寒者，不可不知。此丹溪晚年之一隙耳。而亦知前言之过否。
一、丹溪痢疾门附录曰∶诸有积者，以肚热缠痛推之。诸有气者，以肚如蟹渤验之。究
其受病之源，决之对病之剂。大要以散风邪，行滞气，开胃脘为先。不可遽用肉豆蔻、诃子
、白术辈以补住寒邪。不可投米壳、龙骨辈以闭涩肠胃。邪得补而愈盛，故变证作，所以日
夕淹延而不已也。
据此散风邪，行滞气，开胃脘三法，亦不过言其大概，固未尽也。至若补住寒邪之说，
则大有不通，而且最易惑人，为害不浅。夫既受寒邪，即当辨其虚实，然实者必有实证，本
不宜补，不宜补而补之，则随补随甚，即显见也。又何待乎变证？若因脏气受伤者，则无非
虚证，即宜温补。盖温可以逐寒邪，补可以健脾肾，脾肾既健，寒邪既去，则无不速愈。何
反有补住之理？又何有变证之说？且温补之法，原不在米壳、龙骨之属。又岂止豆蔻、白术而
已乎。若执补住之说而禁用之，则必致虚者日虚，而变证百出矣。余所见者，惟寒凉变证之
害，不可胜纪，或近则旬日，远则累月经年，终于殒命而后已。未闻有以温补变证而日夕淹
延不已者。兹余年出古稀，涉历不少。凡遇人言，率多不分虚实，无不曰补住寒邪，无不曰
邪得补而愈盛。正以信之者多，所以害之者甚。因致抱疾之辈，宁受寒凉而死，不愿温补而
生。究其所由，实由乎此。嗟，嗟，一言关系，有如是乎！余切悲之。今但反其说曰∶以寒
遇寒，则留住寒邪，邪得寒而愈甚，理所必然。遭此害者多矣，因特表其义，谨以告诸惑者
。
又总原刘、朱二家之说，无非偏执言火。故但见经文有火字，则必引以为证。凡如前列
诸条，果亦有一言合经意者否？彼二子者既曰读经，何以罔顾上下文，而单扯一句，便可着
书妄言，岂谓后世之人都无目耶？抑举世可欺耶？抑性体之有未明耶？谬已甚矣。吾不得为之
解也。自二子之说行，而轩岐之受诬亦久矣。何也？以后人之遭毒于亡阳者，必谓轩岐之诲
之也。使轩岐再起而见之，能无 裂而发竖乎。此时医受病之源，实河间创之，而丹溪成之
。予为此论，盖一则为后人保生命，一则为轩岐正道统，一则为后生浅学，知识未广。凡初
见彼书者，无不信为经训，多致终生受误，害可胜言！欲清其流，必澄其源，故单采二家之
略，辨正于此，而有余未尽，诚难悉也。
寒邪致病，是不可不知晓的。这不过是朱丹溪晚年思想中的一处疏漏罢了。但他是否意识到自己先前言论的过失呢？
一、朱丹溪在《痢疾门》附录中说：“凡是体内有积滞的，可以通过腹部发热、绞痛且按压后疼痛加剧来验证。凡是体内有气滞的，可以通过腹部胀满如螃蟹吐沫般起伏的现象来检验。探究其发病的根本原因，针对具体病症开具方剂。大抵原则是以疏散风邪、行气导滞、开胃醒脾为先。不可急于使用肉豆蔻、诃子、白术这类药物来温补而留滞寒邪。不可投用罂粟壳、龙骨这类药物来固涩肠胃。如果邪气得到补益就会更加旺盛，从而导致变证发生，所以病情日夜拖延而不能痊愈。”
根据上述“散风邪、行滞气、开胃脘”这三法，也不过是说了大概情况，确实并不全面。至于所谓“温补会留滞寒邪”的说法，则非常不通顺，而且最容易迷惑人，造成的危害不浅。既然受了寒邪，就应当辨别虚实。如果是实证，必然有实证的征象，本来就不宜补；如果不该补却去补它，那么随着补益病势随即加重，这是显而易见的。又何须等到变证出现呢？如果是因脏腑之气受伤导致的，那就无非是虚证，此时正适宜温补。因为温可以驱逐寒邪，补可以健脾肾；脾肾功能既健旺，寒邪既已去除，就没有不迅速痊愈的道理。怎么反而会有“补住寒邪”的道理呢？又怎么会有“变证”的说法呢？况且温补的方法，原本就不在于罂粟壳、龙骨这一类（收敛固涩）的药物。又岂止是肉豆蔻、白术而已呢？如果固执于“补住”的说法而禁用温补，那么必然导致虚证患者日益虚弱，从而百种变证蜂拥而出。我所见到的，只有因误用寒凉药导致变证的危害，数不胜数，有的近则十天半月，远则经年累月，最终导致死亡才停止。从未听说过因为误用温补而导致病情日夜拖延不能痊愈的。我现在年过七十，经历丰富。凡是遇到别人谈论此事，大多不分虚实，无不说是“补住寒邪”，无不说是“邪气得补而更盛”。正因为相信这种说法的人多，所以受害的人也就很严重。以至于患病的人，宁愿接受寒凉治疗而死，也不愿接受温补治疗而生。究其根源，实在就是因为这个说法。唉！一句话的关系，竟然到了如此地步吗！我深切地为此感到悲哀。现在我只需反驳这种说法：如果用寒凉药去对待寒邪，那就是留住了寒邪，邪气得到寒凉药就会更加严重，这是理所当然的。遭受这种害处的人已经很多了，因此特意阐明其中的道理，恭敬地告诉那些困惑的人。
我又总括刘河间、朱丹溪两家的学说，无非是偏执于论述“火”。所以只要见到经文中有“火”字，就必定引用来作为证据。像前面列举的那些条目，果真有一句符合经典原意的吗？那两个人既然说读经，为什么不顾上下文的语境，只扯出一句话，就可以著书妄言，难道认为后世的人都瞎了眼吗？还是认为举世之人都可以被欺骗呢？或者是他们的本性体悟尚未明了呢？错误太严重了。我无法为他们辩解。自从这两人的学说流行以来，黄帝岐伯（中医始祖）所代表的正道被诬蔑也已经很久了。为什么呢？因为后世之人遭受亡阳（阳气衰竭）毒害的，一定认为是黄帝岐伯教诲的结果。假使黄帝岐伯复活看到这种情况，能不撕裂衣服、头发竖起（愤怒震惊）吗？当今医生患病的根源，实际上是刘河间开创的，而朱丹溪使其定型的。我发表这篇议论，一方面是为了保护后人的性命，一方面是为了维护黄帝岐伯的正道统绪，一方面也是为了给初学的年轻人看，他们的知识尚不广博。凡是初次看到他们书籍的人，没有不相信那是经典训诫的，大多导致终生受误导，危害能说尽吗？想要澄清水流，必须澄清源头，所以我单独摘录这两家学说的概要，在此进行辨正，至于其余未尽之处，确实难以详尽说明。
Cold pathogenic factors are a matter that must be known. This is merely a lapse in Zhu Danxi's (Zhu Zhenheng) late-life thinking. But did he realize the excessiveness of his previous statements?
1. In the Appendix to the Dysentery Chapter, Zhu Danxi states: "For those with accumulation, it can be verified by abdominal heat, entangling pain, and tenderness upon pressure. For those with qi stagnation, it can be verified by abdominal distension resembling crab bubbles. Investigating the source of the disease, one should prescribe remedies targeted at the specific condition. The general principle is to first disperse wind pathogens, move stagnant qi, and open the stomach and spleen. One must not hastily use substances like Nutmeg (Myristicae Semen), Chebula (Terminaliae chebulae Fructus), or Atractylodes Macrocephalae Rhizoma (Baizhu) to tonify and thereby retain cold pathogens. One must not administer substances like Poppy Shell (Papaveris Pericarpium) or Dragon Bone (Os Draconis) to astringe and close the intestines and stomach. If pathogens are aided by tonification, they will become even more vigorous, thus causing transformation syndromes; therefore, the illness lingers day and night without ceasing."
Based on these three methods—dispersing wind pathogens, moving stagnant qi, and opening the stomach and spleen—it only covers the general outline and is indeed incomplete. As for the statement that "tonification retains cold pathogens," this is highly illogical and most misleading, causing significant harm. Since cold pathogens have been contracted, one must differentiate between deficiency and excess. If it is an excess syndrome, there must be signs of excess; tonification is inherently inappropriate. If tonification is applied when inappropriate, the condition will worsen immediately upon tonification, which is obvious. Why wait for transformation syndromes to appear? If the injury is to the viscera's qi, it is essentially a deficiency syndrome, and warm tonification is precisely indicated. Warmth can drive out cold pathogens, and tonification can strengthen the Spleen and Kidney. Once the Spleen and Kidney are robust and cold pathogens eliminated, recovery will be swift. How could there be logic in "retaining cold via tonification"? And how could there be talk of transformation syndromes? Moreover, the method of warm tonification does not belong to substances like Poppy Shell or Dragon Bone. It certainly extends beyond just Nutmeg and Atractylodes Macrocephala. If one rigidly adheres to the notion of "retention" and prohibits tonification, deficiency patients will become increasingly deficient, leading to myriad transformation syndromes. I have witnessed countless harms caused by misusing cold-cooling treatments, resulting in death within days or years. I have never heard of a case where warm tonification caused lingering illness. Now, having passed seventy, with extensive experience, whenever I hear others discuss this, they often fail to distinguish between deficiency and excess, invariably claiming "tonification retains cold pathogens" and "pathogens thrive with tonification." Because many believe this, many suffer. Consequently, sick individuals prefer to die from cold-cooling treatments rather than live through warm tonification. The root cause lies here. Alas! Can a single statement have such profound consequences? I deeply mourn this. I now simply reverse the argument: Using cold-cooling agents against cold pathogens results in retaining them; pathogens becoming worse with cold is logically inevitable. Many have suffered this harm. Therefore, I explicitly clarify this principle to inform the confused.
Summarizing the theories of Liu Hejian (Liu Wansu) and Zhu Danxi, they are biased towards emphasizing "Fire." Thus, whenever they see the character "Fire" in classics, they cite it as evidence. Do any of the previously listed points truly align with the intent of the classics? Having claimed to study the classics, how could they ignore the context and pull out a single sentence to write books and speak recklessly? Do they think later generations are blind? Or that the world can be deceived? Or that their understanding of nature is unclear? Their errors are severe. I cannot excuse them. Since their theories spread, the teachings of Xuanyuan (Yellow Emperor) and Qibo have been slandered for a long time. Why? Because later generations suffering from Yang collapse (Yang exhaustion) blame Xuanyuan and Qibo. If they were alive today, would they not be outraged? The source of current medical errors was actually initiated by Liu Hejian and consolidated by Zhu Danxi. I write this treatise to protect the lives of future generations, to uphold the orthodox lineage of Xuanyuan and Qibo, and to guide young learners with limited knowledge. Those who read their works initially believe them to be canonical truths, often being misled for life. The harm is incalculable. To clear the stream, one must purify the source. Hence, I extract the essence of their two schools' views and correct them here. The remaining details are too numerous to exhaustively list.