王叔和着《脉经》，分门别类，条分缕晰，其原亦本《内经》，而汉以后之说，一无所
遗。
其中旨趣，亦不能划一，使人有所执持。然其汇簇言，使后世有所考见，亦不可少之作也
。愚按∶脉之为道，不过验其血气之盛衰，寒热和邪气之流，在何经何脏，与所现之症，参
观互考，以究其生克顺逆之理，而后吉凶可凭。所以《内经》、《难经》及仲景之论脉，其
立论反若甚疏，而应验如神。若执《脉经》之说，以为某病当见某脉，某脉当得某病，虽《
内经》亦间有之，不如是之拘泥繁琐也。试而不验，于是或咎脉之不准，或咎病之非真，或
咎方药之不对症，而不知皆非也。盖病有与脉相合者，有与脉不相合者，兼有与脉相反者。
同一脉也，见于此症为宜，见于彼症为不宜。同一症也，见某脉为宜，见某脉为不宜。一病
可见数十脉，一脉可现数百症，变动不拘。若泥定一说，则从脉而症不合，从症而脉又不合
，反令人彷徨，无所适从。所以古今论脉之家，彼此互异，是非各别。人持一论，得失相半
，总由不知变通之精义，所以愈密而愈疏也。读《脉经》者，知古业谈脉之详密如此，因以
考其异同，辨其得失，审其真伪，穷其变通，则自有心得。若欲泥脉以治病，必至全无把握
。学人必当先参于《内经》、《难经》及仲景之说而贯通之，则胸中先有定见，后人之论，
皆足以广我之见闻，而识力愈真。此读《脉经》之法也。
王叔和撰写《脉经》，分门别类，条理清晰，其源头也基于《内经》（黄帝内经），而汉代以后的各种学说，无一遗漏。
其中的主旨意趣，也不能完全统一，使人有所依据持守。然而他汇集众说，使后世有所考证发现，也是不可缺少的著作。
我认为：脉诊的道理，不过是检验血气（血液与元气）的盛衰，寒热及邪气的流行，在何经何脏，与所呈现的症状，参照观察互相考证，来探究其生克顺逆的道理，然后吉凶可以凭信。所以《内经》、《难经》以及张仲景论述脉诊，他们的立论反而似乎很疏略，但应验如神。如果执着于《脉经》的说法，认为某病应当见到某脉，某脉应当得到某病，虽然《内经》中也有这种情况，但不像这样拘泥繁琐。试验而不灵验，于是有人责怪脉象不准，有人责怪病情不真，有人责怪方药不对症，却不知道这些都是错误的。因为疾病有与脉象相合的，有与脉象不相合的，兼有与脉象相反的。同样的脉象，见于此症状为适宜，见于彼症状为不适宜。同样的症状，见某脉为适宜，见某脉为不适宜。一种病可见数十种脉象，一种脉象可现数百种症状，变动不拘泥。如果拘泥定于一说，那么从脉象推导则症状不合，从症状推导则脉象又不合，反而令人彷徨，无所适从。所以古今论述脉诊的人，彼此互异，是非各别。人持守一种理论，得失各半，总归是因为不知道变通的精义，所以越严密反而越疏漏。读《脉经》的人，知道古人谈论脉诊的详细周密如此，因此用来考证其异同，辨别其得失，审视其真伪，穷究其变通，则自然会有心得。如果想要拘泥于脉象来治病，必定会全无把握。学医之人必须首先参考《内经》、《难经》以及张仲景的说法并贯通它们，那么胸中先有定见，后人的论述，都足以开阔我的见闻，而识别能力更加真实。这就是读《脉经》的方法。
Wang Shuhe compiled the *Mai Jing* (Pulse Classic), categorizing and classifying pulse diagnoses, presenting them in a clear and detailed manner. Its origins are based on the *Nei Jing* (Inner Canon of the Yellow Emperor), and it includes all theories from the Han Dynasty onwards without omission.
However, its core principles are not entirely uniform, making it difficult for practitioners to hold onto a single standard. Nevertheless, by compiling these various views, it provides a reference for future generations, making it an indispensable work.
I observe that the principle of pulse diagnosis is merely to verify the abundance or deficiency of Xue Qi (Blood and Vital Qi), and the flow of Cold-Heat and pathogenic factors within specific meridians and Zang-Fu organs. By cross-referencing these findings with the manifested symptoms, one can investigate the principles of generation, restriction, smoothness, and reversal, thereby determining auspicious or inauspicious outcomes. Therefore, the discussions on pulse diagnosis in the *Nei Jing*, *Nan Jing* (Classic of Difficult Issues), and Zhang Zhongjing's works appear somewhat sparse in their theoretical formulation, yet they prove remarkably accurate in practice. If one rigidly adheres to the statements in the *Mai Jing*, assuming that a specific disease must present a specific pulse, or a specific pulse indicates a specific disease—even though such correlations exist occasionally in the *Nei Jing*—this approach is overly dogmatic and cumbersome. When clinical application fails, some blame the inaccuracy of the pulse, others blame the misdiagnosis of the disease, and still others blame the incompatibility of the prescription and herbs, failing to realize that all these attributions are incorrect.
Diseases may align with pulses, contradict them, or even oppose them. The same pulse may be appropriate for one symptom but inappropriate for another. The same symptom may correspond to a suitable pulse in one context but an unsuitable one in another. A single disease may present dozens of different pulses, while a single pulse type may manifest across hundreds of different symptoms; these variations are flexible and unrigid. If one sticks dogmatically to a single theory, deriving symptoms from pulses will lead to inconsistencies, and deriving pulses from symptoms will also fail, causing confusion and indecision. Thus, ancient and modern experts on pulse diagnosis differ from each other, with distinct judgments on right and wrong. Each holds their own theory, resulting in mixed success and failure, primarily due to a lack of understanding of the profound meaning of adaptability; consequently, the more meticulous the theory, the more flawed it becomes.
Those who study the *Mai Jing* should recognize the detailed and rigorous nature of ancient pulse discourse, use it to examine similarities and differences, distinguish merits and faults, assess authenticity, and explore its adaptability, thereby gaining personal insights. However, attempting to treat diseases solely by rigidly following pulse indications will inevitably lead to a lack of confidence. Students of medicine must first study and integrate the teachings of the *Nei Jing*, *Nan Jing*, and Zhang Zhongjing to establish a firm foundation in their minds. Only then can the discussions of later scholars serve to broaden their horizons and refine their diagnostic acumen. This is the correct method for studying the *Mai Jing*.