요즘 윤서인이라는 웹튠 작가가 웬만한 우파 투사보다 잘 싸우고 있다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
대통령을 묻어버린 '거짓의 산' 41편 | 충격! 특종! 법원, 엄청난 소용돌이 … 특검, 스스로 무너지나?
https://youtu.be/398yRT2OlA8
특검이 재판부에 제출한 '공소장 변경 허가 신청서'
- 이재용 부회장은 작년 12월 27일날 결심 공판이 이미 끝났는데
특검이 이제와서 이 신청서를 제출했다는 것
검찰이 이재용 부회장에게 징역 12년 구형했고,
이 부회장은 최후 진술했고,
변호인들은 최후 변론하면서 다 끝나서, 올 2월 5일에
선고만 하면 되는데,
검찰이 이제와서 재판부에 '공소장 변경 허가 신청서'를 제출하면서
공소장 변경을 허가해달라고 하고 있다는 지적
- 해당 '공소장 변경 허가 신청서'는 최서원 재판부, 즉 서울중앙지법 형사22부
김세윤 재판장에게 제출한 것
이 공소장 변경 신청서에는 다른 것 3개가 또 붙어있다고 지적
최서원이 이재용 부회장 재판에 출석해서 증언한 후 공소장을 변경해달라고
한 것도 있다고 지적
- 이러한 공소장 변경 신청의 의미가 뭔가에 대해서 우종창 기자는
" 검찰이 재판을 해보니 이재용 부회장의 무죄가능성이 높아지자, 그러면 대통령과 최서원의
무죄 가능성도 높아지게 되니, 주위적 공소사실은 유지하면서도 예비적 공소사실
( 주위적 공소사실이 기각 내지 무죄될 가능성에 대비한 것 ) 여러개와 거기에 선택적
공소사실( 법원에서 유,무죄 상관없이 알아서 취사 선택하라는 것 )까지 추가 변경
하려고 하고 있다 "고 밝혔다.
형사 소송은 사람의 자유를 박탈하는 것이기에 공소장 내용은 아주 구체적이고
명시적이어야함을 지적
공소장 변경은 검사나 법원이나 가능하지만, 검사 스스로가 공소장을 변경한다는 것은
법조계 일반적 의견으로는 검사가 수사한 사건의 수사가 잘못되었거나 미진했다는
것이고 증거가 불충분하다는 것을 인정하는 것이라고 지적
또한, 최서원에게 제3자 뇌물죄를 적용하려면 '부정한 청탁'이 있어야하기에 재판부도
검찰에게 최서원이 부정한 청탁이 있었다는 것을 인식하고 있었다는 것을 입증해달라,
증거를 제출해달라라고 계속 요구하고 있는데도 아직도 제출하지 못하고 있다고 지적
[출처] 우종창 기자 " 충격! 특종! 법원, 엄청난 소용돌이 … 특검, 스스로 무너지나? ",
" 특검 스스로 수사 미진과 증거 불충분을 법원에서 털어놓고 있는 상황 "
---------------------------------------------------------------
送孟东野序
원문
大凡物不得其平则鸣。草木之无声，风挠之鸣1。水之无声，风荡之鸣2。其跃也，或激之；其趋也，或梗之；其沸也，或炙之3，金石之无声，或击之鸣。人之于言也亦然。有不得已者而后言，其歌也有思，其哭也有怀4。凡出乎口而为声者，其皆有弗平者乎！[1]
乐也者，郁于中而泄于外者也，择其善鸣者而假之鸣5。金、石、丝、竹、匏、土、革、木八者，物之善鸣者也6。维天之于时也亦然7，择其善鸣者而假之鸣。是故，以鸟鸣春，以雷鸣夏，以虫鸣秋，以风鸣冬。四时之相推夺8，其必有不得其平者乎！其于人也亦然。人声之精者为言，文辞之于言，又其精也，尤择其善鸣者而假之鸣
중국어 풀이
大概各种东西不能处于平静就会发出声音。草木本来是没有声响的，风吹动它，它就发出声响。水本来是没有声响的，风激荡它，它就发出声响。水浪跳跃，是有东西在阻遏水势，水流快速，是有东西阻塞了它。水沸腾了，是有东西在烧它。钟、磐一类乐器本来是没有声音的，有人敲击它就会发出声响。人在言论上也是这样，有了不可抑制的感情然后才表达出来，他们歌唱是有了思念的感情，他们痛哭是有所怀念。凡是从口中发出来成为声音的，大概都是有不平的原因吧！
대저 사물이 평정한 상태에 처하지 못하면 소리가 나온다. 초목은 본래 소리가 없지만 바람이 흔들면 비로소 소리가 나온다 물 역시 소리가 없지만 바람이 흔들면 소리가 나온다....
사람도 역시 그와 같아서 억제할 수 없는 감정이 생긴 후에 그것을 표현하게 된다. 사람들이 노래를 부르는 이유는 생각이 있기 때문이고, 사람이 우는 것은 가슴 속에 쌓인 감정이 있기 때문이다.
音乐，是由在心里郁结的情感然后向外发泄出来的，它常常借用那些发音最好的东西来发出声音。金、石、丝、竹、匏、土、革、木八种乐器，是各种器物中发音最好的。自然界对于时令的变化也是这样，选择那些发音最好的东西借以发出声音。所以用鸟声表示春天，用雷声表示夏天，用虫声表示秋天，用风声表示冬天，四季的推移变化，那必定是有不得平静的原因吧！
--------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
트럼프 같은 대통령을 위해 미국 국부들이 헌법에 준비해 두었다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
이란에선 코란에 쓴 대로 절도범의 손을 잘랐다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
모든 사람은 사회의 일부를 그의 어깨에 지고 있다. 따라서 그 누구도 자신이 맡은 책임을 회피할 수 없다. 또 만일 사회가 파멸로 나아간다면 누구도 거기에서 살아남을 수 없다. 따라서 모든 사람은 자신을 위해서라도 힘차게 지적인 전쟁터에 몸을 던져야 한다.
Hazlitt's Reflections at 70
•Henry Hazlitt
When I look back on my life, what strikes me is that I have been on the whole a very lucky man — and, above all, lucky in my friends.
My luck began, perhaps, in the year in which I was born, 1894. I have the advantage over most of you in knowing what it was like to live in the 19th century. Of course, I only had about six years of it, and I confess I may not even have been aware that it was the 19th century.
But, speaking more seriously, my first 20 years were spent before the outbreak of World War I in 1914. Looking back at it, it seems now an idyllic world. There had been no major international wars for a century. There were no revolutions every week and riots every day. People could even trust their currency. There was no nuclear bomb hanging over us. There was no Communist government and not even an important organized Communist movement. Even socialism was merely a matter of academic discussion.
It was an age of innocence. How innocent it was, I well remember. At that time none of us knew, or needed to care, what was happening in such far-off places as China, or Vietnam, or the Congo. In fact, to tell the truth, we didn't pay much attention to anything that was going on outside of our own borders.
I remember those astounding days when World War I broke out. I was working at The Wall Street Journal. We used to get down to the job at about 8:00 in the morning and stay until about 4:00 in the afternoon. I remember the shocking day when the New York Stock Exchange failed to open its doors. It was to remain closed for many months afterward. I remember a day or two later, when England declared war on Germany. The excitement of that day, and the amount of work and confusion it imposed on myself, as a young fellow who was part stenographer and part reporter, proved exhausting. I didn't get away until about 7:30 P.M. — a day of 12 exhausting hours. As I was walking back to the trolley in the darkening streets — The Wall Street Journal was then at 44 Broad Street — the newsboys were all out on the streets shouting their extras. I can still hear the voices in my ears. They were shouting, "Extra! Extra! Giants win!" I do not exaggerate or invent. That was it. That was how the news of World War I came to the great metropolis of New York.
Beginnings
Perhaps you wonder how I got on The Wall Street Journal. Like everything else in my life, it seems to have been the result of a series of accidents.
In the last year of high school, I developed what I suppose might be called intellectual awareness. I got interested in philosophy and psychology. My great gods were Herbert Spencer and William James. I was going to go to Harvard, and major in psychology, and become a professor of psychology, writing a little philosophy on the side, like William James. But none of this was to be, because of something called a shortage of funds. So I had to compromise by going to the College of the City of New York, where the tuition was free. But even after a few months there I had to face the fact that I had to quit college and go to work to support my mother as well as myself.
However, I hadn't given up the idea of being a writer. I thought the best way to be that and still earn a living was to get on a newspaper. Well, for some reason or other, none of the major New York newspapers seemed to be very eager for my services, and the only place I could find an opening was on The Wall Street Journal. So I grabbed it.
The Wall Street Journal at that time (if I seem now to speak in somewhat derogatory terms of it) was comparatively obscure, and not the great national newspaper that it is today, under the editorship of Vermont Royster. I was supposed to know something about business and finance. I knew nothing about business or finance — and, moreover, I hadn't the slightest ambition to learn. My head was in the clouds, dreaming of philosophy. Every evening — in all the time I could spare, anyway, from dancing and entering dance contests — I was secretly writing a book with the ambitious title of Thinking as a Science.
Yes, the thing was published — and it sold, too. In fact, it outsold anything I have since written except Economics in One Lesson and Will Dollars Save the World? And that reminds me of a wonderful piece of advice that was given by the celebrated editor Arthur Brisbane to a friend of mine who was in his first year in the newspaper game, when he asked the great man for some words of wisdom.
"Young man," said Arthur Brisbane, "remember one thing. Never lose your superficiality."
It was very wise advice, and every time I have forgotten it I have got into trouble.
In order to hold my job, I finally did get around to reading books on business and finance, and I began to read the standard economic textbooks of the period. Then I made the amazing discovery that economics required just as much hard thought, subtle thought, precise thought as the most abstruse problems of philosophy or psychology or physical science. A while later I stumbled upon a wonderful book in the public library. (As I say, when I look back everything important that has happened to me seems to have been accidental.) I thought it was my private discovery, and it practically was at that time. The book was titled The Common Sense of Political Economy by Philip H. Wicksteed. For the first time, the world of economics really opened up to me, and I caught my first glimpse of the fact — which Ludwig von Mises was later to make much more explicit — that the world of economics is almost coextensive with the whole world of human action and of human decision.
The Influence of Friends
I started to say how lucky I've been in my friends: but I have time to talk of only three or four of them.
The first one I want to talk about is Benjamin M. Anderson, who died in 1949. He was first the economist of the Bank of Commerce and later of the Chase National Bank. I was, at that time, in the early 1920s, financial editor of the New York Evening Mail. I used to go to see him about once a week to talk about economic developments. I read his magnificent book, The Value of Money, which is one of the classics of American economic writing and world monetary literature. Through his incisive mind, in my discussions with him, my thought was enormously stimulated.
But here comes another set of accidents. I got sort of pushed into the job as the book editor of the New York Sun. Five years later I became literary editor of The Nation, and so I spent the ten years from 1925 to 1934 writing on general literature.
In those ten years, among others whom I met was the British philosopher Bertrand Russell. I first admired him through his books, and later got to know him personally. In fact, there was a time when he and his then publisher, W. W. Norton, suggested that I do a biography of him. I spent a good deal of time with him, in New York and London, in the period of 1928–1929, until one day, while reminiscing for my benefit, he suddenly said, "You know, I have had a very interesting life; I think I'd like to do my own autobiography." And he did — 25 years later!
I come now to H.L. Mencken. I had admired and almost idolized Mencken as a writer long before I got to meet him, about 1930 or so. Three years later he astonished me by making the big mistake of his life: he asked me to succeed him as editor of The American Mercury, which for a while I did. In 1934 I got back into the economic field again. I went from my short editorship of The American Mercury to The New York Times, for which I wrote most of the financial and economic editorials for the next twelve years.
I got to know, then, first through his books and then by the great honor of meeting him personally, Ludwig von Mises. His thought has had more influence on me than the thought of any other single person in the last 25 years.
When I recall some of these great friends, when I look over this wonderful gathering and see friends who have come from abroad especially for this occasion, when I see, here and there and yonder, friends of national and international fame, when, to name only those on this dais here, I see Ludwig von Mises, William Buckley, Leonard Read, Milton Friedman, Karl Brandt, Lawrence Fertig, and Kenneth Wells, I realize how incredibly fortunate I have been in my friends.
Progress or Retrogression?
I have been, indeed, a very lucky man. But whether our generation, as such, is lucky, is another question. We live in an extraordinary age, an astonishing age by any standard. So far as any of us knows, it may even be the final age of mankind! In any case, it's very hard to say whether this is an age of unparalleled progress, or unparalleled retrogression, disintegration, and decadence. It seems to depend on where you look.
Let us look at the arts, for example. Take painting. There are probably more people painting today than ever before in the history of mankind. There is a more widespread spectator interest in painting; there is more sophisticated knowledge about it. And yet we find a complete anarchy of standards in painting. We find revolt for revolt's sake, a restless struggle for "originality" that has led to mere freakishness, to ugliness and to a pretentious unintelligibility that in most cases covers incompetence and an essential emptiness.
Much the same thing might be said about music and other arts. But each of these fields is complicated. If we take the field of architecture and engineering, for example, we are appalled by the ugly and freakish buildings that are being put up. But, on the other hand, just last week we witnessed the completion and opening of the magnificent Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
When we come to the realm of morality we find an appalling disintegration of moral values and moral standards. But I've already written a 400-page book on that — The Foundations of Morality — and won't go into it further here.
Perhaps the darkest pages in the history of our era will be in politics. We find either degenerate democracy and demagogy or dictatorship. We find a constant spread of lawlessness, a constant resort to mob action, a cancerous growth in the power of the state, a turning toward more and more socialism and regimentation, and constant threats to and restrictions of liberty.
Over everything hangs the shadow of the nuclear bomb. Nobody knows what the outcome of that will be, or whether the problem is even soluble.
But when we look at the world of science, the world of technological progress and production, the creation of the necessaries and amenities of life, the achievements of today exceed anything that mankind has ever known or dreamed of in the past. We cannot dismiss this as a merely material progress. Even "mere material progress" means an immense gain in human, cultural and spiritual values. Look what it has meant in human longevity alone! A baby boy born in ancient Rome had a life expectancy of 22 years. Born in 1900, he had a life expectancy of 47 years. Born today he has a life expectancy of 70 years. I don't think any of us can afford to be ungrateful to the present age. If it hadn't been for the enormous progress that began in the Industrial Revolution 200 years ago, I doubt whether most of us in this room would ever have been born. And, if I had been one of those lucky enough to be born, I doubt that I would today be celebrating my 70th birthday, in good health and, as I like to think, not yet senile.
Great Science, Great Scientists
Our present material progress is the result, moreover, of great triumphs of the human mind, of great triumphs in theoretical sciences, of unprecedented precision, profundity, and boldness of thinking.
This is an age not only of great science; it is an age of great scientists. I have heard it said that nine-tenths of all the scientists who ever lived are living today. I don't know whether that's true or not, but it may very well be. I know that in the field I know best and which many of you know best, the field of economics, it could be pretty safely said that of all the economists who ever lived, good or bad, nine-tenths of them are alive today.
But this brings us to our problem. Those of us who place a high value on human liberty, and who are professionally engaged in the social sciences — in economics, in politics, in jurisprudence — find ourselves in a minority (and it sometimes seems a hopeless minority) in ideology. There is a great vogue in the United States today for "liberalism." Every American leftist calls himself a liberal! The irony of the situation is that we, we in this room, are the true liberals, in the etymological and only worthy sense of that noble word. We are the true adherents of liberty. Both words — liberal and liberty — come from the same root. We are the ones who believe in limited government, in the maximization of liberty for the individual and the minimization of coercion to the lowest point compatible with law and order. It is because we are true liberals that we believe in free trade, free markets, free enterprise, private property in the means of production; in brief, that we are for capitalism and against socialism. Yet this is the philosophy, the true philosophy of progress, that is now called not only conservatism, but reaction, the radical Right, extremism, Birchism, and only Bill Buckley here knows how many other terrible things it's called.
Now this is no petty or narrow issue that ties us in this room together. For on the outcome of the struggle in which we are engaged depends the whole future of civilization. Our friend, Friedrich Hayek, in his great book, The Road to Serfdom, which was published 20 years ago, pointed out that it was not merely the views of Cobden and Bright that were being abandoned, or even of Hume and Adam Smith, or even of Locke and Milton. It was not merely the liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries that was being abandoned; it was the basic individualism that we had inherited from Christianity and the Greek and Roman world, and that was reflected in the writings of such figures as Pericles and Thucydides. This is what the world is in danger of abandoning today. Why? Why, if, as we like to think, reason is on our side? Why are we drifting deeper and deeper into socialism and the dark night of totalitarianism? Why have those of us who believe in human liberty been so ineffective?
"We Haven't Been Good Enough"
I am going to give what is no doubt a terribly oversimplified answer to that question. In the first place, we are almost hopelessly outnumbered. Our voices are simply drowned out in the general tumult and clamor. But there is another reason. And this is hard to say, above all to an audience of this sort, which contains some of the most brilliant writers and minds in the fields of economics, of jurisprudence, of politics, not only of this age but of any age. But the hard thing must be said that, collectively, we just haven't been good enough. We haven't convinced the majority. Is this because the majority just won't listen to reason? I am enough of an optimist, and I have enough faith in human nature, to believe that people will listen to reason if they are convinced that it is reason. Somewhere, there must be some missing argument, something that we haven't seen clearly enough, or said clearly enough, or, perhaps, just not said often enough.
A minority is in a very awkward position. The individuals in it can't afford to be just as good as the individuals in the majority. If they hope to convert the majority they have to be much better; and the smaller the minority, the better they have to be. They have to think better. They have to know more. They have to write better. They have to have better controversial manners. Above all, they have to have far more courage. And they have to be infinitely patient.
When I look back on my own career, I can find plenty of reasons for discouragement, personal discouragement. I have not lacked industry. I have written a dozen books. For most of 50 years, from the age of 20, I have been writing practically every weekday: news items, editorials, columns, articles. I figure I must have written in total some 10,000 editorials, articles, and columns; some 10,000,000 words! And in print! The verbal equivalent of about 150 average-length books!
And yet, what have I accomplished? I will confess in the confidence of these four walls that I have sometimes repeated myself. In fact, there may be some people unkind enough to say I haven't been saying anything new for fifty years! And in a sense they would be right. I have been preaching essentially the same thing. I've been preaching liberty as against coercion; I've been preaching capitalism as against socialism; and I've been preaching this doctrine in every form and with any excuse. And yet the world is enormously more socialized than when I began.
There is a character in Sterne or Smollett — was it Uncle Toby? Anyway, he used to get angry at politics, and every year found himself getting angrier and angrier and politics getting no better. Well, every year I find myself getting angrier and angrier and politics getting worse and worse.
But I don't know that I ought to brag about my own ineffectiveness, because I'm in very good company. Eugene Lyons has been devoting his life to writing brilliantly and persistently against Communism. He now even has the tremendous circulation of the Reader's Digest behind him. And yet, at the end of all these years that he has been writing, Communism is stronger and covers enormously more territory than when he started. And Max Eastman has been at this longer than any of the rest of us, and he's been writing a poetic and powerful prose and throwing his tremendous eloquence into the cause, and yet he's been just as ineffective as the rest of us, so far as political consequences are concerned.
Yet, in spite of this, I am hopeful. After all, I'm still in good health, I'm still free to write, I'm still free to write unpopular opinions, and I'm keeping at it. And so are many of you. So I bring you this message: Be of good heart: be of good spirit. If the battle is not yet won, it is not yet lost either.
Our Continuing Duty
I suppose most of you in this room have read that powerful book, George Orwell's 1984. On the surface it is a profoundly depressing novel, but I was surprised to find myself strangely encouraged by it. I finally decided that this encouragement arose from one of the final scenes in it. The hero, Winston Smith, is presented as a rather ordinary man, an intelligent but not a brilliant man, and certainly not a courageous one. Winston Smith has been keeping a secret diary, in which he wrote: "Freedom is the freedom to say that two and two makes four." Now this diary has been discovered by the Party. O'Brien, his inquisitor, is asking him questions. Winston Smith is strapped to a board or a wheel, in such a way that O'Brien, by merely moving a lever, can inflict any amount of excruciating pain upon him (and explains to him just how much pain he can inflict upon him and just how easy it would be to break Smith's backbone). O'Brien first inflicts a certain amount of not quite intolerable pain on Winston Smith. Then he holds up the four fingers of his left hand, and says, "How many fingers am I holding up? Winston knows that the required answer is five. That's the Party answer. But Winston can't say anything else but four. So O'Brien moves the lever again, and inflicts still more agonizing pain upon him, and says, "Think again. How many fingers am I holding up?" Winston Smith says, "Four. Four. Four fingers." Well, he finally capitulates, as you know, but not until he has put up a magnificent battle.
None of us is yet on the torture rack; we are not yet in jail; we're getting various harassments and annoyances, but what we mainly risk is merely our popularity, the danger that we will be called nasty names. So, before we are in the position of Winston Smith, we can surely have enough courage to keep saying that two plus two equals four.
This is the duty that is laid upon us. We have a duty to speak even more clearly and courageously, to work harder, and to keep fighting this battle while the strength is still in us. But I can't do better than to read the words of the great economist, the great thinker, the great writer, who honors me more than I can say by his presence here tonight, Ludwig von Mises. This is what he wrote in the final paragraph of his great book on socialism 40 years ago:
Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore, everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us.
Those words — uncannily prophetic words — were written in the early 1920s. Well, I haven't any new message, any better message than that.
Even those of us who have reached and passed our 70th birthdays cannot afford to rest on our oars and spend the rest of our lives dozing in the Florida sun. The times call for courage. The times call for hard work. But if the demands are high, it is because the stakes are even higher. They are nothing less than the future of human liberty, which means the future of civilization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
일반의 상식과 달리, 대다수의 사람들은 고통스런 경험을 겪고도 외상후 스트레스 장애 없이 그것을 이겨냈다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
상한론의 신지병 치료법
신지병의 증상으로는 번조, 불면, 건망증, 깜짝 깜짝 놀람, 헛소리, 발광, 정신 혼란 등이 있다.
神志疾病可以表现为烦躁、不得眠、喜忘、惊悸、谵语、郑声、发狂、神志不清等症状。心为十二官之主宰，神志思维活动的中枢，故《素问·灵兰秘典论》说：“心者，君主之官，神明出焉……故主明则下安，主不明则十二官危。”基于《内经》之整体观，神志活动与五脏功能密切相关，故《素问·宣明五气》篇又说：“心藏神，肺藏魄，肝藏魂，脾藏意，肾藏志，是谓五脏所藏。”是以《伤寒论》中不独心少阴经病可见神志病症，凡六经病均可导致神志病变。仲景治疗神志病的方药体现了辨证论治的原则，兹将其治法归纳为10种。
1、清宣郁热法
“发汗吐下后，虚烦不得眠，若剧者，必反复颠倒，心中懊，栀子豉汤主之”(78条)。凡邪在表宜汗，在上脘宜吐，在腹宜下。今汗吐下后，有形之邪已去，而余热未尽，留扰于胸膈，热扰心神，故心烦不得眠。若病情较重，则可出现心中烦郁更甚，莫可名状，卧起不安之“懊”现象。此皆郁热未除所致，治宜清宣。方中栀子苦寒，清热除烦；豆豉其性轻浮，功能宣透解郁，二药配伍，为清宣胸中郁热，治虚烦懊之良方。
若兼短气者，为热邪损伤中气所致，可加甘草以补中；若兼呕吐者，是胃气因热扰而上逆所致，可加生姜以和胃；若兼腹满，乃气机壅滞，可加厚朴以宽中；若兼心下痞塞，乃气滞上脘，可加枳实以行气；若兼中寒证，则加干姜，以清上温下。
2、温阳重镇法
“伤寒，脉浮，医以火迫劫之，亡阳，必惊狂，卧起不安者，桂枝去芍药加蜀漆牡蛎龙骨救逆汤主之。”(112条)伤寒脉浮，主病在表，应如法汗解。若用烧针等法强行发汗，汗出过多必亡心阳，致心神不敛；又因心胸阳气不足，水饮痰邪乘机上扰，也会使神明失守，故见惊狂、卧起不安等症。《素问·至真要大论》云“诸躁狂越，皆属于火”，《难经》亦云“重阳者狂”，这均说明躁狂证候，多因火盛而致。然而《金匮要略》载“阳气衰者为狂”，可见狂亦有阳虚所致者。本条“亡阳，必惊狂”之机理，即为阳虚而心神浮越。
治用桂枝汤去芍药之酸苦阴柔，而取桂枝、甘草相配，以复心阳；生姜、大枣补益中焦，调和营卫，且能助桂、甘以通阳气。亡心阳之证，常有浊痰凝聚，影响神明，故加蜀漆以消痰。因心神浮越较重，故用重镇之牡蛎、龙骨，潜镇心神而止惊狂。
3、活血逐瘀法
“太阳病不解，热结膀胱，其人如狂，血自下，下者愈……乃可攻之，宜桃核承气汤。”(106条)此乃太阳蓄血证之治法。太阳病不解，在表之邪热随经深入下焦，与血相结于少腹部位，形成少腹急结，神志错乱如狂者，称为蓄血证。血热结于下，故少腹急结，甚至硬痛；邪热循经上扰，心神不安，故神志错乱如狂。其证会随着人体正气之强弱、病邪之盛衰而反映出不同的情况，若血结轻浅，蓄血自下，邪热可随瘀血而去，病可痊愈，故称“血自下，下者愈”。若邪热与瘀血相结较深，血不能自下，则蓄血已成，此时非活血攻瘀不可，瘀血去，血脉流畅，则神明白安，故用桃核承气汤攻下瘀热。
又如“太阳病六七日，表证仍在，脉微而沉，反不结胸，其人发狂者，热在下焦，少腹当硬满，小便自利者，下血乃愈。所以然者，以太阳随经，瘀热在里故也，抵当汤主之”(124条)。上条之蓄血尚有自下而愈者，本条必下血乃愈，用抵当汤破血逐瘀，较上证更重一层。
4、辛寒清热法
“三阳合病，腹满身重，难以转侧，口不仁，面垢，谵语遗尿，发汗则谵语……若自汗出者，白虎汤主之。”(219条)此言三阳合病，是有三阳合病之名，而无三阳合病之实，或初为三阳病，目前已成阳明病。《灵枢·经别》云：“足阳明之正，上至髀，入于腹里，属胃，散之脾，上通于心。”阳明胃热大盛，循经上扰心宫，神明不安，则见谵语。故用石膏辛寒清热，知母苦寒而润，二药合用，可清阳明独盛之热；甘草、粳米调中，使大寒之剂不致伤胃。如此热去神清，谵语自除。
5、攻下实热法
邪传中焦，胃中热盛，影响肠腑，出现大便燥结，蒸蒸发热，或日晡潮热，腹部胀满，甚或烦躁谵语，舌苔黄燥，或灰黑起芒刺，脉实有力，此乃肠腑燥结，邪热循经上扰神明所致。法当据情分别用三承气汤苦寒攻下，以荡涤燥实，泄热和胃，使邪热从肠腑而出。如此釜底抽薪，水自不沸，烦躁谵语等症随之自除。后世温病学家更从三承气汤中化裁出增液承气、牛黄承气、新加黄龙等汤剂，寓泻于补中，更适宜于多种复杂的病情。
6、温中补虚法
“伤寒二三日，心中悸而烦者，小建中汤主之。”(102条)伤寒仅二三日，尚属新病，若未经误治即见心悸而烦者，必是里气先虚，心脾不足，气血双亏，复被邪扰所致。宜投小建中汤温养中气，中气立则邪自解。此方是桂枝汤倍芍药另加饴糖组成。饴糖合桂枝，甘温相得能温中补虚。饴糖、甘草合芍药，甘苦相须，能和里缓急。又以生姜之辛温，大枣之甘温，辛甘相合，能健脾胃而和营卫。因此本方具有温中补虚、和里缓急的作用。其治心悸而烦，是通过调营卫，和阴阳，使正气得复，气血充沛而实现的。
7、平肝镇惊法
“伤寒八九日，下之，胸满烦惊，小便不利，谵语，一身尽重，不可转侧者，柴胡加龙骨牡蛎汤主之。”(107条)本条是太阳伤寒，误用攻下，造成邪热内陷，弥漫全身，表里俱病，虚实互见的变证。邪陷少阳则见胸满。下后正气受伤，而少阳相火上炎，心神被劫，加上胃热上扰，故令心烦、惊惕、谵语。邪入少阳，枢机不利，三焦决渎失职，故小便不利。阳气内郁，不得宣通，故一身尽重，不可转侧。
柴胡加龙骨牡蛎汤，是由小柴胡汤加味而成。小柴胡汤加桂枝，可使内陷之邪从外解；加龙骨、牡蛎、铅丹，重以镇怯平肝而止烦惊；加大黄泻热和胃而止谵语；加茯苓，宁神通利小便。因邪热弥漫，故去甘草之缓，以求病邪速去，使错杂之邪，得从内外而解。少阳厥阴相表里，肝藏魂，故少阳病可致神魂病变，治少阳亦治肝也，故曰平肝镇惊。
8、温阳养血法
“伤寒，脉结代，心动悸，炙甘草汤主之。”(177条)本方证是由于阴阳不足，气血亏虚，心失所养，致脏神不宁，心脏不能依次搏动，故发心动悸，脉结代。
炙甘草汤以炙甘草为主药，补中益气，亦可“通血脉，利血气”(《本经别录》)，大枣“补少气，少津液”(《神农本草经》)，三药相合以益气血生化之源。人参气血双补，配生地、阿胶、麦冬、麻仁以滋阴养血，配桂枝、生姜可益气温阳，更以清酒和气血，通经脉。诸药合用，可使阴阳得平，气血充实，神有所主，脉复而心悸自安。
9、降火滋阴法
“少阴病，得之二三日以上，心中烦，不得卧，黄连阿胶汤主之。”(303条)少阴病，若平素肾阳不足，邪易于从阴化寒；若平素阴虚之人，则邪入少阴易从阳化热。本证心烦不得卧，无脉微、肢厥等症，乃外邪从阳化热。少阴包括手少阴心与足少阴肾。在正常情况下，心火下蛰于肾，肾水上奉于心，是为水火既济。今邪从热化，肾水无以上济于心，心火不能下蛰于肾而独亢于上，故心烦不得安眠。
治以黄连、黄芩清心降火而除烦热，阿胶、芍药滋肾养阴，鸡子黄混元一气交通心肾。如是水火既济，则心烦不得卧之症自愈。
10、急救回阳法
“下之后，复发汗，昼日烦躁不得眠，夜而安静，不呕，不渴，无表证，脉沉微，身无大热者，干姜附子汤主之。”(61条)下后复汗，致阳气大伤，阴寒内盛，阳衰心神不敛，故发烦躁。昼日阳气旺，阳虚之体，因天时阳助，并与阴争，故昼日烦躁明显。夜间阳气衰，阴气盛，以阳虚之体，无阳相助，不与阴争，则其人安静。然安静是与烦躁相对而言，实为烦躁过后，精神疲惫已极，呈似睡非睡之状，并非安静如常。因其病不属三阳，故不呕，不渴，无表证。阳气衰微，则身无大热。
本证以阳虚烦躁为主，病情发展迅速，常为虚脱之先兆，故急需投干姜附子汤以急救回阳，免生他变。本方是四逆汤去甘草而成。用辛热之姜附，以急救回阳，附子生用破阴回阳之力更强。不用甘草者，是不欲其缓，以免牵制姜附单刀直人之势。一次顿服，药力集中，收效迅速。“此法不用甘草，较四逆尤峻，取其直破阴霾，复还阳气。”(《伤寒寻源·干姜附子汤》)本法较前之温阳重镇更重一层。
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기