以上集《神农本经》上中下三品药性，计若干种，为服食养生，祛邪治病之用。学人体
认先
圣格物致知之学，则自《别录》以下，及唐宋元明增补药性，品类虽繁，莫不各有当然之理
，即以参解《本经》之义，触类引申，总归五运六气以诠解，得其纲领，无不贯通，若舍此
而从事于诸家之治验，则散漫多岐，益难启悟，是为逐末忘本，求进于道者，能知所先后，
庶几得之矣。
因陋就简，舍其本而末是图，学人大弊也。今之言药性者，往往杂取世俗孟浪之说，奉
为律
令，而于《神农本经》弃犹敝屣。譬之经生家，四书五经不之研究，而只记腐烂时文，以为
应试之用，思侥幸以取科第，安能冀其必得哉。先民卢不远作《本草博义》，其子晋公广之
作《乘雅》，张隐庵，高士宗作《本草崇原》，皆以《本经》为宗，而推衍之，发前人所未
发者甚多，可谓良工心苦。第《乘雅》间杂闲文，语兼晦涩，性根 陋者，多不能读。《
崇
原》则诠解明晰，中人以下，咸可通晓，似于新学为宜。在昔张君创其始，张殁而高君集其
成
，缮写样本，方欲锓板，高君又亡，事遂中辍，厥后样本传归胡念庵家，念庵父子谢世，不
知又归谁氏，兹从胡之门人高端士处，得其移写副本，惜乎雠校未精，文句间有缺略讹谬，
恐后之阅者，不免夏五三豕之叹，爰加订正，而授之梓，以公于世，学人苟能依此而详绎之
，举一反三，引伸触类，自可以入烈山氏之藩篱，而得其妙用，视彼因陋就简之徒，杂采世
俗之说，以处方定剂者，其得失不大有迳庭耶。
乾隆丁亥冬至后七日 胥山老人王琦跋
以上汇集了《神农本草经》上、中、下三品的药性，共计若干种，用于服食养生和祛除邪气治疗疾病。学者若能亲自体认古代圣哲探究事物原理以获得真知的学问，那么从《名医别录》以下，以及唐宋元明各代增补的药性内容，虽然品类繁多，但无不各有其必然的道理。可以用这些内容来参悟《本经》的含义，触类旁通地引申发挥，最终归结于五运六气理论来进行诠释解说。掌握了纲领，就能融会贯通；如果舍弃这一根本而去从事于各家临床验证的经验，就会散漫且多歧路，更加难以开启智慧。这是舍本逐末的行为。追求进入医学大道的人，如果能知道先后的次序，或许就能有所得。
因袭简陋，舍弃根本而只追求细枝末节，是学者的最大弊病。如今谈论药性的人，往往混杂采纳世俗轻率随意的说法，奉为法令准则，而对于《神农本草经》却像丢弃破鞋一样弃之不顾。这就像读书人，不研究四书五经，只背诵陈腐的八股文，用来应付考试，想着侥幸考取功名，怎么能期望一定成功呢？先民卢不远撰写了《本草博义》，他的儿子卢晋公扩充写成《乘雅》，张隐庵（张志聪）、高士宗（高世栻）撰写了《本草崇原》，都以《本经》为宗旨并加以推演发挥，发掘了前人未曾阐发的内容很多，可以说是良工苦心孤诣。只是《乘雅》中夹杂闲杂文字，语言兼有晦涩难懂之处，资质平庸浅陋的人，大多不能阅读。《本草崇原》则诠释解说清晰明白，中等资质以下的人，都可以通晓，似乎更适合新学者。从前张君（张志聪）开创始端，张去世后高君（高世栻）集其大成，抄写样本，正打算刻印出版，高君又去世，事情于是中途停止。此后样本流传到胡念安家，胡念庵父子谢世后，不知又归谁所有。此次我从胡氏的门人高端士处，得到了他移写的副本，可惜校对不够精细，文句间有些缺漏和错误，恐怕后来的读者不免会有“夏五”（指缺字）和“三豕”（指讹误）的感叹，因此加以订正，交付刻印，以公开于世。学者如果能够依据此书详细推究，举一反三，引申触类，自然可以进入神农氏（烈山氏）医学的门槛，并获得其妙用。这与那些因袭简陋、杂采世俗说法来处方定剂的人相比，得失不是大有天壤之别吗？
乾隆丁亥年冬至后第七日 胥山老人王琦 作跋
The above compiles the medicinal properties of herbs from the Upper, Middle, and Lower categories of the *Shennong Bencao Jing* (Divine Farmer's Materia Medica), totaling a certain number of species, for the purpose of ingestion for health preservation and expelling pathogens to treat diseases. If scholars can personally recognize and understand the learning of ancient sages who investigated things to acquire knowledge, then regarding the medicinal additions below the *Bielu* (Additional Records by Famous Physicians) and those supplemented during the Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties, although the categories are numerous, none lacks its inherent rationale. These can be used to interpret the meaning of the *Bencao Jing*, extending by analogy and categorization, ultimately returning to the theory of Five Movements and Six Qi (Wuyun Liuqi) for explanation. Grasping the general principles allows for comprehensive understanding; if one abandons this foundation to engage with the clinical experiences of various schools, it becomes scattered and divergent, making enlightenment even more difficult. This is neglecting the root for the branches. Those seeking to advance in the Dao of medicine, if they know what comes first and what follows, may well attain success.
Adhering to the crude and simple, abandoning the root to pursue the branches, is the greatest fault of scholars. Today, those discussing medicinal properties often indiscriminately adopt vulgar and rash theories, treating them as laws and regulations, while discarding the *Shennong Bencao Jing* as if it were worn-out shoes. It is like scholars who do not study the Four Books and Five Classics but only memorize stale eight-legged essays for examination purposes, hoping to pass through luck; how can they expect to succeed? The early scholar Lu Buyuan wrote *Bencao Boyi* (Broad Meanings of Materia Medica); his son Lu Jinggong expanded it into *Chengya*; Zhang Yinan (Zhang Zhicong) and Gao Shizong (Gao Shishi) wrote *Bencao Chongyuan* (Restoring the Origins of Materia Medica). All took the *Bencao Jing* as their ancestor and deduced from it, revealing much that predecessors had not expressed, which can be described as the painstaking effort of skilled artisans. However, *Chengya* mixes in trivial writings and uses obscure language, so those with mediocre or shallow understanding often cannot read it. *Chongyuan*, on the other hand, offers clear explanations understandable even to those of average or lower aptitude, making it suitable for new learners. In the past, Master Zhang initiated the work; after his death, Master Gao completed it. Copies were prepared for printing, but before the blocks could be carved, Master Gao also passed away, and the project was halted. Later, the copies passed to the Hu Nian'an family. After Hu and his sons died, it is unknown whose possession they fell into. Now, from Duan Gongs, a disciple of Hu, I obtained a transcribed copy. Alas, the collation was not precise, and there are omissions and errors in the text. I fear future readers will sigh at missing characters ("Xia Wu") and erroneous readings ("San Shi"). Therefore, I have corrected these issues and submitted the text to the press to make it public. If scholars can carefully study this book, infer other cases from one example, and extend their understanding by analogy, they can enter the precincts of Lie Shan Shi (Shennong) and grasp its subtle applications. Compared to those who adhere to the crude and simple, mixing vulgar theories to prescribe formulas, are not the gains and losses vastly different?
On the seventh day after the Winter Solstice in the Dinghai year of Qianlong [1767], Wang Qi, the Old Man of Xushan, wrote this postscript.