四明张世贤医学百问云弦之一脉在仲景则以为阴在叔和则以为阳吾苏卢丹谷谓世贤议论
牾
其说不归于一定决无为阳之说丹谷据脉经弦为阴三字辟之余窃疑焉按六经病篇曰尺寸俱弦者
少阳受病按此以弦为阳也切详仲景以弦为阴而又为阳者何谓也许叔微曰夫仲景之意以弦脉为
阴
者兼合乎众脉而言且浮大者阳也兼之以动滑数之类安得不为阳沉细者阴也兼之以涩弱弦微之
类安得不为阴也又少阴病篇曰手足寒脉弦迟者阴也盖此亦兼迟而言之乃为阴症宜矣若夫沉微
而弦沉伏而弦沉涩而弦沉细而弦皆为阴症之脉也盖少阳之脉弦者按仲景之意以一脉而言之也
然少阳之气通于春春脉弦者以应春阳时令之脉也岂得不为阳也如浮大而弦洪长而弦浮滑而弦
浮数而弦者皆为阳也夫仲景以弦脉分阴阳二用之理其义微也王叔和以弦脉为阳而不言弦为阴
者是以独指一脉而为杂病也故仲景之脉不可与杂病同日而语也丹谷驳之太过例以脉诀为高阳
生之赝本不足取信亦难矣哉
王叔和言三焦无状空有名千载之下议论不一至宋陈无择之通达尚惑徐遁之荒唐且曰三焦
有脂
膜如掌大正与膀胱相对有二白脉自中出夹春而上贯于脑何其谬也按内经六节藏象论曰胆胃大
肠小肠膀胱三焦者仓廪之本营之居也能化糟粕转味而出者也五脏别论曰夫胃大肠小肠膀胱三
焦此五者天气之所生也其气象天故泻而不藏此受五脏浊气名曰转化之腑由是观之圣人且以三
焦为有形状矣又按蔡西山脉经其间有论三焦一篇后引礼运记曰上焦若窍中焦若编下焦若渎然
未曾发明其义新安孙景思氏因推其义而解之曰上焦若窍窍者窍漏之义可以通达之物必是胃之
上脘经曰上焦在胃之上口主纳而不出是也中焦若编编者编络之义如有物编包之象胃之外有脂
如网包罗在胃之上以其能磨化饮食故脉诀云膏凝散半斤者此也必是脾之大络此为中焦经曰
主
腐熟水谷是也下焦若渎渎者沟渎之义可以决渎可以传道乃是小肠之下曰阑门泌别水谷自此而
厘清浊之所此为下焦经曰在膀胱上口主泻而不藏又曰主出而不内又曰下焦为传化之府又曰三
焦曰水谷之道路气之所终始也盖水谷之所入水自上而中自中而下至于糟粕转输传道
而下一无底滞如此尤可表其为有形明矣所谓形者非谓脏腑外别生一物不过指其所而为形耳或
曰经之本文乃中焦若沤今改作编字于理未安愚谓蔡西山据理运记而言又按白虎通性情篇沤亦
作编二说安得俱误恐沤与编殆相似而讹之耳
四明人张世贤在《医学百问》中说:关于“弦”这一脉象,在张仲景看来属于阴脉,而在王叔和看来则属于阳脉。我苏州的卢丹谷认为张世贤的议论相互矛盾,他的说法没有定论,绝对没有说是阳脉的道理。卢丹谷依据《脉经》中“弦为阴”这三个字来驳斥张世贤。但我对此暗自怀疑。
查阅《伤寒论·六经病篇》记载:“尺寸部脉俱现弦象者,是少阳经受邪致病。”据此来看,这是将弦脉视为阳脉的表现。仔细推敲,张仲景既说弦脉属阴又说它属阳,这是什么意思呢?许叔微解释说:张仲景的意思是将弦脉归为阴类,是结合了其他脉象而言的。例如浮脉、大脉属于阳脉,如果兼见动、滑、数等脉象,怎么能不算是阳脉呢?沉脉、细脉属于阴脉,如果兼见涩、弱、弦、微等脉象,怎么能不算是阴脉呢?另外,《伤寒论·少阴病篇》记载:“手足寒冷,脉象弦而迟,这是阴证。”这同样是结合了“迟”脉而言,才成为阴证的脉象。至于沉微而兼弦、沉伏而兼弦、沉涩而兼弦、沉细而兼弦,这些都是阴证的脉象。大概少阳病的脉象之所以称其为弦,是张仲景从单一脉象的角度来说的。然而,少阳之气通应于春季,春日的脉象呈弦象,是为了顺应春天阳气时令的脉象,这怎么能不算是阳脉呢?如浮大而兼弦、洪长而兼弦、浮滑而兼弦、浮数而兼弦的,都属于阳脉。张仲景将弦脉分为阴阳两种用途,其中的义理是很微妙的。王叔和只说弦脉为阳而不提弦为阴,是因为他单独指出一脉作为杂病的诊断依据。所以,张仲景的脉法不能与杂病脉法同日而语。卢丹谷驳斥得太过分了,他把《脉诀》当作高阳生所伪托的本子,这本就不值得采信,但也因此难以服众。
王叔和曾说三焦没有具体的形状,只是空有名目,千年来对此议论纷纷。到了宋代,陈无择虽然通达医理,还被徐遁荒诞的说法所迷惑,甚至说三焦有脂膜,大小如手掌,正对着膀胱,有两根白色的脉络从中生出,夹着脊骨向上贯穿到脑部,这多么荒谬啊!
查阅《黄帝内经·六节藏象论》记载:“胆、胃、大肠、小肠、膀胱、三焦,是仓廪之本,营气所居之处,能够消化糟粕,转化五味并排出体外。”《黄帝内经·五脏别论》又说:“胃、大肠、小肠、膀胱、三焦这五个器官,是天气(六腑之气)所生成的,它们的形象像天一样,所以特点是‘泻而不藏’,接受五脏传来的浊气,名叫‘传化之腑’。”由此看来,圣人已经将三焦视为有具体形状的器官了。
又查阅蔡西山(蔡沈)的《脉经》注释,其中有一篇论述三焦的文章,后来引用《礼记·礼运》的话说:“上焦像孔窍,中焦像编织物,下焦像沟渠。”但未曾阐明其含义。新安人孙景思氏因此推演其义并加以解释:所谓“上焦若窍”,“窍”是漏孔的意思,可以通达的东西,一定是胃的上脘。经文说“上焦位于胃之上口,主受纳而不外泄”,就是这个道理。“中焦若编”,“编”是编络的意思,好像有物体编织包裹的样子。胃的外面有像网一样的脂膜包罗着,位于胃的上方,因为它能磨碎消化饮食,所以《脉诀》中说“膏凝散半斤”指的就是这个。这一定是脾的大络,这就是中焦。经文说“主腐熟水谷”,就是这个意思。“下焦若渎”,“渎”是沟渠的意思,可以疏通水道,传导排泄,这是在小肠之下,名为阑门的地方,分别清浊,从这里分离出清浊之气,这就是下焦。经文说“位于膀胱上口,主排泄而不贮藏”,又说“主出而不入”,又说“下焦是传化之腑”,又说“三焦是水谷运行的道路,气终结始的地方”。大概水谷进入体内,水液从上焦到中焦,食物残渣从中焦到下焦,直到糟粕转运排泄,下面没有底滞阻碍。这样更可以表明三焦是有形的实体了。所谓的“形”,并不是指在脏腑之外另外生长出一个东西,不过是指它所占据的位置和形态罢了。
有人问:经文的原文是“中焦若沤”,现在改为“编”字,在道理上似乎不妥。我认为蔡西山依据《礼运》来阐述,而且查阅《白虎通·性情篇》,发现“沤”也写作“编”。这两种说法怎么会都错呢?恐怕“沤”与“编”字形相似而产生了讹误。
Zhang Shixian of Siming, in his *One Hundred Questions on Medicine*, stated: Regarding the "wiry" (Xian) pulse, Zhang Zhongjing considered it Yin, whereas Wang Shuhe considered it Yang. Lu Danggu of my native Suzhou argued that Zhang Shixian's discussion was contradictory and lacked a definitive conclusion, asserting there is absolutely no basis for calling it Yang. Lu Danggu refuted Zhang Shixian based on the three characters in the *Mai Jing* (Pulse Classic): "Wiry is Yin." However, I harbored private doubts.
Upon consulting the *Six Meridian Disease Chapters* (Liujing Bingpian), it states: "When both the Cun and Chi positions exhibit a wiry pulse, it indicates Shaoyang disease." This suggests treating the wiry pulse as Yang. Upon careful examination, why did Zhang Zhongjing consider the wiry pulse both Yin and Yang? Xu Shuwei explained: Zhang Zhongjing's intent to classify the wiry pulse as Yin was in conjunction with other pulses. For instance, Floating (Fu) and Large (Da) are Yang; if combined with Moving (Dong), Slippery (Hua), or Rapid (Shu) characteristics, how could they not be Yang? Sinking (Chen) and Fine (Xi) are Yin; if combined with Choppy (Se), Weak (Ruo), Wiry (Xian), or Minute (Wei) characteristics, how could they not be Yin? Furthermore, the *Shaoyin Disease Chapter* states: "Cold hands and feet with a wiry and slow (Chi) pulse indicate a Yin syndrome." This is also Yin because it combines the "slow" characteristic. Conversely, pulses that are Sinking-Micro-Wiry, Sinking-Deep-Wiry, Sinking-Choppy-Wiry, or Sinking-Fine-Wiry are all pulses of Yin syndromes. Generally, when discussing the Shaoyang pulse as wiry, Zhang Zhongjing refers to it from the perspective of a single pulse type. However, Shaoyang Qi corresponds to Spring; the Spring pulse is wiry to resonate with the Yang season of spring. How can this not be Yang? Pulses such as Floating-Large-Wiry, Surging-Long-Wiry, Floating-Slippery-Wiry, or Floating-Rapid-Wiry are all Yang. The principle behind Zhang Zhongjing dividing the wiry pulse into Yin and Yang applications is subtle. Wang Shuhe mentioned only that the wiry pulse is Yang and did not mention it being Yin because he referred to a single pulse type for miscellaneous diseases. Therefore, Zhang Zhongjing's pulse methodology cannot be compared to that of miscellaneous diseases. Lu Danggu's refutation was excessive; dismissing the *Mai Jue* (Pulse Rhymes) as a forgery by Gao Yangsheng is insufficiently convincing, yet difficult to refute entirely.
Wang Shuhe stated that the Sanjiao (Triple Burner) has no form and exists only in name, leading to endless debates over millennia. Even in the Song Dynasty, Chen Wuze, despite his medical erudition, was confused by the absurd claims of Xu Dun, who asserted that the Sanjiao possesses a fatty membrane the size of a palm, positioned opposite the Bladder, with two white vessels emerging from the center, running alongside the spine up to the brain. How erroneous is this!
Consulting the *Suwen: Chapter 6 - Six Sections of Zang-Fang Manifestations* (*Neijing*), it states: "The Gallbladder, Stomach, Large Intestine, Small Intestine, Bladder, and Sanjiao are the roots of granaries and dwellings of Ying (Nutritive) Qi. They transform dregs and flavors and expel them." The *Bie Lun: Chapter 9 - Differentiation of Five Zang Organs* states: "The Stomach, Large Intestine, Small Intestine, Bladder, and Sanjiao are generated by Heavenly Qi. Their forms resemble Heaven; thus, they 'drain but do not store,' receiving turbid Qi from the Five Zang organs, named 'Transforming and Transmitting Fu Organs.'" From this, we see that the Sages regarded the Sanjiao as having a physical form.
Furthermore, Cai Xishan (Cai Shen)'s commentary on the *Mai Jing* includes a treatise on the Sanjiao, quoting the *Liji: Liyun*: "The Upper Jiao is like an aperture, the Middle Jiao like weaving, and the Lower Jiao like a ditch." However, he did not elucidate its meaning. Sun Jingsi of Xin'an deduced and explained this: "Upper Jiao like an aperture"—an aperture implies leakage and passage; what must pass through is likely the upper part of the Stomach (Shangwan). The Classic states: "The Upper Jiao is at the mouth of the Stomach, governing intake without excretion," which aligns with this. "Middle Jiao like weaving"—weaving implies a network-like enclosure. Outside the Stomach lies a fatty tissue resembling a net, located above the stomach, capable of grinding and digesting food. Thus, the *Mai Jue* mentions "half a jin of congealed fat" referring to this. This is likely the great collateral of the Spleen, constituting the Middle Jiao. The Classic states: "It governs the rotting and ripening of water and grain," fitting this description. "Lower Jiao like a ditch"—a ditch implies drainage and transmission. Located below the Small Intestine at the Lamen gate, it separates clear from turbid, marking the Lower Jiao. The Classic states: "Located at the upper opening of the Bladder, governing excretion without storage," and "governing exit without entry." It is also called the "transmitting and transforming Fu organ" and the "pathway of water and grain, where Qi begins and ends." Water and grain enter; fluids move from Upper to Middle, and solids from Middle to Lower until dregs are transported and expelled downward without obstruction. This clearly demonstrates its tangible nature. The term "form" does not imply a separate entity outside the Zang-Fu organs but refers to the shape defined by its location and function.
Some argue: The original text reads "Middle Jiao like foaming" (Ruo Ou), and changing it to "weaving" (Bian) seems theoretically unsound. I contend that Cai Xishan relied on the *Liyun*. Additionally, the *Baihutong: Xingqing* records that "Ou" is also written as "Bian." How could both interpretations be wrong? It is likely that "Ou" and "Bian" were corrupted due to their visual similarity.