋读书志》说：过去的人说《素问》，是用素书记载黄帝的问题，就像说素书一样。这些都是臆测之见罢了。至于《云笈七签》、《神仙通鉴》说：天降素女，治疗人的疾病，黄帝问她，作成《素问》。这太荒诞了。大概《内经》的名称，见于《汉书·艺文志》，而《素问》之名，出自张仲景《伤寒论》序，说：“素问九卷。”九卷，就是现在的《灵枢》。以《素》、《灵》二书为《内经》的，出自皇甫谧《针灸甲乙经》序。而后历代诸家，不再有异论。胡应麟特别指出《素问》现在又称《内经》，然而《隋书·经籍志》只名为《素问》。大概是《黄帝内外经》五十五卷，在六朝时期亡佚散失，所以后人缀辑整理，更改了它的名字。这最有道理。然而晋代距离汉代不远，皇甫氏所作的序，或许是古来相传的说法，也不可废弃。第七卷，已在晋代亡佚。皇甫谧《针灸甲乙经》序说：也有亡失。《隋书·经籍志》记载梁代《七录》也说：只存八卷。据林亿等人的说法，全元起所注的本子，就没有第七卷。而王冰根据旧藏卷次，补入七篇，与《素问》其余篇章的文字，显然不同。其论述运气的内容，与《六节脏象论》七百十八字，全然是一家之言。林亿等人认为是《阴阳大论》的文字，王冰取用来补充所亡失的部分。现在考察王叔和《伤寒例》所引用的《阴阳大论》文字，未曾见过。林说的难以遵从。至于其篇章次第，不知道古经是怎样的。据林亿等人校正的说法，全元起本八卷，共六十八篇，到王冰补入七篇，又分为八十一篇，是仿效《道德经》、《难经》。这本书实在是医经中最古老的，保存了往圣的遗言。自晋代皇甫谧以来，历代医家，断定是岐黄所作，这非常不对。医学谈论阴阳已经很久了。庄子说疾病是阴阳的祸患。《左传》中医和论述六气说：阴气过盛导致寒疾，阳气过盛导致热疾。班固说：医经，探究人的血脉经络骨髓，阴阳表里，以起百病之本，死生之分，是可以看见的。而在汉代的时候，凡是谈论阴阳的人，一定将其系于黄帝名下。《淮南子》说：黄帝生阴阳。又说：世俗之人，多尊古而贱今，所以从事道术的人，必须假托于神农、黄帝，然后才能让人信服。高诱注释说：说，即言也。说是这两位圣人作的，才能让人接受他的学说，人们才会使用。刘向说：讲述阴阳五行，认为是黄帝的道术。《汉书·艺文志》中，阴阳医卜之书，冠以黄帝二字者，共有十多家。这是证据。这本书假设为黄帝、岐伯的问答，也是汉代人所撰写无疑。当今医家，有的牵强附会、堆砌赘余，把它当作三坟之一；有的诋毁排斥，把它当作赝伪之书，这都是错误的。
The era of Tang Yao and Yu Shun is considered relatively early. The books from the time of Tang Yao and Yu Shun amount to only a few hundred characters. Yet, how can the books attributed to Huang Di (Yellow Emperor) reach tens of millions of characters? Moreover, the matters concerning the utility for the people in earlier times were all established by sages before the Five Emperors. Why is it that while other affairs have no documents to verify them, only the books on treating diseases are detailed and exhaustive to such an extent? Furthermore, the *Nei Jing* (Inner Canon, Internal Classic) exhibits a literary style that is firm and steep, resembling the works of the Pre-Qin philosophers; its principles are broad and profound, very much like those of *Guanzi* and *Xunzi*; its vocabulary is simple yet profound, similar to *Guiguzi*. If this were not a work from the Qin period, what else could it be? Some might say: This person possesses such scholarship; why did he not sign his own name but instead falsely attribute it to ancient figures? The answer is: Just as with the *Zhu Shu* (Bamboo Annals) excavated from the Ji tomb and the *Yue Jue Shu*, these individuals only sought for their books to be transmitted, without needing their names to be prominent. This still reflects the simplicity of earlier generations. If modern people, seeing nothing, would arrogantly place themselves among the authors. (From *Qingfu Tang Ji*)
Hang Shijun said: Li Zhu asked: Huang Di consulted with Qi Bo to compose the *Nei Jing*. Is the current *Nei Jing* indeed the book from that year, or is it recorded by later generations? He answered: The *Nei Jing* already existed when Liu Xiang compiled the *Qi Lu* (Seven Records). During the burning of poetry and history books by Qin Shi Huang, the *Nei Jing* likely survived because it belonged to the category of Fangshu (techniques and arts). The book is profound and precise, not something that later generations could forge or falsely attribute. (From *Zhi Yi*)
Wei Litong said: The writings of Xuanyuan (Huang Di) and Qi Bo are similar to those composed during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, but falsely attributed to antiquity. The text follows the meaning smoothly and is rich in grace, with coherent chapters. Reading it feels exactly like reading the *Li Jing* (Classic of Rites). (Preface to *Shanghan Lun Benyi*)
Zhang Zhicong said: The San Fen Wu Dian (Three Fens and Five Dians) are books recorded by historians. They first expound the subtleties of principles, then narrate the consultations between rulers and ministers. The original intent was to make this Dao clear and eternal, carved in metal and stone. Therefore, its language may involve elaboration. As for the separation and union, flourishing and decline of Yin and Yang, and the generation, origin, entry, and exit of Blood and Qi, how could spiritual wisdom penetrate through walls?
He also said: The principles of Yin and Yang, discussed and listed, ultimately return to One. By deducing and counting them, they can be ten thousand or a thousand. Thus, the meaning of the entire scripture sometimes shows differences within similarities, and sometimes sees similarities within differences. The words may seem contradictory, but the principles fit perfectly without conflict.
Feng Shu said: The *Su Wen* (Basic Questions) is rhymed throughout. (From *Shiji Kuangmiu*)
The *Brief Catalog of the Complete Library of the Four Treasuries* states: The original *Huangdi Suwen* was incomplete. Wang Bing collected the *Yin Yang Da Lun* (Great Treatise on Yin and Yang) to supplement it. Although the claim that this book originated in antiquity is certainly not certain, it must have been transmitted by people from the Zhou or Qin periods, recording old knowledge on bamboo and silk. Thus, it integrates the Three Powers (Heaven, Earth, Human), encompasses myriad changes, and even scholars like Zhang Ji, Li Gao, Liu Wansu, and Zhu Zhenheng, who studied and admired it all their lives, could never fully exhaust its profundity. Han Yue stated: Before the Qin and Han dynasties, there were theories but no prescriptions. Therefore, the various *Nei Jing* texts are serious and detailed, containing many statements attached or mixed together over generations. (From *YiTong*)
Liu Kui said: The *Nei Jing* is mostly falsely attributed by later generations, which can be seen from its writing. For instance, the *Shangshu* (Book of Documents) starts from Tang Yao and Yu Shun, and its language is tortuous and cumbersome, impossible to understand quickly without annotations. If the *Nei Jing* were truly from the time of Huang Di, its archaic and profound language would be incomprehensible. Observing its brushwork, half resembles the texts of the Qin and Han dynasties, proving it is largely a later fabrication. Moreover, after numerous wars, errors in bamboo slips and textual corruptions were inevitable. Mencius only took two or three slips from the *Wucheng* chapter; how much more so for others? (From *Wenyi Lun Leibian*)
Yao Jiheng said: The *Han Shu · Yiwenzhi* records eighteen volumes of *Huangdi Nei Jing*. The *Sui Shu · Jingjizhi* first mentions nine volumes of *Huangdi Suwen*. Wang Bing of the Tang Dynasty annotated it. Wang Bing reasoned that since the *Han Shu* mentioned eighteen volumes of *Nei Jing*, he combined the nine volumes of *Suwen* and nine volumes of *Lingshu* to equal eighteen, which was actually an apocryphal connection. Therefore, later generations linking *Suwen* to *Nei Jing* is incorrect. It is possible that later generations obtained the *Nei Jing* and expanded its theories into the *Suwen*. The name *Suwen* is hard to grasp immediately. I examined the *Yin-Yang* school in the *Han Shu · Yiwenzhi*, which lists *Huangdi Taisu* (Yellow Emperor's Great Simplicity). This likely took the character "Su" (Simple/Pure). Since it involves questions and answers with Qi Bo, it is called *Suwen*. This book is revered by later generations as the ancestor of medical schools. However, its statements are often forced interpretations. To claim it is a dialogue between Huang Di and Qi Bo is absurd. Whether referring to the *Suwen* in the *Sui Shu* or the *Huangdi Neiwai Jing* in the *Han Shu*, both are based on false attribution. The same applies to Shennong, Xuanyuan, Feng Hou, Limu, etc. Did these books really exist? Some argue that the phrase "losing marquises and kings" implies the Qin destruction of six states and the Han abolition of vassal kingdoms. However, the text mentions "Qianshou" (commoners) and uses terms like midnight, dawn, sunrise, noon, afternoon, and dusk, without mentioning the twelve earthly branches, suggesting it was written by Qin people. Yet, it also mentions Jiazi years and Yin hours, indicating Han dynasty authorship. Thus, the content has both ancient and recent elements, and cannot be generalized. (From *Gujin Weishu Kao*)
He Mengyao said: Ancients claimed the *Nei Jing* was not written by Qi Bo and Huang Di, but falsely attributed by later generations. It was likely not produced by a single hand, hence containing both pure and flawed parts, which should be viewed separately. (From *Yi Bian*)
Xue Xue said: History records that Huang Di wrote the *Nei Jing*, but the original book is lost. It is unknown which generation of medical experts fabricated the dialogue format to compile the *Suwen* and *Lingshu* for transmission. They likely heard accounts from elders and elaborated upon them. Although the text has many gaps, it is an immortal work. Its purpose seems to mimic ancient wall-library texts, hence the verbose language. However, it lacks the elegance of ancient rituals. At that time, Da Nao had just invented the Jiazi system; the calendar and astrological methods did not match today's. Sweet wine causing death was detested by Yu the Great; who would prefer bland water as a drink, leading to full meridians and empty collaterals, floating liver, and horizontal gallbladder? Regarding the pairing of twelve meridians with twelve rivers, the earth was not yet stabilized then, so how could the Jiang, Huai, Yellow, and Ji rivers' boundaries match later eras? Such loopholes are numerous. (Introduction to *Yijing Yuanzhi*)
Note: My late father said: The *Han Shu · Yiwenzhi* records eighteen volumes of *Huangdi Nei Jing* and thirty-seven volumes of *Wai Jing*, along with titles for Bai Shi and Bian Que's *Nei Wai Jing*. "Nei" (Internal) and "Wai" (External) are merely sequential designations, like the inner and outer hexagrams of the *I Ching*, or internal and external commentaries of the *Spring and Autumn Annals*, and do not imply deep meaning. Various explanations for "Nei" are inconsistent and should not be followed blindly. Regarding the name *Suwen*, Lin Yi et al. correctly identified it as asking about the meaning of "Taisu" (Great Simplicity). In the *Shiji · Yin Benji*, Yi Yin accompanied Tang and spoke of the "Su Wang" (Plain King) and Nine Masters. Sima Zhen's commentary explains: The Plain King refers to the Great Simplicity Supreme Sovereign, whose way is plain and simple. *Liezi* also states: Taisu is the beginning of substance. The *Han Shu · Yiwenzhi* lists twenty chapters of *Huangdi Taisu*. Liu Xiang's *Bielu* says it discusses Yin-Yang and Five Elements as the Way of Huang Di, hence called Taisu. *Suwen* is thus the Q&A of Taisu. The reason it is called *Suwen* rather than *Wen Su* is like Qu Yuan's *Tianwen* (Heavenly Questions), using inverted syntax. Quan Yuanqi's explanation was unclear. Wu Kun et al. thought it meant daily inquiry. Chao Gongwu's *Dushu Zhi* suggested it means recording Huang Di's questions simply, which is speculative. The claims in *Yunji Qiqian* and *Shenxian Tongjian* that the Goddess Su descended to teach Huang Di medicine are extremely absurd. The title *Nei Jing* appears in the *Han Shu · Yiwenzhi*, while *Suwen* appears in Zhang Zhongjing's preface to *Shanghan Lun*. The identification of *Suwen* and *Lingshu* as *Nei Jing* comes from Huang Fumi's preface to *Jiuzhen Jiayi Jing*. Later generations accepted this. Hu Yinglin argued that *Suwen* is now called *Nei Jing* because the *Sui Shu* only named it *Suwen*, implying the original fifty-five volumes of *Huangdi Neiwai Jing* were lost in the Six Dynasties, and later editors renamed the compiled fragments. This is reasonable. Since Jin was close to Han, Huang Fumi's preface might reflect traditional views. Volume 7 was lost in Jin. According to Lin Yi, Quan Yuanqi's version lacked Volume 7. Wang Bing supplemented seven chapters from old collections, differing from the rest of *Suwen*. His discussion on Yunqi (Luck/Qi movement) differs significantly from the *Liujie Zangxiang Lun*. Lin Yi attributed this to the *Yin Yang Da Lun*, but Wang Shuhe's citations do not show this, making Lin's view difficult to accept. The chapter arrangement in Wang Bing's version (81 chapters) imitates the *Daodejing* and *Nanjing*. This book is the oldest medical classic, preserving sage teachings. Since Huang Fumi, physicians have attributed it to Qi Bo and Huang Di, which is incorrect. Medical discussion of Yin-Yang is ancient. Zhuangzi spoke of disease as Yin-Yang affliction. *Zuo Zhuan* records Yi He discussing Six Qi. Ban Gu defined *Yijing* as exploring blood, vessels, meridians, bones, marrow, Yin-Yang, and interior-exterior to determine the root of diseases and life-death distinctions. In Han times, discussions on Yin-Yang were always associated with Huang Di. *Huainanzi* states Huang Di generated Yin-Yang. People respected antiquity and despised the present, so theorists attributed their works to Shennong or Huang Di to gain acceptance. Liu Xiang noted that Yin-Yang and divination books prefixed with "Huangdi" numbered over ten. This proves the *Nei Jing* dialogues between Huang Di and Qi Bo were likely Han dynasty compositions. Modern physicians either force it into the "San Fen" (Three Fens) canon or dismiss it as fake; both are wrong.