又下焦篇二十条下曰：“犀角味咸，入下焦血分。”犀角地黄汤之地黄入肾经，白芍、丹皮入肝经，俱系下焦药。然犀角地黄汤却用于上焦病而不忌。诸此之类，毋用多举，总之，吴氏忽而说黄芩是里药，有犯中之弊，上焦病初起不可用；忽而又说黄芩是手太阴药，并用于肺疟，手太阴暑温等上焦病。忽而况厚朴是中焦药，批评又可用厚朴于温病初起是治上犯中，忽而自己又用厚朴治手太阴暑温，说：“厚朴皮也，虽走中焦，究竟肺主皮毛，以皮从皮，不为治上犯中。”忽而说黄连、甘草，纯然里药，忽而又用于治上焦温病。其自相矛盾若此，吾真不知其何以自圆。
参考文献
略评吴鞠通“寒温始终不同”的观点
《温病条辨》说；“伤寒由毛窍而入，自下而上，始足太阳。足太阳膀胱属水，寒即水之气，同类相从，故病始于此。治法必以仲景六经次传为祖法。温病由口鼻而入，自上而下，鼻通于肺，始手太阴。太阴金也，温者火之气，风者火之母，火未有不克金者，故病始于此，必从河间三焦定论。”这就是说：伤寒是感受寒邪而致，温病是感受温邪而致，二者在病因上有不同；伤寒始于足经，自下而上，温病始于手经，从上而下，二者在病理上也有不同，伤寒分证，必按六经定法，温病分证，必从三焦定论，二者在辨证上也是有不同，既然病因、病理、辨证等方面都不同，治疗自然亦不同。鞠通认为上述种种之不同，不是初异后同，而是始终对立。所以，他在中焦篇，仍然强调“彼此对勘”。我们知道，仲景治阳明病，主以白虎承气。鞠通治阳明病，也用白虎承气。在伤寒化热，传入阳明之后，实际上已没有什么寒温之不同了。但鞠通不承认这一事实，认为仲景之运用白虎承气，是治伤寒，而他的运用白虎承气，是治温病，他说：“伤寒伤人身之阳，故喜辛温甘温苦热，以救其阳；温病伤人身之阴，故喜辛凉甘寒甘咸，以-救其阴。”他为了说明阳明病阶段仍有这种区别，所以特地减少大承气汤中厚朴的剂量，并加注指出：“厚朴分量不似《伤寒论》中重用者，治温与治寒不同，畏其燥也。”鞠通不但认为在到了同样用大承气汤治疗阳明腑实证的时候，仍有“治寒治温之不同”(厚朴温燥，鞠通认为治伤寒之阳明腑实可以重用，治温病之阳明腑实则不可重用)，而且，在外感热病到了末期，邪入少阴，出现癸水受伤，脉见结代的时候，仍有寒温；之不同，所以他说：治温病之运用复脉汤，应当“去参、桂，姜、枣之补阳，加白芍收三阴之阴，故云加减复脉汤。在仲景当日，治伤于寒者之结代，白有取于参、桂、姜，枣，复脉中之阳，今治伤于温者之阳亢阴竭，不得再补其阳也。”鞠通之所以制加减复脉汤一方，并减少大承气汤中厚朴之用量，其目的都是为了区别寒温之异治，这种做法，充分地反映出了他“寒温始终不同”的观点。
鞠通在《温病条辨》中，曾多次提及《伤寒六书》，加以抨击，实际上对寒温异同的看法，陶节庵到是对的，而“寒温始终不同”的观点，到是错的。陶氏认为：寒温之异，在表证不在里证。他说：“春分后，夏至前，不恶寒而渴者为温病，用辛凉之药微发汗。里证见者，用寒凉之药急攻下。切不可误汗误下，当须识此。表证不与正伤寒同治，里证同。”“夏至后有头疼发热不恶寒而渴者，为温病，愈加热者为热病，止用辛凉之药解肌，不宜大汗。里证见，急攻下。表证不与正伤寒同治，里证同。”“立秋后霜降前，有头痛发热不恶寒，身体痛小便短者，为温病，亦用辛凉之药，亦不宜汗。里证见者，宜攻下。表证不与正伤寒同治。"这是具有一定见地的。·伤寒初起见表证时，宜辛温解表；温病初起见表证时，宜辛凉解肌。所以陶氏说温病表证不与正伤寒同治，寒温二派对这一点很少异议。但对里证是否亦与正伤寒同治，则鞠通与陶氏之见解，是有出入的。实际上，伤寒由太阳而传入阳明，表证罢而里证见，这时与温病不见表证而只见阳明里证者，病机实无二歧，故陶氏温病里证治法与伤寒同的说法是正确的。这一观点，连章虚谷及金寿山氏都表赞同，章氏说：“温病初起，治法与伤寒迥异。伤寒传里，变为热邪，则治法与温病大同。”金氏也说：“伤寒与温病治法之异，主要在初起见表证时。”所以，鞠通“寒温始终不同”的观点，是难以令人苟同的。
鞠通为了人为地将寒温始终相对立，著书好寒温对峙立论，在《温病条辨·凡例》中，他说：“《伤寒论》六经由表入里，由浅及深，须横看。本论论三焦由上及下，亦由浅入深，须竖看，与《伤寒论》为对待文字，有一纵一横之妙。”实际上也未必。我们知道，《伤寒论》的阳明病，有太阳阳明，少阳阳明，正阳阳明之不同，所谓正阳阳明，就是阳明本经自病。而温病的阳明病，也不一定都是先从太阴肺经传来的，如鞠通最崇拜的叶天士，就说“夏暑发自阳明”。鞠通自己也说有“湿热受自口鼻，由募原直走中道”的。所以，同样的外感热病，同样的发自阳明，同样的以白虎承气为主方，在这种无不同可分处，硬分出寒温异治之不同来，实在是毫无意义的。
鞠通之误，误在不知伤寒六经，须分传中。须知所传俱热、所中俱寒，如果说阳明中寒证以及寒邪直中少阴诸证，与温病的阳明证、少阴证，要对看，在这一基础上，说：“伤寒伤人身之阳，故喜辛温甘温苦热，以救其阳，温病伤人身之阴，故喜辛凉甘寒甘咸，以救其阴。”则自无可议。然鞠通不分传中，认为六经诸证，病即热化，邪仍属寒，在到了同样用大承气汤的时候，仍寒温对勘，并减轻厚朴用量以示寒温之异治，这种做法，纯系人为，不合事实。明乎此，则于少阴温病、邪退正虚、脉见结代而需要运用复脉汤时，是否必须去掉参、桂、姜、枣，实大可不必受“寒温始终不同”观念之束缚。须知阴阳有互根之理，热病后期，在邪退正虚，脉见结代之际，心之阴阳每二不足，故仲景复脉，养阴养阳；两不偏废。当然，鞠通之加减复脉汤，对于阴伤偏多，并有余热虚热者，酌加知母之类，固亦合适。但若谓原系伤寒，故复脉可用参、桂、姜、枣，原系温病，用复脉即当去此，则大谬。至于鞠通治伤于温者之阳亢阴竭，在热邪尚盛之际，不用大补阴丸，滋阴地黄丸诸法而竟投加减复脉汤之纯补，亦未免过泥养阴敌阳，壮水制火之说。然凡此之类，以其不关本文论旨，且书中瑕疵极多，本难数纸可尽，余有感于此，已另著《温病条辨百误》以详驳之，故此处仅因论复脉而顺及之，不复多作详述。
略评“复脉为热邪劫阴之总司”
《温病条辨。下焦篇》第八条说；“热邪深入，或在少阴，或在厥阴，均宜复脉。”在此条自注中，吴氏又说：“复脉为热邪劫阴之总司。”这种“以补阴之品，为退热之用”的蓟法，是否合理？笔者有二点不同意见。
一，正未大虚，不宜纯补
鞠通之复脉，从《伤寒论》之复脉汤加减而来，由炙甘草、干地黄、白芍、麦冬、阿胶，麻仁等六味药组成，故又名加减复脉汤。从此方药物来分析，属阴柔滋腻之纯补法。纯补法在阴竭阳脱、元气将离之际，复阴挽阳、留人治病，固为中医救治急证之一法。但在一般正邪分争、正未大虚的情况下，总以祛邪扶正、邪正兼顾为合适。然鞠通则否，他不但对误表损伤津液者(这种情况大多发生在温病初期)主以复脉，对劳倦内伤而感温病者亦主以复脉，甚至对“脉尚躁盛，邪固不为药衰，正气亦尚能与邪气分争”者，亦“重予复脉”，这种认为只要“扶正以敌邪，正胜邪自却”的观点，正如赵晴初所说，是一种“君子满座，小人自无容身之地”的迂腐观点。聂久吾说：“予壬辰春初，在京会试，天寒夜坐久，感寒头痛，服疏散药未经出汗，其头痛数日不止，却无他证。或谓感寒甚轻，已五六日，岂复有外邪，殆劳神内虚，理宜补之，劝服补中益气汤二剂，不知外邪未散、补药助邪为害，遂至神气渐昏，饮食少进，晚间呃逆不止，如是者数日，乃延医，用前胡、桔梗，贝母，麦冬，连翘，香附、广陈皮，甘草，数剂而愈。予生平少病，兹外感未清，而轻用补，身受其害若此。因悟外感内伤，并外感兼内伤，与内伤挟外感诸治，盖原于此，因述之，以志折肱之意云”(魏玉璜根据此案用药，认为是温病，故收载于《续名医类案》温病门)。今结合这一医案医话来分析鞠通运用复脉之主张，其过泥扶正却邪、养阴敌阳之说，运用纯补法失之于滥，这一点是不难看出的。故余谓在体虚感邪，误表伤津，及热邪劫阴等情况下，若欲用复脉汤，总以与祛邪之品适当配合，邪正兼顾为合适。
二，热邪劫阴，不能废清
温病热入下焦，灼烁真阴，鞠通不论其在少阴在厥阴，均主以复脉。但此方养阴虽然有力，清热究嫌不足。少阴癸水之伤，既然是热邪久羁所致，当前又是处在热邪劫阴之状况中，何以治疗只顾滋阴之一面、不顾清热之一面？陆九芝曾针对这种药法，提出了如下批评，
“盖人之所病者寒也温也热也，只去其寒与温与热，其人而阴本不虚者，无伤也，即其人而本属阴虚者，亦无恙也。乃不防其阳盛伤阴，而独防阴虚邪恋，于是防其劫津，防其发疹，防其动风，防其热入心包，至末而防其脱。夫既曰劫曰发曰动曰入，则自有劫之发之动之入之之物在，不去其劫之发之动之入之之物，而药反留邪以劫津，引邪以发疹，助邪以动风，领邪以入心包，而同归于脱，防云何哉。阳之方盛，徒曰存阴，阴既不能以些微之药而存，而三五日间阳邪之足以伤阴者，方且势如奔马，涸液枯津，是其阴伤于药后者，不更甚乎。总之，使病速去，阴始不伤，欲保其阴，必速去病。”陆氏对热邪劫阴之治，认为“急去热邪，阴始可保，一去其热，阴即不伤。”这是具有一定见地的。
或谓陆氏之言，过分强调清热，未免忽视滋阴疗法的重要性。然鞠通之主张，不亦有过分强调滋阴疗法作用之偏面性吗？余谓在热邪劫阴、阴津已伤之情况下，清滋二法，不可偏废，今以“复脉为热邪劫阴之总司”，则几乎废置清法于不问，这无论如何也不能认为是一种全面合理的治法。就热邪劫烁下焦真阴之冶来说，实则丹溪之养阴法很可宗法，因为用知柏清劫阴之邪热，用地黄补不足之真阴，清滋并施，实有相得益彰之效。惜鞠通计不及此，于下焦温病热邪劫阴之治，反摒弃了地黄知柏互用之良法，此诚属千虑之一失。谢诵穆曾批评鞠通，说他只学到了丹溪滋阴法之一半，即亦为此。
或为之辩云：复脉原为邪少虚多者设，若壮火尚盛，另有黄连阿胶汤法在。余谓不然，须知黄连阿胶汤是以黄连为主药，黄连善泻心火，诚如柯琴所说：“少阴病，得之二三日以上，心中烦，不得卧，是上焦实热，宜黄连阿胶汤。”但由于鞠通不分手足，将黄连阿胶汤、甚至连麻杏石甘汤等手经温病之治方，不列置于上焦篇，悉混入于下焦中，若后人因循失察，不辨其讹误，竟以之代替知柏地黄之法(此乃治足少阴热邪劫阴，癸水虚亏之正法)，实属蒙混。
结语：以“复脉为热邪劫阴之总司”，很不妥当，余谓治手少阴温病之壮火尚炽者，可用黄连阿胶汤(但此方寓有“先安其未受邪之地”之意)，治属上焦。若足少阴温病之壮火尚炽者，可用大补阴丸法。若于热邪劫阴、邪少虚多而运用复脉，亦宜酌加知母、丹皮之类，以补其清热力弱之不逮。而滋阴地黄之类，亦俱可视邪正虚实之多少而酌用。总之，加减复脉仅为温病后期阴虚热微邪少者之一法，吾人不可受鞠通说之影响，竟以之为治疗下焦温病热邪劫阴之常法。一字真传空费解三生幻相尽随缘2005/11/3020:00三七生管理员积分20145发帖18080注册2005/7/8#2剖析伤风谈寒温——温邪说质疑
伤寒温病之争，聚讼纷纭者久之。这个中医学理论中争论激烈，引人关注的重大问题，可否采用“解剖细胞"的办法来加以解决？这似是值得尝试的。本文秉此认识，拟就“伤风(感冒)”作为病的基本单元，试作剖析，来谈一下寒、温之争中有关病因与病名的问题。
一、关于病因
又在下焦篇的第二十条中说：“犀角味道咸，进入下焦的血分。”犀角地黄汤中的地黄入肾经，白芍、丹皮入肝经，都属于下焦的药。然而犀角地黄汤却用于上焦的病而不忌讳。诸如此类的事情，不必多举，总之，吴鞠通一会儿说黄芩是里药，有侵犯中焦的弊端，上焦病初起不可用；一会儿又说黄芩是手太阴肺经的药，并用于肺疟、手太阴暑温等上焦病。一会儿又说厚朴是中焦药，批评（别人）又可用厚朴于温病初起是治上犯中，一会儿自己却又用厚朴治手太阴暑温，说：“厚朴是树皮，虽然走中焦，终究肺主皮毛，以皮从皮，不算治上犯中。”一会儿又说黄连、甘草，纯粹是里药，一会儿又用于治上焦温病。他的自相矛盾像这样，我真不知道他怎么能自圆其说。
参考文献
简评吴鞠通“寒温始终不同”的观点
《温病条辨》说：“伤寒由毛孔而入，自下而上，始于足太阳膀胱经。足太阳膀胱属水，寒即水之气，同类相从，所以病始于此。治法必须以张仲景六经次传为祖法。温病由口鼻而入，自上而下，鼻通于肺，始于手太阴肺经。太阴属金，温是火之气，风是火之母，火没有不克金的，所以病始于此，必须从刘河间三焦定论。”这就是说：伤寒是感受寒邪而致，温病是感受温邪而致，二者在病因上有不同；伤寒始于足经，自下而上，温病始于手经，从上而下，二者在病理上也有不同，伤寒分证，必按六经定法，温病分证，必从三焦定论，二者在辨证上也是有不同，既然病因、病理、辨证等方面都不同，治疗自然亦不同。吴鞠通认为上述种种之不同，不是初异后同，而是始终对立。所以，他在中焦篇，仍然强调“彼此对勘”。我们知道，张仲景治阳明病，主以白虎汤和承气汤。吴鞠通治阳明病，也用白虎汤和承气汤。在伤寒化热，传入阳明之后，实际上已没有什么寒温之不同了。但吴鞠通不承认这一事实，认为张仲景之运用白虎汤和承气汤，是治伤寒，而他的运用白虎汤和承气汤，是治温病，他说：“伤寒伤人身之阳，故喜辛温甘温苦热，以救其阳；温病伤人身之阴，故喜辛凉甘寒甘咸，以救其阴。”他为了说明阳明病阶段仍有这种区别，所以特地减少大承气汤中厚朴的剂量，并加注指出：“厚朴分量不似《伤寒论》中重用者，治温与治寒不同，畏其燥也。”吴鞠通不但认为在到了同样用大承气汤治疗阳明腑实证的时候，仍有“治寒治温之不同”(厚朴温燥，吴鞠通认为治伤寒之阳明腑实可以重用，治温病之阳明腑实则不可重用)，而且，在外感热病到了末期，邪入少阴，出现癸水受伤，脉见结代的时候，仍有寒温之不同，所以他说：治温病之运用复脉汤，应当“去参、桂，姜、枣之补阳，加白芍收三阴之阴，故云加减复脉汤。在张仲景当日，治伤于寒者之结代，自有取于参、桂、姜、枣，复脉中之阳，今治伤于温者之阳亢阴竭，不得再补其阳也。”吴鞠通之所以制加减复脉汤一方，并减少大承气汤中厚朴之用量，其目的都是为了区别寒温之异治，这种做法，充分地反映出了他“寒温始终不同”的观点。
吴鞠通在《温病条辨》中，曾多次提及《伤寒六书》，加以抨击，实际上对寒温异同的看法，陶节庵倒是正确的，而“寒温始终不同”的观点，倒是错的。陶氏认为：寒温之异，在表证不在里证。他说：“春分后，夏至前，不恶寒而渴者为温病，用辛凉之药微发汗。里证见者，用寒凉之药急攻下。切不可误汗误下，当须识此。表证不与正伤寒同治，里证同。”“夏至后有头疼发热不恶寒而渴者，为温病，愈加热者为热病，止用辛凉之药解肌，不宜大汗。里证见，急攻下。表证不与正伤寒同治，里证同。”“立秋后霜降前，有头痛发热不恶寒，身体痛小便短者，为温病，亦用辛凉之药，亦不宜汗。里证见者，宜攻下。表证不与正伤寒同治。”这是具有一定见地的。伤寒初起见表证时，宜辛温解表；温病初起见表证时，宜辛凉解肌。所以陶氏说温病表证不与正伤寒同治，寒温二派对这一点很少异议。但对里证是否亦与正伤寒同治，则吴鞠通与陶氏之见解，是有出入的。实际上，伤寒由太阳而传入阳明，表证罢而里证见，这时与温病不见表证而只见阳明里证者，病机实无二歧，故陶氏温病里证治法与伤寒同的说法是正确的。这一观点，连章虚谷及金寿山氏都表赞同，章氏说：“温病初起，治法与伤寒迥异。伤寒传里，变为热邪，则治法与温病大同。”金氏也说：“伤寒与温病治法之异，主要在初起见表证时。”所以，吴鞠通“寒温始终不同”的观点，是难以令人苟同的。
吴鞠通为了人为地将寒温始终相对立，著书好寒温对峙立论，在《温病条辨·凡例》中，他说：“《伤寒论》六经由表入里，由浅及深，须横看。本论论三焦由上及下，亦由浅入深，须竖看，与《伤寒论》为对待文字，有一纵一横之妙。”实际上也未必。我们知道，《伤寒论》的阳明病，有太阳阳明，少阳阳明，正阳阳明之不同，所谓正阳阳明，就是阳明本经自病。而温病的阳明病，也不一定都是先从太阴肺经传来的，如吴鞠通最崇拜的叶天士，就说“夏暑发自阳明”。吴鞠通自己也说有“湿热受自口鼻，由募原直走中道”的。所以，同样的外感热病，同样的发自阳明，同样的以白虎汤和承气汤为主方，在这种无不同可分处，硬分出寒温异治之不同来，实在是毫无意义的。
吴鞠通之误，误在不知伤寒六经，须分传中。须知所传俱热、所中俱寒，如果说阳明中寒证以及寒邪直中少阴诸证，与温病的阳明证、少阴证，要对看，在这一基础上，说：“伤寒伤人身之阳，故喜辛温甘温苦热，以救其阳，温病伤人身之阴，故喜辛凉甘寒甘咸，以救其阴。”则自无可议。然吴鞠通不分传中，认为六经诸证，病即热化，邪仍属寒，在到了同样用大承气汤的时候，仍寒温对勘，并减轻厚朴用量以示寒温之异治，这种做法，纯系人为，不合事实。明乎此，则于少阴温病、邪退正虚、脉见结代而需要运用复脉汤时，是否必须去掉参、桂、姜、枣，实大可不必受“寒温始终不同”观念之束缚。须知阴阳有互根之理，热病后期，在邪退正虚，脉见结代之际，心之阴阳每二不足，故张仲景复脉，养阴养阳，两不偏废。当然，吴鞠通之加减复脉汤，对于阴伤偏多，并有余热虚热者，酌加知母之类，固亦合适。但若谓原系伤寒，故复脉可用参、桂、姜、枣，原系温病，用复脉即当去此，则大谬。至于吴鞠通治伤于温者之阳亢阴竭，在热邪尚盛之际，不用大补阴丸，滋阴地黄丸诸法而竟投加减复脉汤之纯补，亦未免过泥养阴敌阳，壮水制火之说。然凡此之类，以其不关本文论旨，且书中瑕疵极多，本难数纸可尽，余有感于此，已另著《温病条辨百误》以详驳之，故此处仅因论复脉而顺及之，不复多作详述。
简评“复脉为热邪劫阴之总司”
《温病条辨·下焦篇》第八条说：“热邪深入，或在少阴，或在厥阴，均宜复脉。”在此条自注中，吴氏又说：“复脉为热邪劫阴之总司。”这种“以补阴之品，为退热之用”的方法，是否合理？笔者有二点不同意见。
一，正未大虚，不宜纯补
吴鞠通之复脉，从《伤寒论》之复脉汤加减而来，由炙甘草、干地黄、白芍、麦冬、阿胶，麻仁等六味药组成，故又名加减复脉汤。从此方药物来分析，属阴柔滋腻之纯补法。纯补法在阴竭阳脱、元气将离之际，复阴挽阳、留人治病，固为中医救治急证之一法。但在一般正邪分争、正未大虚的情况下，总以祛邪扶正、邪正兼顾为合适。然吴鞠通则否，他不但对误表损伤津液者(这种情况大多发生在温病初期)主以复脉，对劳倦内伤而感温病者亦主以复脉，甚至对“脉尚躁盛，邪固不为药衰，正气亦尚能与邪气分争”者，亦“重予复脉”，这种认为只要“扶正以敌邪，正胜邪自却”的观点，正如赵晴初所说，是一种“君子满座，小人自无容身之地”的迂腐观点。聂久吾说：“予壬辰春初，在京会试，天寒夜坐久，感寒头痛，服疏散药未经出汗，其头痛数日不止，却无他证。或谓感寒甚轻，已五六日，岂复有外邪，殆劳神内虚，理宜补之，劝服补中益气汤二剂，不知外邪未散、补药助邪为害，遂至神气渐昏，饮食少进，晚间呃逆不止，如是者数日，乃延医，用前胡、桔梗，贝母，麦冬，连翘，香附、广陈皮，甘草，数剂而愈。予生平少病，兹外感未清，而轻用补，身受其害若此。因悟外感内伤，并外感兼内伤，与内伤挟外感诸治，盖原于此，因述之，以志折肱之意云”(魏玉璜根据此案用药，认为是温病，故收载于《续名医类案》温病门)。今结合这一医案医话来分析吴鞠通运用复脉之主张，其过泥扶正却邪、养阴敌阳之说，运用纯补法失之于滥，这一点是不难看出的。故余谓在体虚感邪，误表伤津，及热邪劫阴等情况下，若欲用复脉汤，总以与祛邪之品适当配合，邪正兼顾为合适。
二，热邪劫阴，不能废清
温病热入下焦，灼烁真阴，吴鞠通不论其在少阴在厥阴，均主以复脉。但此方养阴虽然有力，清热究嫌不足。少阴癸水之伤，既然是热邪久羁所致，当前又是处在热邪劫阴之状况中，何以治疗只顾滋阴之一面、不顾清热之一面？陆九芝曾针对这种药法，提出了如下批评，
“盖人之所病者寒也温也热也，只去其寒与温与热，其人而阴本不虚者，无伤也，即其人而本属阴虚者，亦无恙也。乃不防其阳盛伤阴，而独防阴虚邪恋，于是防其劫津，防其发疹，防其动风，防其热入心包，至末而防其脱。夫既曰劫曰发曰动曰入，则自有劫之发之动之入之之物在，不去其劫之发之动之入之之物，而药反留邪以劫津，引邪以发疹，助邪以动风，领邪以入心包，而同归于脱，防云何哉。阳之方盛，徒曰存阴，阴既不能以些微之药而存，而三五日间阳邪之足以伤阴者，方且势如奔马，涸液枯津，是其阴伤于药后者，不更甚乎。总之，使病速去，阴始不伤，欲保其阴，必速去病。”陆氏对热邪劫阴之治，认为“急去热邪，阴始可保，一去其热，阴即不伤。”这是具有一定见地的。
或谓陆氏之言，过分强调清热，未免忽视滋阴疗法的重要性。然吴鞠通之主张，不亦有过分强调滋阴疗法作用之偏面性吗？余谓在热邪劫阴、阴津已伤之情况下，清滋二法，不可偏废，今以“复脉为热邪劫阴之总司”，则几乎废置清法于不问，这无论如何也不能认为是一种全面合理的治法。就热邪劫烁下焦真阴之冶来说，实则丹溪之养阴法很可宗法，因为用知柏清劫阴之邪热，用地黄补不足之真阴，清滋并施，实有相得益彰之效。惜吴鞠通计不及此，于下焦温病热邪劫阴之治，反摒弃了地黄知柏互用之良法，此诚属千虑之一失。谢诵穆曾批评吴鞠通，说他只学到了丹溪滋阴法之一半，即亦为此。
或为之辩云：复脉原为邪少虚多者设，若壮火尚盛，另有黄连阿胶汤法在。余谓不然，须知黄连阿胶汤是以黄连为主药，黄连善泻心火，诚如柯琴所说：“少阴病，得之二三日以上，心中烦，不得卧，是上焦实热，宜黄连阿胶汤。”但由于吴鞠通不分手足，将黄连阿胶汤、甚至连麻杏石甘汤等手经温病之治方，不列置于上焦篇，悉混入于下焦中，若后人因循失察，不辨其讹误，竟以之代替知柏地黄之法(此乃治足少阴热邪劫阴，癸水虚亏之正法)，实属蒙混。
结语：以“复脉为热邪劫阴之总司”，很不妥当，余谓治手少阴温病之壮火尚炽者，可用黄连阿胶汤(但此方寓有“先安其未受邪之地”之意)，治属上焦。若足少阴温病之壮火尚炽者，可用大补阴丸法。若于热邪劫阴、邪少虚多而运用复脉，亦宜酌加知母、丹皮之类，以补其清热力弱之不逮。而滋阴地黄之类，亦俱可视邪正虚实之多少而酌用。总之，加减复脉仅为温病后期阴虚热微邪少者之一法，吾人不可受吴鞠通说之影响，竟以之为治疗下焦温病热邪劫阴之常法。一字真传空费解三生幻相尽随缘2005/11/3020:00三七生管理员积分20145发帖18080注册2005/7/8#2剖析伤风谈寒温——温邪说质疑
伤寒温病之争，聚讼纷纭者久之。这个中医学理论中争论激烈，引人关注的重大问题，可否采用“解剖细胞"的办法来加以解决？这似是值得尝试的。本文秉此认识，拟就“伤风(感冒)”作为病的基本单元，试作剖析，来谈一下寒、温之争中有关病因与病名的问题。
一、关于病因
Furthermore, in Article 20 of the Lower Jiao Chapter, it is stated: "Rhinoceros horn (Xijiao, Rhinocerotis Cornu) has a salty flavor and enters the blood aspect of the Lower Jiao." In Xijiao Dihuang Tang (Rhinoceros Horn and Rehmannia Decoction), Shengdihuang (Rehmanniae Radix Preparata) enters the Kidney Meridian, Baishao (Paeoniae Radix Alba) and Mudanpi (Moutan Cortex) enter the Liver Meridian; all are medicines acting on the Lower Jiao. However, Xijiao Dihuang Tang is used for diseases of the Upper Jiao without taboo. Such examples need not be enumerated extensively. In summary, Wu Jutong sometimes states that Huangqin (Scutellariae Radix) is an interior medicine with the drawback of invading the Middle Jiao, and thus should not be used in the early stage of Upper Jiao diseases; yet at other times he states that Huangqin is a medicine of the Hand-Taiyin (Lung) Meridian and uses it for Lung Malaria (Fei Nüe) and Hand-Taiyin Summerheat-Warmth (Shou Taiyin Shuwen), which are Upper Jiao diseases. Sometimes he states that Houpo (Magnoliae Officinalis Cortex) is a Middle Jiao medicine and criticizes others for using Houpo in the early stage of Warm Diseases as treating the Upper by invading the Middle; yet he himself uses Houpo to treat Hand-Taiyin Summerheat-Warmth, stating: "Houpo is bark; although it travels to the Middle Jiao, ultimately the Lung governs skin and hair. Using bark to treat bark does not constitute treating the Upper by invading the Middle." Sometimes he states that Huanglian (Coptidis Rhizoma) and Gancao (Glycyrrhizae Radix et Rhizoma) are purely interior medicines, yet at other times he uses them to treat Upper Jiao Warm Diseases. His self-contradiction is such that I truly do not know how he can justify himself.
References
① Wu Tang, *Wujutong's Medical Cases*, People's Health Publishing House, 1981
Brief Critique of Wu Jutong's Viewpoint that "Cold and Warmth Are Always Different"
*Wenbing Tiaobian* (Systematic Differentiation of Warm Diseases) states: "Cold damage enters through the hair pores, moving from below upwards, starting with the Foot-Taiyang Bladder Meridian. The Foot-Taiyang Bladder belongs to Water; Cold is the Qi of Water. Like attracts like, therefore the disease begins here. The treatment method must take Zhang Zhongjing's sequential transmission of the Six Meridians as the ancestral law. Warm diseases enter through the mouth and nose, moving from above downwards. The nose connects to the Lung, starting with the Hand-Taiyin Lung Meridian. Taiyin belongs to Metal; Warmth is the Qi of Fire, and Wind is the mother of Fire. Fire invariably conquers Metal, therefore the disease begins here. It must follow Liu Hejian's conclusion based on the Triple Burner." This means: Cold damage is caused by contracting Cold pathogenic factors, while Warm diseases are caused by contracting Warm pathogenic factors; they differ in etiology. Cold damage starts in the Foot meridians, moving from below upwards, whereas Warm diseases start in the Hand meridians, moving from above downwards; they differ in pathology. For syndrome differentiation in Cold damage, one must strictly follow the Six Meridians; for syndrome differentiation in Warm diseases, one must strictly follow the Triple Burner; they differ in diagnostic methods. Since they differ in etiology, pathology, and diagnosis, their treatments naturally differ as well. Jutong believes that these differences are not merely initial distinctions that later converge, but are fundamentally opposed throughout. Therefore, in the Middle Jiao Chapter, he still emphasizes "comparing each other." We know that Zhang Zhongjing treats Yangming diseases primarily with Baihu Tang (White Tiger Decoction) and Chengqi Tang (Order the Qi Decoction). Jutong also uses Baihu Tang and Chengqi Tang to treat Yangming diseases. After Cold damage transforms into heat and transmits to the Yangming stage, there is actually no difference between Cold and Warm treatments. However, Jutong does not acknowledge this fact. He argues that Zhang Zhongjing's use of Baihu Tang and Chengqi Tang was for treating Cold damage, whereas his own use of them was for treating Warm diseases. He stated: "Cold damage injures the Yang of the human body, so it favors Pungent-Warm, Sweet-Warm, and Bitter-Hot [medicines] to rescue its Yang; Warm diseases injure the Yin of the human body, so they favor Pungent-Cool, Sweet-Cool, and Sweet-Salty [medicines] to rescue its Yin." To illustrate that this distinction still exists in the Yangming stage, he specifically reduced the dosage of Houpo in Dachengqi Tang (Major Order the Qi Decoction) and added a note pointing out: "The dosage of Houpo is not as heavily used as in *Shanghan Lun*; treating Warm differs from treating Cold, fearing its dryness." Jutong not only believed that even when both Cold and Warm diseases reach the same stage requiring Dachengqi Tang for Yangming Fu-organ excess syndrome, there remains a "difference between treating Cold and treating Warm" (Houpo is warm and drying; Jutong believed it could be used heavily for Yangming Fu-organ excess in Cold damage, but not for Yangming Fu-organ excess in Warm diseases), but also that in the late stages of exogenous febrile diseases, when pathogens enter the Shaoyin, causing injury to Gui Water (Kidney Yin) and presenting with knotted or intermittent pulses, there is still a difference between Cold and Warm. Thus, he said: When applying Fumai Tang (Restore the Pulse Decoction) for Warm diseases, one should "remove Renshen (Codonopsis/Ginseng), Guizhi (Cinnamon Twig), Jiang (Zingiberis Rhizoma), and Zao (Jujubae Fructus) which tonify Yang, and add Baishao to gather the Yin of the Three Yin meridians; hence it is called Modified Fumai Tang. In Zhang Zhongjing's time, for palpitations with knotted/intermittent pulse caused by Cold injury, there was reason to use Renshen, Guizhi, Jiang, and Zao to restore the Yang within the pulse. Now, for those injured by Warm pathogens with hyperactive Yang and exhausted Yin, one must no longer tonify Yang." The purpose of Jutong creating the Modified Fumai Tang and reducing the amount of Houpo in Dachengqi Tang was entirely to distinguish the different treatments for Cold and Warm diseases. This practice fully reflects his viewpoint that "Cold and Warm are always different."
In *Wenbing Tiaobian*, Wu Jutong frequently mentioned and attacked *Shanghan Liushu* (Six Books on Cold Damage). Actually, regarding the similarities and differences between Cold and Warm diseases, Tao Jian'an was correct, while the viewpoint that "Cold and Warm are always different" was wrong. Tao believed that the difference between Cold and Warm lies in the Exterior syndromes, not the Interior syndromes. He stated: "After the Spring Equinox and before the Summer Solstice, those who do not feel aversion to cold but are thirsty have Warm diseases; use Pungent-Cool medicines to induce slight sweating. If Interior syndromes appear, use Cold-Cool medicines to urgently purge downward. Do not mistakenly induce sweating or purging; you must recognize this. Exterior syndromes are not treated the same as typical Cold damage, but Interior syndromes are the same." "After the Summer Solstice, those with headache, fever, no aversion to cold, and thirst have Warm diseases; if heat increases, it is Heat disease; use only Pungent-Cool medicines to resolve the muscle layer, avoiding heavy sweating. If Interior syndromes appear, urgently purge downward. Exterior syndromes are not treated the same as typical Cold damage, but Interior syndromes are the same." "After the Start of Autumn and before Frost Descent, those with headache, fever, no aversion to cold, body pain, and short urine have Warm diseases; use Pungent-Cool medicines, and sweating is also inappropriate. If Interior syndromes appear, purging downward is suitable. Exterior syndromes are not treated the same as typical Cold damage." This view holds certain merit. When Cold damage initially presents with Exterior syndromes, Pungent-Warm medicines should be used to release the exterior; when Warm diseases initially present with Exterior syndromes, Pungent-Cool medicines should be used to resolve the muscle layer. Therefore, Tao's statement that Warm disease Exterior syndromes are not treated the same as typical Cold damage encounters little dissent from either the Cold or Warm schools. However, whether Interior syndromes are also treated the same as typical Cold damage reveals a discrepancy between Jutong and Tao. In reality, when Cold damage transmits from Taiyang to Yangming, the Exterior syndrome ceases and the Interior syndrome appears. At this point, the pathogenesis is identical to that of Warm diseases presenting only with Yangming Interior syndromes without any Exterior signs. Thus, Tao's assertion that the treatment for Warm disease Interior syndromes is the same as for Cold damage is correct. This viewpoint was endorsed by both Zhang Xuguxiang and Jin Shoushan. Zhang stated: "At the beginning of Warm diseases, the treatment method is vastly different from Cold damage. When Cold damage transmits to the interior and transforms into Heat pathogen, the treatment method becomes largely similar to that of Warm diseases." Jin also said: "The difference in treatment methods between Cold damage and Warm diseases mainly lies in the presence of Exterior syndromes at the onset." Therefore, Jutong's viewpoint that "Cold and Warm are always different" is difficult to accept.
To artificially oppose Cold and Warm throughout, Jutong wrote books establishing a confrontation between the two. In the "General Rules" of *Wenbing Tiaobian*, he stated: "The Six Meridians in *Shanghan Lun* move from exterior to interior, from shallow to deep, and must be viewed horizontally. This treatise discusses the Triple Burner from above to below, also from shallow to deep, and must be viewed vertically. It stands in contrast to *Shanghan Lun*, possessing the subtlety of one vertical and one horizontal axis." In reality, this is not necessarily so. We know that Yangming diseases in *Shanghan Lun* differ as Taiyang-Yangming, Shaoyang-Yangming, and Zhengyang-Yangming (True Yangming). True Yangming refers to disease originating directly in the Yangming meridian itself. Furthermore, Yangming diseases in Warm diseases do not necessarily always transmit first from the Taiyin Lung Meridian. Ye Tianshi, whom Jutong most revered, stated, "Summer heat originates in the Yangming." Jutong himself acknowledged cases where "Damp-Heat enters via the mouth and nose and goes directly to the middle pathway from the Mu Yuan." Therefore, for the same exogenous febrile diseases, originating in the Yangming, and primarily treated with Baihu Tang and Chengqi Tang, forcibly distinguishing a difference in treatment between Cold and Warm in aspects where there is no difference is truly meaningless.
Jutong's error lies in not understanding that the Six Meridians of Cold damage must distinguish between transmitted and direct invasion. One must realize that transmitted pathogens become hot, while directly invaded pathogens remain cold. If one were to compare Yangming Cold-invasion syndromes and various Shaoyin direct Cold-invasion syndromes with Yangming and Shaoyin syndromes of Warm diseases, and on this basis state: "Cold damage injures the Yang of the human body, so it favors Pungent-Warm, Sweet-Warm, and Bitter-Hot [medicines] to rescue its Yang; Warm diseases injure the Yin of the human body, so they favor Pungent-Cool, Sweet-Cool, and Sweet-Salty [medicines] to rescue its Yin," then there would be no objection. However, Jutong did not distinguish between transmission and direct invasion, believing that all Six Meridian syndromes transform into heat while the pathogen remains cold. When reaching the stage where Dachengqi Tang is equally indicated, he still compared Cold and Warm treatments, reducing the dosage of Houpo to demonstrate the difference in treatment. This approach is purely artificial and contrary to facts. Understanding this, when treating Shaoyin Warm disease with retreating pathogens and deficient righteous Qi, presenting with knotted or intermittent pulses requiring the application of Fumai Tang, one need not be bound by the concept of "Cold and Warm being always different" to remove Renshen, Guizhi, Jiang, and Zao. One must know the principle of mutual root of Yin and Yang. In the late stage of febrile diseases, when pathogens retreat and righteous Qi is deficient, presenting with knotted or intermittent pulses, the Heart's Yin and Yang are often both insufficient. Thus, Zhang Zhongjing's Fumai Tang nourishes both Yin and Yang without bias. Of course, Jutong's Modified Fumai Tang is appropriate for cases with predominant Yin injury accompanied by residual or deficiency heat, where Zhimu (Anemarrhenae Rhizoma) may be酌情 added. But to claim that because the original cause was Cold damage, Fumai Tang can use Renshen, Guizhi, Jiang, and Zao, whereas because the original cause was Warm disease, Fumai Tang must exclude them, is a major fallacy. As for Jutong treating Yang hyperactivity and Yin exhaustion caused by Warm pathogens during the peak of Heat pathogens, instead of using methods like Dabu Yin Wan (Great Tonify Yin Pill) or Ziyin Dihuang Wan (Nourish Yin Rehmannia Pill), he resorted to the pure tonification of Modified Fumai Tang. This is somewhat overly adhering to the theory of nourishing Yin to combat Yang and strengthening Water to control Fire. However, such matters are irrelevant to the main argument of this text. Given the numerous flaws in the book, difficult to exhaust in a few pages, and moved by this, I have separately written *One Hundred Errors in Wenbing Tiaobian* to refute them in detail. Therefore, I only mention this briefly in relation to Fumai Tang here and will not elaborate further.
Brief Critique of "Fumai Tang as the General Commander for Heat Pathogens Plundering Yin"
Article 8 of the Lower Jiao Chapter of *Wenbing Tiaobian* states: "When Heat pathogens penetrate deeply, whether in Shaoyin or Jueyin, Fumai Tang is appropriate." In the self-note for this article, Wu stated: "Fumai Tang is the general commander for Heat pathogens plundering Yin." Is this method of "using Yin-nourishing substances for the purpose of reducing heat" reasonable? The author has two points of disagreement.
First, when Righteous Qi is not severely deficient, pure tonification is inappropriate.
Jutong's Fumai Tang is derived from the modifications of Fumai Tang in *Shanghan Lun*, composed of six herbs: Zhi Gancao (Prepared Licorice Root and Rhizome), Sheng Dihuang (Raw Rehmannia Root), Baishao (White Peony Root), Maidong (Ophiopogon Tuber), Ejiao (Donkey-hide Gelatin), and Huma Ren (Semen Cannabis). Hence it is also called Modified Fumai Tang. Analyzing the ingredients of this formula, it belongs to the category of pure tonification with Yin-nourishing, soft, and cloying properties. Pure tonification is indeed one method in Traditional Chinese Medicine for rescuing acute conditions by restoring Yin, retrieving Yang, and preserving life when Yin is exhausted, Yang is collapsing, and vital Qi is about to depart. However, in general situations where Righteous Qi and Pathogenic factors are contending and Righteous Qi is not severely deficient, it is more appropriate to dispel pathogens, support Righteous Qi, and consider both. Jutong, however, did not adhere to this. He advocated Fumai Tang not only for those whose fluids were damaged by mistaken sweating (a situation mostly occurring in the early stage of Warm diseases) and those with labor-induced internal injury contracting Warm diseases, but even for those with "rapid and forceful pulses, where pathogens are not diminished by medication, and Righteous Qi can still contend with Pathogenic factors," he "heavily prescribed Fumai Tang." This viewpoint that "supporting Righteous Qi to combat pathogens ensures that when Righteous Qi prevails, pathogens will automatically retreat," as Zhao Qingchu pointed out, is a pedantic view akin to "when gentlemen fill the room, petty men have no place to stand." Nie Jiwu stated: "In early spring of the Renchen year, I took the metropolitan examination in Beijing. Sitting late at night in the cold, I contracted Cold, resulting in headache. I took dispersing medicines but did not sweat. My headache persisted for several days without other symptoms. Some said the Cold contraction was very mild; after five or six days, how could there still be external pathogens? It was likely mental fatigue and internal deficiency, and supplementation was appropriate. They advised taking Er Doses of Buzhong Yiqi Tang (Tonify the Middle and Augment the Qi Decoction). Unaware that the external pathogen had not dispersed and that tonifying medicines would aid the pathogen and cause harm, my spirit gradually became confused, food intake decreased, and I suffered from hiccups at night for several days. Then I sought a doctor, who used Qianhu (Peucedani Radix), Jiegeng (Platycodonis Radix), Beimu (Fritillariae Bulbus), Maidong, Lianqiao (Forsythiae Fructus), Xiangfu (Cyperi Rhizoma), Guang Chenpi (Tangerine Peel), and Gancao for several doses, and I recovered. I rarely get sick in my life. Here, with an unresolved external contraction, I lightly used tonification and suffered such harm. I realized that treatments for external contraction combined with internal injury, and internal injury complicated by external contraction, originate from this. I record this to mark my lesson learned." (Wei Yuhuang, based on the medications used in this case, considered it a Warm disease and included it in the Warm Disease section of *Continued Cases of Famous Doctors*). Combining this medical case and commentary to analyze Jutong's advocacy for using Fumai Tang, it is easy to see that his over-adherence to supporting Righteous Qi to repel pathogens and nourishing Yin to combat Yang leads to the excessive and indiscriminate use of pure tonification. Therefore, I believe that in situations of constitutional deficiency with pathogen invasion, mistaken sweating damaging fluids, and Heat pathogens plundering Yin, if one wishes to use Fumai Tang, it should always be appropriately combined with pathogen-dispelling agents to consider both pathogens and Righteous Qi.
Second, for Heat pathogens plundering Yin, clearing heat cannot be abandoned.
When Warm diseases involve Heat entering the Lower Jiao, scorching True Yin, Jutong advocates Fumai Tang regardless of whether it is in Shaoyin or Jueyin. Although this formula is powerful in nourishing Yin, it is lacking in clearing Heat. Since the injury to Shaoyin Gui Water (Kidney Yin) is caused by the lingering of Heat pathogens for a long time, and the current situation is one of Heat pathogens plundering Yin, why does the treatment focus solely on nourishing Yin while neglecting clearing Heat? Lu Jiuzhi criticized this medicinal approach as follows:
"The diseases humans suffer from are Cold, Warm, and Heat. If one only removes Cold, Warm, and Heat, those whose Yin was originally not deficient will not be harmed, and even those originally belonging to Yin deficiency will remain unharmed. Yet, instead of preventing Yang hyperactivity from injuring Yin, one exclusively prevents Yin deficiency from harboring pathogens. Thus, one fears the plundering of fluids, the eruption of rashes, the stirring of wind, and Heat entering the Pericardium, finally fearing collapse. Since terms like 'plunder,' 'erupt,' 'stir,' and 'enter' are used, there must be something doing the plundering, erupting, stirring, and entering. If one does not remove the agent that plunders, erupts, stirs, and enters, but the medicine instead retains pathogens to plunder fluids, guides pathogens to erupt rashes, aids pathogens to stir wind, and leads pathogens to enter the Pericardium, all leading to collapse, what is the point of prevention? When Yang is just becoming hyperactive, merely saying 'preserve Yin' is futile. Yin cannot be preserved by a tiny amount of medicine, while in three to five days, the Yang pathogen sufficient to injure Yin moves like a galloping horse, depleting fluids and drying up essence. Is the injury to Yin caused by the medicine afterwards not even worse? In short, if the disease is removed quickly, Yin will not be injured. To preserve Yin, one must quickly remove the disease." Lu's view on treating Heat pathogens plundering Yin is that "urgently removing Heat pathogens allows Yin to be preserved; once Heat is removed, Yin is not injured." This view holds certain merit.
Some might argue that Lu's words overemphasize clearing Heat and neglect the importance of Yin-nourishing therapy. However, does Jutong's proposal not also exhibit a one-sided emphasis on the role of Yin-nourishing therapy? I believe that in situations of Heat pathogens plundering Yin and injury to Yin fluids, neither clearing Heat nor nourishing Yin should be neglected. By stating "Fumai Tang is the general commander for Heat pathogens plundering Yin," the method of clearing Heat is almost completely ignored. This cannot be considered a comprehensive and reasonable treatment method. Regarding the treatment of Heat pathogens scorching the True Yin of the Lower Jiao, Danxi's Yin-nourishing method is actually worthy of emulation. Because using Zhimu and Huangbai clears the Heat pathogens plundering Yin, while Dihuang supplements the deficient True Yin, combining clearing and nourishing yields complementary effects. Regrettably, Jutong did not consider this. In treating Heat pathogens plundering Yin in Lower Jiao Warm diseases, he discarded the good method of using Dihuang and Zhimu/Huangbai together. This is indeed a lapse in judgment. Xie Songmu criticized Jutong, saying he only learned half of Danxi's Yin-nourishing method, which is precisely for this reason.
Or perhaps defended by saying: Fumai Tang was originally designed for cases with minor pathogens and major deficiency. If vigorous Fire is still abundant, there is another method, Huanglian Ejiao Tang (Coptis and Donkey-hide Gelatin Decoction). I say otherwise. One must know that Huanglian Ejiao Tang takes Huanglian as the principal herb. Huanglian excels at draining Heart Fire, as Ke Qin stated: "Shaoyin disease, lasting two or three days or more, with vexation in the heart and inability to sleep, indicates Excess Heat in the Upper Jiao; Huanglian Ejiao Tang is appropriate." However, because Jutong did not distinguish between Hand and Foot meridians, he did not place Huanglian Ejiao Tang, and even Hanxing Shigan Tang (Ephedra, Apricot Kernel, Gypsum, and Licorice Decoction), which are treatment formulas for Hand Meridian Warm diseases, in the Upper Jiao Chapter. Instead, he mixed them all into the Lower Jiao Chapter. If later generations followed this without scrutiny, failing to identify the error, and actually used it to replace Zhibai Dihuang Wan (Phellodendron and Anemarrhena Rehmannia Pill)—which is the correct method for treating Foot Shaoyin Heat pathogens plundering Yin and deficiency of Gui Water—it amounts to deception.
Conclusion: Stating "Fumai Tang is the general commander for Heat pathogens plundering Yin" is highly inappropriate. I believe that for Hand Shaoyin Warm diseases with vigorous Fire still blazing, Huanglian Ejiao Tang can be used (though this formula contains the meaning of "securing the area not yet affected by pathogens"), and its treatment belongs to the Upper Jiao. For Foot Shaoyin Warm diseases with vigorous Fire still blazing, Dabu Yin Wan method can be used. If applying Fumai Tang for Heat pathogens plundering Yin with minor pathogens and major deficiency, one should also酌情 add Zhimu and Mudanpi to compensate for its weak heat-clearing power. Similarly, Ziyin Dihuang (Nourish Yin Rehmannia) and similar preparations should be used酌情 based on the degree of pathogen vs. Righteous Qi and deficiency vs. excess. In short, Modified Fumai Tang is only one method for the late stage of Warm diseases characterized by Yin deficiency, slight heat, and minor pathogens. We must not be influenced by Jutong's theory to treat it as the standard method for treating Heat pathogens plundering Yin in Lower Jiao Warm diseases. A single word of true transmission is empty and confusing; illusions of three lives dissolve following fate. 2005/11/30 20:00 Sanqisheng Administrator Points 20145 Posts 18080 Registered 2005/7/8 #2 Analyzing Wind Injury to Discuss Cold and Warm – Questioning the Theory of Warm Pathogens
The debate between Cold Damage and Warm Diseases has been contentious for a long time. Can this major issue in TCM theory, which sparks intense debate and attracts attention, be resolved by adopting a "cellular dissection" approach? This seems worth attempting. Guided by this understanding, this article proposes to use "Wind Injury (Common Cold)" as the basic unit of disease for analysis, to discuss issues related to etiology and nomenclature in the Cold vs. Warm debate.
I. Regarding Etiology