丹溪医之圣者也其为格致余论一书超迈今古奚容轻议然沉潜反复窃有可疑者焉论中左大
顺男
右大顺女之说丹溪独指气血之阴阳反遗脉位之阴阳乃以医人之左右手立论有戾经旨可疑者一
也醇酒宜冷冻饮料之论吾见世人饮热酒者亦无恙饮冷酒者虽盛暑亦致病焉可疑者二也至如倒仓一
法且丹溪自云得之西域异人近世余目击土夫数人信行此法死者相继可疑者三也噫西域之人殊
方异域风气不同禀赋亦异此法岂可行于东南柔弱之人乎门人误录于劳瘵吐血门中为祸甚大且
劳瘵咳血真阴亏损脏腑脾胃虚弱津液枯竭不宜吐泻昔徐文伯治范云之疾有取汗之戒尚促天年
况吐下之法施于劳损之人可乎或以是罪余轻议前人者余应之曰孙真人千金方有房中补益法丹
溪辩之曰苟无圣贤之心神仙之骨未易为也又曰若以房中为补杀人多矣丹溪能为孙公之忠臣余
顾不能为丹溪之忠臣乎语曰不以人废言使丹溪复生其殆不废余言矣
或问曰和剂局方丹溪发挥辩之详矣戴原礼乃丹溪高弟今观其所着症治要诀方论皆祖局方
何也
余曰局方亦何负于人哉前后活人不知其几丹溪但辩其用药者误耳非方之罪也血虚症不宜用香
燥之剂痿痹症不可混作风治亦何尝屏弃之乎今人遂以局方例不可用或者有宜北不宜南之说殊
不知内经治寒以热治热以寒微者逆之甚者从之权变得宜消息以为治安可限以南北之分而无寒
热之异哉原礼盖得丹溪之心法者其有取于局方非苟然也
朱丹溪是医学界的圣人,他所著的《格致余论》一书超越古今,哪里容得轻易议论?然而我深思熟虑后,却发现有几点可疑之处。
书中提到“左手脉大顺应男子,右手脉大顺应女子”的说法,朱丹溪只从气血的阴阳角度去解释,反而遗漏了脉位本身的阴阳属性,仅仅依据医生诊脉时的左右手来立论,这违背了经典的本意,这是可疑的第一点。
关于“醇酒应当冷冻后饮用”的论述,我看见世人喝热酒的人也没有事,而喝冷酒的人即使在盛夏也会致病,这是可疑的第二点。
至于“倒仓法”,朱丹溪自己也说是从西域异人那里得来的。近代我亲眼目睹几个土著人相信并施行这种方法,结果死者接连不断,这是可疑的第三点。唉!西域之人处于不同的地域,风土气候不同,体质禀赋也各异,这种法子难道能在东南方柔弱的人群中推行吗?门人将其错误地记录在“劳瘵吐血”门类中,造成的祸害非常大。况且劳瘵(肺结核类慢性消耗性疾病)咳血,属于真阴亏损、脏腑脾胃虚弱、津液枯竭之证,不宜使用吐泻之法。从前徐文伯治疗范云的疾病时,还有禁止发汗的告诫,尚且缩短了病人的寿命,何况对虚损之人施用吐下之法呢?或许有人因此怪罪我轻率议论前人,我回答说:孙思邈的《千金方》中有房中补益法,朱丹溪曾辩驳说:“如果没有圣贤的心地和神仙的骨相,是不容易做到的。”又说:“如果把房中术当作补益之法,会杀死很多人。”朱丹溪能成为孙思邈的忠臣,我难道不能成为朱丹溪的忠臣吗?俗话说:“不因为人的过失而废弃其正确的言论。”假使朱丹溪再生,恐怕也不会废弃我的言论吧。
有人问:“《和剂局方》,朱丹溪已经详细发挥并辩驳过了,戴原礼是朱丹溪的高徒,如今看他所著的《症治要诀》中的方论,都效法《和剂局方》,为什么呢?”
我说:“《和剂局方》对人们有什么亏欠呢?前后救活的人不知有多少。朱丹溪只是辩驳其中用药有误罢了,并非方剂本身的罪过。血虚证不宜使用香燥的药物,痿痹证不可混同于风证治疗,这又何曾排斥《和剂局方》呢?现在的人便认为《和剂局方》一概不可用,或者有人说有适宜北方而不适宜南方的说法,殊不知《内经》中说:‘治寒以热,治热以寒’,病情轻微的逆其病势而治,病情严重的顺其病势而治,权变得当,斟酌适宜以求安定,怎么可以限定南北之分,而没有寒热之异呢?戴原礼大概是得到了朱丹溪的心法,他取法《和剂局方》并不是随意的。”
Zhu Danxi was a sage in the field of medicine. His work *Gezhi Yulun* (Excerpts on Investigation of Things) transcends both past and present, so how could it be subject to casual criticism? However, after deep contemplation and repeated analysis, I find certain points questionable.
Regarding the statement in the text that "an enlarged pulse on the left side is favorable for men, while an enlarged pulse on the right side is favorable for women," Zhu Danxi exclusively interpreted this through the yin-yang of qi and blood, thereby neglecting the yin-yang inherent in pulse positions. By basing his argument solely on the physician's left and right hands during diagnosis, he deviated from the original intent of the classics. This is the first point of doubt.
Concerning the theory that "fine wine should be chilled before drinking," I have observed that people who drink hot wine remain unharmed, whereas those who drink cold wine may fall ill even during the height of summer. This is the second point of doubt.
As for the "Dao Cang" method (a purgative therapy involving the consumption of large quantities of beef broth to cleanse the stomach), Zhu Danxi himself claimed to have learned it from an exotic figure from the Western Regions. In recent times, I witnessed several local individuals who believed in and practiced this method, resulting in successive deaths. This is the third point of doubt. Alas! The people of the Western Regions inhabit different lands with distinct climatic conditions and constitutions. How can such a method be applicable to the delicate people of Southeast China? It is unfortunate that his disciples erroneously recorded this method in the section on "Lao Zhai" (Chronic Consumptive Disease/Tuberculosis) and hemoptysis, causing significant harm. Indeed, hemoptysis due to Lao Zhai stems from a deficiency of true yin, weakness of the zang-fu organs and spleen-stomach, and exhaustion of body fluids; thus, emetic or purgative therapies are contraindicated. In the past, when Xu Wenbo treated Fan Yun, there was even a warning against inducing sweating, which yet shortened the patient's lifespan. How much more inappropriate would it be to apply emetic and purgative methods to patients suffering from consumptive diseases? Some might blame me for lightly criticizing predecessors. I would respond: Sun Simiao's *Qianjin Fang* (Essential Prescriptions Worth a Thousand Gold) contains methods for sexual health and tonification. Zhu Danxi refuted these, stating, "Without the heart of a sage and the constitution of an immortal, one cannot easily practice them." He also said, "If sexual practices are mistaken for tonification, many will die." If Zhu Danxi could be a loyal minister to Sun Simiao, why could I not be a loyal minister to Zhu Danxi? As the saying goes, "Do not discard valid words because of the person who spoke them." If Zhu Danxi were to return to life, he likely would not discard my words.
Someone asked: "Zhu Danxi has already elaborated upon and critiqued the *Heji Jufang* (Prescriptions from the Bureau of Humanitarian Relief). Dai Yuanli, being one of Zhu Danxi's foremost disciples, now observes that his own works, *Zhengzhi Yaojue* (Key Essentials for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Diseases) and its formulas, all follow the *Heji Jufang*. Why is this?"
I replied: "What harm has the *Heji Jufang* done to people? Countless lives have been saved by it over time. Zhu Danxi merely criticized the errors in medication usage within it, not the fault of the formulas themselves. For blood-deficiency syndromes, aromatic-drying agents are unsuitable; for flaccidity and bi-syndromes (impairment of movement and sensation), they must not be confused with wind-patterns. Did Zhu Danxi ever advocate abandoning the *Heji Jufang* entirely? Today, people assume that the *Heji Jufang* is universally unusable, or some argue that certain prescriptions suit the North but not the South. They fail to realize that the *Neijing* (Inner Canon) states: 'Treat cold with heat, treat heat with cold.' For mild conditions, treat contrary to the pathogen; for severe conditions, treat in accordance with the pathogen. One must exercise flexibility, adjust appropriately, and seek harmony. How can one rigidly divide treatments by North and South, ignoring the fundamental differences between cold and heat patterns? Dai Yuanli likely grasped the core principles of Zhu Danxi. His adoption of the *Heji Jufang* was not arbitrary."