苍术，气辛，味浓，性散能发汗。入足阳明、太阴经。亦能消湿，去胸中冷气，辟山岚
瘴气
，解瘟疫尸鬼之气，尤善止心疼。但散多于补，不可与白术并论。《神农经》曰∶必欲长生
，当服山精。此言白术，非指苍术也。苍术可辟邪，而不可用之以补正。各本草诸书混言之
，误矣。然而苍术善用之，效验如响，如人心气疼，乃湿挟寒邪，上犯膻中也，苍术不能入
膻中，然善走大肠而祛湿，实其专功也。故与川乌同用，引湿邪下行，使寒气不敢上犯膻中
，而心痛立定。若不用苍术而用白术，则白术引入心中，反大害矣。
或问苍术阳药，最能辟邪，宜乎凡有邪气，皆可尽除，何以有效有不效也？夫邪之所凑，
其
气必虚。然而气虚亦有不同，有气虚而兼湿痰者，有气虚而带燥痰者。苍术补气，兼善去湿
，以治气虚湿痰而中邪者，自是神效。以治气虚燥痰之中邪者，则苍术性燥，不燥以增燥乎
。势必邪得燥而更甚，又何以祛邪哉，此所以治之而不效也。
或问苍术发汗，不及白术远甚，谓白术能止汗也。嗟乎。苍术之妙，全在善于发汗，其
功胜
于白术。凡发汗之药，未有不散人真气者。苍术发汗，虽亦散气，终不甚也。虚人感邪，欲
用风药散之者，不若用苍术为更得。盖邪出而正又不大伤，汗出而阳又不甚越也。（〔批〕
苍术散气虚之邪，实胜诸风药。）
或疑苍术之功，不及白术远甚，何《神农本草》不分别之耶？不知苍术与白术，原是两
种，
以神农首出之圣智，岂在后人下哉，是必分辨之明矣。因传世久远，叠遭兵火，散失不存耳
。今经后人阐发甚精，其不可同治病也。既彰彰矣。又何可二术之不分用哉。
或问苍术与白术，性既各别，而神农未辨明者，必有其故。吾子谓是世久散失，似乎臆
度之
辞，非定论也。嗟乎。白术止汗，苍术出汗，其实相反，关系甚钜，安有此等之悬殊。以神
农之圣而不亟为指示乎。吾故信其必先辨明而后乃遗失也。
苍术，气味辛烈，味道浓重，性质发散，能够发汗。归入足阳明胃经和足太阴脾经。它也能消除湿气，去除胸中的冷气，驱避山林间的瘴气，解除瘟疫及尸鬼之气，尤其擅长治疗心口疼痛。但是苍术发散作用多于补益作用，不能与白术相提并论。《神农本草经》说：“想要长生不老，应当服用山精。”这里说的是白术，并非指苍术。苍术可以驱避邪气，但不能用来补益正气。各种本草书籍混淆了二者，这是错误的。然而，如果善于使用苍术，疗效迅速显著，比如人心脏部位疼痛，是由于湿气夹带寒邪，向上侵犯膻中穴所在区域所致；苍术虽然不能直接进入膻中，但它善于走窜大肠以祛除湿气，这正是它的专长。所以将苍术与川乌同用，引导湿邪下行，使寒气不敢再向上侵犯膻中，心口疼痛立刻停止。如果不使用苍术而改用白术，则白术会将邪气引入心中，反而造成大害。
有人问：苍术是阳药，最能驱避邪气，按理说凡是有邪气的情况都可以清除，为什么有时有效有时无效呢？大凡邪气聚集的地方，人体的正气必然虚弱。然而气虚也有不同情况，有气虚兼夹湿痰的，有气虚兼夹燥痰的。苍术能补气，同时善于祛湿，用于治疗气虚湿痰而感受邪气的病症，自然是神效。但如果用于治疗气虚燥痰而感受邪气的病症，由于苍术性燥，岂不是更加增加燥热吗？势必导致邪气因燥热而更严重，又怎么能祛除邪气呢？这就是治疗无效的原因。
有人问：苍术的发汗作用远不如白术，不是说白术能止汗吗？唉，苍术的妙处，全在于善于发汗，其功效胜过白术。凡是发汗的药物，没有不耗散人体正气的。苍术发汗，虽然也耗散一点气，但终究不是很厉害。对于体质虚弱的人感受外邪，想要用风药（解表药）来疏散的，不如使用苍术更为得当。因为这样邪气排出而正气又不大受损伤，出汗而阳气也不会过度外越。（批注：苍术疏散气虚之邪，实际上胜过其他风药。）
有人怀疑苍术的功效远不及白术，为什么《神农本草经》没有区分它们呢？不知道苍术和白术原本就是两种不同的药材，凭借神农首出圣人的智慧，难道会在后人之下吗？这一定是分辨得很清楚的。只是因为流传年代久远，多次遭受战火兵灾，导致部分文献散失不存罢了。如今经过后人的阐发非常精辟，说明二者不可混同治病已经非常明显了。又怎么可以将二术不分地使用呢？
有人问：苍术与白术，既然性质各自不同，而神农未能辨明，必定有其缘故。您说是因为年代久远而散失，似乎是主观推测之辞，不是定论。唉，白术止汗，苍术发汗，其实截然相反，关系重大，怎么会有如此巨大的差异，而像神农这样的圣人却不急于指示明白呢？所以我相信他一定是先辨明了而后才遗失的。
Cangzhu (Atractylodis Rhizoma), with a pungent odor and strong flavor, has a dispersing nature capable of inducing sweating. It enters the Foot-Yangming Stomach Meridian and the Foot-Taiyin Spleen Meridian. It can also eliminate dampness, remove cold qi from the chest, ward off mountainous miasma, resolve the qi of plagues and corpse ghosts, and is particularly effective in stopping heart pain. However, its dispersing action exceeds its tonifying action, so it cannot be compared with Baizhu (Atractylodis Macrocephalae Rhizoma). The *Shennong Bencao Jing* states: "If one desires longevity, one should consume Shanjing." This refers to Baizhu, not Cangzhu. Cangzhu can ward off evil pathogens but cannot be used to tonify healthy qi. Various materia medica texts confuse the two, which is erroneous. Nevertheless, when Cangzhu is used skillfully, its efficacy is as immediate as an echo. For instance, heart pain arises when dampness夹杂着 cold pathogens invades the upper burner affecting the Danzhong region; although Cangzhu cannot directly enter the Danzhong, it excels at traversing the Large Intestine to dispel dampness, which is its specific merit. Therefore, when used together with Chuanwu (Aconiti Radix Lateralis Preparata), it guides the damp pathogen downward, preventing cold qi from invading the Danzhong, thereby immediately alleviating heart pain. If Baizhu were used instead of Cangzhu, it would guide the pathogen into the Heart, causing great harm.
One might ask: Cangzhu is a Yang herb, most capable of warding off evil pathogens; logically, it should clear all pathogens. Why does it sometimes fail? Wherever pathogens gather, the body's qi must be deficient. However, qi deficiency varies: there is qi deficiency accompanied by damp-phlegm, and qi deficiency accompanied by dry-phlegm. Cangzhu tonifies qi and excels at dispelling dampness; thus, for conditions of qi deficiency with damp-phlegm complicated by pathogenic invasion, it is miraculously effective. However, for qi deficiency with dry-phlegm complicated by pathogenic invasion, since Cangzhu is drying in nature, using it would only increase dryness. Consequently, the pathogen becomes more severe due to dryness, making it impossible to expel the pathogen. This is why treatment fails.
One might ask: Cangzhu's ability to induce sweating is far inferior to that of Baizhu, yet it is said that Baizhu stops sweating. Alas, the subtlety of Cangzhu lies entirely in its ability to induce sweating, surpassing Baizhu in this regard. All diaphoretic herbs disperse healthy qi to some extent. Although Cangzhu disperses qi when inducing sweat, it does so mildly. For deficient individuals contracting external pathogens who require wind-dispelling herbs, Cangzhu is preferable. This allows the pathogen to exit without significantly damaging healthy qi, and sweat to be released without excessive leakage of Yang qi. (Annotation: Cangzhu expels pathogens in cases of qi deficiency, actually surpassing other wind-dispelling herbs.)
One may suspect that Cangzhu's efficacy is far inferior to Baizhu, so why did the *Shennong Bencao Jing* not distinguish them? It is unknown whether Cangzhu and Baizhu were originally two distinct substances. Given the sage wisdom of Shennong, could he have been inferior to later generations? He must have distinguished them clearly. It is likely that due to the long passage of time and repeated wars and fires, records were lost. Today, through the elucidation of later scholars, it is evident that they cannot be used interchangeably for treating diseases. How then can they be used indistinguishably?
One might ask: Since Cangzhu and Baizhu have different natures, and Shennong failed to clarify them, there must be a reason. Your claim that they were lost over time seems like speculation rather than a definitive conclusion. Alas, Baizhu stops sweating while Cangzhu induces sweating; their effects are opposite and significant. How could such a vast difference exist without Shennong urgently pointing it out? Therefore, I believe he must have clarified them first before they were subsequently lost.