凡治火之法，有曰升阳散火者，有曰滋阴降火者。夫火一也，而曰升曰降，皆堪治火。
然升则从阳，降则从阴，而升降混用，能无悖乎？抑何者宜升，何者宜降，而用有辨乎？此千
古之疑窦，亦千古之两端，而未闻有达之者。夫火之为病，有发于阴者，有发于阳者。发于
阴者，火自内生者也；发于阳者，火自外致者也。自内生者，为五内之火，宜清宜降者也；
自外致者，为风热之火，宜散宜升者也。今人凡见火证，无分表里，必曰木火同气，动辄称
为风热，多用升阳散火之法。呜呼！此似近理，孰得非之。而不知至理所在，无容混也。
夫风热之义，其说有二∶有因风而生热者，有因热而生风者。因风生热者，以风寒外闭
而火郁于中，此外感阳分之火，风为本而火为标也。因热生风者，以热极伤阴而火达于外，
此内伤阴分之火，火为本而风为标也。经曰∶治病必求其本。可见外感之火，当先治风，风
散而火自息，宜升散不宜清降。内生之火，当先治火，火灭而风自清，宜清降不宜升散。若
反而为之，则外感之邪得清降而闭固愈甚，内生之火得升散而燔燎何当。此其内因外因，自
有脉证可详辨也。
余阅方书，所见头目、口齿、咽喉、脏腑阴火等证，悉云风热，多以升降并用，从逆
兼施。独不虑升者碍降，降者碍升乎？从者忌逆，逆者忌从乎？经曰∶高者抑之，下者举之，
寒者热之，热者寒之。又曰∶病生于内者，先治其阴，后治其阳，反者益甚。病生于阳者，
先治其外，后治其内，反者益甚。此自不易之正理。故余之立方处治，宜抑者则直从乎降，
宜举者则直从乎升。所以见效速而绝无耽延之患，亦不过见之真而取之捷耳。若今人之轻病
致重，重病致危，而经年累月，日深日甚，以致不救者，谓非两端之误之也乎？明者于此，
最当辨也。
凡是治疗火证的方法，有的称为“升阳散火”，有的称为“滋阴降火”。火这一病邪，既说可以升散，又说可以清降，似乎都能用来治火。
然而，升法属于阳，降法属于阴，如果将升降两种方法混用，难道不会违背医理吗？究竟什么情况适宜用升法，什么情况适宜用降法，使用上是否有区别呢？这是千古以来的疑点，也是千古以来争论的两个极端，却从未听说有人能透彻阐明。火的致病，有发于阴分的，有发于阳分的。发于阴分的，是火从体内产生的；发于阳分的，是火从外部侵袭导致的。从内部产生的，属于五脏之火，应当清热、应当降逆的；从外部侵袭的，属于风热之火，应当疏散、应当升散的。现在的人凡见到火证，不分表里，一定说是木火同气，动不动就称为风热，大多使用升阳散火的方法。唉！这看似有理，谁能指出其错误呢？却不知道真正的医理所在，不容混淆。
关于风热的含义，有两种说法：有因风而生热的，有因热而生风的。因风生热的，是因为风寒外束闭塞，导致火郁结在体内，这是外感阳分之火，风是根本而火是标象。因热生风的，是因为热极损伤阴液，导致火发散到体表，这是内伤阴分之火，火是根本而风是标象。《内经》说：治病必须探究其根本。可见外感的火邪，应当先治风，风邪散去而火自然平息，适宜升散而不适宜清降。内生的火邪，应当先治火，火邪熄灭而风自然清静，适宜清降而不适宜升散。如果反过来处理，那么外感的邪气得到清降就会使闭塞更加严重，内生的火邪得到升散就会像烈火焚烧一样何时才能停止。这些内因和外因，自有脉象和症状可以详细辨别。
我阅读医书，所见到的头目、口齿、咽喉、脏腑阴火等证候，都说是风热，大多同时使用升法和降法，顺治与逆治兼施。难道不担心升法妨碍降法，降法妨碍升法吗？顺治忌讳逆治，逆治忌讳顺治吗？《内经》说：位置高的用抑制的方法，位置低的用提升的方法，寒证用热药，热证用寒药。又说：病生于体内的，先治阴分，后治阳分，反其道而行病情会更加严重。病生于体表的，先治外部，后治内部，反其道而行病情会更加严重。这是不可改变的正理。所以我制定方剂和进行治疗时，适宜抑制的就直接采用降法，适宜提升的就直接采用升法。所以见效迅速而绝无拖延延误的祸患，也不过是见解真切而取效快捷罢了。如果像现在的人那样，轻病变成重病，重病变成危症，以至于经年累月，日益加深严重，导致无法救治，这难道不是由于对这两个极端（升与降）分辨不清的错误造成的吗？明智的人对此，最应当仔细辨别。
In the treatment of fire syndromes, some methods are termed "Ascending Yang and Dispersing Fire" (Shengyang Sanhuo), while others are termed "Nourishing Yin and Descending Fire" (Ziyin Jianghuo). Although it is one pathogenic factor—fire—both ascending and descending approaches are claimed to be effective in treating it.
However, ascending belongs to Yang, and descending belongs to Yin. If these two opposing methods are mixed, would this not contradict medical principles? Which cases are suitable for ascending and which for descending, and how should they be distinguished? This has been a source of doubt since ancient times, representing two extremes of debate, yet no one has been heard to clarify it thoroughly. The pathology of fire arises either from the Yin aspect or the Yang aspect. When arising from Yin, the fire originates internally; when arising from Yang, the fire is induced externally. Fire originating internally constitutes the "Fire of the Five Zang Organs" (Wuneizhi Huo) and requires clearing heat and descending. Fire induced externally constitutes "Wind-Heat Fire" (Fengre zhi Huo) and requires dispersing and ascending. Nowadays, whenever people encounter fire syndromes, regardless of whether the condition is exterior or interior, they invariably claim that Wood and Fire share the same nature, frequently labeling it as Wind-Heat, and predominantly employing the method of Ascending Yang and Dispersing Fire. Alas! This seems plausible, yet who dares to refute it? They fail to realize that the true principle allows for no confusion.
Regarding the concept of Wind-Heat, there are two interpretations: one where heat is generated due to wind, and another where wind is generated due to heat. In the case of heat generated by wind, external cold and wind constrain the exterior, causing fire to stagnate within. This is Fire of the Yang aspect caused by external contraction, where Wind is the root and Fire is the branch. In the case of wind generated by heat, extreme heat injures Yin fluids, causing fire to manifest on the exterior. This is Fire of the Yin aspect caused by internal injury, where Fire is the root and Wind is the branch. The Classic states: "In treating diseases, one must seek the root." Thus, for externally contracted fire, one should first treat the Wind; once the Wind is dispersed, the Fire will naturally subside. Therefore, ascending and dispersing are appropriate, while clearing and descending are not. For internally generated fire, one should first treat the Fire; once the Fire is extinguished, the Wind will naturally clear. Therefore, clearing and descending are appropriate, while ascending and dispersing are not. If treated oppositely, the pathogenic factors of external contraction will become more tightly closed if cleared and descended, and the internally generated fire will burn uncontrollably if ascended and dispersed. These internal and external causes can be clearly distinguished through pulse and symptom analysis.
Having reviewed medical texts, I have observed that conditions such as head and eye disorders, dental issues, throat ailments, and Yin-fire of the Zang-Fu organs are all attributed to Wind-Heat. Most practitioners simultaneously employ ascending and descending methods, combining compliant and contrary treatments. Do they not worry that ascending methods may hinder descending ones, and descending methods may hinder ascending ones? That compliant treatments contraindicate contrary ones, and vice versa? The Classic states: "For those high up, suppress them; for those low down, lift them. For cold, use heat; for heat, use cold." It also states: "If disease arises from within, treat the Yin first, then the Yang; reversing this will worsen the condition. If disease arises from the exterior, treat the outside first, then the inside; reversing this will worsen the condition." This is an unchangeable fundamental principle. Therefore, in my prescription formulation and treatment strategies, when suppression is indicated, I directly employ descending methods; when lifting is indicated, I directly employ ascending methods. Consequently, results are achieved rapidly without delay, simply because my insight is accurate and my actions are swift. Conversely, when modern practitioners cause mild diseases to become severe, and severe diseases to become critical, leading to prolonged suffering and eventual death, is this not due to errors stemming from the confusion of these two extremes? Those with wisdom must distinguish this most carefully.