书曰∶若药弗瞑眩，厥疾弗瘳。《周官》曰∶医师掌医之政令，聚毒药，共医事。由是
观之，药毒也，而病毒也，药毒而攻病毒，所以瞑眩者也。而考本草，有毒者有焉，无毒者
有焉，为养者有之，不养者有之。于是人大惑焉，世远人泯经毁，虽欲正之，末由也已，今
之所赖也，天地人耳。夫有天地，则有万物焉，有万物，则有毒之能也，有人则病与不而有
焉，是古今之所同也。从其所同，而正其所异也，孰乎不可正哉！扁鹊之法，以试其方也，
药之瞑眩，厥疾乃瘳，若其养与不养邪，本草之云，终无其验焉。故从事于扁鹊之法，以试
其方，四十年于兹，以量之多少，知其所主治也。视病所在，知其所旁治也。参互而考之，
以知其征，于是始之所惑也，粲然明矣。凡攻疾之具，则药皆毒，而疾医之司也。养精之备，
则辨有毒无毒，而食医之职也。食者常也，疾者变也，吾党之小子，常之与变，不可混而为
一矣。而本草也，混而一之，乃所以不可取也。不可取乎，则其方也。规矩准绳，是故扁鹊
之法，以试其方之功，而审其药之所主治也。次举其考之征，以实其所主治也。次之以方之
无征者，参互而考次之，以古今误其药功者，引古驯而辨之，次举其品物，以辨真伪，名曰
《药征》也。犹之一物也，异其用，则异其功，是以养其生者，随其所好恶；攻其疾者，不
避其所好恶。故食医之道，主养其精也。故撰有毒无毒，而随其所好恶也。疾医之道，主攻
其疾也。故药皆毒而不避其所好恶也，而为医者不辨之，混而为一，疾医之道，所以绝也。
夫古今不异者，天地人也。古今异者，论之说也。以其不异，以正其异，不异则不异，异则
异也。譬如人君用人，率材则功，达材则无功矣。一物无异功，用异则功异，用养生乎？用
攻疾乎？养生随其所好恶，攻疾不避其所好恶，不知其法，焉得其正？其法既已建，而后以
其不异，以正其异，不异则不异，异则异。《诗》曰∶伐柯，伐柯，其则不远，是之谓也。
盖今之为医之论药也，以阴阳五行，疾医之论药也，唯在其功耳。故不异则不异，异则异。
然则治疾如之何，匪攻不克；养生如之何，匪性不得。吾党之小子，勿眩于论之说，以失其
功实云尔。
明和八年中秋之月日本艺阳吉益为则题
《尚书》说：“如果服药后没有出现瞑眩反应，那严重的疾病就不会痊愈。”《周礼》记载：“医师掌管医疗政令，收集毒药，共同处理医疗事务。”由此看来，药物是有毒性的，而疾病也是由“毒”引起的，用药物的毒性去攻击疾病的毒性，这就是产生瞑眩反应的原因。然而考察《本草》，有的药材有毒，有的无毒；有的具有滋养作用，有的没有滋养作用。于是人们对此感到十分困惑。由于年代久远，古人消逝，经典毁损，虽然想要纠正这种混乱，却无从下手。现在所依赖的，只有天、地、人这三者罢了。
有了天地，就有了万物；有了万物，就有具备毒性（或偏性）的能力；有了人，就有生病和不生病的情况。这是古今相同的事实。遵循这些相同之处，来纠正那些不同的（错误认知），还有什么不能纠正的呢！扁鹊的诊疗方法，是用来验证方剂疗效的：药物引起瞑眩反应，严重的疾病才能痊愈。至于《本草》中说的某些药是“养”还是“不养”，最终都没有得到验证。因此，我遵循扁鹊的方法，用来验证方剂的疗效，至今已经四十年了。通过衡量用药剂量的多少，知道了它们主要治疗的病症；观察病变的部位，知道了它们兼治的病症。相互参照并考证，以明确药物的征象（主治特征），于是起初的困惑，便清晰地明朗起来了。
大凡治疗疾病的工具，药物都是有偏性（毒）的，这是疾医（临床医生）的职责。保养精气的准备，需要辨别药物是否有偏性（毒），这是食医（营养师/食疗家）的职能。饮食是常态，疾病是变异。我们这一辈的年轻人，应当将常态与变异区分开来，不可混淆为一。然而《本草》将它们混为一谈，所以不足为取。既然《本草》不足为取，那么就要依靠方剂。规矩准绳（标准法则），就是依据扁鹊的方法来验证方剂的功效，并审察药物究竟主治什么病症。其次列举考证的依据，以证实它们的主治功能。再次，对于没有征象支持的方剂，相互参照并考证排列，引用古代驯化的知识来辨析那些古今误判药物功效的地方。最后列举各种物品，以辨别真伪，这本书命名为《药征》。
就像同一种物品，用途不同，功效就不同。因此，养生的人，随着个人的喜好和厌恶来选择；治病的人，不回避个人的喜好和厌恶。所以，食医之道，主要在于保养精气，因此撰写药物是否有偏性（毒），并根据个人的喜好和厌恶来选择。疾医之道，主要在于攻克疾病，因此药物只要有偏性（毒）即可，不回避个人的喜好和厌恶。如果医生不加以辨别，将它们混为一谈，疾医之道就会断绝。
古今不变的是天、地、人；古今变化的是关于理论的论述。用不变的（客观事实）来纠正变化的（主观理论），不变的就是不变，变化的就是变化。这就像国君用人，根据才能任用就能建立功业，通达事理任用就能建功立业。同一物品没有不同的功效，但用途不同，功效就不同。是用来养生呢？还是用来治病？养生要顺应个人的喜好和厌恶，治病则不回避个人的喜好和厌恶。如果不了解这种方法，怎么能掌握正确的原则呢？既然方法已经确立，然后用不变的（事实）来纠正变化的（理论），不变的就是不变，变化的就是变化。《诗经》说：“砍削斧柄，砍削斧柄，法则就在近旁。”说的就是这个道理。
大概现在从事医学的人讨论药物，是基于阴阳五行理论；而疾医讨论药物，只关注其实际功效。所以，不变的就是不变，变化的就是变化。那么，治疗疾病该怎么办？不通过攻邪就不能攻克；养生该怎么办？不顺应本性就无法达成。我们这一辈的年轻人，不要被那些空泛的理论论述迷惑，从而失去对药物实际功效的认识，就是这样罢了。
明和八年中秋之月，日本艺阳吉益为则题写
The *Book of Documents* states: "If the medicine does not induce a state of dizziness or nausea (mingxuan), the severe disease will not be cured." The *Rites of Zhou* records: "The Physician-in-Chief is in charge of medical administration, collects toxic substances, and jointly handles medical affairs." From this, we can see that medicines possess toxicity/potency, and diseases are caused by pathogenic factors (often conceptualized as 'poison' or extreme imbalance). Using the potency of medicine to attack the pathogenic factor is what induces the mingxuan reaction. However, upon examining the *Bencao* (Materia Medica), some herbs are potent/toxic, while others are not; some have nourishing properties, while others do not. Consequently, people are greatly confused. Due to the passage of time, ancient sages have passed away, and classics have been destroyed; although one wishes to correct these errors, there is no way to do so. What remains reliable today is only Heaven, Earth, and Humanity.
With Heaven and Earth come all things; with all things comes the capacity for potency/toxicity; with humanity come illness and health. This is a constant shared by both ancient and modern times. By adhering to these constants, one can correct the deviations; if so, what cannot be corrected? The method of Bian Que is used to test prescriptions: when medicine induces mingxuan, the severe disease is cured. As for whether herbs are "nourishing" or "non-nourishing" as claimed in the *Bencao*, such claims ultimately lack verification. Therefore, I have followed the method of Bian Que to test prescriptions for forty years. By measuring the dosage, I have determined their primary indications; by observing the location of the disease, I have identified their secondary indications. Through mutual cross-referencing and examination, I have clarified the specific signs (indications) of the herbs. Thus, my initial confusion has become clear and distinct.
Generally speaking, the tools for attacking disease are all potent (toxic); this is the duty of the Clinician (Jiyi). The preparations for preserving essence require distinguishing between potent and non-potent substances; this is the duty of the Dietitian (Shiyi). Food represents the normal state, while disease represents deviation. We, the younger generation, must distinguish between the normal and the deviant, and not confuse them. However, the *Bencao* confuses them into one, which is why it should not be adopted. Since the *Bencao* is not to be adopted, reliance must be placed on prescriptions. Standards and rules are established by using the method of Bian Que to verify the efficacy of prescriptions and to examine precisely what symptoms each herb primarily treats. Next, I list the evidence from examinations to substantiate these primary indications. Then, for prescriptions lacking such evidence, I cross-reference and arrange them, citing ancient knowledge to辨析 (analyze and distinguish) those instances where ancient and modern misunderstandings of herbal efficacy have occurred. Finally, I list various substances to distinguish authenticity from falsehood, naming this work *Yao Zheng* (Evidence of Medicines).
Consider a single substance: if its use differs, its efficacy differs. Therefore, those who practice health preservation follow personal preferences and aversions; those who treat disease do not avoid personal preferences or aversions. Thus, the way of the Dietitian focuses on preserving essence, classifying herbs by potency and selecting them according to preference. The way of the Clinician focuses on attacking disease; therefore, any potent herb is usable, regardless of preference. If physicians fail to distinguish between these roles and confuse them, the clinical approach will perish.
What remains unchanged between ancient and modern times is Heaven, Earth, and Humanity. What changes is the theoretical discourse. Using the unchanging to correct the changing means that the unchanging remains unchanging, and the changing remains changing. It is like a ruler employing talent: utilizing ability yields merit, understanding capability yields achievement. A single substance does not have different efficacies inherently, but different uses yield different results. Is it used for health preservation? Or for treating disease? Health preservation follows preferences; treating disease does not shy away from preferences. Without knowing this method, how can one attain correctness? Once the method is established, one uses the unchanging facts to correct the changing theories. The *Classic of Poetry* says: "Chopping the handle, chopping the handle, the pattern is not far away." This refers to the present situation.
Currently, medical theorists discuss herbs based on Yin-Yang and Five Elements theory, whereas clinicians discuss herbs solely based on their efficacy. Thus, the unchanging remains unchanging, and the changing remains changing. So, how should disease be treated? It cannot be conquered without attacking. How should health be preserved? It cannot be achieved without following nature. Let us, the younger scholars, not be dazzled by theoretical discourses, thereby losing sight of practical efficacy.
Written by Yoshitsugu Katsuragawa of Edo, Japan, during the Mid-Autumn Festival of the 8th year of Meowa.