东坡先生尝曰∶吾平生求医，盖于平时默验其工拙，至于有疾，必先尽告以所患而后诊
视，使医者了然，知厥疾之所在，虚实冷热先定于中，则脉之疑似不能惑也。故虽中医，疗
疾常愈。吾求疾愈而已，岂以困医为事哉？诚哉斯言，真警迷济世之砭剂也。何者？脉之与
证相依而行，脉者所以剖其证之未明，证者所以索其脉之犹隐。据脉以验证，所谓得乎应心
者是尔，问证以参脉，所谓医者意也是尔。乌可举一而废一哉？私窃怪夫！近世以来，多秘
所患以求诊，以此验医者之能否。医亦不屑下问，孟浪一诊，以自挟其所长。甚者病家从前
误药或饮食居处有所讳诲，虽问之而不以尽告，遂至索病于冥漠之间，辨虚实冷热于疑似之
顷，毫厘千里宁不委命一掷与人试伎乎？此余于终篇所以特举前辈格言，以解世俗之惑，不
然《难经》有谓∶问其所欲五味，以知其病之所起所在者，又果何意邪？（大人、小儿诸病
瘥后，饮食且须渐进，常若不足，毋使食气伤胃，其病复来。大热方退，尤不可饱。小儿伤
乳，热复则同。）
《易简方论》前后，活人不知其几，近世之士，类以《春秋》之法绳之，曰《易简绳愆》，
曰《增广易简》，曰《续易简论》，借古人之盛名以自伸其臆说。吁！王氏何负于人哉？余谓
《易简方论》，后学指南，四时治要，议论似之自有人心权度存焉耳。况王氏晚年剂量更定
者不一，日月薄蚀，何损于明，若夫索瘢洗垢，矫而过焉，或者公论之所不予也。
苏东坡先生曾经说：“我平生求医，都是在平时默默观察医生的医术高低。等到生病时，一定先把所有的病情详细告诉医生，然后再进行诊脉，使医生心里清楚明白，知道疾病的具体所在，虚实寒热先在心中确立，那么脉象的疑似之处就不会迷惑他了。所以即使是中等水平的医生，治疗疾病也常常能痊愈。我只追求疾病痊愈罢了，哪里会把难为医生当作一回事呢？”这话确实正确，真是警醒迷误、救济世人的良药啊。为什么呢？脉象与证候是相互依存而行的。脉象是用来剖析那些尚未明确的证候，证候是用来探寻那些尚且隐蔽的脉象。依据脉象来验证证候，这就是所谓“得乎应心”（医者心中有所感应契合）；询问证候来参合脉象，这就是所谓“医者意也”（医者需用心体会揣摩）。怎么可以只取其一而废弃另一呢？我私下里感到奇怪的是：近代以来，许多人隐瞒自己的病情以求被诊断，以此来检验医生是否有能力。医生也不屑于向下询问，轻率地切一次脉，以此自夸其所长。更严重的，病家之前误服药物或饮食起居方面有忌讳，虽然问了却不全部告知，导致医生在模糊不清中摸索病因，在似是而非之间辨别虚实寒热，这难道不是差之毫厘谬以千里，把自己的性命像赌博一样交给别人去试手艺吗？这就是我在全书结尾特意举起前辈的格言，来解除世俗困惑的原因。否则，《难经》中说：“询问病人想吃的五味，从而知道疾病的发生原因和所在部位”，这又是什意思呢？（大人、小儿各种疾病痊愈后，饮食都必须逐渐增加，常觉得不够吃，不要让食气损伤胃气，导致疾病复发。大热刚退，尤其不可吃饱。小儿伤乳，发热复发则与此相同。）
《易简方论》前后，不知救活了多少人。近代的士人，大多用《春秋》笔法来苛责它，称其为《易简绳愆》，称其为《增广易简》，称其为《续易简论》，借古人的盛名来伸展自己的主观学说。唉！王好古先生对世人有什么亏欠呢？我认为《易简方论》是后学的指南，四季治疗的要点，其中的议论自然有人心的准则在其中。况且王氏晚年对剂量修改确定的不止一处，就像日月蚀损，并不损害日月的光明。如果非要吹毛求疵，过分挑剔，或许公论是不会赞同的吧。
Mr. Su Dongpo once said, "Throughout my life, in seeking medical treatment, I have silently observed the proficiency or incompetence of doctors during ordinary times. When illness strikes, I first inform them completely of my ailments before allowing pulse diagnosis. This enables the physician to clearly understand and locate the disease, establishing a prior judgment on deficiency/excess (Xu/Shi) and cold/heat within their mind. Consequently, ambiguous pulse findings will not confuse them. Thus, even a doctor of average skill can often cure diseases. My sole aim is recovery; I do not intend to make things difficult for the physician." These words are indeed true, serving as a corrective remedy to awaken the deluded and benefit the world. Why? Because pulse and syndrome (Zheng) travel together in interdependence. The pulse serves to analyze syndromes that are not yet clear, while the syndrome helps to uncover hidden aspects of the pulse. Relying on the pulse to verify the syndrome is what is meant by "the heart's resonance" (De Hu Ying Xin); questioning the syndrome to corroborate the pulse is what is meant by "the physician's intuitive understanding" (Yi Zhe Yi Ye). How can one adopt one and discard the other? I privately wonder: Since modern times, many patients conceal their symptoms to be diagnosed, thereby testing the physician's capability. Physicians, in turn, disdain asking questions, rashly taking a single pulse reading to boast of their expertise. Worse still, if the patient has previously taken incorrect medicines or has taboos regarding diet and lifestyle, they may withhold information even when asked. This forces the physician to seek the cause in obscurity and distinguish deficiency/excess and cold/heat amidst ambiguity. Is this not risking a thousand-li error due to a millimeter's deviation, gambling one's life on another's experimental skills? This is why I specifically cite the maxims of predecessors at the end of this work, to dispel worldly confusion. Otherwise, what is the meaning of the statement in the *Nan Jing* (Classic of Difficult Issues): "Ask what flavors the patient desires to know the origin and location of the disease"? (For adults and children recovering from various illnesses, diet must be gradually increased. One should always feel slightly hungry; do not let food stagnation damage the Stomach Qi, causing the disease to return. After high fever subsides, one must particularly avoid overeating. For infants with milk injury, if heat recurs, it is treated similarly.)
Before and after the publication of *Yi Jian Fang Lun* (Easy and Simple Formulas), countless lives were saved. However, scholars of recent times tend to judge it using the critical standards of the *Spring and Autumn Annals*, labeling it *Yi Jian Sheng Qian* (Correcting Errors in Easy and Simple), *Zeng Guang Yi Jian* (Expanded Easy and Simple), and *Xu Yi Jian Lun* (Continuation of Easy and Simple Discourse), borrowing the great reputation of ancients to promote their own subjective theories. Alas! What did Wang Haogu owe to the people? I maintain that *Yi Jian Fang Lun* serves as a guide for junior learners and a summary of seasonal treatments. Its discussions naturally contain the moral compass of human conscience. Moreover, Wang revised dosages numerous times in his later years. Just as solar and lunar eclipses do not diminish the brightness of the sun and moon, these revisions do not detract from its value. If one insists on nitpicking and being overly critical, public opinion may well disapprove.