其二是是不是把所谓的国际、国内水平看作了不可逾越的鸿沟，若是，就会把自己束缚住，若不是，就会使我们进发出无限的创造力，充分利用我们的知识治疗此病。
其三是是否敢于向自己的微小过失开战，若是，就会使我们认真地检查自己的甚至是微小的过失，使我们在总结个人的成功与失败中，找出出路，找出办法，并创造出新的成果来。
总之，我们要想发明，要想创造，我们绝对不可原谅自己，绝对不可以以别人是如此为借口原谅自己。
历史与方向
中医数千年的发展史，是一部总结经验和利用现实科学成就去认识解释这些经验的历史，也是一个巩固成就、否定错误的实践——理论——实践上升史。
早在《内经》时代，中医就广泛应用当时的科学成就去认识、解释临床实践中发现的一些规律，例如：利用古代辩证法的哲学观点去认识病理、生理、诊断、治疗，利用古天文学、物理学、地理学、心理学去认识病理生理和与自然界的关系。提出：“阴阳者，天地之道也，万物之纲纪，变化之父母，生杀之本始，神明之府也，治病必求于本”；“异法方宜”；“一病而治各不同……地势使然也”；“恬淡虚无，真气从之，精神内守，病安从来”；“和于阴阳，调于四时”；“凡人之惊恐恚劳动静，皆为变也，是以夜行则喘出于肾，淫气病肺，有所堕恐，喘出于肝，淫气害脾，有所惊恐，喘出于肺，淫气伤心”；“至而不至，未至而至……应则顺，否则逆，逆则变生，变则病……物生其应也，气脉其应也。”通过这种方法进行的研究，不但承认如解剖得来的直观的现实和规律，而且也承认用直观不能解释的，如肺合大肠，心合小肠，脾合胃，肾主骨，肝主筋，脾主肌肉，肺主皮毛，心主血，“少阳属肾，肾上连肺，故将两脏”等现象和规律。
随着科学的不断进步和医疗实践的丰富，一些盲目乱碰的实践经验和错误的理论逐步被纠正，新的较为正确的理论渐渐建立。正如张仲景所说：“感往昔之论丧，伤横夭之莫救，乃勤求古训，博采众方，撰用《素问》、《九卷》，《八十一难》，《阴阳大论》，《胎胪药録》，并平脉辨证，为《伤寒杂病论》合十六卷。”“观今之医，不念思求经旨，以演其所知，各承家技，始终顺旧，省疾问病，务在口给，相对斯须，便处汤药……夫欲视死别生，实为难矣。”在《伤寒论》条文中纠正了《素问》中，一日太阳，二日阳明，三日少阳的机械的传变理论，提出“伤寒一日，太阳受之，脉若静者，为不传，颇欲吐，若躁烦，脉数急者，为传也。”“伤寒二三日，阳明少阳证不见者，为不传也”的辨证的传变理论。并提出“辨”是认识治疗疾病的纲领，提出外感病的六经辨证学说，从而构成了比较完整的理法方药相统一的辨证论治观点。
但是由于客观条件的限制，张仲景不可能将很多问题都认识清楚，例如：温热病的感染途径，风热客表、热入营血、热人心包等都没有认识，神昏谵语也仅知道热入阳明、亡阳，热人血室、蓄血等原因，直到明、清两代的医家，如吴又可、叶天士等，才认识到温热病可以由口鼻而人，温邪的传变有卫气营血的不同阶段和热人心包，但是对湿热病的传变和温热后期的虚风内动还缺乏应有的认识，吴鞠通总结了前人的经验和个人的实践，提出了三焦学说和温邪久羁、虚风内动的理论及有效的方法，才使外感热病的理论比较完善。
在杂病领域里，中医的理论和临床经验也是不断发展的。例如：痰饮在《内经》中仅有“饮积”、“积饮”、“饮发”等名称，发病原因也主要集中在脾胃，张仲景才有了比较深刻的认识，指出：“夫饮有四……有痰饮、有悬饮、有溢饮、有支饮”、“有留饮”、“有伏饮”，饮还有五脏之分，虚实之别，但是广泛应用于内外妇儿各科的不同疾病，都是后人逐步积累经验的过程中加深认识和完整起来的。瘀血理论的形成和发展也是如此，《内经》、《伤寒》、《金匮要略》阐发于前，后人发展于后，到王清任、唐容川才有了比较深入的认识。脏象学说，《内经》虽提出了脏象的基本内容，但对脾胃、肾的作用阐发得还不完整，而通过李东垣、黄元御对脾胃升降作用的研究，朱丹溪、赵养葵、张景岳等对肾的研究和其作用的阐发以后，才使我们对脏象学说有了一个系统的认识。
在一部分人利用古代辩证法的观点和当时科学成果研究中医时，另一部分人提出直观的研究方法。清代王清任经过对部分尸体的仔细观察，提出：“尝阅古人脏象论及所绘之图，立言处处自相矛盾。”“每日清晨，赴其义冢，就群儿之露脏者细视之……始知医书中所绘脏腑形图，与人之脏腑全不相合，即件数多寡，也不相符。”“惟愿医林中人，一见此图，胸中雪亮，眼底光明，临症有所遵循……”。一部分人指出“专病专药”、“截药”，如：常山、柴胡治疗疟疾，马齿苋、白头翁等治疗痢疾，最近姜春华又提出开展“截药’’研究与利用辩证的观点研究方法相对抗，并指出某些药物对肠伤寒有特殊效果。通过这些研究丰富了药物的品种和对某些脏腑系统的实质认识。虽然直观的、形式逻辑的推理研究，发现了一些规律，纠正了非直观研究中的一些错误，但是由于他们没有认识到人类眼界是有限的，有些客观真理不一定用直观的眼睛看到，直接的触觉摸到，视觉看到的不一定是客观真理的症结所在，从而有时得出一些幼稚可笑的结论。所以在王清任提出“医林改错”时，又有人指出《医林改错》中的“错中错”，在提出疟疾用常山时，又有人指出辨证论治的方法治疗疟疾，张景岳的何人饮等即是一个代表。近人姜春华提出卫气营血是错误的理论，阴就是阴，阳就是阳。阴中有阳，阳中有阴是错误的观点，沈仲圭提出了反驳的原因就在于此。
随着西洋医学和现代科学的传人，直观的研究方法对中医的影响日渐扩大，中医界某些人提出以阴阳学说的一分为二观点发展起来的研究方法是“迷信”、“不科学’’的，利用中医理论去说明问题是“丢人”的事，也跟着某些人喊用“西医理论代替中医理论”，“废医存药”的腔调，另一部分人通过长期的临床观察，发现单用这些理论不能完全解释实践过程中发现的规律，不能指导实践，所以拼命抵抗各种直观论者从行政手段到学术观点方面的进攻，背着“复古”、唯心”的高帽，“负隅顽抗”、“背水一战”，拼死命保护这一点科学阵地。但是由于科学发展的限制，人们认识能力的束缚，很多问题应用通俗的语言不能阐明，所以只得站在一个角落里喘粗气。运气学说中阐述的生理病理变化与时钟变化，季节变化、年与年之间的变化，至而不至，至而太过，不至而至的关系，子午流注的时间性针法，气功的呼吸吐纳对生理病理的影响，有的已被气象医学、生物的时钟现象、红外线摄影等的研究所证实，从而给这些喘着粗气的人输了点氧气，维持了一下危机的生命。随着科学的进步，我们眼界的不断开阔，认识问题更加趋于正确和全面，很少的一点氧气可能变成睡狮的苏醒剂，认清哪些看起来是五光十色的贝壳的宝贝实际上是石灰的原料，哪些是乱石中包着的碧玉。肯定——否定——再肯定——再否定，通过反复的实践检验，错误的被纠正，正确的被肯定，使医学不断地前进。
一、为什么要学习《伤寒论》、《内经》、《金匮要略》
有人说《内经》、《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》是一千多年前的东西，当时对中医的发展起了一定的作用，目前已进人到原子时代，是四个现代化的时代，再学习《内经》、《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》是复辟倒退，还有的人说当了多年中医就没有用过《内经》、《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》，甚至说《伤寒》、《金匮要略》方谁用哪?我认为考虑时代是必要的，但它不是主要的，主要的是脚踏实地的实践。目前这个时代学不学《内经》、《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》主要看它有没有实践的意义。有，就学；没有，就不学。后一种人说没有学过《内经》、《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》照样看病了，是的，这确实是真的。这里我想提一个问题，当西医不学生理、病理、解剖、药理、微生物、组织胚胎学、生化等时能不能治病呢?能，肯定能。事实证明有的人就是没有学过，也每天治病。这能不能得出结论说，不学生理、病理、微生物、组织胚胎学呢?肯定不能，不但不能不学，反而更应该学习。
自《内经》、《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》问世一千多年来，经过频繁的战乱和朝代变迁，汉代以前的中医著作几乎绝迹了，唯独《内经》、《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》不但没有丢失，反而被广大医家视为珍宝，把《素问》、《灵枢》视为经典，《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》的作者张仲景尊称为医圣，有的注解，有的使用，直到今天仍被很多医家认为必读之书，它是行政手段形成的吗?肯定不是。因为它没有行政权力，所以它只能靠经过千锤百炼的理论去促进人们前进。历史的经验证明，凡是反复证明是真理的，人们就信得过，就夸奖它，否则就废弃它。《内经》、《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》的理论和经验已经过了一千多年的验证，我们为什么不可学习呢?
另一方面，从浩如烟海的中医著作来看，《内经》、《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》的原作及其注家的著作在中医理论和理论与实践相结合方面是比较全面而紧凑的，有的医家以《内经》、《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》为引子对中医理论和临床实践进行了大量阐发，丰富了中医的理论和临床知识，我们通过学习这些著作，不但可以学习一千多年来经过千锤百炼的理论和实践，而且可以学到很多医家的发展。
大量的系统阐述基础理论是《内经》的特点，后来一些临床医家把个人应用过的重点写入了个人的著作，但是很不系统，为了系统地了解中医基础理论的全貌，《内经》是比较好的一部书。《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》在理法方药的辩证统一上是比较严格的，虽然《内经》、《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》有它错误方面和不完全的地方，但它不象后人的某些著作过偏，因此为了学好辨证论治，学习《金匮要略》、《伤寒论》还是比较好的。
怎样学习《内经》、《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》呢?我认为应该首先将其原文进行阅读，并参考必要注解，对其涉及的问题进行归纳整理，通过实践进行观察验证，才能体会其实质。
二、学习《内经》、《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》的同时，还应学习后人的代表作
学习《内经》、《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》的原文和注解家的著作对于学习中医的基本理论和辨证论治体系虽然非常重要，但是仍有很多理论和实践经验没有被认识，后人通过广泛的实践进行了阐发和补充，例如：温病学说中的主要著作《温病条辨》，方剂学中的《医方集解》，脾胃学说中的李东垣、黄元御、叶天士著作，肾和命门学说中的朱丹溪、张景岳、赵养葵著作，痰饮著作中的朱丹溪、戴思恭、方隅、张景岳的著作，瘀血学说中的叶天士、王清任、唐容川、张锡纯的著作，专病专药中的李时珍著作，以及利用中医理论去认识中药的《本草求真》、《本经逢原》、《本草经疏》、《本草正》等，都应该深入学习。
三、研究发展中医的途径和中西医结合问题
研究中医的什么?用什么方法进行研究?这是西洋医学传人中国后就存在的问题。有的认为中医是在封建社会中逐步形成的，它是封建医，是不科学的，因此必须科学化，用西医代替中医。我认为中医是一门科学，如果把科学随便戴上封建主义、资本主义、社会主义的帽子是不合适的。至于什么叫科学、合不合乎科学，我认为科学的理论不在于自称科学的叫卖士，而在于其理论能否指导实践，在于它的生命力。因此我认为凡是指导实践的就是科学，否则就是谬误，就是不科学。
有的人说研究中医，必须用现代医学，凡是中医符合西医理论的就是科学，我认为这是不对的。如果以符合西医理论为标准，那么西医又以符合什么为标准呢?我们知道宇宙中的规律在目前情况下了解的虽然比过去多了一些，前进了一步，但离了解它全部的奥妙还相差很远，西医为了探测人体生理病理上的规律，不断地利用自然科学中发现的一切理论和科学成就，使西医大踏步地前进着，中医的研究如果仅仅应用被移植过来的西医理论作为标准，那怎么前进呢?实践证明西医在研究中发现了人体病理、生理规律性的一角，中医也发现了一角，如果用中医的一角去代替西医，’或用西医的一角代替中医都是不行的，正如一些患者愿意找纯西医，一些患者愿意找西学中，一些患者愿意找纯中医看病一样，他们还不能互相取代。
其二是，是否将所谓的国际、国内水平视为不可逾越的鸿沟？如果是这样，就会束缚住自己；如果不是，就会激发出无限的创造力，充分利用我们的知识来治疗这种疾病。
其三是，是否敢于向自己的微小过失开战？如果是这样，就会促使我们认真检查自己的甚至微小的过失，使我们在总结个人的成功与失败中，找出出路，找出办法，并创造出新的成果。
总之，我们要想发明创造，绝对不可原谅自己，绝对不可以以“别人也是如此”为借口来原谅自己。
历史与方向
中医数千年的发展史，是一部总结经验并利用现实科学成就去认识、解释这些经验的历史，也是一个巩固成就、否定错误的“实践——理论——实践”上升的过程。
早在《黄帝内经》时代，中医就广泛应用当时的科学成就去认识、解释临床实践中发现的一些规律。例如：利用古代辩证法的哲学观点去认识病理、生理、诊断、治疗；利用古天文学、物理学、地理学、心理学去认识病理生理和与自然界的关系。提出：“阴阳者，天地之道也，万物之纲纪，变化之父母，生杀之本始，神明之府也，治病必求于本”（阴阳是天地运行的规律，万物的纲领，变化的根源，生死的基础，神明的居所，治病必须探求根本）；“异法方宜”（不同的地域方法适宜不同）；“一病而治各不同……地势使然也”（同一种病治疗方法各不相同……是由于地势造成的）；“恬淡虚无，真气从之，精神内守，病安从来”（心境清静无为，真气顺从，精神内守，疾病从何而来）；“和于阴阳，调于四时”（顺应阴阳，调和四季）；“凡人之惊恐恚劳动静，皆为变也，是以夜行则喘出于肾，淫气病肺，有所堕恐，喘出于肝，淫气害脾，有所惊恐，喘出于肺，淫气伤心”（人的惊恐、愤怒、劳累、静止都会导致变化，所以夜间行走喘息源于肾，邪气伤肺，坠落恐惧喘息源于肝，邪气伤脾，受惊喘息源于肺，邪气伤心）；“至而不至，未至而至……应则顺，否则逆，逆则变生，变则病……物生其应也，气脉其应也。”（气候该来不来，不该来却来了……相应则顺，不相应则逆，逆则产生病变，产生病变即为疾病……万物生长有其感应，气脉也有其感应。）通过这种方法进行的研究，不但承认如解剖得来的直观的现实和规律，而且也承认用直观不能解释的，如肺合大肠，心合小肠，脾合胃，肾主骨，肝主筋，脾主肌肉，肺主皮毛，心主血，“少阳属肾，肾上连肺，故将两脏”等现象和规律。
随着科学的不断进步和医疗实践的丰富，一些盲目乱碰的实践经验和错误的理论逐步被纠正，新的较为正确的理论渐渐建立。正如张仲景所说：“感往昔之论丧，伤横夭之莫救，乃勤求古训，博采众方，撰用《素问》、《九卷》，《八十一难》，《阴阳大论》，《胎胪药録》，并平脉辨证，为《伤寒杂病论》合十六卷。”（感叹过去医论的缺失，哀叹横死早亡者无法救治，于是勤奋探求古代教诲，广泛采集各方药方，编撰运用《素问》、《九卷》（即《灵枢》）、《八十一难》（即《难经》）、《阴阳大论》、《胎胪药录》，并结合平脉辨证，写成《伤寒杂病论》共十六卷。）“观今之医，不念思求经旨，以演其所知，各承家技，始终顺旧，省疾问病，务在口给，相对斯须，便处汤药……夫欲视死别生，实为难矣。”（看现在的医生，不思考探究经典宗旨以扩展所知，各自继承家传技艺，始终沿袭旧规，诊察疾病询问病情，只注重口才敏捷，面对面片刻，就开出处方药物……想要区分生死，确实很难了。）在《伤寒论》条文中纠正了《素问》中，一日太阳，二日阳明，三日少阳的机械的传变理论，提出“伤寒一日，太阳受之，脉若静者，为不传，颇欲吐，若躁烦，脉数急者，为传也。”（伤寒第一天，太阳经受邪，如果脉象平静，说明没有传变，如果很想呕吐，或者烦躁，脉象数而急促，说明已经传变。）“伤寒二三日，阳明少阳证不见者，为不传也”的辨证的传变理论。并提出“辨”是认识治疗疾病的纲领，提出外感病的六经辨证学说，从而构成了比较完整的理法方药相统一的辨证论治观点。
但是由于客观条件的限制，张仲景不可能将很多问题都认识清楚，例如：温热病的感染途径，风热客表、热入营血、热人心包等都没有认识，神昏谵语也仅知道热入阳明、亡阳，热人血室、蓄血等原因，直到明、清两代的医家，如吴又可、叶天士等，才认识到温热病可以由口鼻而入，温邪的传变有卫气营血的不同阶段和热人心包，但是对湿热病的传变和温热后期的虚风内动还缺乏应有的认识，吴鞠通总结了前人的经验和个人的实践，提出了三焦学说和温邪久羁、虚风内动的理论及有效的方法，才使外感热病的理论比较完善。
在杂病领域里，中医的理论和临床经验也是不断发展的。例如：痰饮在《内经》中仅有“饮积”、“积饮”、“饮发”等名称，发病原因也主要集中在脾胃，张仲景才有了比较深刻的认识，指出：“夫饮有四……有痰饮、有悬饮、有溢饮、有支饮”、“有留饮”、“有伏饮”，饮还有五脏之分，虚实之别，但是广泛应用于内外妇儿各科的不同疾病，都是后人逐步积累经验的过程中加深认识和完整起来的。瘀血理论的形成和发展也是如此，《内经》、《伤寒》、《金匮要略》阐发于前，后人发展于后，到王清任、唐容川才有了比较深入的认识。脏象学说，《内经》虽提出了脏象的基本内容，但对脾胃、肾的作用阐发得还不完整，而通过李东垣、黄元御对脾胃升降作用的研究，朱丹溪、赵养葵、张景岳等对肾的研究和其作用的阐发以后，才使我们对脏象学说有了一个系统的认识。
在一部分人利用古代辩证法的观点和当时科学成果研究中医时，另一部分人提出直观的研究方法。清代王清任经过对部分尸体的仔细观察，提出：“尝阅古人脏象论及所绘之图，立言处处自相矛盾。”“每日清晨，赴其义冢，就群儿之露脏者细视之……始知医书中所绘脏腑形图，与人之脏腑全不相合，即件数多寡，也不相符。”“惟愿医林中人，一见此图，胸中雪亮，眼底光明，临症有所遵循……”。一部分人指出“专病专药”、“截药”，如：常山、柴胡治疗疟疾，马齿苋、白头翁等治疗痢疾，最近姜春华又提出开展“截药”研究与利用辩证的观点研究方法相对抗，并指出某些药物对肠伤寒有特殊效果。通过这些研究丰富了药物的品种和对某些脏腑系统的实质认识。虽然直观的、形式逻辑的推理研究，发现了一些规律，纠正了非直观研究中的一些错误，但是由于他们没有认识到人类眼界是有限的，有些客观真理不一定用直观的眼睛看到，直接的触觉摸到，视觉看到的不一定是客观真理的症结所在，从而有时得出一些幼稚可笑的结论。所以在王清任提出“医林改错”时，又有人指出《医林改错》中的“错中错”，在提出疟疾用常山时，又有人指出辨证论治的方法治疗疟疾，张景岳的何人饮等即是一个代表。近人姜春华提出卫气营血是错误的理论，阴就是阴，阳就是阳。阴中有阳，阳中有阴是错误的观点，沈仲圭提出了反驳的原因就在于此。
随着西洋医学和现代科学的传人，直观的研究方法对中医的影响日渐扩大，中医界某些人提出以阴阳学说的一分为二观点发展起来的研究方法是“迷信”、“不科学”的，利用中医理论去说明问题是“丢人”的事，也跟着某些人喊用“西医理论代替中医理论”，“废医存药”的腔调，另一部分人通过长期的临床观察，发现单用这些理论不能完全解释实践过程中发现的规律，不能指导实践，所以拼命抵抗各种直观论者从行政手段到学术观点方面的进攻，背着“复古”、“唯心”的高帽，“负隅顽抗”、“背水一战”，拼死命保护这一点科学阵地。但是由于科学发展的限制，人们认识能力的束缚，很多问题应用通俗的语言不能阐明，所以只得站在一个角落里喘粗气。运气学说中阐述的生理病理变化与时钟变化，季节变化、年与年之间的变化，至而不至，至而太过，不至而至的关系，子午流注的时间性针法，气功的呼吸吐纳对生理病理的影响，有的已被气象医学、生物的时钟现象、红外线摄影等的研究所证实，从而给这些喘着粗气的人输了点氧气，维持了一下危机的生命。随着科学的进步，我们眼界的不断开阔，认识问题更加趋于正确和全面，很少的一点氧气可能变成睡狮的苏醒剂，认清哪些看起来是五光十色的贝壳的宝贝实际上是石灰的原料，哪些是乱石中包着的碧玉。肯定——否定——再肯定——再否定，通过反复的实践检验，错误的被纠正，正确的被肯定，使医学不断地前进。
一、为什么要学习《伤寒论》、《内经》、《金匮要略》
有人说《内经》、《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》是一千多年前的东西，当时对中医的发展起了一定的作用，目前已进入原子时代，是四个现代化的时代，再学习《内经》、《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》是复辟倒退，还有的人说当了多年中医就没有用过《内经》、《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》，甚至说《伤寒》、《金匮要略》方谁用哪？我认为考虑时代是必要的，但它不是主要的，主要的是脚踏实地的实践。目前这个时代学不学《内经》、《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》主要看它有没有实践的意义。有，就学；没有，就不学。后一种人说没有学过《内经》、《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》照样看病了，是的，这确实是真的。这里我想提一个问题，当西医不学生理、病理、解剖、药理、微生物、组织胚胎学、生化等时能不能治病呢？能，肯定能。事实证明有的人就是没有学过，也每天治病。这能不能得出结论说，不学生理、病理、微生物、组织胚胎学呢？肯定不能，不但不能不学，反而更应该学习。
自《内经》、《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》问世一千多年来，经过频繁的战乱和朝代变迁，汉代以前的中医著作几乎绝迹了，唯独《内经》、《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》不但没有丢失，反而被广大医家视为珍宝，把《素问》、《灵枢》视为经典，《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》的作者张仲景尊称为医圣，有的注解，有的使用，直到今天仍被很多医家认为必读之书，它是行政手段形成的吗？肯定不是。因为它没有行政权力，所以它只能靠经过千锤百炼的理论去促进人们前进。历史的经验证明，凡是反复证明是真理的，人们就信得过，就夸奖它，否则就废弃它。《内经》、《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》的理论和经验已经过了一千多年的验证，我们为什么不可学习呢？
另一方面，从浩如烟海的中医著作来看，《内经》、《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》的原作及其注家的著作在中医理论和理论与实践相结合方面是比较全面而紧凑的，有的医家以《内经》、《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》为引子对中医理论和临床实践进行了大量阐发，丰富了中医的理论和临床知识，我们通过学习这些著作，不但可以学习一千多年来经过千锤百炼的理论 and 实践，而且可以学到很多医家的发展。
大量的系统阐述基础理论是《内经》的特点，后来一些临床医家把个人应用过的重点写入了个人的著作，但是很不系统，为了系统地了解中医基础理论的全貌，《内经》是比较好的一部书。《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》在理法方药的辩证统一上是比较严格的，虽然《内经》、《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》有它错误方面和不完全的地方，但它不象后人的某些著作过偏，因此为了学好辨证论治，学习《金匮要略》、《伤寒论》还是比较好的。
怎样学习《内经》、《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》呢？我认为应该首先将其原文进行阅读，并参考必要注解，对其涉及的问题进行归纳整理，通过实践进行观察验证，才能体会其实质。
二、学习《内经》、《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》的同时，还应学习后人的代表作
学习《内经》、《伤寒论》、《金匮要略》的原文和注解家的著作对于学习中医的基本理论和辨证论治体系虽然非常重要，但是仍有很多理论和实践经验没有被认识，后人通过广泛的实践进行了阐发和补充，例如：温病学说中的主要著作《温病条辨》，方剂学中的《医方集解》，脾胃学说中的李东垣、黄元御、叶天士著作，肾和命门学说中的朱丹溪、张景岳、赵养葵著作，痰饮著作中的朱丹溪、戴思恭、方隅、张景岳的著作，瘀血学说中的叶天士、王清任、唐容川、张锡纯的著作，专病专药中的李时珍著作，以及利用中医理论去认识中药的《本草求真》、《本经逢原》、《本草经疏》、《本草正》等，都应该深入学习。
三、研究发展中医的途径和中西医结合问题
研究中医的什么？用什么方法进行研究？这是西洋医学传入中国后就存在的问题。有的认为中医是在封建社会中逐步形成的，它是封建医，是不科学的，因此必须科学化，用西医代替中医。我认为中医是一门科学，如果把科学随便戴上封建主义、资本主义、社会主义的帽子是不合适的。至于什么叫科学、合乎不符合科学，我认为科学的理论不在于自称科学的叫卖声，而在于其理论能否指导实践，在于它的生命力。因此我认为凡是指导实践的就是科学，否则就是谬误，就是不科学。
有的人说研究中医，必须用现代医学，凡是中医符合西医理论的就是科学，我认为这是不对的。如果以符合西医理论为标准，那么西医又以符合什么为标准呢？我们知道宇宙中的规律在目前情况下了解的虽然比过去多了一些，前进了一步，但离了解它全部的奥妙还相差很远，西医为了探测人体生理病理上的规律，不断地利用自然科学中发现的一切理论和科学成就，使西医大踏步地前进着，中医的研究如果仅仅应用被移植过来的西医理论作为标准，那怎么前进呢？实践证明西医在研究中发现了人体病理、生理规律性的一角，中医也发现了一角，如果用中医的一角去代替西医，或用西医的一角代替中医都是不行的，正如一些患者愿意找纯西医，一些患者愿意找西学中，一些患者愿意找纯中医看病一样，他们还不能互相取代。
Secondly, do we regard the so-called international and domestic levels as an insurmountable chasm? If so, we will bind ourselves; if not, it will unleash infinite creativity, allowing us to fully utilize our knowledge to treat this disease.
Thirdly, are we daring enough to declare war on our own minor faults? If so, it will prompt us to seriously examine our even minor faults, enabling us to find a way out and methods, and create new achievements through summarizing personal successes and failures.
In short, if we want to invent and create, we must absolutely not forgive ourselves, nor use "others are also like this" as an excuse to forgive ourselves.
History and Direction
The thousands of years of development history of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is a history of summarizing experience and utilizing contemporary scientific achievements to understand and explain these experiences. It is also a process of consolidating achievements and negating errors, rising from "practice—theory—practice".
As early as the era of the *Huangdi Neijing* (Yellow Emperor's Inner Canon), TCM widely applied the scientific achievements of that time to understand and explain certain laws discovered in clinical practice. For example: using the philosophical viewpoints of ancient dialectics to understand pathology, physiology, diagnosis, and treatment; using ancient astronomy, physics, geography, and psychology to understand pathophysiology and its relationship with the natural world. It proposed: "Yin and Yang are the Way of Heaven and Earth, the general principles of all things, the parents of change, the origin of life and death, and the residence of spirit. To treat diseases, one must seek the root" (Yin and Yang are the laws of heaven and earth, the guidelines of all things, the source of change, the beginning of life and death, and the abode of divine wisdom; treating illness requires seeking the root); "Different methods are suitable for different places"; "One disease treated differently... due to geographical terrain"; "Tranquility and emptiness allow true Qi to follow, spirit remains within, how can disease arise?" ("He and Yin Yang, regulate according to the four seasons"); "All fright, anger, labor, and stillness cause changes. Thus, walking at night causes panting from the Kidney, excessive Qi harms the Lung; falling and fearing causes panting from the Liver, excessive Qi harms the Spleen; being frightened causes panting from the Lung, excessive Qi harms the Heart"; "Arriving but not arriving, not arriving but arriving... response is smooth, non-response is adverse, adverse leads to change, change leads to disease... Things respond to generation, Qi and pulse respond." Through research conducted by this method, it not only acknowledged intuitive realities and laws obtained from anatomy but also phenomena and laws that could not be explained intuitively, such as the Lung harmonizing with the Large Intestine, the Heart with the Small Intestine, the Spleen with the Stomach, the Kidney governing bones, the Liver governing sinews, the Spleen governing muscles, the Lung governing skin and hair, the Heart governing blood, and "Shaoyang belongs to the Kidney, the Kidney connects upward to the Lung, thus commanding two Zang organs."
With the continuous progress of science and the enrichment of medical practice, some blind experimental practices and erroneous theories were gradually corrected, and new, more correct theories gradually emerged. As Zhang Zhongjing said: "Moved by the loss of past discussions, grieved by the untimely deaths that could not be saved, I diligently sought ancient teachings, extensively collected various prescriptions, compiled and used the *Suwen*, *Jiuan* (Lingshu), *Bayishinan* (Nanjing), *Yinyang Dalun*, *Taipu Yaolu*, combined with pulse differentiation and syndrome differentiation, to write the *Shanghan Zabing Lun* (Treatise on Cold Pathogenic and Miscellaneous Diseases) totaling sixteen volumes." "Observing today's physicians, they do not ponder the essence of the classics to expand their knowledge, each inheriting family skills, always following old ways. When examining illnesses and asking about diseases, they focus on eloquence. Facing each other briefly, they prescribe decoctions... To distinguish between death and life is truly difficult." In the clauses of the *Shanghan Lun*, he corrected the mechanical theory of transmission in the *Suwen* (one day Taiyang, two days Yangming, three days Shaoyang), proposing the differentiated transmission theory: "On the first day of cold damage, Taiyang receives the pathogen. If the pulse is quiet, it has not transmitted. If there is much desire to vomit, or restlessness and irritability, and the pulse is rapid and urgent, it has transmitted." "On the second or third day of cold damage, if Yangming and Shaoyang syndromes are not seen, it has not transmitted." He proposed that "differentiation" is the guideline for understanding and treating diseases, put forward the Six-Meridian Syndrome Differentiation theory for exogenous diseases, thereby constituting a relatively complete syndrome differentiation and treatment viewpoint where theory, method, formula, and medicine are unified.
However, due to objective limitations, Zhang Zhongjing could not clearly understand many issues, such as the infection routes of warm-heat diseases, wind-heat invading the exterior, heat entering the Ying and Blood levels, and heat entering the Pericardium. He only knew that delirium and coma were caused by heat entering Yangming, collapse of Yang, heat entering the blood chamber, and blood stasis. It was not until the physicians of the Ming and Qing dynasties, such as Wu Youke and Ye Tianshi, that it was realized that warm-heat diseases could enter through the mouth and nose, and that the transmission of warm pathogens had different stages of Wei, Qi, Ying, and Blood, and heat entering the Pericardium. However, there was still a lack of adequate understanding of the transmission of damp-heat diseases and the internal movement of deficiency wind in the late stage of warm diseases. Wu Jutong summarized the experiences of predecessors and his own practice, proposing the Sanjiao (Triple Burner) theory and the theories and effective methods for persistent warm pathogens and internal movement of deficiency wind, thereby making the theory of exogenous febrile diseases relatively perfect.
In the field of miscellaneous diseases, TCM theories and clinical experiences were also constantly developing. For example: Phlegm-fluid retention (Tan-Yin) in the *Neijing* only had names such as "fluid accumulation," "accumulated fluid," and "fluid eruption," and the causes of onset were mainly concentrated in the Spleen and Stomach. Zhang Zhongjing gained a deeper understanding, pointing out: "There are four types of fluid... there is phlegm-fluid, suspended fluid, overflowing fluid, and branch fluid," "there is retained fluid," "there is latent fluid." Fluids are also divided among the Five Zang organs and distinguished by deficiency and excess. However, their wide application in various diseases across internal medicine, surgery, gynecology, and pediatrics was deepened and completed by later generations gradually accumulating experience. The formation and development of the theory of Blood Stasis (Yu-Xue) are similar. The *Neijing*, *Shanghan*, and *Jingui Yaolue* elaborated on it first, and later generations developed it further. It was not until Wang Qingren and Tang Rongchuan that a relatively deep understanding was achieved. Regarding the Zang-Fascia Theory (Zang-Xiang Xue-Shuo), although the *Neijing* proposed the basic content, the elaboration on the functions of the Spleen-Stomach and Kidney was incomplete. It was only after Li Dongyuan and Huang Yuanyu studied the ascending and descending functions of the Spleen-Stomach, and Zhu Danxi, Zhao Yangkui, and Zhang Jingyue researched and elaborated on the Kidney and its functions, that we had a systematic understanding of the Zang-Fascia theory.
While one group studied TCM using ancient dialectical viewpoints and contemporary scientific achievements, another group proposed intuitive research methods. Wang Qingren of the Qing Dynasty, after careful observation of some corpses, proposed: "I have read the ancients' theories on Zang-Fascia and their drawn diagrams, and their statements contradict themselves everywhere." "Every morning, I go to the public cemetery and carefully observe the exposed organs of children... Only then did I realize that the organ diagrams drawn in medical books do not match human organs at all, nor do the numbers match." "I only wish that those in the medical field, upon seeing this diagram, will have clear minds and bright eyes, and have something to follow in clinical practice..." Some pointed out "specific drugs for specific diseases" or "intercepting drugs," such as using Changshan (Dichroa Root) and Chaihu (Bupleurum Root) to treat malaria, and Machixian (Purslane) and Baitouweng (Pulsatilla Root) to treat dysentery. Recently, Jiang Chunhua proposed conducting research on "intercepting drugs" to counter the dialectical research method, pointing out that certain drugs have special effects on typhoid fever. These studies enriched the variety of drugs and the substantive understanding of certain organ systems. Although intuitive, formal logical reasoning research discovered some laws and corrected some errors in non-intuitive research, because they did not realize that human vision is limited, and some objective truths may not be seen with intuitive eyes, touched directly, or necessarily reflected by what is seen visually, sometimes leading to naive and ridiculous conclusions. Therefore, when Wang Qingren proposed "Medical Forest Corrected Errors," others pointed out "errors within errors" in the book. When proposing the use of Changshan for malaria, others pointed out that syndrome differentiation and treatment methods could treat malaria, with Zhang Jingyue's Heren Yin being a representative. The modern scholar Jiang Chunhua proposed that the Wei-Qi-Ying-Blood theory is incorrect, that Yin is Yin and Yang is Yang, and that "Yin contains Yang, Yang contains Yin" is an incorrect viewpoint. Shen Zhonggui raised objections for this reason.
With the introduction of Western medicine and modern science, the influence of intuitive research methods on TCM expanded day by day. Some in the TCM community claimed that research methods developed from the dichotomous view of Yin-Yang theory were "superstitious" and "unscientific," and that using TCM theory to explain problems was "embarrassing." They joined others in calling for "replacing TCM theory with Western theory" and "abolishing medicine while preserving herbs." Another group, through long-term clinical observation, found that these theories alone could not completely explain the laws discovered in practice or guide practice. Thus, they desperately resisted attacks from various intuitive theorists, from administrative means to academic viewpoints, bearing the labels of "reactionary" and "idealistic," "resisting stubbornly," and "fighting a desperate battle," protecting this scientific stronghold with their lives. However, due to limitations in scientific development and constraints on human cognitive abilities, many issues could not be elucidated in popular language, so they could only stand in a corner gasping for air. The physiological and pathological changes described in the Theory of Five Movements and Six Qi, their relationship with clock changes, seasonal changes, year-to-year variations, arriving but not arriving, arriving too much, not arriving but arriving, the time-specific acupuncture method of Zi-Wu Liu-Zhu (Midnight-Noon Ebb-Flow), and the impact of Qigong breathing on physiology and pathology, have been verified by research in meteorological medicine, biological clock phenomena, infrared photography, etc. This provided some oxygen to those gasping for air, maintaining their critical lives. With scientific progress and the broadening of our horizons, our understanding of issues becomes more correct and comprehensive. A small amount of oxygen may become the awakening agent for the sleeping lion, helping to recognize which treasures that look like colorful shells are actually limestone raw materials, and which are jade hidden among rocks. Affirmation—negation—affirmation again—negation again. Through repeated practical testing, errors are corrected, correctness is affirmed, and medicine continuously advances.
I. Why Study the *Shanghan Lun*, *Neijing*, and *Jingui Yaolue*
Some say that the *Neijing*, *Shanghan Lun*, and *Jingui Yaolue* are things from over a thousand years ago. They played a certain role in the development of TCM at that time. Now that we have entered the atomic age and an era of four modernizations, studying them again is a restoration and regression. Others say that having practiced TCM for many years without using the *Neijing*, *Shanghan Lun*, or *Jingui Yaolue*, and even asking who uses the formulas from *Shanghan* and *Jingui Yaolue*? I believe considering the era is necessary, but it is not the main point; the main point is down-to-earth practice. Whether to study these texts in the current era mainly depends on whether they have practical significance. If yes, study them; if no, do not. The latter group says they can still treat patients without studying these texts, and indeed, this is true. Here I would like to ask a question: Can Western doctors treat diseases without studying physiology, pathology, anatomy, pharmacology, microbiology, histology and embryology, biochemistry, etc.? Yes, definitely. Facts prove that some people treat patients daily without having studied these subjects. Does this lead to the conclusion that one should not study physiology, pathology, microbiology, or histology? Definitely not. Not only should one not avoid studying them, but one should study them even more.
Since the publication of the *Neijing*, *Shanghan Lun*, and *Jingui Yaolue* over a thousand years ago, through frequent wars and dynastic changes, TCM works before the Han Dynasty have almost disappeared. Only the *Neijing*, *Shanghan Lun*, and *Jingui Yaolue* were not lost but were regarded as treasures by numerous physicians. The *Suwen* and *Lingshu* were regarded as classics, and Zhang Zhongjing, the author of the *Shanghan Lun* and *Jingui Yaolue*, was honored as the Medical Sage. Some annotated them, some used them, and to this day, many physicians consider them required reading. Was this formed by administrative means? Definitely not. Because it lacked administrative power, it could only promote people's progress through theories tempered by trial and error. Historical experience proves that whatever is repeatedly proven to be truth is trusted and praised; otherwise, it is discarded. The theories and experiences of the *Neijing*, *Shanghan Lun*, and *Jingui Yaolue* have been verified for over a thousand years. Why should we not learn them?
On the other hand, looking at the vast sea of TCM works, the original texts of the *Neijing*, *Shanghan Lun*, and *Jingui Yaolue* and the works of their annotators are relatively comprehensive and compact in combining TCM theory with practice. Some physicians used these texts as a starting point to extensively elaborate on TCM theory and clinical practice, enriching TCM theoretical and clinical knowledge. By studying these works, we can not only learn the theories and practices tempered over a thousand years but also learn from the developments of many physicians.
A large-scale systematic exposition of basic theory is the characteristic of the *Neijing*. Later clinical physicians wrote down key points they personally applied in their individual works, but these were very unsystematic. To systematically understand the full picture of TCM basic theory, the *Neijing* is a good book. The *Shanghan Lun* and *Jingui Yaolue* are relatively strict in the dialectical unity of theory, method, formula, and medicine. Although the *Neijing*, *Shanghan Lun*, and *Jingui Yaolue* have erroneous and incomplete aspects, they are not as biased as some later works. Therefore, to master syndrome differentiation and treatment, studying the *Jingui Yaolue* and *Shanghan Lun* is quite good.
How to study the *Neijing*, *Shanghan Lun*, and *Jingui Yaolue*? I believe we should first read the original text, refer to necessary annotations, summarize and organize the issues involved, and observe and verify through practice to truly grasp their essence.
II. While Studying the *Neijing*, *Shanghan Lun*, and *Jingui Yaolue*, One Should Also Study Representative Works of Later Generations
Although studying the original texts and annotators' works of the *Neijing*, *Shanghan Lun*, and *Jingui Yaolue* is very important for learning the basic theory and syndrome differentiation system of TCM, many theories and practical experiences remain unrecognized. Later generations elaborated and supplemented them through extensive practice. For example: the main work in Warm Disease Theory, *Wenbing Tiaobian* (Systematic Classification of Warm Diseases); *Yifang Jijie* (Collection of Prescriptions) in Formula Studies; works by Li Dongyuan, Huang Yuanyu, and Ye Tianshi in Spleen-Stomach Theory; works by Zhu Danxi, Zhang Jingyue, and Zhao Yangkui in Kidney and Mingmen (Gate of Life) Theory; works by Zhu Danxi, Dai Sigong, Fang Yu, and Zhang Jingyue on Phlegm-Fluid Retention; works by Ye Tianshi, Wang Qingren, Tang Rongchuan, and Zhang Xichun on Blood Stasis Theory; Li Shizhen's work on specific drugs for specific diseases; and *Bencao Qiuyuan* (Seeking the Origin of Materia Medica), *Benjing Fengyuan* (Encountering the Original of Classic Materia Medica), *Bencao Jingshu* (Elucidation of Classic Materia Medica), *Bencao Zheng* (Correct Materia Medica), which use TCM theory to understand Chinese herbal medicines, should all be studied in depth.
III. Paths for Research and Development of TCM and the Issue of Integrating Chinese and Western Medicine
What to research in TCM? What methods to use for research? This has been an issue since Western medicine was introduced to China. Some believe that TCM was gradually formed in feudal society, that it is feudal medicine and unscientific, and therefore must be scientificized, replaced by Western medicine. I believe TCM is a science. It is inappropriate to casually label science with feudalism, capitalism, or socialism. As for what constitutes science and whether it conforms to science, I believe the scientific nature of a theory does not lie in self-proclaimed sales pitches, but in whether its theory can guide practice and its vitality. Therefore, I believe anything that guides practice is science; otherwise, it is fallacy and unscientific.
Some say that researching TCM must use modern medicine, and that anything in TCM conforming to Western theory is science. I believe this is incorrect. If conformity to Western theory is the standard, then what is the standard for Western theory? We know that although our understanding of universal laws has increased somewhat and advanced a step compared to the past, we are still far from understanding all its mysteries. To detect physiological and pathological laws in the human body, Western medicine continuously utilizes all theories and scientific achievements discovered in natural sciences, allowing Western medicine to advance rapidly. If TCM research only applies transplantable Western theories as standards, how can it advance? Practical experience shows that Western medicine has discovered a corner of human pathological and physiological regularities in research, and TCM has also discovered a corner. Using TCM's corner to replace Western medicine, or using Western medicine's corner to replace TCM, is not feasible. Just as some patients prefer pure Western medicine, some prefer Western doctors learning TCM, and some prefer pure TCM doctors, they cannot replace each other.