羌活，味苦、辛，气平而温，升也，阳也，无毒。入足太阳、足少阴二经，又入足厥阴。
善
散风邪，
利周身骨节之痛，除新旧风湿，亦止头痛齿疼。古人谓羌活系君药，以其拨乱反正，有旋转
之力也。而余独以为只可充使，而并不可为臣佐。（〔批〕说羌活不可为君臣之药，见明论
确
，救世之深心也。）盖其味辛而气升，而性过于散，可用之为引经，通达上下，则风去而湿
消
。若恃之为君臣，欲其调和气血，燮理阴阳，必至变出非常，祸生反掌矣。故羌活止可加之
于当、芎、术、苓之内，以逐邪返正，则有神功耳。羌活与独活，本是两种，而各部《本草
》俱言为一种者，误。仲景夫子用独活，以治少阴之邪，东垣先生用羌活，以治太阳之邪
，各有取义，非取紧实者谓独活，轻虚者谓羌活也。盖二物虽同是散邪，而升降之性各别，
羌活性升，而独活性降。至于不可为君臣，而只可充使者，则彼此同之也。
或问九味羌活汤，古人专用之以散风寒之邪，今人无不宗之，而吾子贬羌活为充使之药，
毋
乃太轻乎？曰∶羌活虽散风邪，而实能损正，邪随散解，正亦随散而俱解矣。九味羌活汤，
杂而不纯，余最不取。外感风邪治法，安能出仲景夫子之范围；内伤而兼外感治法，安能出
东垣先生之范围。余治外感，遵仲景夫子；治内伤之外感，遵东垣先生，又何风邪之不去，
而必尚九味羌活汤为哉。（〔批〕读书穷理，深知二公之妙。）
或疑洁古老人创造九味羌活汤，以佐仲景公之不逮，是其半生学问，全在此方，而先生
薄羌
活，而并轻其方，窃谓先生过矣？嗟乎。洁古创造九味羌活汤者，因仲景公方法不明于天下
，而东坦先生尚未创制补中益气之汤，不得已而立此方，以治外感，实所以治内伤也。今东
垣先生既立有补中益气汤，实胜于九味羌活汤远甚，又何必再用洁古之方哉。至于治外感之
法，莫过仲景公伤寒书之备。外感善变，岂羌活区区一方，即可以统治六经传经之外感耶。
况仲景公伤寒书，经铎与喻嘉言之阐发而益明，故外感直用其方，断乎无疑。若九味羌活汤
，实可不用。洁古老人半生精力，徒耗于此方，杂而不纯，亦何足尚，余是以轻之，岂为过
哉。
或谓羌活、独活同是散药，羌活性升，而独活性降，升则未免有浮动之虞，与其用羌活，不
若用独活之为安。嗟乎。有邪宜散，升可也，降亦可也。无邪可散，散药均不可用，又何论
于升降乎。况二味原自两种，散同而升降各别，又乌可乱用之哉。
羌活，味道苦、辛，气性平而温，具有上升的特性，属于阳药，没有毒性。它进入足太阳膀胱经和足少阴肾经，同时也进入足厥阴肝经。
羌活善于驱散风邪，缓解周身骨节的疼痛，消除新旧风湿之邪，也能止住头痛和牙痛。古人认为羌活是君药（方剂中起主要治疗作用的药物），因为它能拨乱反正，具有扭转局势的力量。但我个人却认为它只适合作为佐使药（引导药物到达特定部位或辅助主药发挥作用的药物），甚至不能担任臣佐药（辅助君药加强治疗作用或治疗兼证的药物）。（批注：指出羌活不能作为君臣药的观点，见解明确确切，体现了救世济人的深切用心。）大概是因为它的味道辛散且气性上升，性质过于发散，可以用作引经药（引导其他药物到达病变经络的药物），通达上下，这样风邪去除而湿气消散。如果倚仗它作为君臣药，想要用它来调和气血、燮理阴阳（协调平衡阴阳），必然会导致出现意想不到的变故，祸患瞬间就会发生。所以羌活只能加入在当归、川芎、白术、茯苓这些药物之中，以驱逐邪气、恢复正气，这样才能发挥神奇的功效。
羌活与独活，本来是两种不同的药材，但各部的《本草》书籍都说是同一种，这是错误的。张仲景先生使用独活，用来治疗少阴经的邪气；李东垣先生使用羌活，用来治疗太阳经的邪气，各有其取义，并不是说质地紧密坚实的叫独活，质地轻虚的叫羌活。大概这两种药虽然同样是疏散邪气，但升降的性质各不相同，羌活性升，而独活性降。至于说它们都不能作为君臣药，只可充当佐使药这一点，则是两者相同的。
有人问：九味羌活汤，古人专门用它来疏散风寒之邪，现在的人没有不尊崇它的，而您却贬低羌活为仅能充当佐使的药，是不是太看轻它了？回答说：羌活虽然能疏散风邪，但实际上会损伤正气，邪气随着疏散而解除，正气也随着疏散而一同耗散了。九味羌活汤，药味杂乱而不纯粹，我最不推崇。外感风邪的治疗方法，怎么能超出张仲景先生的范围呢？内伤兼有外感的治疗方法，怎么能超出李东垣先生的范围呢？我治疗外感病，遵循张仲景先生；治疗内伤兼外感病，遵循李东垣先生，既然这样，又何必让风邪不去，而一定要崇尚九味羌活汤呢？（批注：读书探究道理，深知两位医家的奥妙。）
有人怀疑：洁古老人（张元素）创造九味羌活汤，是为了弥补张仲景方法的不足，这是他半生的学问全在这个方子上，而先生您轻视羌活，并连带轻视这个方子，我认为先生您太过分了？唉！洁古老人创造九味羌活汤，是因为张仲景的方法在当时天下不明，而李东垣先生尚未创制补中益气汤，不得已才设立此方，用来治疗外感，实际上是用来治疗内伤的。如今李东垣先生已经创立了补中益气汤，确实比九味羌活汤好得多，又何必再用洁古的方子呢？至于治疗外感的方法，没有超过张仲景《伤寒论》完备的了。外感病容易变化，难道羌活区区一个方子，就可以统管六经传变的外感病吗？况且张仲景的《伤寒论》，经过我和喻嘉言的阐发而更加明了，所以治疗外感直接采用他的方子，绝对没有疑问。至于九味羌活汤，实在可以不用。洁古老人半生的精力，白白耗费在这个方子上，药味杂乱不纯，有什么值得推崇的呢？我因此轻视它，难道过分了吗？
有人说：羌活、独活同样是疏散药，羌活性升，而独活性降，升则未免有浮动的担忧，与其用羌活，不如用独活来得安稳。唉！有邪气适宜疏散，升也可以，降也可以。如果没有邪气可散，疏散药都不可用，还谈论什么升降呢？况且这两味药原本就是两种，疏散作用相同但升降性质各异，又怎么可以乱用呢？
Qianghuo (Notopterygii Rhizoma et Radix), with bitter and pungent flavors, has a neutral yet warm nature. It ascends and belongs to the Yang category; it is non-toxic. It enters the Foot-Taiyang Bladder Meridian and the Foot-Shaoyin Kidney Meridian, and also the Foot-Jueyin Liver Meridian.
It excels at dispersing Wind pathogens, relieving pain in the bones and joints throughout the body, eliminating both old and new Wind-Dampness, and stopping headaches and toothaches. Ancient physicians considered Qianghuo as the Sovereign herb (Jun Yao, the principal herb in a formula that targets the main pathogen or symptom) because it can rectify chaos and restore order, possessing the power to reverse situations. However, I personally believe it should only serve as an Envoy herb (Shi Yao, a herb that guides other herbs to specific meridians or enhances their effect) and cannot even serve as a Minister or Assistant herb (Chen/Zuo Yao, herbs that assist the sovereign herb). (Commentary: The assertion that Qianghuo cannot be a Sovereign or Minister herb is clearly reasoned, reflecting a deep concern for saving lives.) This is because its pungent flavor and ascending nature make its dispersing action too strong. It can be used as a Guiding herb (Yin Jing Yao) to unblock the upper and lower parts, thereby removing Wind and dissipating Dampness. If one relies on it as a Sovereign or Minister herb, intending to harmonize Qi and Blood and regulate Yin and Yang, it will inevitably lead to unexpected complications and disaster within moments. Therefore, Qianghuo should only be added to formulas containing Danggui (Angelicae Sinensis Radix), Chuanxiong (Ligustici Chuanxiong Rhizoma), Baizhu (Atractylodis Macrocephalae Rhizoma), and Fuling (Poria), to expel pathogens and restore righteousness, thus achieving miraculous effects.
Qianghuo and Duhuo (Aucklandiae Radix) are originally two different herbs, but various editions of Bencao (Materia Medica) erroneously state they are the same. Master Zhang Zhongjing used Duhuo to treat Shaoyin pathogens, while Master Li Dongyuan used Qianghuo to treat Taiyang pathogens; each had their specific rationale. It was not based on the idea that dense and solid roots are Duhuo, while light and hollow ones are Qianghuo. Although both herbs disperse pathogens, their ascending and descending natures differ: Qianghuo ascends, while Duhuo descends. Regarding the point that neither can serve as a Sovereign or Minister herb and should only act as an Envoy, this applies to both.
Someone asked: "Jiuwei Qianghuo Tang (Nine-Ingredient Decoction of Notopterygium) was specifically used by ancients to disperse Cold-Wind pathogens, and modern practitioners all revere it. Yet you diminish Qianghuo to merely an Envoy herb. Is this not too dismissive?" I replied: "Although Qianghuo disperses Wind pathogens, it actually damages Righteous Qi (Zheng Qi, the body's vital energy and resistance). As the pathogen is dispersed and resolved, the Righteous Qi is also dissipated along with it. Jiuwei Qianghuo Tang is mixed and impure; I do not approve of it at all. How can the treatment methods for external contraction of Wind pathogens exceed the scope established by Master Zhang Zhongjing? How can the treatment for internal injury complicated by external contraction exceed the scope of Master Li Dongyuan? When treating external contractions, I follow Master Zhang Zhongjing; when treating internal injuries with external complications, I follow Master Li Dongyuan. In such cases, why would one insist on using Jiuwei Qianghuo Tang if the Wind pathogen does not depart?" (Commentary: Studying books to exhaust principles, one deeply understands the subtleties of these two masters.)
Some suspect: "Old Man Jiegu (Zhang Yuansu) created Jiuwei Qianghuo Tang to supplement the deficiencies in Master Zhang Zhongjing’s methods. His half-life’s learning is entirely contained in this formula. For you to slight Qianghuo and consequently slight his formula, I consider your view excessive." Alas! Old Man Jiegu created Jiuwei Qianghuo Tang because Master Zhang Zhongjing’s methods were not clear to the world, and Master Li Dongyuan had not yet created Bu Zhong Yi Qi Tang (Tonify the Middle and Augment the Qi Decoction). He was forced to establish this formula to treat external contractions, which essentially treated internal injuries. Now that Master Li Dongyuan has established Bu Zhong Yi Qi Tang, which is far superior to Jiuwei Qianghuo Tang, why use Jiegu’s formula again? As for treating external contractions, nothing surpasses the completeness of Master Zhang Zhongjing’s Treatise on Cold Damage (Shanghan Lun). External contractions change rapidly; how could a mere single formula like Qianghuo possibly govern external contractions transmitted through the Six Meridians? Moreover, Master Zhang Zhongjing’s Shanghan Lun has become clearer through my elucidation and that of Yu Jiayan. Therefore, directly using his formulas for external contractions leaves no doubt. Jiuwei Qianghuo Tang is truly unnecessary. Old Man Jiegu wasted half his life’s energy on this impure and mixed formula. What is there to admire? Thus, I slight it. Is this excessive?
Someone said: "Qianghuo and Duhuo are both dispersing herbs. Qianghuo ascends, while Duhuo descends. Ascending may carry the risk of floating instability. Rather than using Qianghuo, it is safer to use Duhuo." Alas! If there are pathogens, dispersal is appropriate; ascending is acceptable, and descending is also acceptable. If there are no pathogens to disperse, dispersing herbs should not be used at all, let alone discussing ascending or descending. Furthermore, these two substances are originally distinct; although their dispersing actions are similar, their ascending and descending natures differ. How can they be used interchangeably without caution?