《尔雅翼》引汜胜之云∶三月种粳稻，四月种秫稻。稻若诗书之文，自根据所用而解之。
如论语食夫稻。则稻是粳。《月令》∶秫稻必齐，则稻是糯。《周礼》∶牛宜 。则 是粳。诗
∶丰年多黍多 ，为酒为醴，则 是糯。又稻人职掌，稼下地至泽草所生，则种之。芒种是
明稻，有芒有不芒者，今之粳，则有芒，至糯则无，是得通称 稻之明验也。然《说文》所
谓，沛国谓稻曰糯，至郭氏《解雅》∶ 稻乃云∶今沛国称 。不知《说文》亦岂谓此 讹
为糯邪？将与郭自异义也。 按∶许慎东汉人，郭璞西晋人，许岂有将与郭自异义之理乎？
盖许慎之说方言也，郭璞之说 ，亦稻之属也，近来古方家，或惑本草者流之说，而偏用今
之糯米者非也。
消石矾石散。
上一方，用大麦粥汁服之。
枳实芍药散。
上一方，用麦粥汁服之。
以上皆用今大麦。
甘草粉蜜汤。
上一方，粉一两。
粉，粱米粉也。《千金方·解百药毒篇》曰∶解鸠毒，及一切毒药不止烦满方。乃此甘
草粉蜜药也。粉，作粱米粉。毒药，盖药毒颠倒也。《金匮要略》根据此。又《千金翼方》，作
药毒不止解烦。《外台秘要》，解诸药草中毒方内，引《千金翼方》，疗药毒不止，解烦闷。
今本《千金翼方》，脱闷字，又粱米粉，作白粱粉。白粱，乃粱米白者也。又有黄粱，故今
作白粱者，所以别于黄粱也。二书又俱毒药作药毒，由是观之。粉，是粱米粉，而毒药，是
药毒明矣。《正字通》曰∶凡物 之如屑者，皆名粉。粉为通称，非独米也，故粉有豆屑米
粉，又有轻粉、胡粉、铅粉、白粉之名。则如此药方，亦不可单称粉矣。然则二书作粱米粉
者为正。况复《金匮要略》，成于赵宋，固多脱误，盖脱粱米二字明矣。《千金翼方》、《外台
秘要》，成于李唐，但有讹谬耳。今宜从三书，作粱米粉，试之，得有应验矣。
《尔雅翼》引用汜胜之的话说：三月种植粳稻，四月种植秫稻。稻谷就像《诗经》和《尚书》中的文字一样，需要根据其所处的语境来解释。
例如《论语》中说“食夫稻”，那么这里的“稻”指的是粳米。《礼记·月令》中说“秫稻必齐”，那么这里的“稻”指的是糯米。《周礼》中说“牛宜稌”，那么“稌”指的是粳米。《诗经》中说“丰年多黍多稌，为酒为醴”，那么“稌”指的是糯米。另外，《周礼·稻人》职掌中提到，在低洼之地直到沼泽草丛生长的地方，就种植它（稻）。芒种节气时明确提到稻，有带芒和不带芒的两种，现在的粳稻是有芒的，而糯稻则没有芒，这是可以通称为“稻”的明显证据。然而《说文解字》中所说的，沛国地区称稻为糯，到了郭璞的《尔雅注》中又说：“稻乃云：今沛国称稌。”不知道《说文解字》是否也将“稌”讹误写成了“糯”呢？还是说郭璞持有不同的见解呢？按：许慎是东汉人，郭璞是西晋人，许慎难道会有与郭璞故意持不同见解的道理吗？大概许慎说的是方言，郭璞所说的“稌”，也是稻的一类。近来研究古方的医家，有的被本草学者的说法迷惑，而偏用现在的糯米，这是错误的。
消石矾石散。
以上一方，用大麦粥汁送服。
枳实芍药散。
以上一方，用麦粥汁送服。
以上各方均使用现在的大麦。
甘草粉蜜汤。
以上一方，粉一两。
粉，是指粱米粉。《千金方·解百药毒篇》中说：“解除鸠毒，以及一切毒药导致烦闷不止的方剂。”就是这甘草粉蜜药方。粉，制作成粱米粉。毒药，大概是指药物毒性引起的反应（药毒颠倒）。《金匮要略》依据此说。又《千金翼方》中，写作“药毒不止解烦”。《外台秘要》在“解诸药草中毒方”内，引用《千金翼方》，治疗药毒不止，解除烦闷。现在的版本《千金翼方》，脱漏了“闷”字，又将“粱米粉”写作“白粱粉”。白粱，是指白色的粱米。又有黄粱，所以现在写作白粱，是为了区别于黄粱。这两本书又将“毒药”写作“药毒”，由此看来，粉是粱米粉，而毒药是指药毒，这是很明显的。《正字通》说：凡是物体碎屑像粉末一样的，都称为粉。粉是通称，不仅仅指米，所以粉有豆屑、米粉，又有轻粉、胡粉、铅粉、白粉的名称。那么像这样的药方，也不能单称“粉”了。既然如此，这两本书写作粱米粉的是正确的。况且《金匮要略》成书于赵宋时期，确实有很多脱漏错误，大概脱漏了“粱米”二字是很明显的。《千金翼方》、《外台秘要》成书于李唐时期，只有讹误罢了。现在应当依据这三本书，写作粱米粉，尝试使用，果然得到了应验的效果。
*Er Ya Yi* cites Fan Shengzhi, stating: "In the third month, plant *jing* rice (non-glutinous rice); in the fourth month, plant *shu* rice (glutinous rice). Rice is like the texts in the *Classic of Poetry* and the *Book of Documents*; its meaning must be interpreted according to its context."
For instance, in the *Analects*, it says "eating rice" (*shi fu dao*). Here, "rice" refers to *jing* rice. In the *Monthly Ordinances* (*Yue Ling*), it states "both *shu* and rice must be prepared"; here, "rice" refers to glutinous rice. In the *Rites of Zhou* (*Zhou Li*), it says "cattle are suited for *tu*" (*niu yi tu*); here, "*tu*" refers to *jing* rice. In the *Classic of Poetry* (*Shi Jing*), it says "In years of abundance, there is much millet and much *tu*; making wine and sweet wine," here "*tu*" refers to glutinous rice. Furthermore, the official titled "Rice Grower" (*Dao Ren*) is in charge of planting rice in low-lying lands up to areas where swamp grass grows. During the Grain in Ear (*Mangzhong*) solar term, rice is clearly mentioned; there are varieties with awns and without awns. Currently, *jing* rice has awns, whereas glutinous rice does not. This is clear evidence that they can be collectively referred to as "rice." However, what is stated in the *Shuo Wen Jie Zi* is that in Peiguo, rice is called *nuo* (glutinous rice). Later, in Guo Pu's commentary on *Er Ya*, it says regarding "*tu*": "Currently, people in Peiguo call it *tu*." I wonder if the *Shuo Wen Jie Zi* also erroneously wrote "*tu*" as "*nuo*"? Or did Guo Pu hold a different view? Note: Xu Shen was from the Eastern Han Dynasty, and Guo Pu was from the Western Jin Dynasty. Could it be that Xu Shen intentionally held a view contrary to Guo Pu? It is likely that Xu Shen was describing a dialect, while Guo Pu's mention of "*tu*" refers to another type of rice. Recently, some physicians studying ancient prescriptions have been confused by the theories of materia medica scholars and have exclusively used modern glutinous rice, which is incorrect.
**Gancao Xiaomai Dazao Tang (Licorice, Wheat, and Jujube Decoction).**
The above prescription uses one *sheng* of wheat.
**Xiaoshi Fanshi San (Niter and Alum Powder).**
The above prescription should be taken with barley gruel juice.
**Zhishi Shaoyao San (Immature Bitter Orange and Peony Powder).**
The above prescription should be taken with grain gruel juice.
All of the above use current barley.
**Gancao Fenmi Tang (Licorice, Powder, and Honey Decoction).**
The above prescription uses one *liang* of powder.
"Powder" refers to *liang* rice flour. The *Qianjin Fang* (Prescriptions Worth a Thousand Gold), in the chapter "Resolving Hundred Drug Poisons," states: "To resolve pigeon pea poison, and all cases of drug poisoning causing persistent irritability and fullness." This is the Gancao Fenmi Tang. The powder should be made into *liang* rice flour. "Drug poison" (*yao du*) likely refers to adverse reactions caused by medication (poisonous drugs reversed). The *Jingui Yaolue* (Essential Prescriptions of the Golden Cabinet) follows this interpretation. Additionally, the *Qianjin Yifang* writes "drug poisoning causes persistent irritability." The *Waitai Miyao* (Miraculous Latrine Secret Formulas), within the section "Formulas to Resolve Poisoning from Various Herbs and Drugs," cites the *Qianjin Yifang*: "Treating persistent drug poisoning and resolving irritability." The current version of the *Qianjin Yifang* omits the character "men" (irritation/fullness) and writes "white *liang* powder" instead of "*liang* rice flour." "White *liang*" refers to white *liang* rice. There is also yellow *liang* rice; thus, writing "white *liang*" serves to distinguish it from yellow *liang*. Both books write "drug poison" (*yao du*) instead of "poisonous drugs" (*du yao*). From this, it is clear that "powder" is *liang* rice flour, and "drug poison" refers to adverse drug reactions. The *Zhengzitong* states: "Anything fragmented like dust or powder is named 'fen' (powder)." "Fen" is a general term, not limited to rice; hence, there are names such as bean dregs powder, rice powder, Qingfen (calomel), Hufen (lead carbonate), Qianfen (lead powder), and Baifen (white powder). Therefore, in such prescriptions, one cannot simply refer to it as "powder." Consequently, the two books that write "*liang* rice flour" are correct. Moreover, the *Jingui Yaolue* was compiled during the Song Dynasty and indeed contains many omissions and errors; it is obvious that the characters "liang mi" (*liang* rice) were omitted. The *Qianjin Yifang* and *Waitai Miyao* were compiled during the Tang Dynasty and contain only minor corruptions. Currently, we should follow these three texts, using "*liang* rice flour," and upon trial, it yields effective results.