一、本草一书。首宜分其形质气味。次宜辨其经络脏腑。终宜表其证治功能。历观诸书。
无不备
载。然理道不明。意义不疏。徒将治效彰着。浅学医士。其奚辨焉。况有补不实指。泻不直
说。或以隔一隔二以为附会。反借巧说以为虚喝。义虽可通。意难即悟。兹从往昔诸书。细
加考订。其有一义未明。一意未达。无不搜剔靡尽。牵引混说。概为删除。俾令真处悉见。
断不随声附和。语作影响。以致眩人耳目也。
一、药品补泻。或阴或阳。或气或血。或燥或润。原自有别。遍绎诸书。无有实载。如
白术
味苦性燥。是能入脾补气。山药味甘气平。是能入脾补阴。人参黄 味甘性温。是能入肺而
补气
是能入肺而补阴。龙眼甘温。是能入心而补气。当归柏子仁辛甘温润
。是能入心而补血。山茱萸杜仲辛温酸温。是能入肝而补气。首乌阿胶甘平微温。是能入肝
而补血。至附桂辛热。则能入肾以补阳。熟地枸杞甘润甘温。是能入肾以补阴。补剂如斯。
泻剂亦然。而书仅以补泻混指。是集论补论泻。俱以阴阳气血分辨。概不敢以影响浑混等
语塞责。庶使开卷了了。无有错误。
一、本草药性。最宜就实讲明。不可一毫牵引。如书既言桑白皮入肺泻火。是明于气无
补。
而又
混引益气之说以相淆。枳壳枳实本为下气最峻之味。而书又引益气明目之说以为质。桔梗本
属升气之品。而书又扩其义曰降。赤小豆本非大热之味。而书又别其义曰燥。紫石英白石英
之甘与温。本非最湿之品。而书又反其词曰湿。此惟上哲之士。始可以悟其蕴。若使粗工褊
浅。又曷克以明其义乎？是集凡有义蕴难明之处。逐一详解。不令稍有含混。
一、经络脏腑。他书亦有载系某药主入某经。某药兼入某经。然众书繁杂。持论不一。
如知
母味
辛而苦。沉中有浮。降中有升。本能清肺以宁肾。而书偏置润肺不语。止言于水有滋。牵强
混引。殊多不解。是篇凡有类此不明。无不从实发辉。庶主辅攸分。而经腑与脏之药。自不
致误。
一、是集论症论治论效。总以药之所味形质四字推勘而出。则药之见施于病者。既有其
因。
而药
之见施于病而即有效者。又有其故。如刘寄奴之能破瘀通经行血。又治金疮使血顿止。一通
一涩。似不相合。他书止载治效。无有诠释。使人自悟。是篇凡其药有类是。无不按实考明
。尽情阐发。俾令后学。始有津涯。
一、药多有形质相同。气味相等。若使各为注释而不比类合观。则疑似莫辨。如诃子粟
壳共
为涩
药之类。白蔻砂仁共为燥胃之类。猪苓泽泻共为利湿之类。羌活独活共为驱风之类。大戟甘
遂共为泻水之类。枳壳枳实共为破气之类。附子肉桂共为补火之类。地黄枸杞共为滋水之类
。牛黄贝母共为清热祛痰之类。乳香没药共为行血破血之类。人参黄 共为补肺补气之类
。本草分论虽多。而合论则少。是篇尚论药味。凡有气味相同。无不先于篇首协议阐发。再
于各味之中。又取相类以为分别。庶使毫厘千里。无有差谬！
一、药有宜有忌。宜者可用。而忌者不可用也。有其宜之当用。即有其忌之不可用。是
篇既
于
药品之宜。反复申明。复于药性之忌。多为诰诫。俾其喜忌并知。而无临症岐亡之弊矣。
一、本草药味。他氏多以草木昆虫金石类为编次。以便披阅。然形质虽同。而气味不就
一处
合编
。则诸药诸性。又已分散各部而不可以共束矣。是编开列药品。总以气味相类共为一处。如
补火等药。则以补火为类。滋水等药。则以滋水为类。间有一味而兼数治数性者。则不得不
就
一处以为品列。不必彼此重见。是亦限于编次之一道也。再于分别气味之下。又注是草是木
是金是石以为类次。俾气味既得依类而处。而形质亦得分类合观。庶泾渭攸分。而学人自无
亡津之叹。
一、本草本经。出自神农。其理自属不易。然考论中所载。药性多有安五脏。定神志。
并延
年益
寿。身轻黑发。及桑白皮紫草补中益气等说。按此语多肤廓。不无可疑。且考神农尝草。流
传至今。是时文本未开。当有识识相因。不尔何由得闻。所详药出郡县。多有后汉地名。故
寇宗 陶通明掌禹锡皆谓是书考之于汉。已有不能断自何代所作。淮南子虽言神农尝百草以
和药。亦无本草之名。至称桐雷本此载在简编。应与素问同类。何以后人多为更饰。故有疑
为
他氏所着。厥后代为损益。其真愈失。而其论愈讹。无怪李氏濒湖纂集本草。仅以本经主治
冠列诸首。而不力为着解。且有疑其经论未确。留此以为存羊之意。非故浓今薄古。实以语
多
肤廓。故不敢以疑信相参之书。等于素问。同作千古俎豆观也。惟有长洲张璐极力尊崇。而
其中多有强为组合之心。仍非尊崇本意。故余尚论药性。每从实处追求。既不泥古以薄今。
复不浓今以废古。惟求理与病符。药与病对。俾炎帝救世之真心。默与余论相合。而不失其
尊崇之意。是亦余心之素望也矣！
一、《本草》一书，首要任务是区分药物的形状、质地、气味。其次要辨别药物归经及所属脏腑。最后要明确其主治证候和治疗功能。纵观以往的各种书籍，无不具备这些记载。然而道理阐述不明，意义梳理不清，只是片面强调显著的疗效，浅薄的医士怎能分辨其中的奥妙呢？况且有的书对补法不具体指明（何种补），对泻法不直接说明（如何泻），或者通过牵强附会的方式（如隔一脏或两脏）来解释，反而借用巧妙的言辞作为虚妄的喝斥。虽然义理似乎可通，但意图难以立刻领悟。因此，本书从往昔诸书中仔细加以考证订正，凡是有义理未明、意图未达之处，无不彻底搜剔干净，将那些牵强混说的内容一概删除，使真实的内容全部显现出来，绝不随声附和，言语模棱两可，以致迷惑人的视听。
二、药物的补泻作用，或针对阴或阳，或针对气或血，或针对燥或润，原本自有区别。遍阅各种书籍，没有如实载明的。例如白术味苦性燥，是能入脾补气；山药味甘气平，是能入脾补阴；人参、黄芪味甘性温，是能入肺补气；地黄、麦冬味甘微寒，是能入肺补阴；龙眼肉甘温，是能入心补气；当归、柏子仁辛甘温润，是能入心补血；山茱萸、杜仲辛温酸温，是能入肝补气；何首乌、阿胶甘平微温，是能入肝补血；至于附子、肉桂辛热，则能入肾补阳；熟地黄、枸杞子甘润甘温，是能入肾补阴。补剂如此，泻剂亦然。而书籍往往将补泻混为一谈。本书在论述补法和泻法时，都以阴阳气血进行分辨，绝不敢用模棱两可的话来推卸责任，从而使读者翻开书就能明白，没有错误。
三、本草药性，最宜就实讲明，不可有一丝一毫的牵强附会。例如书中既然说桑白皮入肺泻火，明明知道它没有补气的作用，却又混杂引用益气的说法来造成混淆。枳壳、枳实本是下气作用最猛烈的药物，书中又引用益气明目的说法来描述其本质。桔梗本属升提气机的药物，书中却扩大其含义说是降气。赤小豆本不是大热的药物，书中却另立其义说是燥性。紫石英、白石英的甘与温，本不是最湿的药物，书中却反其词说是湿性。这只有智慧高超的人，才能领悟其中的深意。如果是粗疏浅薄的医生，又怎么能明白其中的义理呢？本书凡是遇到义理深奥难明的地方，逐一详细解释，不让稍有含糊。
四、经络脏腑，其他书籍也有记载某药主入某经，某药兼入某经。然而众书繁杂，持论不一。例如知母味辛而苦，沉中有浮，降中有升，本能清肺以宁肾，而书中偏偏只字不提润肺，只说在水液方面有滋润作用，牵强混引，令人费解。本篇凡是类似这种不明的地方，无不从实际出发加以阐发，从而使主次分明，经络、腑和脏的药物使用自然就不会出错。
五、本书论述症状、治疗、疗效，总是根据药物的“味、形、质”四个字推究而出。这样，药物施用于疾病，既有其原因；而药物施用于疾病即见效，又有其道理。例如刘寄奴能破瘀通经行血，又能治疗金疮使血立即停止。一通一涩，看似不相合。其他书籍只记载疗效，没有诠释，让人自行领悟。本篇凡是药物有类似情况的，无不按实际考证明确，尽情阐发，使后学者开始有门径可循。
六、药物多有形状质地相同，气味相等。如果各自注释而不比较归类观察，则容易混淆难辨。例如诃子、罂粟壳同为涩药之类；白豆蔻、砂仁同为燥胃之类；猪苓、泽泻同为利湿之类；羌活、独活同为驱风之类；大戟、甘遂同为泻水之类；枳壳、枳实同为破气之类；附子、肉桂同为补火之类；地黄、枸杞同为滋水之类；牛黄、贝母同为清热祛痰之类；乳香、没药同为行血破血之类；人参、黄芪同为补肺补气之类。本草分论虽多，而合论则少。本篇尚且讨论药味，凡是有气味相同的，无不先在篇首协议阐发，再在各味之中，选取相类似的加以分别，从而使毫厘之差不至于千里之谬！
七、药物有适宜使用的，有禁忌使用的。适宜的可以用，禁忌的不可用。有适宜当用的，就有禁忌不可用的。本篇既对药品之宜反复申明，又对药性之忌多加告诫，使其喜忌皆知，从而避免临症时因误用而致人死亡的弊端。
八、本草药味，其他氏多以草木昆虫金石类为编次，以便翻阅。然而形状质地虽然相同，而气味不在一处合编，则诸药各性，已经分散各部而不能共同束聚了。本篇开列药品，总以气味相类共为一处。如补火等药，则以补火为类；滋水等药，则以滋水为类。间有一味而兼有多种治法和多种性质的，则不得不就在同一处排列品目，不必彼此重复出现。这也是限于编排体例的一种方法。再于分别气味之下，又注明是草、是木、是金、是石以为类别次序，使气味既能依类而处，而形质也能分类合观，从而使泾渭分明，学人自然不会有迷失津渡的叹息。
九、《本草》《本经》出自神农，其理自属不易。然而考论中所载，药性多有安五脏、定神志、并延年益寿、身轻黑发，以及桑白皮、紫草补中益气等说法。按此语多肤浅空泛，不无可疑。且考神农尝草，流传至今，那时文字尚未开启，应当是有识之士口耳相传。否则怎么能够听闻？所详述的药出郡县，多有后汉地名。所以寇宗奭、陶弘景、掌禹锡等都认为这本书考证起来是汉代作品，已有不能断定是哪个朝代所作。《淮南子》虽言神农尝百草以和药，也无《本草》之名。至于称桐君、雷公，原本据此记载在简编中，应与《素问》同类，为什么后人多为修饰？所以有人怀疑是他人所著，后代代为增减损益，其真意愈失，而其论述愈讹。难怪李氏（李时珍）编纂《本草》，仅以《本经》主治冠列诸首，而不力为着解，且有疑其经论未确，留此以为存羊之意（保留一点痕迹）。并非故意厚今薄古，实在是因为话语多肤浅空泛，所以不敢将这本可疑的书与《素问》等同，视为千古祭祀的对象。惟有长洲张璐极力尊崇，而其中多有强为组合之心，仍非尊崇本意。所以我尚且讨论药性，每从实处追求，既不泥古以薄今，复不厚今以废古，只求理与病相符，药与病相对，使炎帝救世的真心，默默与我的论述相合，而不失其尊崇之意。这也是我平素的愿望啊！
1. The primary task of the *Bencao* (Materia Medica) is to distinguish the shape, texture, and flavor/odor of drugs. Secondly, it is necessary to differentiate their meridian tropism and associated Zang-Fu organs. Finally, one must clarify their indicated syndromes and therapeutic functions. A survey of previous texts reveals that all these aspects are invariably recorded. However, if the underlying principles are not clearly explained and meanings are not systematically organized, merely highlighting conspicuous therapeutic effects leaves shallow practitioners unable to discern the subtleties. Moreover, some texts fail to specify the nature of tonification or purgation directly, resorting to far-fetched analogies (e.g., relating to distant organs) or employing clever but vacuous rhetoric. Although such interpretations may seem logically passable, their true intent is difficult to grasp immediately. Therefore, this work carefully examines and corrects past texts. Any unclear meanings or unexplained intents are thoroughly eliminated, and all far-fetched or confused statements are deleted, ensuring that authentic content is fully revealed. We do not blindly follow others or use ambiguous language that might confuse readers.
2. The tonifying or purgating properties of drugs—whether affecting Yin or Yang, Qi or Blood, Dryness or Moisture—have distinct differences. Yet, comprehensive texts rarely record these distinctions accurately. For instance, Baizhu (Atractylodis Macrocephalae Rhizoma), with its bitter taste and drying nature, enters the Spleen to tonify Qi; Shanyao (Dioscoreae Rhizoma), sweet in taste and neutral in odor, enters the Spleen to tonify Yin; Renshen (Ginseng Radix) and Huangqi (Astragali Radix), sweet and warm, enter the Lung to tonify Qi; Dihuang (Rehmanniae Radix Praeparata) and Maidong (Ophiopogonis Radix), sweet and slightly cool, enter the Lung to tonify Yin; Longyanrou (Longan Arillus), sweet and warm, enters the Heart to tonify Qi; Danggui (Angelicae Sinensis Radix) and Baiziren (Biota Seed), pungent, sweet, and moist-warm, enter the Heart to nourish Blood; Shanzhuyu (Corni Fructus) and Duzhong (Eucommiae Cortex), pungent-warm and sour-warm, enter the Liver to tonify Qi; Shouwu (Polygoni Multiflori Radix) and Ejiao (Asini Corii Colla), sweet, neutral, and slightly warm, enter the Liver to nourish Blood; Fuzi (Aconiti Lateralis Radix Praeparata) and Rougui (Cinnamomi Cortex), pungent and hot, enter the Kidney to tonify Yang; Shudihuang (Rehmanniae Radix Praeparata) and Gouqizi (Lycii Fructus), sweet, moist, and warm, enter the Kidney to tonify Yin. This applies similarly to purgative agents. Previous texts often confuse tonification and purgation. In this work, discussions on tonification and purgation are strictly differentiated by Yin/Yang and Qi/Blood, avoiding vague excuses, so that readers can understand clearly without error upon opening the book.
3. The medicinal properties of herbs should be explained concretely, without any forced associations. For example, while texts state that Sangbaipi (Mori Cortex) enters the Lung to drain Fire, implying it has no tonifying effect on Qi, they confusingly mix in references to benefiting Qi. Zhike (Aurantii Fructus Immaturus) and Zhishi (Aurantii Fructus Viridis) are potent for directing Qi downward, yet texts erroneously attribute benefits to benefiting Qi and brightening the eyes. Jiegeng (Platycodonis Radix) naturally ascends Qi, yet some expand its meaning to include descending. Xiaochidou (Vigna Semen Rubrum) is not a hot herb, yet some describe it as drying. Zi Yanshi (Fluorite) and Bai Yanshi (Quartz), being sweet and warm, are not dampening, yet some incorrectly label them as such. Only wise individuals can comprehend these profound meanings; coarse and shallow practitioners cannot grasp them. This work explains every obscure point in detail, leaving no ambiguity.
4. Regarding Meridians and Zang-Fu organs, other texts record which drugs primarily enter specific meridians or secondarily enter others. However, these texts are complex and inconsistent. For instance, Zhimu (Anemarrhenae Rhizoma), pungent and bitter, with sinking-floating and descending-ascending properties, naturally clears the Lung to calm the Kidney. Yet, some texts omit its ability to moisten the Lung, mentioning only its fluid-nourishing properties, leading to forced and confusing explanations. This work clarifies such ambiguities based on reality, ensuring clear primary and secondary indications, thereby preventing errors in using drugs for meridians, Fu organs, and Zang organs.
5. Discussions on symptoms, treatments, and efficacy in this work are deduced from the four aspects of drug characteristics: Flavor (Wei), Shape (Xing), and Texture (Zhi). Thus, when a drug is applied to a disease, there is a logical cause; and when it proves effective, there is a rational basis. For example, Liuji nu (Artemisiae Annuae Herba) breaks stasis, unblocks collaterals, and moves blood, yet also stops bleeding instantly in traumatic injuries. These actions—moving versus astringing—seem contradictory. Other texts merely record effects without explanation, forcing readers to infer. This work investigates and elucidates such cases thoroughly, providing a clear path for students.
6. Many drugs share similar shapes, textures, and flavors. If annotated separately without comparative classification, confusion arises. Examples include: Hezi (Terminaliae Fructus) and Yingkesu (Papaveris Pericarpium) as astringents; Baokou (Amomi Fructus Rotundus) and Sharen (Amomi Fructus) as stomach-drying agents; Zhuling (Polyporus) and Zexie (Alismatis Rhizoma) as damp-draining agents; Qianghuo (Notopterygii Rhizoma et Radix) and Duhuo (Angelicae Pubescentis Radix) as wind-dispelling agents; Daji (Euphorbiae Pekinensis Radix) and Gansui (Kansui Radix) as water-purging agents; Zhike and Zhishi as Qi-breaking agents; Fuzi and Rougui as fire-tonifying agents; Dihuang and Gouqizi as water-nourishing agents; Niuhuang (Bovis Calculus) and Beimu (Fritillariae Bulbus) as heat-clearing and phlegm-resolving agents; Rushi (Olibanum) and Moyao (Myrrha) as blood-moving and stasis-breaking agents; Renshen and Huangqi as Lung-Qi tonifying agents. While separate discussions are numerous, combined discussions are few. This work discusses flavors, addressing identical flavors at the beginning of sections and differentiating similar ones within categories, preventing minor discrepancies from leading to major errors.
7. Drugs have appropriate uses and contraindications. Appropriate ones can be used; contraindicated ones must not. This work repeatedly emphasizes appropriate uses and warns against contraindications, ensuring practitioners know both preferences and taboos, thus avoiding fatal clinical errors.
8. Traditional Materia Medica often categorizes drugs by botanical or mineral type (plants, insects, metals, stones) for ease of reference. However, if drugs with similar forms but different flavors are not grouped together, their properties become scattered and disconnected. This work groups drugs by similar flavors/properties. For example, fire-tonifying drugs are grouped together; water-nourishing drugs are grouped together. If a drug has multiple properties, it is listed in relevant categories to avoid redundancy. This is a limitation of editorial structure. Additionally, under each flavor category, we note whether the drug is plant-based (grass/tree) or mineral (metal/stone), allowing both flavor-based and form-based classification, ensuring clarity and preventing student confusion.
9. The *Bencao Jing* (Classic of Materia Medica) is attributed to Shennong, and its principles are considered immutable. However, claims in the text regarding drugs calming the Five Zang organs, stabilizing the spirit, extending life, lightening the body, blackening hair, or Tonifying Middle and Benefiting Qi (e.g., Sangbaipi, Zicao) appear superficial and questionable. Given that writing was undeveloped during Shennong’s time, knowledge was likely transmitted orally. Furthermore, many place names mentioned correspond to the Han Dynasty, leading scholars like Kou Zongshi, Tao Hongjing, and Zhang Yuxi to date the text to the Han period. The *Huainanzi* mentions Shennong tasting herbs but does not name the *Bencao*. References to Tongjun and Leigong align with the *Suwen*, suggesting later embellishments. Some suspect it was authored by others and modified over generations, distorting original truths. Li Shizhen included *Bencao Jing* indications but offered little commentary, possibly due to doubts about its authenticity, preserving it cautiously rather than equating it with the *Suwen*. This is not to favor modern over ancient views, but because the language is too vague to treat as canonical truth. Zhang Lu of Changzhou revered it but forced connections. I seek practical understanding, neither clinging to antiquity nor dismissing it, aiming for alignment between theory, disease, and drug, honoring Shennong’s intent through rigorous analysis. This is my sincere aspiration.