2·痉湿暍病篇论中暍文共三条，因暑邪易伤气津，若汗出一多，每从燥化，故用白虎加人参汤清热救津；因暑邪每多夹湿，若湿遏热伏，就缠绵难解，如去其水气，暑无所依，其病自解，故复出一物瓜蒂散。唯二十五条但言脉证而未明治方，据证分拆，是暑伤元气为主，故后世认为可用清暑益气汤。由此可见，仲景治病，其辨病辨证辨因俱不偏废，因此，大体上就有三个程次，首先是辨病，辨其是太阳病还是阳明病还是少阳病等。其次是辨因，辨其是中风还是伤寒还是中暍等；然后是辩证，辨证是在辨病辨因已完成的基础上，根据不同病因侵袭太阳(或阳明或少阳等)后所表现的具体症状，考虑选用具体的方药。其治中暍是如此，治湿痹、治中风，治伤寒等理亦如此。故不能认为仲景治太阳病初起就是一张桂枝汤与一张麻黄汤，如果忽视六淫侵袭太阳，每多相兼杂至，病人体质亦各不同等种种其他因素，就觉粗疏过甚了。
小结：
1.六淫之邪都可以侵袭太阳，引起太阳病。故太阳病之始，即有六个不同的证型。这六个不同的证型，是由六种不同的病因所造成。因致病因子特性不同，故症状表现、治疗方法也就随之而不同，
2·六淫伤人虽都可以从太阳始，但亦可不从太阳始。故六淫伤人必始自太阳的说法，不能成立。
3·麻黄汤是治伤寒方，白虎汤是治中暍方。寒邪，暑邪等六淫外邪之伤人，并不对号入座地胶固于某一经，则拘经限药，就没有道理了。
4·伏气化火发自太阳，就是太阳温病，以麻杏甘石汤为主方。若发自阳明，发自少阳，论中另有白虎、黄芩等方，麻黄即不可用。
注：。阿拉伯宇编码的条文悉引自成都中医学院主编的《伤寒论讲义》；中文数字编码的条文悉引自湖北中医学院主编的《金匮要略讲义》。
“太阳病为手太阴肺经证”之质疑
“太阳的表证，与温病学说的卫分证，是否近似？目前认识，尚不一致。”有人根据肺主表，麻黄汤、小青龙汤诸方主治的是肺经证以及太阳篇各主要的“证”，膀胱经不及肺经密切等认识，认为：“伤寒论中的太阳病，当从李时珍之说，解释为手太阴肺经证。”①亦有人根据卫主表属阳，内与肺气相合，风既伤卫，亦能及营，寒既伤营，亦先伤卫，营卫失调，可引起肺气失宣等认识，认为：“如伤寒由皮毛而入，邪袭太阳，则和肺主皮毛的理论有矛盾，如麻黄汤证，桂枝加厚朴杏子汤证的咳喘，无不与肺有关，这何尝非寒邪犯肺的明证。"②对此，笔者有不同认识，现略述己见如次：
一、《伤寒论》中有关太阳实质的重要条文并不支持将太阳病解释为肺经证
太阳篇第一条一般认为是太阳病之提纲，此条对说明太阳实质具有重要意义，须加深究。柯琴说：“六经皆有表证，”又说：“三阳之脉俱浮，三阳俱有头痛证，六经受寒，俱各恶寒，惟头项强痛，是太阳所独也，”“如脉浮恶寒发热，而头不痛，项不强，便知非太阳病。如但头痛而不及于项，亦非太阳定局。如头项强痛，反不恶寒，脉反沉，不可谓非太阳病”(《伤寒论翼》)。徐灵胎于柯氏之说，表示赞同，他在《六经病解》中转引了此说，谓“诊者于头项强痛，必须理会。”《伤寒论》之六经表证，脉证虽各有异，但脉浮、恶寒二项，是为诸经表证所共有。从逻辑学角度看，我们可以这样下定义；脉浮、恶寒，是表证的本质属性。头项强痛，是太阳经病的本质属性。二者结合，就成为《伤寒论》六经中太阳表证的独有属性。故就六经表证论，汪忍庵——太阳病以“头项强痛为标准”之说是正确的。太阳表证与其他五经表证相区别之根据就在于此，仲景以“头项强痛”置恶寒之前而作为太阳病之主证，是有深意的。
仲景作论，秉于《内经》，据《灵枢·经脉篇》记载，足太阳经病无论是“是动病”，还是“所生病”都有头项强痛。手太阴肺经病则无论是“是动病"，还是“所生病”，均无此证，但都有咳嗽。而温热学派所说之肺经证，则以咳嗽为常见证，“头项强痛”则绝少，这与仲景之论太阳病，相反而不相符。即此可见，表证之属太阳病者，以“头项强痛”为据墨表证之属肺经病者，则以“咳嗽”见重，二者明有如此大异，若置此不论，竟贸然谓，“太阳篇各主要的‘证’，膀胱经不及肺经密切。”便经不得推敲。因太阳病之提纲，本是从太阳疴中许多个别的和特殊的“证”中，概括其共同的证候而来。“头项强痛"既作为提纲中第一大主证，说明太阳表证各“证”，都具这一症状，然这一症状根本就无法解释为肺经证之主证。
汪琥说：“中字与伤字同义，仲景论中，不直言伤风者，恐后学不察，以咳嗽、鼻塞、声重之伤风，混同立论，故以中字别之也”(《医宗金鉴》)。柯琴说：“仲景作论大法，必择本经至当之脉证而表彰之。”(《伤寒来苏集》)可见，仲景为恐后人将中风(太阳病表证之一)与伤风(手太阴肺经病之二)混同，述作时字斟句酌，下过一番功夫，张隐庵“六经各有所本，片言必有其归，隻字必体其蕴。”(《伤寒论集注》)之说，虽有崇经太过之嫌，但若就第一条来说，应当说是正确的。太阳病提纲中没有“咳嗽”这一肺经证的主证，非出于仲景之疏忽。我们不能把外感病初起的认识，局限于手太阴一经，临床上许多外感病，在初起或自始至终，都可以不见肺经证，这是客观事实，如认为外感表证，概属于或始于手太阴，这与实践不符。
再看第二、三、六这8条论述太阳经病三证型主证主脉的条文，《灵枢·经脉篇》所述之肺经证，亦几乎一证来具，就是总观太阳病篇正治、救逆诸方及所有条文，论及咳嗽，鼻塞，肺胀，胸满，臑臂内前廉痛等手太阴肺经证的，也是极少。至于太阳病篇某些重要的“证”(如桂枝汤证、五苓散等)，更没有什么肺经证的症状，这就完全可以说明，《伤寒论》中有关太阳实质的条文，本身就不支持将太阳病解释为肺经证。
二、不能因”麻桂”诸方可治肺经证便说：“太阳病为肺经证”
《伤寒论》第236、242两条，明言阳明病表未解宜桂枝扬。237条又说；“阳明病，脉浮，无汗而喘，发汗则愈，宜麻黄汤。”太阴篇亦有“太阴病，脉浮者，可发汗，宜桂枝汤”之明文。对阳明病之用“麻桂"，柯琴认为。“初受风寒之日，尚在阳明之表，与太阳初受时同，故阳明亦有麻黄、桂枝证。”对太阴之用“桂枝”，尤怡认为：“桂枝汤辛甘入胡，故亦能发散太阴之邪。”麻、桂二方，仲景并不专为太阳伤寒、太阳中风设，故注家有主张以方名证者，后人亦不得拘经以限药，故因“麻、桂”诸方可治肺经证，便说“太阳病当为脓经证”，亦大可商榷。
从生理上看，脾胃为营卫生化之源，心肺为营卫布散之器，营卫走表则注属诸经而统辖于太阳，虽然，卫行脉外，似不受经脉的约束，但营中有卫，卫中有营，营卫是气化过程中传达脏腑间信息的物质负载者，经络是信息负载者的传递通道，卫与营同样不能脱离诸经而运行，因太阳经脉行身之背，分布体表最广，故较之其他经络，与在表营卫，尤具有重要之联系。从病理上看，因阳主外，阴主内，风寒之邪最易伤阳，太阳为三阳之表，故风寒伤害在表之营卫，每多先见太阳之症状，恽铁樵认为：六淫中人为病，言气化不言实体，经云邪风之至，疾如风雨，善治者治皮毛，是谓病在皮毛，不是言肺之合。故太阳病实可看作是在表之营卫受外邪侵袭之表证中较多见之一种，就传变来说：因脾，胃，心、肺、与营卫，营卫与太阳经络，太阳经络与其所络属，所表里的脏腑以及与其相连系的经络，其间均具密切的有机联系，故太阳表证，既可随经气的流动而下传入腑；亦能逆经气之运行而内舍入肺；若太阳汗多，也可转属阳明；若当汗反下，亦可转属太阴；若里阳已虚，又可飞渡少阴。麻、桂二方在风寒束表，病入舍肺之际，固属可用，但因此认定太阳病为肺经证，这就忽视了人体皮毛肌表，通过经络与体内脏腑问的多途径的种种联络，也解释不了表里相传，六经六气以及六经的“欲解时”等许多的有关理论问题。
三、指太阳病为肺经证与阴阳学说之大法相背
六经为八纲辨证之先驱，六经中的八纲概念，都是相对的。就表里论：阳主表，阴主里，故《内经·热论》之六经以三阳主表，三阴王里，但热论中六经，偏重于从经络立论，《伤寒论》则遵此定例而有发展，仲景秉“三阴三阳，五脏六腑皆受病”的精神，将经络与其络属的脏腑联系起来进行辨证论治，故“三阳病证以六腑病变为基础，三阴病证以五脏病变为基础”(《伤寒论释义》)，这样，六经分证的具体内容就较前大为丰富了乙就经络与脏腑来说，脏腑属里，经络主表，故六经皆有表证。就三阳说，则太阳为表，阳明为里。就太阳说，则太阳经病为表，太阳腑病为里。只就太阳经病说，则麻黄汤证为表，桂枝汤证属里了。“又三阴为三阳之里，而三阳亦自有表里”(《伤寒贯珠集》)，可见，《伤寒论》中的表里概念，都是相对的。仲景因阳经以太阳为表，太阳以经病为表，故在太阳篇重表不重里，而以“脉浮，头项强痛而恶寒。”这一太阳经病的主证主脉作提纲。而在三阴，则以里证为提纲。“肺主表”是就五脏说，不是就六经或脏腑来说的，有人混淆了相对性概念，说肺主表，膀胱不主表，这种观点，实难苟同，因肺属脏，膀胱属腑，如就脏腑论，就应以腑主表，脏主里。可见，将太阳病认定作肺经证，有混淆表里概念酌相对性含义之嫌，不符合仲景作论以六腑为阳主表，五脏为阴主里之大法。
以虚实论，阳道实，阴道虚，故三阳为实，三阴为虚。但三阳以阳明为实，以太阳为虚，故仲景在太阳篇，首举桂枝汤(陈修园谓桂枝汤为补剂非汗剂)，并列了许多条忌汗之文，反复申不可汗之戒，足见仲景因太阳为实中虚者，故治法重和营卫而不主强发其汗。复因阳明为实中实者，故阳明篇即以“胃家实”为提纲，并先出承气汤，且论攻下之文最多，论下法之文独详，足见阳明病治法，仲景所重，在攻腑实而不王姑息。六经中此种实中仍有虚实之分，虚中也有实虚之别的情况，与表里含义之相对同，完全合乎阴阳不断可分之原则。
以寒热论，阴属寒，阳属热，故三阳主热，三阴主寒。但三阳以阳明为热，以太阳为寒，故太阳立法温散，阳明主用寒下。因热中寒者，热中热者，均仍有寒热可再分，故太阳经病有“温病”之证型；阳明篇中有麻、桂之治法。若与三阴对比言之，则太阳之寒为热中之寒，故只用麻桂之辛温，少阴之寒为寒中之寒，故药用姜附之大热。与此同理，寒中寒者(少阴)仍有寒化、热化之不同，则寒中热者(太阴)自应仍有寒热可再分。惜《伤寒论》遗失之文较多，太阴篇所存之文又是最少，太阴热病之证亦不复可知，但从仲景作论大法论，太阴病不应该是绝无热证的纯寒证。
从上所述可证，要避免六经中八纲概念含义的相对性，就不能指太阳病为肺经证。否则，仲景具体运用阴阳学说原理来进行辨证论治的六经分证法，反就与阴阳学说处处相抵触了。
四，仲景作论，是遵《内经》以足经统手经之定例的
张锡纯说：“伤寒论虽以六经分篇，然手足各有六经，实则十二经也，手足之经既有十二，面《伤寒论》但分六经者何也宫按《内经为之论十二经也，凡言某经而不明言其为手经，足经者皆系足经，至言手经则明言其为某手经。盖人之足经长，手经短，足经大，手经小，足经原可以统手经，但言足经而手经亦恒寓其中矣，《伤寒论》之六经分篇，此遵《内经》定例，寓手经于足经中也，彼解伤寒论者，谓其所言之六经皆系足经，是犹未明仲景著伤寒之深意也。”(《医学衷中参西录》)笔者赞同这一看法，因从《内经》，《伤寒论》看，这一说法是符合事实的，“热论”言六经，看似只言足经，但篇中有“三阴三阳，五脏六腑皆受病”之明文；《伤寒论》：“胃中有燥矢”。“以有燥矢在胃中”等文字，均可说明六经包括十二经的问题。又历来许多医家言少阴，都把它归属于肾经虚寒证，但同时并不否认少阴热化证属手经，即是明乎以足经统手经之定例以及八纲概念系相对立论的道理。若举一反三，以此例彼，可以认为，其他五经都应如此。当然，是以阳统阳，以阴统阴，而不能是以阳统阴或以阴统阳的。
根据以上分析，显然，六经中，里之表、热、实证，从三阴经所维系的脏器来看，应该是肺。如欲统一六经，卫气营血诸辨证方法，温病的卫分证，不妨隶属于太阴病，如隶属于太阳病范围，也感矛盾不少，今竟指太阳病为手太阴肺经证，理论上疵漏之多，自然就不胜枚举了。
参考文献
①施家珍，“伤寒论六经病理初探”，中医杂志，5、1965
②刘普希，“太阳病共同证的病机探讨”，浙江中医杂志，1、19802003-9-1422:25:29北海散人头衔：佛门弟子等级：管理员文章：3797积分：4270注册：2002-12-24
第5楼《伤寒论》中阳明病诸虚证之探讨
【背景信息】
书名：热病衡正 章节：正文(23/49) 类别：伤寒
《痉湿暍病篇》中关于“中暍”（暑邪致病）的论述共有三条。由于暑邪容易损伤气与津液，如果出汗过多，病情往往向燥化方向发展，因此使用白虎加人参汤来清热并挽救津液；因为暑邪常常夹杂湿气，如果湿气遏制了热邪，导致热伏于内，病情就会缠绵难愈，此时若去除体内的水气，暑邪便失去了依附，疾病自然解除，所以又提出了单味药组成的瓜蒂散。唯独第二十五条只提到了脉象和症状，而没有给出治疗方剂，根据症状分析，这是以暑邪损伤元气为主，因此后世认为可以使用清暑益气汤。由此可见，张仲景在治疗疾病时，辨病、辨证、辨因三者并重，不偏废任何一方。因此，大体上可以分为三个步骤：首先是辨病，判断是太阳病、阳明病还是少阳病等；其次是辨因，判断是中风、伤寒还是中暍等；最后是辨证，辨证是在辨病和辨因的基础上，根据不同病因侵袭太阳（或阳明、少阳等）后所表现出的具体症状，考虑选用具体的方药。治疗中暍是如此，治疗湿痹、中风、伤寒等的道理也是如此。因此，不能认为张仲景治疗太阳病初起只用一张桂枝汤和一张麻黄汤，如果忽视了六淫之邪侵袭太阳时往往相互兼杂，以及病人体质各不相同等各种其他因素，那就显得过于粗疏了。
小结：
1. 六淫之邪都可以侵袭太阳经，引起太阳病。因此，太阳病开始时就有六种不同的证型。这六种不同的证型是由六种不同的病因造成的。因为致病因子的特性不同，所以症状表现和治疗方法也随之不同。
2. 六淫伤人虽然大多从太阳经开始，但也可能不从太阳经开始。因此，“六淫伤人必始于太阳”的说法是不能成立的。
3. 麻黄汤是治疗伤寒的方剂，白虎汤是治疗中暍的方剂。寒邪、暑邪等六淫外邪伤害人体，并不是机械地固定在某一经络上，因此拘泥于经络限制用药是没有道理的。
4. 伏气化火发自太阳经，就是太阳温病，以麻杏甘石汤为主方。如果发自阳明经或少阳经，论中另有白虎汤、黄芩汤等方剂，此时就不可以使用麻黄。
注：阿拉伯数字编码的条文均引自成都中医学院主编的《伤寒论讲义》；中文数字编码的条文均引自湖北中医学院主编的《金匮要略讲义》。
对“太阳病为手太阴肺经证”观点的质疑
“太阳病的表证，与温病学说的卫分证，是否近似？目前认识尚不一致。”有人根据肺主表、麻黄汤和小青龙汤等方主治的是肺经证，以及太阳篇各主要“证”与膀胱经关系不如肺经密切等认识，认为：“《伤寒论》中的太阳病，应当遵循李时珍的说法，解释为手太阴肺经证。”①也有人根据卫气主表属阳、内合肺气，风邪伤卫也能及营，寒邪伤营也能先伤卫，营卫失调可引起肺气失宣等认识，认为：“如果伤寒由皮毛而入，邪气侵袭太阳，则与‘肺主皮毛’的理论有矛盾；如果是麻黄汤证、桂枝加厚朴杏子汤证的咳喘，无不与肺有关，这何尝不是寒邪犯肺的明证。”②对此，笔者有不同认识，现略述己见如下：
一、《伤寒论》中有关太阳实质的重要条文并不支持将太阳病解释为肺经证
太阳篇第一条通常被认为是太阳病的提纲，此条对于说明太阳病的实质具有重要意义，必须深入研究。柯琴说：“六经都有表证”，又说：“三阳经的脉象都浮，三阳经都有头痛证，六经受寒都恶寒，只有头项强痛是太阳经独有的”，“如果脉浮、恶寒、发热，但头不痛、项不强，就知道不是太阳病。如果只有头痛而不到项部，也不是太阳病的定局。如果头项强痛，反而不恶寒，脉象反沉，不能说不是太阳病”（《伤寒论翼》）。徐灵胎赞同柯氏的观点，他在《六经病解》中转引了此说，称“诊察者对于头项强痛，必须理会”。《伤寒论》的六经表证，脉证虽然各有不同，但脉浮、恶寒这两项，是所有经表证所共有的。从逻辑学角度看，我们可以这样定义：脉浮、恶寒，是表证的本质属性。头项强痛，是太阳经病的本质属性。二者结合，就成为《伤寒论》六经中太阳表证的独有属性。因此，就六经表证而言，汪琥提出的“太阳病以‘头项强痛’为标准”的说法是正确的。太阳表证与其他五经表证相区别的依据就在于此，张仲景将“头项强痛”置于恶寒之前作为太阳病的主证，是有深意的。
张仲景著书立说，秉承《内经》的思想。据《灵枢·经脉篇》记载，足太阳经病无论是“是动病”，还是“所生病”，都有头项强痛。而手太阴肺经病无论是“是动病”，还是“所生病”，都没有这个症状，但都有咳嗽。而温热学派所说的肺经证，以咳嗽为常见症状，“头项强痛”则极少出现，这与张仲景论述的太阳病相反且不相符。仅由此可见，属于太阳病的表证，以“头项强痛”为依据；属于肺经病的表证，则以“咳嗽”为重，二者有明显的巨大差异，如果忽略这一点，竟然贸然说“太阳篇各主要的‘证’，膀胱经不及肺经密切”，是经不起推敲的。因为太阳病的提纲，本来是从太阳病中许多个别和特殊的“证”里概括其共同证候而来的。“头项强痛”既作为提纲中的第一大主证，说明太阳表证的各个“证”都具有这一症状，然而这一症状根本无法解释为肺经证的主证。
汪琥说：“中”字与“伤”字同义，张仲景在论中不直言“伤风”，是恐怕后学不仔细考察，将咳嗽、鼻塞、声重的伤风混同立论，所以用“中”字来区别它（《医宗金鉴》）。柯琴说：“张仲景著书的大法，一定要选择本经最确切的脉证来表彰。”（《伤寒来苏集》）可见，张仲景是恐怕后人将中风（太阳病表证之一）与伤风（手太阴肺经病之二）混同，在叙述时字斟句酌，下过一番功夫。张隐庵说“六经各有所本，片言必有其归，一字必体其蕴。”（《伤寒论集注》）这种说法虽然有过分尊崇经典的嫌疑，但如果就第一条来说，应当说是正确的。太阳病提纲中没有“咳嗽”这一肺经证的主证，并非出于张仲景的疏忽。我们不能把对外感病初起的认识局限于手太阴一经，临床上许多外感病，在初起或自始至终，都可以不见肺经证，这是客观事实。如果认为外感表证一概属于或始于手太阴，这与实践不符。
再看第二、三、六这八条论述太阳经病三种证型主证主脉的条文，《灵枢·经脉篇》所述的肺经证，也几乎不具备。即使总观太阳病篇的正治、救逆诸方及所有条文，论及咳嗽、鼻塞、肺胀、胸满、臑臂内前廉痛等手太阴肺经证的，也是极少。至于太阳病篇某些重要的“证”（如桂枝汤证、五苓散证等），更没有什么肺经证的症状，这就完全可以说明，《伤寒论》中有关太阳实质的条文，本身就不支持将太阳病解释为肺经证。
二、不能因“麻桂”诸方可治肺经证便说：“太阳病为肺经证”
《伤寒论》第236、242两条，明确说明阳明病表未解宜用桂枝汤。第237条又说：“阳明病，脉浮，无汗而喘，发汗则愈，宜麻黄汤。”太阴篇也有“太阴病，脉浮者，可发汗，宜桂枝汤”的明文。对于阳明病使用“麻黄、桂枝”，柯琴认为：“初受风寒之日，尚在阳明之表，与太阳初受时相同，所以阳明也有麻黄、桂枝证。”对于太阴病使用“桂枝”，尤怡认为：“桂枝汤辛甘入脾，所以也能发散太阴之邪。”麻黄、桂枝两方，张仲景并不专为太阳伤寒、太阳中风设立，因此主张以方名证的注家认为，后人也不得拘泥于经络限制用药，所以因为“麻、桂”诸方可治肺经证，就说“太阳病当为肺经证”，也是大可商榷的。
从生理上看，脾胃是营卫生化的源头，心肺是营卫布散的器官，营卫走表则灌注于诸经而统辖于太阳。虽然卫气行于脉外，似乎不受经脉的约束，但营中有卫，卫中有营，营卫是气化过程中传达脏腑间信息的物质载体，经络是信息载体的传递通道，卫与营同样不能脱离诸经而运行。因为太阳经脉行于身之背，分布体表最广，所以较之其他经络，与在表的营卫有着尤其重要的联系。从病理上看，因为阳主外，阴主内，风寒之邪最容易伤阳，太阳为三阳之表，所以风寒伤害在表的营卫，往往多先出现太阳的症状。恽铁樵认为：六淫中人为的疾病，讲的是气化而不是实体，经文说“邪风之至，疾如风雨，善治者治皮毛”，是说病在皮毛，不是说肺的合病。所以太阳病实在可以看作是在表的营卫受外邪侵袭的表证中较多见的一种。就传变来说：因为脾、胃、心、肺与营卫，营卫与太阳经络，太阳经络与其所络属、所表里的脏腑以及与其相连系的经络之间，都具有密切的有机联系，所以太阳表证，既可随经气的流动而下传入腑；也能逆经气之运行而内舍入肺；如果太阳汗多，也可转属阳明；如果该发汗反而攻下，也可转属太阴；如果里阳已虚，又可飞渡少阴。麻、桂二方在风寒束表、病邪入舍于肺之际，固然可以使用，但如果因此认定太阳病为肺经证，这就忽视了人体皮毛肌表通过经络与体内脏腑之间的多途径种种联络，也解释不了表里相传、六经六气以及六经的“欲解时”等许多有关的理论问题。
三、指太阳病为肺经证与阴阳学说之大法相背
六经是八纲辨证的前驱，六经中的八纲概念都是相对的。就表里而论：阳主表，阴主里，所以《内经·热论》中的六经以三阳主表，三阴主里，但《热论》中的六经，偏重于从经络立论，《伤寒论》则遵循此定例而有发展。张仲景秉承“三阴三阳，五脏六腑皆受病”的精神，将经络与其络属的脏腑联系起来进行辨证论治，所以“三阳病证以六腑病变为基础，三阴病证以五脏病变为基础”（《伤寒论释义》），这样，六经分证的具体内容就比以前大为丰富了。就经络与脏腑来说，脏腑属里，经络主表，所以六经皆有表证。就三阳说，则太阳为表，阳明为里。就太阳说，则太阳经病为表，太阳腑病为里。只就太阳经病说，则麻黄汤证为表，桂枝汤证属里了。“又三阴为三阳之里，而三阳亦自有表里”（《伤寒贯珠集》），可见，《伤寒论》中的表里概念，都是相对的。张仲景因为阳经以太阳为表，太阳以经病为表，所以在太阳篇重表不重里，而以“脉浮，头项强痛而恶寒”这一太阳经病的主证主脉作为提纲。而在三阴，则以里证为提纲。“肺主表”是就五脏而言，不是就六经或脏腑而言的。有人混淆了相对性概念，说肺主表，膀胱不主表，这种观点，实在难以苟同，因为肺属脏，膀胱属腑，如果就脏腑论，就应以腑主表，脏主里。可见，将太阳病认定为肺经证，有混淆表里概念相对性含义的嫌疑，不符合张仲景著书以六腑为阳主表，五脏为阴主里的大法。
以虚实而论，阳道实，阴道虚，所以三阳为实，三阴为虚。但三阳中以阳明为实，以太阳为虚，所以张仲景在太阳篇，首先列举桂枝汤（陈修园谓桂枝汤为补剂非汗剂），并列了许多条忌汗的条文，反复申明不可发汗的戒律，足见张仲景因为太阳为实中虚者，所以治法重在调和营卫而不主张强力发汗。又因为阳明为实中实者，所以阳明篇即以“胃家实”为提纲，并先出承气汤，且论攻下的条文最多，论下法的条文独详，足见阳明病治法，张仲景所重，在于攻逐腑实而不姑息。六经中此种实中仍有虚实之分，虚中也有实虚之别的情况，与表里含义之相对相同，完全合乎阴阳不断可分的原则。
以寒热而论，阴属寒，阳属热，所以三阳主热，三阴主寒。但三阳中以阳明为热，以太阳为寒，所以太阳立法温散，阳明主用寒下。因为热中有寒者，热中有热者，均有寒热可以再分，所以太阳经病有“温病”的证型；阳明篇中有麻、桂的治法。若与三阴对比言之，则太阳之寒为热中之寒，所以只用麻桂的辛温；少阴之寒为寒中之寒，所以药用姜附的大热。与此同理，寒中寒者（少阴）仍有寒化、热化之不同，则寒中热者（太阴）自然仍应有寒热可以再分。可惜《伤寒论》遗失的条文较多，太阴篇所存的条文又是最少，太阴热病的证候也不再可知，但从张仲景著书的大法来看，太阴病不应该是绝无热证的纯寒证。
综上所述可证，要避免六经中八纲概念含义的相对性，就不能指太阳病为肺经证。否则，张仲景具体运用阴阳学说原理来进行辨证论治的六经分证法，反而就与阴阳学说处处相抵触了。
四、张仲景著书，是遵《内经》以足经统手经之定例的
张锡纯说：“《伤寒论》虽然以六经分篇，然手足各有六经，实则十二经也。手足之经既有十二，而《伤寒论》但分六经者何也？按《内经》为之论十二经也，凡言某经而不明言其为手经、足经者，皆系足经，至言手经则明言其为某手经。盖人之足经长，手经短，足经大，手经小，足经原可以统手经，但言足经而手经亦恒寓其中矣。《伤寒论》之六经分篇，此遵《内经》定例，寓手经于足经中也。彼解《伤寒论》者，谓其所言之六经皆系足经，是犹未明张仲景著《伤寒》之深意也。”（《医学衷中参西录》）笔者赞同这一看法，因为从《内经》、《伤寒论》看，这一说法是符合事实的，“热论”言六经，看似只言足经，但篇中有“三阴三阳，五脏六腑皆受病”的明文；《伤寒论》：“胃中有燥矢”、“以有燥矢在胃中”等文字，均可说明六经包括十二经的问题。又历来许多医家言少阴，都把它归属于肾经虚寒证，但同时并不否认少阴热化证属手经，即是明乎以足经统手经之定例以及八纲概念系相对立论的道理。若举一反三，以此例彼，可以认为，其他五经都应如此。当然，是以阳统阳，以阴统阴，而不能是以阳统阴或以阴统阳的。
根据以上分析，显然，六经中，里之表、热、实证，从三阴经所维系的脏器来看，应该是肺。如欲统一六经、卫气营血诸辨证方法，温病的卫分证，不妨隶属于太阴病，如隶属于太阳病范围，也感矛盾不少，今竟指太阳病为手太阴肺经证，理论上疵漏之多，自然就不胜枚举了。
参考文献
①施家珍，“伤寒论六经病理初探”，中医杂志，5、1965
②刘普希，“太阳病共同证的病机探讨”，浙江中医杂志，1、19802003-9-1422:25:29北海散人头衔：佛门弟子等级：管理员文章：3797积分：4270注册：2002-12-24
第5楼《伤寒论》中阳明病诸虚证之探讨
[Background Information]
Book Title: Re Bing Heng Zheng (A Balanced Correction on Febrile Diseases) Chapter: Main Text (23/49) Category: Shanghan (Cold Damage)
The chapter on Spasm, Dampness, and Heatstroke contains three articles discussing "Zhong Ye" (Heatstroke). Since summerheat pathogen easily damages Qi and body fluids, if sweating is excessive, the condition often transforms into dryness; therefore, Baihu Jia Renshen Tang (White Tiger Plus Ginseng Decoction) is used to clear heat and rescue fluids. Because summerheat pathogen often combines with dampness, if dampness suppresses heat causing it to lie latent, the condition becomes lingering and difficult to resolve; in such cases, removing the water-dampness causes the summerheat to lose its basis, and the disease resolves spontaneously; thus, Gouti San (Melon Twig Powder), a single-herb formula, is proposed. Article 25 mentions only pulse and symptoms without providing a treatment formula. Based on symptom analysis, this indicates that the primary issue is summerheat damaging Yuan Qi (Primal Qi); hence, later generations believed Qing Shu Yi Qi Tang (Clear Summerheat and Augment Qi Decoction) could be used. This demonstrates that Zhang Zhongjing, in treating diseases, did not neglect distinguishing the disease, syndrome, or etiology. Therefore, the process can generally be divided into three steps: First, distinguish the disease (Bian Bing), determining whether it is Taiyang Disease, Yangming Disease, Shaoyang Disease, etc. Second, distinguish the etiology (Bian Yin), determining whether it is Wind Strike, Cold Damage, or Heatstroke. Third, distinguish the syndrome (Bian Zheng). Syndrome differentiation is conducted on the basis of disease and etiology differentiation, considering specific symptoms manifested after different etiologies invade Taiyang (or Yangming, Shaoyang, etc.) to select specific formulas. Treating Heatstroke follows this principle, as does treating Damp Bi, Wind Strike, and Cold Damage. Thus, one cannot assume that Zhang Zhongjing treated only with Guizhi Tang (Cinnamon Twig Decoction) and Mahuang Tang (Ephedra Decoction) for the initial stage of Taiyang Disease. Ignoring factors such as the frequent combination of Six Excesses invading Taiyang and variations in patient constitution would be overly simplistic.
Summary:
1. The Six Excesses (pathogenic factors) can all invade the Taiyang channel, causing Taiyang Disease. Therefore, at the onset of Taiyang Disease, there are six different syndrome types. These six different syndromes are caused by six different etiologies. Due to the differing characteristics of pathogenic factors, symptom manifestations and treatment methods vary accordingly.
2. Although injury by the Six Excesses often begins with the Taiyang channel, it may not always start there. Therefore, the assertion that "injury by the Six Excesses must begin at Taiyang" is untenable.
3. Mahuang Tang is a formula for treating Cold Damage, while Baihu Tang is a formula for treating Heatstroke. External pathogens like Cold and Summerheat do not rigidly adhere to a specific meridian upon injuring the body; thus, restricting medication based solely on meridians is unreasonable.
4. When latent pathogen transforms into fire and originates from the Taiyang channel, it constitutes Taiyang Warm Disease, primarily treated with Maxing Gan Shi Tang (Ephedra, Apricot Kernel, Licorice, and Gypsum Decoction). If it originates from Yangming or Shaoyang, other formulas such as Baihu Tang or Huangqin Tang are cited in the text, and Mahuang should not be used.
Note: Articles coded with Arabic numerals are quoted from *Shanghan Lun Jiangyi* (Lectures on Treatise on Cold Damage) edited by Chengdu University of TCM; articles coded with Chinese numerals are quoted from *Jingui Yaolue Jiangyi* (Lectures on Essential Prescriptions of the Golden Cabinet) edited by Hubei University of TCM.
Questioning the View that "Taiyang Disease is Hand-Taiyin Lung Channel Disease"
"Is the exterior syndrome of Taiyang similar to the Wei (Defensive) Level syndrome in Warm Disease theory? Current understanding remains inconsistent." Some argue that since the Lung governs the exterior, and formulas like Mahuang Tang and Xiao Qinglong Tang treat Lung Channel syndromes, and given that the main 'syndromes' in the Taiyang chapter seem less related to the Bladder channel than the Lung channel, they conclude: "Taiyang Disease in *Shanghan Lun* should be interpreted, following Li Shizhen, as Hand-Taiyin Lung Channel disease." Others argue based on the concept that Wei Qi governs the exterior and belongs to Yang, internally combining with Lung Qi; Wind injures Wei and can affect Ying (Nutritive) Qi, while Cold injures Ying and first injures Wei; disharmony of Ying and Wei can cause failure of Lung Qi to diffuse. They state: "If Cold Damage enters via hair and pores, and pathogen invades Taiyang, this contradicts the theory that 'Lung governs hair and pores.' In Mahuang Tang syndrome or Guizhi Houpo Zizi Tang syndrome involving cough and wheezing, none are unrelated to the Lung; is this not clear evidence of Cold pathogen attacking the Lung?" I hold a different view and present my opinion below:
I. Important articles in *Shanghan Lun* regarding the essence of Taiyang do not support interpreting Taiyang Disease as Lung Channel disease.
Article 1 of the Taiyang chapter is generally considered the outline of Taiyang Disease. This article is significant for explaining the essence of Taiyang and requires deep investigation. Ke Qin stated: "All six channels have exterior syndromes," and further: "The pulses of the Three Yang channels are all floating; all Three Yang channels have headache syndromes; all six channels suffering cold experience aversion to cold. Only stiff neck and pain in the head and nape are unique to Taiyang." "If pulse is floating, with aversion to cold and fever, but no headache or stiff neck, it is known not to be Taiyang Disease. If there is only headache extending not to the nape, it is not a fixed pattern of Taiyang. If there is stiff neck and headache, but no aversion to cold, and the pulse is sunken, one cannot say it is not Taiyang Disease" (*Shanghan Lun Yi*). Xu Lingtai agreed with Ke's view, citing it in *Liujing Bingjie* (Explanation of Six Channels Diseases), stating "Examiners must pay attention to stiff neck and headache." Although pulse and symptoms of exterior syndromes in the six channels differ, floating pulse and aversion to cold are common to all exterior syndromes. From a logical perspective, we can define: Floating pulse and aversion to cold are essential attributes of exterior syndromes. Stiff neck and headache are essential attributes of Taiyang channel disease. Their combination forms the unique attribute of Taiyang exterior syndrome in the six channels of *Shanghan Lun*. Therefore, regarding six-channel exterior syndromes, Wang Hu's statement that "Taiyang Disease takes 'stiff neck and headache' as the standard" is correct. This is the basis for distinguishing Taiyang exterior syndrome from the other five channels. Zhang Zhongjing placed "stiff neck and headache" before aversion to cold as the main syndrome of Taiyang Disease with profound meaning.
Zhang Zhongjing wrote based on *Neijing*. According to *Lingshu · Jingmai Pian* (Spiritual Pivot · Meridian Chapter), Foot-Taiyang channel diseases, whether "Yidong Bing" (Moving Diseases) or "Suosheng Bing" (Generated Diseases), both feature stiff neck and headache. Hand-Taiyin Lung Channel diseases, whether "Yidong Bing" or "Suosheng Bing", lack this symptom but both feature cough. The Lung Channel syndrome described by the Warm School features cough commonly, while "stiff neck and headache" is rare. This is contrary to and inconsistent with Zhang Zhongjing's discussion of Taiyang Disease. Thus, for exterior syndromes belonging to Taiyang Disease, "stiff neck and headache" is the criterion; for those belonging to Lung Channel disease, "cough" is emphasized. There is a significant difference between the two. Ignoring this and rashly claiming "the main 'syndromes' of the Taiyang chapter are more closely related to the Lung channel than the Bladder channel" is untenable. The outline of Taiyang Disease was summarized from many individual and special syndromes within Taiyang Disease. Since "stiff neck and headache" is the primary main syndrome in the outline, it indicates that all "syndromes" of Taiyang exterior possess this symptom. However, this symptom cannot be explained as the main syndrome of Lung Channel disease.
Wang Hu said: "The character 'Zhong' (strike) has the same meaning as 'Shang' (injure). Zhang Zhongjing did not explicitly use 'Shang Feng' (Wind Injury) in his treatise to prevent students from confusing Wind Strike (characterized by cough, nasal congestion, heavy voice) with other conditions. Thus, he used 'Zhong' to distinguish it" (*Yizong Jinjian*). Ke Qin said: "Zhang Zhongjing's general method in writing is to select the most accurate pulse and symptoms of the specific channel to highlight them." (*Shanghan Laosu Ji*). It is evident that Zhang Zhongjing carefully chose his words to prevent later generations from conflating Zhong Feng (one of the exterior syndromes of Taiyang Disease) with Shang Feng (Hand-Taiyin Lung Channel disease). Zhang Yinzan said, "Each of the six channels has its origin; every word has its destination, every character embodies its essence." While this view may seem overly reverent to classics, regarding Article 1, it is correct. The absence of "cough" as a main syndrome of Lung Channel disease in the Taiyang Disease outline was not due to Zhang Zhongjing's negligence. We cannot limit our understanding of the initial stage of external contraction diseases to the Hand-Taiyin channel alone. Clinically, many external contraction diseases show no signs of Lung Channel disease at the beginning or throughout the course; this is an objective fact. Believing that all exterior syndromes of external contraction belong to or begin with Hand-Taiyin contradicts clinical practice.
Looking at Articles 2, 3, and 6, which discuss the main symptoms and pulses of the three syndrome types of Taiyang channel disease, the Lung Channel syndromes described in *Lingshu · Jingmai Pian* are almost entirely absent. Even reviewing all positive treatments, rescue methods, and articles in the Taiyang chapter, references to Lung Channel symptoms like cough, nasal congestion, lung distension, chest fullness, and pain along the anterior medial aspect of the upper arm are extremely rare. Furthermore, certain important "syndromes" in the Taiyang chapter (such as Guizhi Tang syndrome, Wuling San syndrome) lack Lung Channel symptoms entirely. This fully demonstrates that articles concerning the essence of Taiyang in *Shanghan Lun* do not support interpreting Taiyang Disease as Lung Channel disease.
II. One cannot claim "Taiyang Disease is Lung Channel disease" merely because "Mahuang and Guizhi" formulas can treat Lung Channel syndromes.
Articles 236 and 242 of *Shanghan Lun* explicitly state that if the exterior of Yangming Disease is unresolved, Guizhi Tang should be used. Article 237 states: "Yangming Disease, floating pulse, no sweat, panting; inducing sweating leads to recovery; Mahuang Tang is suitable." The Taoyin chapter also has explicit text: "Taoyin Disease, floating pulse, can induce sweating, Guizhi Tang is suitable." Regarding the use of "Mahuang and Guizhi" for Yangming Disease, Ke Qin believed: "On the days of initial wind-cold invasion, the pathogen is still at the exterior of Yangming, same as the initial invasion of Taiyang; thus, Yangming also has Mahuang and Guizhi syndromes." Regarding the use of "Guizhi" for Taoyin, You Yi believed: "Guizhi Tang is acrid-sweet entering the Spleen, so it can also disperse Taoyin pathogen." Zhang Zhongjing did not establish Mahuang and Guizhi formulas exclusively for Taiyang Cold Damage or Taiyang Wind Strike. Therefore, commentators who advocate naming syndromes after formulas argue that later generations should not restrict medications by meridians. Thus, claiming "Taiyang Disease must be Lung Channel disease" because "Mahuang and Guizhi" formulas can treat Lung Channel syndromes is highly debatable.
Physiologically, Spleen and Stomach are the sources of production for Ying and Wei Qi; Heart and Lungs are the organs of distribution. Ying and Wei Qi move to the exterior, infusing into various channels and being governed by Taiyang. Although Wei Qi moves outside the vessels and seems unconstrained by meridians, Ying contains Wei, and Wei contains Ying. Ying and Wei are material carriers conveying information between Zang-Fu organs during Qi transformation, and meridians are the transmission channels for these carriers. Wei and Ying cannot operate independently of the various channels. Since Taiyang channel runs along the back of the body and distributes most widely over the surface, it has a particularly important connection with Ying and Wei at the exterior compared to other meridians. Pathologically, Yang governs the exterior, Yin governs the interior. Wind-Cold pathogen easily injures Yang. As Taiyang is the exterior of the Three Yang, when Wind-Cold injures Ying and Wei at the exterior, Taiyang symptoms often appear first. Yun Tieqiao believed: "Diseases caused by human factors among the Six Excesses refer to Qi transformation, not physical entities. The classic says 'Pathogenic wind arrives swiftly like wind and rain; the skilled healer treats the skin and hair,' meaning the disease is in the skin and hair, not referring to the Lung's association." Therefore, Taiyang Disease can essentially be viewed as a common type of exterior syndrome where Ying and Wei at the exterior are invaded by external pathogens. Regarding transmission: Because Spleen, Stomach, Heart, and Lung have close organic connections with Ying and Wei, Ying and Wei with Taiyang meridians, Taiyang meridians with their connected Zang-Fu organs, and associated meridians, Taiyang exterior syndrome can transmit downward to the Fu organs along the flow of Jing Qi, or inward to the Lung against the flow of Jing Qi. If Taiyang sweating is excessive, it may transform into Yangming; if purgation is used inappropriately instead of sweating, it may transform into Taoyin; if Interior Yang is deficient, it may leap to Shaoyin. Mahuang and Guizhi formulas are indeed usable when Wind-Cold binds the exterior and pathogen enters the Lung; however, identifying Taiyang Disease as Lung Channel disease based on this ignores the multi-pathway connections between skin/hair/muscle surface and internal Zang-Fu via meridians, and fails to explain theories such as interior-exterior transmission, Six Channels and Six Qi, and the "times of resolution" of the Six Channels.
III. Identifying Taiyang Disease as Lung Channel disease contradicts the fundamental principles of Yin-Yang theory.
Six Channels are the precursor to Eight Principles differentiation. The Eight Principles concepts within the Six Channels are relative. Regarding Exterior-Interior: Yang governs Exterior, Yin governs Interior. Thus, in *Neijing · Re Lun*, the Six Channels use Three Yang to govern Exterior and Three Yin to govern Interior. However, the Six Channels in *Re Lun* focus on meridians, whereas *Shanghan Lun* developed this example. Zhang Zhongjing followed the spirit of "Three Yin and Three Yang, Five Zang and Six Fu all can be diseased," linking meridians with their connected Zang-Fu for syndrome differentiation and treatment. Thus, "Three Yang disease syndromes are based on Six Fu organ pathology, and Three Yin disease syndromes are based on Five Zang organ pathology" (*Shanghan Lun Shiyi*). Consequently, the specific content of Six Channel differentiation became much richer. Regarding meridians and Zang-Fu: Zang-Fu belong to Interior, meridians govern Exterior; thus, all Six Channels have exterior syndromes. Among Three Yang, Taiyang is Exterior, Yangming is Interior. Regarding Taiyang, Taiyang Channel disease is Exterior, Taiyang Fu disease is Interior. Focusing only on Taiyang Channel disease, Mahuang Tang syndrome is Exterior, Guizhi Tang syndrome is Interior. "Three Yin are the Interior of Three Yang, and Three Yang also have their own Exterior and Interior" (*Shanghan Guanzhu Ji*). Thus, the concepts of Exterior and Interior in *Shanghan Lun* are relative. Zhang Zhongjing, because Yang channels take Taiyang as Exterior, and Taiyang takes Channel disease as Exterior, emphasizes Exterior over Interior in the Taiyang chapter, using "floating pulse, stiff neck and headache, and aversion to cold" as the outline. In Three Yin, Interior syndromes are the outline. "Lung governs Exterior" refers to the Five Zang, not to Six Channels or Zang-Fu. Confusing relative concepts, some say Lung governs Exterior while Bladder does not; this view is hard to accept. Lung belongs to Zang, Bladder belongs to Fu. If discussing Zang-Fu, Fu should govern Exterior and Zang should govern Interior. Thus, identifying Taiyang Disease as Lung Channel disease risks confusing the relative nature of Exterior-Interior concepts and does not conform to Zhang Zhongjing's principle of Six Fu (Yang) governing Exterior and Five Zang (Yin) governing Interior.
Regarding Deficiency-Excess: Yang path is Excess, Yin path is Deficiency; thus Three Yang are Excess, Three Yin are Deficient. But among Three Yang, Yangming is Excess, Taiyang is Deficient. Therefore, in the Taiyang chapter, Zhang Zhongjing first lists Guizhi Tang (Chen Xiuyuan called Guizhi Tang a tonic rather than a diaphoretic) and lists many articles prohibiting sweating, repeatedly warning against sweating. This shows that because Taiyang is "Excess containing Deficiency," treatment focuses on harmonizing Ying and Wei rather than forceful sweating. Conversely, because Yangming is "Excess containing Excess," the Yangming chapter uses "Stomach House Excess" as the outline, presents Chengqi Tang first, and discusses purgation most extensively. This shows Zhang Zhongjing focused on attacking Fu Excess in Yangming without indulgence. The situation where Excess contains Deficiency and Deficiency contains Excess within the Six Channels, similar to the relativity of Exterior-Interior, completely conforms to the principle of continuous divisibility of Yin and Yang.
Regarding Cold-Heat: Yin belongs to Cold, Yang belongs to Heat; thus Three Yang govern Heat, Three Yin govern Cold. But among Three Yang, Yangming is Heat, Taiyang is Cold. Thus Taiyang legislation uses warm dispersion, while Yangming primarily uses cold purgation. Because Heat can contain Cold and Heat, Cold-Heat can be further subdivided. Thus, Taiyang Channel disease has a "Warm Disease" syndrome type; Yangming chapter includes Mahuang and Guizhi treatment methods. Comparing with Three Yin, Taiyang's Cold is "Cold within Heat," so only acrid-warm Mahuang and Guizhi are used; Shaoyin's Cold is "Cold within Cold," so ginger and aconite (large heat) are used. Similarly, Cold within Cold (Shaoyin) has Cold transformation and Heat transformation; thus Cold within Heat (Taoyin) should naturally have Cold-Heat subdivisions. Unfortunately, many articles of *Shanghan Lun* are lost, and the few remaining in Taoyin chapter make Taoyin Heat Disease syndromes unknowable. However, based on Zhang Zhongjing's writing principles, Taoyin Disease should not be a pure Cold syndrome devoid of Heat syndromes.
From the above, it is proven that to avoid the relativity of Eight Principles concepts in the Six Channels, one cannot identify Taiyang Disease as Lung Channel disease. Otherwise, Zhang Zhongjing's Six Channel differentiation method, which specifically applies Yin-Yang theory for syndrome differentiation, would contradict Yin-Yang theory everywhere.
IV. Zhang Zhongjing's writing followed the *Neijing* precedent of Foot Channels governing Hand Channels.
Zhang Xichun said: "*Shanghan Lun* is divided into chapters by Six Channels, yet Hands and Feet each have Six Channels, totaling Twelve Channels. Why does *Shanghan Lun* divide only into Six Channels? According to *Neijing*, it discusses Twelve Channels. Whenever a channel is mentioned without specifying Hand or Foot, it refers to the Foot channel; when mentioning Hand channels, it explicitly states 'Hand [Channel Name].' Human Foot channels are long, Hand channels short; Foot channels large, Hand channels small. Foot channels can originally govern Hand channels; speaking of Foot channels inherently implies Hand channels. The Six Channel division in *Shanghan Lun* follows this *Neijing* precedent, embedding Hand channels within Foot channels. Those who interpret *Shanghan Lun* saying its Six Channels are all Foot channels fail to understand Zhang Zhongjing's deep intent." (*Yixue Zhongzhong Canxi Lu*). I agree with this view. From *Neijing* and *Shanghan Lun*, this statement fits facts. *Re Lun* discussing Six Channels seems to mention only Foot channels, but the chapter explicitly states "Three Yin and Three Yang, Five Zang and Six Fu all can be diseased." *Shanghan Lun* texts like "dry stool in stomach" indicate that Six Channels include Twelve Channels. Historically, many physicians attributed Shaoyin to Kidney channel deficiency-cold, while simultaneously acknowledging Shaoyin Heat Transformation belongs to Hand channels. This clarifies the precedent of Foot channels governing Hand channels and the relative nature of Eight Principles. By analogy, one can consider that the other five channels follow this rule. Of course, it is Yang governing Yang and Yin governing Yin, not Yang governing Yin or Yin governing Yang.
Based on the above analysis, clearly, among the Six Channels, the Interior, Exterior, Heat, and Excess syndromes maintained by the organs of the Three Yin channels should be the Lung. To unify Six Channels and Wei-Qing-Ying-Blood differentiation methods, the Wei Level syndrome of Warm Disease might well be subordinated to Taoyin Disease. Subordinating it to Taiyang Disease range feels contradictory. Now, identifying Taiyang Disease as Hand-Taiyin Lung Channel disease involves numerous theoretical flaws, too numerous to enumerate.
References
① Shi Jiazhen, "Preliminary Exploration of Pathology of Six Channels in Shanghan Lun," *Chinese Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine*, 5, 1965.
② Liu Puxi, "Discussion on Pathogenesis of Common Syndromes of Taiyang Disease," *Zhejiang Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine*, 1, 1980.