钱天来云。汉之一两。即今之二钱七分也。一升。即今之二合半也。汪苓友云。古云铢
者。
之一剂。三分之一。谓之一服。凡用古方。先照原剂。按今之码子折实若干重。古方载三服
者。只
按今之
异也。程扶生云。古以二十四铢为一两。一两分为四分（去声）。六铢为一分。计二钱五分。
则所谓十八铢者。盖三分之重。古之七钱半也。然以古今量度及 黍考之。以一千二百黍之
重。实于黄钟之龠。得古之半两。今之三钱也。合两龠为合。得古之一两。今之六钱也。十
铢为一千黍之重。今之二钱半也。一铢为百黍之重。今之二分半也。或又谓古今量度。惟汉
最小。汉之一两。惟有今之三钱半强。故千金本草。以古三两为今一两。古三升为今一升。
然世
不必胶柱而鼓瑟。则为善法仲景者矣。
愚按诸说颇有异同。大抵古之一两。今折为三钱。不泥于古。而亦不离于古也。
一、凡积重难反之势。骤夺其所好。世必惊疑。今且浅而商之。明药性始于神农本经。
论病
伤寒论及金匮玉函经二书。外台谓又有短剧一书。今失传。方诸举业家。与四子书无异。而
犹有疑之者。岂四子之书亦不可读乎。则以读仲师书。为第一劝。
二、仲师书文义古奥难读。即刘张朱李四家。（明时以张长沙与刘河间、李东垣、朱丹
溪为
有发挥。更有庸妄者。颠倒是非。谓仲师专工于伤寒。其桂枝、麻黄只行于西北。宜于冬月。
以芎、苏、羌、独、荆、防等剂为感冒切用之品。以补中、归脾、八珍、六味等方为杂病平
稳之方。百病不究根由。只以多热为阴虚。多寒为阳虚。自夸为挈领提纲之道。究竟伪术相
师。能愈一大病否。夜气犹存。举生平所治之证平心自问。当亦知所变计也。则以知过必改。
为第二劝。
三、经方效如桴鼓。非若后世以地黄补阴。以人参补阳。以香、砂调气。以归、芎调血。
笼
服愈。不必尽剂。可知古人用药。除宿病痼病外。其效只在半剂一二剂之间。后世如薛立斋
医按云。服三十余剂及百剂效。李士材云。备参五斤。期于三月奏效。此岂果服药之效哉。
乃病气衰而自愈若辈贪天之功而为己力也。余阅其案。深悯病患之困于药甚于桎梏也。则以
经方之疗效神速。为第三劝。
四、伤寒论一百一十三方。以存津液三字为主。试看桂枝汤和平解肌。无一非养液之品。
即
制一剂。分为三服。不必尽剂可愈。愈后亦无他病。近医芎、苏、羌、独、荆、防、苍、芷
苦燥辛
夏之耗
邪陷入少阴。）皆所以涸其汗源。（此二字。余研究十年方悟。）留邪生热。以致变成烦躁大
渴。谵语神昏等证。所谓庸医误人者此也。至于金匮一百四十三方。大旨是调以甘药四字。
后世之四君子汤、补中益气汤及四物、八珍、十全、归脾、逍遥等剂。颇得甘调之意。而偏
驳不驯。板实不灵。又不可不知。则明经方之有利无害。为第四劝。
五、仲师为医中之圣人。非至愚孰敢侮圣。所疑者其方也。方中无见证治证之品。且铢
两升
性者。自知其三四味中。备极神妙。况古人升斗权衡。三代至汉。较之今日。仅十之三。每
剂分三服。一服亦不过七八钱。与两零而已。较之时方之重者乃更轻。今以古今之码子折算。
又为之浅浅解释。俾知经方道本中庸。人与知能。为第五劝。
六、先入为主。人之通患也。桂枝汤、小柴胡汤。无论伤寒杂病。阳经阴经。凡营卫不
和者
又
饮列于散阵。遂致应用不用。误人无算。而不知二药。神农列之上品。久服可以却病延年。
今之信各家而不信神农。诚可怪也。闽医习见余用桂枝汤。万无一失。此数年来。自三钱亦
用至八九钱而效者。咸知颂予创始之德。至于柴胡。不过四钱而止。而浙省江苏每用必以鳖
血拌蒸。最多不过二钱。皆先入之说误之也。不知长沙方柴胡用至八两。取其性醇。不妨多
服。
之根。害人不浅。推之细辛、五味。用不过一钱。大枣不过二枚。生姜不过二片。种种陋习。
皆
七、起生回生。医之道也。如医家束手。病家待毙。察其为杂法所误。先与病家帮助。
璧其
针机。脏腑调和。统归胃气。危急拯救。不靠人参。（此一句为病家之脑后下一针也。经方
无用参为救急法。惟霍乱有理中丸汤方。然汗厥脉微欲绝。以通脉四逆加猪胆汤为主。又无
取乎人参。第不可与读薛氏景岳等书人说也。）力肩其任。亦可救十中二三。余自临证三十
余年。知经方之权夺造化。为第七劝。
八、经方愈读愈有味。愈用愈神奇。凡日间临证立方。至晚间一一于经方查对。必别有
神悟
九、医门之仲师。即儒宗之宣圣。凡有阐扬圣训者则遵之。其悖者则贬之。障川东流。
功在
处。张子和瑕瑜参半。最下是李东垣。竖论以脾胃为主。立方以补中为先。徇其名而亡其实。
燥
与仲师养津液及调以甘药之法相反。不可不知。至于李时珍、王宇泰之杂。李士材之浅。薛
立斋之庸。赵养葵之妄。张景岳、陈远公、冯楚瞻之浮夸影响。不使一字寓目。方可入于精
微之奥。坊刻汪 庵等本。虽云耳食。却有一二道得着处。但于仲师方末。杂引陶节庵诸辈
臆说。不无朱紫之乱。入门时始参其说。终为乡愿矣。则以专一不杂。为第九劝。
十、亚圣有云。予岂好辩哉。不得已也。今医学各成门户。所藉乎明先圣之功。溯委穷
源。
生
俾此道日益昌明。则以有言无隐。和气可亲。为第十劝。
钱天来说：汉代的一两，相当于现在的二钱七分。一升，相当于现在的二合半。汪苓友说：古代所说的“铢”，是重量单位。一剂药，分为三次服用，称为“一服”。凡是使用古方，首先要按照原方的剂量，根据现在的秤具折算成实际的重量。古方记载分三服的情况，只按现在的标准折算即可，古今量度虽有差异。程扶生说：古代以二十四铢为一两，一两分为四分（去声），六铢为一分，合计二钱五分。那么所谓的“十八铢”，就是三分的重量，即古代的七钱半。然而通过考证古今的量度和黍米，用一千二百粒黍米的重量，放入黄钟律管的龠中，得到古代的半两，相当于现在的三钱。合并两个龠为“合”，得到古代的一两，相当于现在的六钱。十铢相当于一千粒黍米的重量，相当于现在的二钱半。一铢相当于百粒黍米的重量，相当于现在的二分半。又有人称古今量度只有汉代最小，汉代的一两，仅有现在的三钱多。所以《千金方》和《本草》认为，古代的三两相当于现在的一两，古代的三升相当于现在的一升。然而世人不必拘泥固执地照搬古人，这才是善于效法张仲景的方法。
我按语：各种说法颇有异同。大体上，古代的一两，现在折算为三钱，既不拘泥于古制，也不脱离古制的本义。
第一、凡是积重难返的局势，突然剥夺其所好，世人必定惊疑。现在姑且浅显地商讨一下。明了药性始于神农的《本经》，论述疾病在于《伤寒论》及《金匮玉函经》两书。《外台秘要》称还有《短剧》一书，如今已失传。这些方书对于科举应试者来说，与四子书（四书）没有不同，却还有人怀疑它们。难道四子书也不可读吗？因此，把研读仲景的书作为第一劝告。
第二、仲景的书文义古奥难懂，即使刘河间、张元素、朱丹溪、李东垣四家（明代将张长沙与刘河间、李东垣、朱丹溪并称为医家四大家），也有发挥之处。更有庸俗狂妄的人，颠倒是非，说仲景专门擅长治疗伤寒，他的桂枝汤、麻黄汤只适用于西北地区和冬季，而用川芎、紫苏、羌活、独活、荆芥、防风等药剂作为感冒必需的药品，用补中益气汤、归脾汤、八珍汤、六味地黄丸等方剂作为杂病平稳的方子。百病不究根由，只把多热归结为阴虚，多寒归结为阳虚，自夸这是提纲挈领的道理。终究是伪术相师，能治好一大病吗？夜气尚存，回顾生平所治疗的病例平心自问，应当知道必须改变策略了。因此，把知过必改作为第二劝告。
第三、经方疗效如击鼓应声般迅速，不像后世用地黄补阴，用人参补阳，用香附、砂仁调气，用当归、川芎调血。笼统服药才能痊愈，不必服完全部剂量。可知古人用药，除了宿疾痼疾外，其疗效往往在半剂或一二剂之间。后世的薛立斋在《医案》中说，服用三十余剂乃至百剂才见效；李士材说，备人参五斤，期望三个月奏效。这难道是服药的效果吗？其实是病气衰退而自愈，这些人贪天之功为己力。我阅读他们的医案，深深怜悯病患被药物困扰甚于被枷锁束缚。因此，把经方疗效神速作为第三劝告。
第四、《伤寒论》有一百一十三首方剂，以“存津液”三字为主旨。试看桂枝汤和平解肌，无一不是养液之品。即使制作一剂，分为三服，不必服完即可痊愈，愈后也没有其他病症。近代医生使用川芎、紫苏、羌活、独活、荆芥、防风、苍术、白芷等苦燥辛散之品，以及半夏等耗伤津液之物，导致邪气陷入少阴（此二字，我研究十年才领悟）。这些都是使汗源枯竭的原因，留滞邪气产生热象，以致变成烦躁大渴、谵语神昏等证候。所谓庸医误人就是这个原因。至于《金匮要略》一百四十三首方剂，大意是“调以甘药”四字。后世的四君子汤、补中益气汤及四物汤、八珍汤、十全大补汤、归脾汤、逍遥散等药剂，颇得甘调之意，但偏驳不驯，板实不灵，这一点不可不知。因此，把明晓经方有利无害作为第四劝告。
第五、仲景是医中的圣人，如果不是极其愚笨的人谁敢侮辱圣人？所怀疑的是其中的方剂。方中没有针对见证治证的药物，而且铢两升斗的度量衡也与现代不同。了解药性的人，自然知道其中三四味药备极神妙。况且古人的升斗权衡，从三代到汉代，比今天仅占十分之三。每剂药分三服，一服也不过七八钱，加上零头而已，比当时的时方重的还要轻。现在用古今的秤具折算，又为之浅显解释，使人们知道经方之道本乎中庸，人与知识能力，作为第五劝告。
第六、先入为主，是人的通病。桂枝汤、小柴胡汤，无论伤寒杂病，阳经阴经，凡是营卫不和者都适用。但又把饮剂列于散剂阵法之中，致使该用的不用，误人无数，却不知道这两味药，神农将其列为上品，久服可以祛病延年。现在相信各家学说而不相信神农，实在奇怪。福建医生常见我使用桂枝汤，万无一失，这几年以来，自己从三钱用到八九钱而见效，都称赞我创始之功。至于柴胡，不过四钱为止，而浙江、江苏地区每次使用必用鳖血拌蒸，最多不过二钱，这都是先入为主的观念误导的。不知道长沙方中柴胡可用至八两，取其药性纯正，不妨多服。细辛、五味子，用量不过一钱，大枣不过两枚，生姜不过两片，种种陋习，皆有害人不浅。推而言之，作为第七劝告。（注：此处原文逻辑跳跃，结合上下文，“起生回生...为第七劝”在前文已有提及，此处第六点结尾似乎缺失了明确的“为第X劝”语句，但根据后文第七点开头，此处应理解为对前文习惯的批判，隐含劝诫之意，或者原文排版有误，暂按原文结构翻译，并在实体提取时注意第七点的明确表述）。*修正：仔细阅读原文，第六点末尾并未出现“为第六劝”字样，而是直接接第七点。但在第七点开头有“七、起生回生...为第七劝”。通常此类文章会有第十劝。检查原文，第六点确实缺少结尾的总结句，可能是原文脱漏或排版问题。但在翻译时需忠实原文。* 实际上，细看原文结构，第六点讲桂枝柴胡用法误区，第七点讲急救用人参误区。让我们重新梳理劝告序号：
1. 读仲师书
2. 知过必改
3. 经方疗效神速
4. 明经方有利无害
5. 经方道本中庸（人与知能）
6. （原文此处未明确写“为第六劝”，但紧接着是第七点。通常这类文章是对称的。再看第七点：“七、...为第七劝”。第八点：“八、...为第八劝”？原文第八点只说了“凡日间临证立方...必别有神悟”，没写“为第八劝”。第九点写了“为第九劝”。第十点写了“为第十劝”。
这就很奇怪。让我们再仔细看原文片段：
“...害人不浅。推之细辛、五味...种种陋习。皆...” 这里句子未完，接着是“七、起生回生...”。
看来原文可能存在缺字或排版断裂。但作为翻译任务，我必须忠实于提供的文本。
提供的文本中：
一...第一劝
二...第二劝
三...第三劝
四...第四劝
五...为第五劝
六...（无第六劝字样，内容关于桂枝柴胡）
七...为第七劝
八...（无第八劝字样，内容关于经方愈读愈有味）
九...为第九劝
十...为第十劝
这可能意味着第六和第八点没有明确的“为第X劝”结语，或者原文如此。我将按原文翻译。）
第七、起死回生，是医者的正道。如果医生束手无策，病人等待死亡，观察发现是被杂法所误，先帮助病人，挽回生机。针机（针灸机理），脏腑调和，统归胃气，危急拯救，不靠人参。（这一句是给病人脑后打一针。经方不用人参作为救急方法，只有霍乱有理中丸汤方。然而如果是汗出厥冷、脉微欲绝，以通脉四逆加猪胆汤为主，也不需要取用人参。只是不能跟读薛己、张景岳等人书籍的人说罢了。）力肩其任，也可以救十中二三。我自临诊三十多年，知道经方有权夺造化之功，作为第七劝告。
第八、经方越读越有味，越用越神奇。凡是白天临证处方，到了晚上一一在经方中查对，必定别有神悟。（原文此处未写“为第八劝”，直接结束段落或进入下一段，但根据上下文逻辑，这应是第八点的内容。原文中“八、经方愈读愈有味...必别有神悟”后直接接“九、...”，中间没有“为第八劝”的字样。我将如实翻译。）
第九、医门中的仲师，就像儒宗中的宣圣（孔子）。凡是阐扬圣训的就遵从它，违背的就贬斥它。像阻挡河流向东流一样，功在千秋。处（处理/评论）张子和瑕瑜参半，最下是李东垣。树立理论以脾胃为主，立方以补中为先，徇其名而亡其实，燥烈与仲景养津液及调以甘药的方法相反，不可不知。至于李时珍、王宇泰的杂乱，李士材的浅薄，薛立斋的平庸，赵养葵的妄诞，张景岳、陈远公、冯楚瞻的浮夸影响，不让一个字入眼，才可以进入精微的奥妙。坊刻汪昂等人的版本，虽然说是耳食之言，却有一两处心得之处。但在仲景方后面，杂引陶节庵诸人的臆说，不无朱紫混淆。入门时开始参考他们的说法，最终就会成为乡愿（老好人/随波逐流者）。因此，把专一不杂作为第九劝告。
第十、亚圣孟子说：我难道喜欢辩论吗？是不得已啊。现在医学各成门户，所凭借的是阐明先圣的功劳，追溯委曲穷尽源头，使这门学问日益昌明。因此，把有言无隐、和气可亲作为第十劝告。
Qian Tianlai stated: One liang (tael) in the Han Dynasty is equivalent to approximately 2.7 qian (mace) today. One sheng (peck) is equivalent to approximately 2.5 he today. Wang Lingyou stated: The ancient term "zhu" refers to a unit of weight. One dose of medicine, divided into three servings, is called one "fu" (dose). When using ancient formulas, one must first refer to the original dosage and convert it to actual weight according to modern scales. Although there are differences in measurement systems between ancient and modern times, for formulas recorded as three doses, one should simply follow the modern standard conversion. Cheng Fusheng stated: In ancient times, twenty-four zhu made up one liang. One liang was divided into four fen (fourth part), with six zhu making one fen, totaling 2.5 qian. Therefore, what is referred to as "eighteen zhu" represents three fen in weight, which is 7.5 qian in ancient terms. However, by examining ancient and modern measurements and millet grains, placing the weight of 1,200 millet grains into the yue (a small measure) of the Huangzhong pitch-pipe yields half a liang in ancient terms, equivalent to 3 qian today. Combining two yue makes one he, yielding one liang in ancient terms, equivalent to 6 qian today. Ten zhu correspond to the weight of 1,000 millet grains, equivalent to 2.5 qian today. One zhu corresponds to the weight of 100 millet grains, equivalent to 0.25 qian today. Others argue that among ancient and modern measurements, only the Han system was the smallest; one Han liang was merely slightly more than 3.5 qian today. Thus, *Qianjin Yaofang* and *Bencao* state that three ancient liang equal one modern liang, and three ancient sheng equal one modern sheng. However, people need not rigidly adhere to ancient standards like tuning a fixed zither; this is the proper way to emulate Zhang Zhongjing.
My commentary: Various theories have similarities and differences. Generally speaking, one ancient liang is converted to 3 qian today. This approach neither blindly adheres to antiquity nor departs from its essence.
First: When a situation is deeply entrenched and difficult to reverse, suddenly depriving people of their preferences will inevitably cause shock and suspicion. Let us discuss this superficially. Understanding drug properties begins with Shennong's *Shennong Bencao Jing*. Discussing diseases relies on the *Shanghan Lun* (Treatise on Cold Pathogenic Diseases) and the *Jingui Yufan Jing*. The *Waitai Miyao* mentions another book, *Duanju*, which is now lost. For those preparing for imperial examinations, these formula texts are no different from the Four Books (Confucian classics). Yet some still doubt them. If the Four Books are readable, why not these? Therefore, reading Zhang Zhongjing's works is the first recommendation.
Second: Zhang Zhongjing's texts are archaic and difficult to read. Even the four schools of Liu Hejian, Zhang Yuansu, Zhu Danxi, and Li Dongyuan (in Ming dynasty context, Zhang Changsha/Zhang Zhongjing is grouped with them) had their interpretations. More absurd and arrogant practitioners distort right and wrong, claiming Zhang Zhongjing specialized only in cold damage, and that his Guizhi Tang (Cinnamon Twig Decoction) and Mahuang Tang (Ephedra Decoction) were only suitable for the northwest region and winter months. They consider herbs such as Xiong (Ligusticum Chuanxiong Rhizome), Su (Perilla Leaf), Qiang (Notopterygium Root), Du (Angelica Pubescens Root), Jing (Schizonepeta Spike), and Fang (Saposhnikovia Root) as essential for common colds, while regarding formulas like Buzhong Yiqi Tang (Tonify the Middle and Augment the Qi Decoction), Guipi Tang (Restore the Spleen Decoction), Bazhen Tang (Eight Treasure Decoction), and Liuwei Dihuang Wan (Six-Ingredient Pill with Rehmannia) as stable treatments for miscellaneous diseases. They do not investigate the root causes of diseases, attributing excessive heat solely to Yin deficiency and excessive cold to Yang deficiency, boasting this as a guiding principle. Ultimately, they propagate pseudoscience. Can such methods cure major diseases? Reflecting on cases treated throughout my life, one should realize the necessity of correcting errors. Therefore, acknowledging and correcting mistakes is the second recommendation.
Third: Classical formulas (Jingfang) act swiftly, like a drumstick striking a drum, unlike later practices of using Dihuang (Rehmannia Root) to tonify Yin, Renshen (Ginseng Root) to tonify Yang, Xiangfu (Cyperi Rhizome) and Sharen (Amomum Fruit) to regulate Qi, or Danggui (Angelica Sinensis Root) and Chuanxiong to regulate Blood, where patients often require full courses of medication to recover. It is evident that ancient physicians' medications, excluding chronic and stubborn diseases, showed effects within half a dose or one to two doses. Later physicians like Xue Lizhai claimed efficacy after thirty to a hundred doses, and Li Shicai mentioned preparing five jin (approx. 3kg) of Ginseng expecting results over three months. Is this truly due to the medication? Rather, the disease qi subsided naturally, yet these individuals claim credit for Heaven's work. Reading their case records, I deeply pity patients suffering from medication more than from shackles. Therefore, the rapid efficacy of classical formulas is the third recommendation.
Fourth: The *Shanghan Lun* contains 113 formulas, centered on the principle of "preserving body fluids." Observe Guizhi Tang (Cinnamon Twig Decoction): it harmonizes and releases the muscle layer, consisting entirely of fluid-nourishing ingredients. Even if prepared as one dose divided into three servings, recovery occurs without consuming the entire dose, leaving no sequelae. Modern doctors use bitter-dry and pungent-warming herbs such as Chuanxiong, Zisu, Qianghuo, Duhuo, Jingjie, Fangfeng, Cangzhu, and Baizhi, along with Banxia (Pinellia Tuber), which deplete fluids. This allows pathogenic factors to sink into the Shaoyin (Lesser-Yang/Lessering-Yin channel complex, specifically referring to Heart/Kidney axis in cold damage context here implying deep interior) [Note: The text says "Shaoyin", usually associated with Kidney/Heart, but in context of fluid depletion leading to heat, it implies deep internal involvement]. These actions dry up the source of sweat. (I realized the significance of these two characters—"drying up sweat source"—only after ten years of research.) Retaining pathogens generates heat, leading to symptoms like irritability, extreme thirst, delirium, and coma. This is how mediocre doctors mislead people. Regarding the 143 formulas in the *Jingui Yaolue*, the main idea is "harmonizing with sweet medicines." Later formulas like Sijunzi Tang (Four Gentlemen Decoction), Buzhong Yiqi Tang, Siwu Tang (Four Substance Decoction), Bazhen Tang, Shiquan Dabu Tang, Guipi Tang, and Xiaoyao San bear some resemblance to this sweet-harmonizing intent but are biased, inflexible, and ineffective. This must be understood. Therefore, understanding that classical formulas are beneficial and harmless is the fourth recommendation.
Fifth: Zhang Zhongjing is the Sage of Medicine. Only the extremely foolish would insult him. Doubts arise regarding his formulas, specifically the lack of specific symptom-targeting drugs and the discrepancy in weights and measures. Those who understand herb properties know the miraculous nature of just three or four ingredients. Moreover, ancient measures from the Three Dynasties to Han were smaller than today's, roughly three-tenths. Each dose divided into three servings amounts to only about 7-8 qian per serving, plus fractions, which is lighter than many contemporary prescriptions. By converting ancient and modern weights and providing simple explanations, we reveal that the Way of classical formulas lies in the Doctrine of the Mean (Zhongyong), balancing human capability and knowledge. This serves as the fifth recommendation.
Sixth: Preconceived notions are a common human flaw. Guizhi Tang (Cinnamon Twig Decoction) and Xiao Chaihu Tang (Minor Bupleurum Decoction) apply to both cold damage and miscellaneous diseases, affecting both Yang and Yin channels, whenever Ying and Wei (Nutritive and Defensive Qi) are disharmonious. However, liquid preparations are sometimes wrongly categorized alongside powder forms, leading to non-use when needed, causing countless errors. People fail to recognize that these two herbs are listed in the Superior Grade by Shennong, capable of preventing disease and prolonging life when taken long-term. It is strange to trust various later schools while disregarding Shennong. Fujian physicians observe my use of Guizhi Tang with consistent success; recently, increasing the dose from 3 qian to 8-9 qian has proven effective, and they praise my innovation. As for Chaihu (Bupleurum Root), the limit is usually 4 qian. In Zhejiang and Jiangsu, it is often steamed with turtle blood, limited to 2 qian. These limitations stem from preconceived ideas. Zhang Zhongjing used Chaihu up to 8 liang, relying on its pure nature allowing for larger doses. Conversely, habits like limiting Xixin (Asarum Root) and Wuweizi (Schisandra Berry) to 1 qian, Dazao (Jujube Fruit) to 2 pieces, and Shengjiang (Fresh Ginger) to 2 slices are harmful customs. (The text implies this point leads to a recommendation, though the explicit "Sixth Recommendation" label is missing in the provided snippet, it precedes the Seventh).
Seventh: Reviving the dead is the true Dao of medicine. If doctors give up and patients await death, recognizing errors caused by eclectic methods, one should assist the patient first to restore vitality. Through acupuncture mechanisms and regulating organs, harmony returns to Stomach Qi. In critical emergencies, rescue does not rely on Renshen (Ginseng Root). (This statement acts as a wake-up call for patients. Classical formulas do not use Ginseng for emergency rescue; except for Lizhong Wan/Tang for cholera-like syndromes. For sweating, cold limbs, and faint pulse, Tongmai Sini Jia Zhudane Tang (Pulse-Reviving Sini Decoction with Pig Gallbladder Bile) is primary, again not requiring Ginseng. This view contradicts teachings from Xue Ji and Zhang Jingyue.) Taking responsibility can save two or three out of ten. Having practiced for over thirty years, I know the power of classical formulas to alter fate. This is the seventh recommendation.
Eighth: Classical formulas become more flavorful with study and more miraculous with use. Prescribing during the day and cross-referencing with classical formulas at night yields profound insights. (The explicit "Eighth Recommendation" label is missing in the provided text structure, following the pattern of the sixth).
Ninth: Zhang Zhongjing in medicine is akin to Confucius in Confucianism. We follow those who expound his teachings and reject those who contradict them, acting as a dam against the eastward flow of erroneous trends. Zhang Zihe is mixed in merit and fault; Li Dongyuan is the lowest. His theory centers on the Spleen and Stomach, prioritizing tonification, which is nominal rather than substantial. His drying methods oppose Zhang Zhongjing's principles of nourishing fluids and harmonizing with sweet medicines. Li Shizhen and Wang Yutai are杂 (eclectic/mixed); Li Shicai is shallow; Xue Lizhai is mediocre; Zhao Yangkui is arbitrary; Zhang Jingyue, Chen Yuangong, and Feng Chuzhan are exaggerated and unsubstantiated. One should not let a single word of theirs enter one's mind to access the profound essence. Editions printed by workshops, such as those by Wang Ang, though largely based on hearsay, contain a few valid points. However, appending Tao Jian'an's speculative comments to Zhang Zhongjing's formulas confuses truth with falsehood. Relying on them initially leads to becoming a conformist. Therefore, maintaining focus and avoiding eclecticism is the ninth recommendation.
Tenth: Mencius said, "Do I enjoy debating? I am compelled to do so." Today, medical schools form separate factions. We must clarify the achievements of the Ancient Sages, trace origins, and exhaust sources to promote this discipline. Therefore, speaking openly without reservation and being amiable is the tenth recommendation.