[司法高試파들의 자존심]
법률가들(판사 검사 변호사)이 대의를 가지면 군사정부라해도 독재가 불가능합니다. 아무리 언론이 독재자에게 장악됐어도 법률가들이 자존심을 지키면 불가능합니다. 왜냐하면 독재자가 자신에게 저항하는 사람들을 탄압하고 싶어도 법률가들이 도와주지 않으면 합법적으로 탄압 할 수 없기 때문입니다.
독재자가 자신에게 저항하는 시민을 감옥에 가두라 명령해도 수사하는 검사가 죄가 없다고 풀어주고, 설령 비겁한 검사가 기소하더라도, 대의를 가지 판사가 풀어주기 때문입니다. 근본적으로 독재자의 탄압이 불가능한 겁니다.
현재 서울지검장인 윤석렬 검사는 30중반에 고시에 합격한 것으로 압니다. 동기들보다 10년 늦게 합격했다는데, 그렇다면 그는 심신에 신고의 단련을 겪었을겁니다. 그가 그렇게 공부 할 때 자신의 20년후를 어떻게 그렸을까요.
설마 고시에 4번이나 떨어졌다고 소문난 조국이란자가 소위 민정수석이 되어 자신이 그자의 지휘감독을 받을거라고 상상이나 했겠습니까? 명색이 고시를 통과한 사람이 그런자의 눈치를 보야 할 신세가 되리라 생각했겠습니까?
윤석렬 뿐만 아니라 지금 법원과 검찰에서 활약하는 판검사들이 고시공부 할 때 자신의 10년후나 20년후를 어떻게 그렸는지 압니다. 장담컨대, 그들은 “장차 나는 불의에 협조하여 불쌍하고 억울한 사람들을 핍박하는 비겁한 인간이 되어 있을 것”이라고 생각했던 고시생은 없었을겁니다.
비록 지금은 좌빨의 개가 되어 맹렬하게 아부하는 판사나 검사들이 고시공부 할 때 “내가 10년후 좌빨의 개가 되겠다”고 공부하지 않았을겁니다. “대의를 가진 부끄럽지 않은 판사와 검사가 되겠다”는 각오로 공부했을겁니다.
그런데 수많은 법관과 검사들이 불의의 권력자인 좌빨에 유착하여 자진해서 그놈들의 개가 되어 죄없는 사람에게 누명을 만들어 씌워서 기소하고 또 다른 주구인 판사들은 좌빨의 입맛에 맞게 판결하여 죄없는 사람을 감옥에 가두는 짓을 자행합니다. 법치를 유린하여 자신이 서있는 공든탑을 무너트립니다.
大義를 가진 고시파들은 지난 2년간 좌빨의 위세에 주눅이 들어서 대의를 실형하는데 주저했습니다. 그런데 이제 그분들이 깨어나기 시작합니다. 참으로 다행입니다.
김은경 전환경부장관이 재직시에 불랙리스트를 만들었다는게 김태우 수사관의 폭로로 밝혀졌고 너무 확실한 사실이라서 文일당도 그건<체크리스트>라며 시인했습니다.
검찰이 그 사건을 수사하여 김은경에 대한 구속영장을 신청했습니다.
文의 내각중 1인을 최초로 수사하고 구속영장을 신청한 것은, 검찰이 그만큼 대의를 찾았음을 말합니다. 그들에게 권력의 눈치가 가지 않았을리 없고 그들 자신이 권력의 눈치를 아니 보았을리 없어 분명히 두가지의 눈치가 오고 갔을겁니다.
그러나 검사들은 그 압박을 극복하고 김은경의 구속영장을 신청했습니다. 그게 고시파의 자존심이고 용기입니다. 내가 어찌하여 저런 좌빨의 개가 될 수 있을소냐?하는 오기입니다. 나는 大義파 검사들의 이 칼끝이 어디까지 갈 것인지 예의주시합니다.
김경수의 항소심 재판장인 차문호 부장판사가 첫 재판에서 김경수를 꾸짖으며 아주 인상적인 한마디를 남겼습니다. [만약 피고가 전관예우인 변호인을 선임했다면 내가 그걸 이유로 이 재판을 기피했을 것이다] 이 말인즉 김경수가 나와 친하거나 인연이 있는 변호사를 선임했다면 나는 이 재판을 안했다는 말입니다. 법관을 탄핵하자고 설치는 무지막지하게 살아있는 권력을 향해 이 얼마나 결기있는 일갈입니까?
고시파들은 현직에 물러나도 생업은 어렵지 않습니다. 변호사를 개업 할 수 있는 최고의 뒷배가 있어요. 딱히 정권에 빌붙어 잠시의 영화를 얻자고 이름을 더럽힐 필요가 없어요. 검사가 많이가야 검찰총장이고 판사가 많이가야 장관입니다. 자신과 가족을 속이면서 권력에 유착하여 이름을 더럽히지 마시기 바랍니다.
고시파 법률가들에게 大義가 살아있으면 文일당의 독재를 막을 수 있으며, 이 나라를 적화로 끌고가는 文일당의 음모를 막을 수 있습니다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
김학의 동영상은 2006~2007년에 찍힌 것
박관천은 2013년에 조응천에 동영상 전달했다고 주장
조응천(박근혜랑 갈러서고, 현재 민주당)은 동영상 안받았다고 주장중
채동욱까지도 안갈듯 ㅋㅋㅋ
한줄요약 : 이번에도 팀킬해내심
[출처] 김학의 사건 대반전 ㅋㅋㅋㅋ.(feat KBS)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
출처: 네이버 댓글
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
북한이 철수한 연락 사무소에 문죄인은 왜 사람을 보낼까? 북한 정권의 광신도 문죄인.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
알베르 카뮈 --- 행복해지려면 우리는 타인에게 너무 관심을 두어서는 안 된다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
해변에 밀려온 자이언트 선피시
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
매우 불길한 징조! 임박한 '세계 경기침체'의 공포
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
편의점 도둑
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10,000 ~ 5,000년전의 온난화 기의 변화
초기 2000년 급격한 온난화
그후 4,000년 고온과 다습
나머지 6,000년 지구 냉각, 건조화
Summary: Holocene climate is characterized by two initial millennia of fast warming followed by four millennia of higher temperatures and humidity, and a progressively accelerating cooling and drying for the past six millennia. These changes are driven by variations in the obliquity of the Earth’s axis. The four millennia of warmer temperatures are called the Holocene Climatic Optimum which was 1-2°C warmer than the Little Ice Age. This climatic optimum was when global glaciers reached their minimum extent. The Mid-Holocene Transition, caused by orbital variations, brought a change in climatic mode, from solar to oceanic dominated forcing. This transition displaced the climatic equator, ended the African Humid Period and increased El Niño activity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
과학자들이 입맛에 맞는 사실만을 선택하고 정치적 대변인처럼 행동하는 게 문제이다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
현대의 지능의 해석은 가짜 패턴에 속는 사람들을 선호한다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you explicitly understand what you *really* like, you have a
yuuuge advantage in life. γνῶθι σεαυτόν
당신이 정말로 원하는 것이 무엇인지 분명히 이해하고 있다면, 당신은 인생에서 큰 이점을 누리고 있다.
---------------------------------------------------
좌파들이 이상향으로 여기는 원시사회는
가난과 결핍의 시대였다
제대로 이해한다면 시장 사회의 모든 구성원들의 이해는 조화를 이룬다.
모든 사람은 분업을 보존하려 하고 있고, 분업은 인간의 생산성을 증가시킨다.
시장 사회에서는 소비자의 수요가 궁극적으로 모든 생산 활동을 통제한다.
벤담은 “가난은 법률에 의해 초래된 것이 아니라, 인류의 원시 조건이었다.”라고 말했다.
경제적 문제와 기술적 문제를 혼동해서는 안 된다. 기술적 지식은 현재의 과학 지식으로 무엇을 성취할 수 있는지 알려줄 뿐이다. 이에 반해 경제적 고려는 무엇을, 얼마나 생산할 것인지, 그리고 어떤 기술을 사용할 것인지를 결정하는 것이다.
자본주의와 사회주의 중 하나를 선택하는 일은 사회적 협력과 사회의 붕괴, 둘 중의 하나를 선택하는 것과 같다. 사회주의는 죽음과 혼란으로 가는 길이다.
The "State of Nature" Is a State of Poverty
Ludwig von Mises
From time immemorial men have prattled about the blissful conditions their ancestors enjoyed in the original "state of nature." From old myths, fables, and poems the image of this primitive happiness passed into many popular philosophies of the 17th and 18th centuries. In their language, the term natural denoted what was good and beneficial in human affairs, while the term civilization had the connotation of opprobrium. The fall of man was seen in the deviation from the primitive conditions of ages in which there was but little difference between man and other animals. At that time, these romantic eulogists of the past asserted, there were no conflicts between men. Peace was undisturbed in the Garden of Eden.
Yet nature does not generate peace and good will. The characteristic mark of the "state of nature" is irreconcilable conflict. Each specimen is the rival of all other specimens. The means of subsistence are scarce and do not grant survival to all. The conflicts can never disappear. If a band of men, united with the object of defeating rival bands, succeeds in annihilating its foes, new antagonisms arise among the victors over the distribution of the booty. The source of the conflicts is always the fact that each man's portion curtails the portions of all other men. This is a dilemma that does not allow of any peaceful solution.
What makes friendly relations between human beings possible is the higher productivity of the division of labor. It removes the natural conflict of interests. For where there is division of labor, there is no longer a question of the distribution of a supply not capable of enlargement. Thanks to the higher productivity of labor performed under the division of tasks, the supply of goods multiplies. A preeminent common interest, the preservation and further intensification of social cooperation, becomes paramount and obliterates all essential collisions.
Catallactic competition is substituted for biological competition. It makes for harmony of the interests of all members of society. The very condition from which the irreconcilable conflicts of biological competition arise — viz., the fact that all people by and large strive after the same things — is transformed into a factor making for harmony of interests. Because many people or even all people want bread, clothes, shoes, and cars, large-scale production of these goods becomes feasible and reduces the costs of production to such an extent that they are accessible at low prices.
The fact that my fellow man wants to acquire shoes as I do, does not make it harder for me to get shoes, but easier. What enhances the price of shoes is the fact that nature does not provide a more ample supply of leather and other raw materials required, and that one must submit to the disutility of labor in order to transform these raw materials into shoes. The catallactic competition of those who, like me, are eager to have shoes makes shoes cheaper, not more expensive.
This is the meaning of the theorem of the harmony of the rightly understood interests of all members of the market society.
When the classical economists made this statement, they were trying to stress two points:
1. that everybody is interested in the preservation of the social division of labor, the system that multiplies the productivity of human efforts
2. that in the market society consumers' demand ultimately directs all production activities
The fact that not all human wants can be satisfied is not due to inappropriate social institutions or to deficiencies of the system of the market economy. It is a natural condition of human life. The belief that nature bestows upon man inexhaustible riches and that misery is an outgrowth of man's failure to organize the good society is entirely fallacious.
The "state of nature" that the reformers and utopians depicted as paradisiac was in fact a state of extreme poverty and distress.
"Poverty," says Bentham, "is not the work of the laws, it is the primitive condition of the human race."
Even those at the base of the social pyramid are much better off than they would have been in the absence of social cooperation. They too are benefited by the operation of the market economy and participate in the advantages of civilized society.
The 19th-century reformers did not drop the cherished fable of the original earthly paradise. Frederick Engels incorporated it in the Marxian account of mankind's social evolution. However, they no longer set up the bliss of the aurea aetas(golden age) as a pattern for social and economic reconstruction. They contrast the alleged depravity of capitalism with the ideal happiness man will enjoy in the socialist Elysium of the future. The socialist mode of production will abolish the fetters by means of which capitalism checks the development of the productive forces, and will increase the productivity of labor and wealth beyond all measure. The preservation of free enterprise and the private ownership of the means of production benefits exclusively the small minority of parasitic exploiters and harms the immense majority of working men. Hence there prevails within the frame of the market society an irreconcilable conflict between the interests of "capital" and those of "labor." This class struggle can disappear only when a fair system of social organization — either socialism or interventionism — is substituted for the manifestly unfair capitalist mode of production.
Such is the almost universally accepted social philosophy of our age. It was not created by Marx, although it owes its popularity mainly to the writings of Marx and the Marxians. It is today endorsed not only by the Marxians, but no less by most of those parties who emphatically declare their anti-Marxism, and pay lip service to free enterprise. It is the official social philosophy of Roman Catholicism as well as of Anglo-Catholicism; it is supported by many eminent champions of the various Protestant denominations and of the Orthodox Oriental Church. It is an essential part of the teachings of Italian Fascism and of German Nazism and of all varieties of interventionist doctrines. It was the ideology of the Sozialpolitik of the Hohenzollerns in Germany and the French royalists aiming at the restoration of the house of Bourbon-Orléans, of the New Deal of President Roosevelt, and of the nationalists of Asia and Latin America. The antagonisms between these parties and factions refer to accidental issues — such as religious dogma, constitutional institutions, foreign policy — and, first of all, to the characteristic features of the social system that is to be substituted for capitalism. But they all agree in the fundamental thesis that the very existence of the capitalist system harms the vital interests of the immense majority of workers, artisans, and small farmers, and they all ask in the name of social justice for the abolition of capitalism.
"The belief that nature bestows upon man inexhaustible riches and that misery is an outgrowth of man's failure to organize the good society is entirely fallacious."
All socialist and interventionist authors and politicians base their analysis and critique of the market economy on two fundamental errors. First, they fail to recognize the speculative character inherent in all endeavors to provide for future want satisfaction, i.e., in all human action. They naively assume that there cannot exist any doubt about the measures to be applied for the best possible provisioning of the consumers. In a socialist commonwealth there will be no need for the production tsar (or the central board of production management) to speculate. He will "simply" have to resort to those measures which are beneficial to his wards.
The advocates of a planned economy have never conceived that the task is to provide for future wants that may differ from today's wants and to employ the various available factors of production in the most expedient way for the best possible satisfaction of these uncertain future wants. They have not conceived that the problem is to allocate scarce factors of production to the various branches of production in such a way that no wants considered more urgent should remain unsatisfied because the factors of production required for their satisfaction were employed, i.e., wasted, for the satisfaction of wants considered less urgent.
This economic problem must not be confused with the technological problem. Technological knowledge can merely tell us what could be achieved under the present state of our scientific insight. It does not answer the questions as to what should be produced and in what quantities, and which of the multitude of technological processes available should be chosen. Deluded by their failure to grasp this essential matter, the advocates of a planned society believe that the production tsar will never err in his decisions.
In the market economy the entrepreneurs and capitalists cannot avoid committing serious blunders because they know neither what the consumers want nor what their competitors are doing. The general manager of a socialist state will be infallible because he alone will have the power to determine what should be produced and how, and because no action of other people will cross his plans.
The second fundamental error involved in the socialists' critique of the market economy stems from their faulty theory of wages. They have failed to realize that wages are the price paid for the wage earner's achievement, i.e., for the contribution of his efforts to the processing of the good concerned or, as people say, for the value his services add to the value of the materials. No matter whether there are time wages or piece work wages, the employer always buys the worker's performance and services, not his time.
It is therefore not true that in the unhampered market economy the worker has no personal interest in the execution of his task. The socialists are badly mistaken in asserting that those paid a certain rate per hour, per day, per week, per month, or per year are not impelled by their own selfish interests when they work efficiently. It is not lofty ideals and the sense of duty that deter a worker paid according to the length of time worked from carelessness and loafing around the shop, but very substantial arguments. He who works more and better gets higher pay, and he who wants to earn more must increase the quantity and improve the quality of his performance.
The hard-boiled employers are not so gullible as to let themselves be cheated by slothful employees; they are not so negligent as those governments who pay salaries to hosts of loafing bureaucrats. Neither are the wage earners so stupid as not to know that laziness and inefficiency are heavily penalized on the labor market.
On the shaky ground of their misconception of the catallactic nature of wages, the socialist authors have advanced fantastic fables about the increase in the productivity of labor to be expected from the realization of their plans. Under capitalism, they say, the worker's zeal is seriously impaired because he is aware of the fact that he himself does not reap the fruits of his labor and that his toil and trouble enrich merely his employer, this parasitic and idle exploiter. But under socialism every worker will know that he works for the benefit of society, of which he himself is a part. This knowledge will provide him with the most powerful incentive to do his best. An enormous increase in the productivity of labor and thereby in wealth will result.
However, the identification of the interests of each worker and those of the socialist commonwealth is a purely legalistic and formalistic fiction that has nothing to do with the real state of affairs. While the sacrifices an individual worker makes in intensifying his own exertion burden him alone, only an infinitesimal fraction of the produce of his additional exertion benefits himself and improves his own wellbeing. While the individual worker enjoys completely the pleasures he may reap by yielding to the temptation to carelessness and laziness, the resulting impairment of the social dividend curtails his own share only infinitesimally.
Under such a socialist mode of production all personal incentives that selfishness provides under capitalism are removed, and a premium is put upon laziness and negligence. Whereas in a capitalist society selfishness incites everyone to the utmost diligence, in a socialist society it makes for inertia and laxity. The socialists may still babble about the miraculous change in human nature that the advent of socialism will effect, and about the substitution of lofty altruism for mean egotism. But they must no longer indulge in fables about the marvelous effects the selfishness of each individual will bring about under socialism.
"The 'state of nature' that the reformers and utopians depicted as paradisiac was in fact a state of extreme poverty and distress."
No judicious man can fail to conclude from the evidence of these considerations that in the market economy the productivity of labor is incomparably higher than it would be under socialism. However, this cognition does not settle the question between the advocates of capitalism and those of socialism from a praxeological, i.e., scientific, point of view.
A bona fide advocate of socialism who is free from bigotry, prepossession, and malice could still contend, "It may be true that P, the total net income turned out in a market society, is larger than p, the total net income turned out in a socialist society. But if the socialist system assigns to each of its members an equal share of p (viz., p/z = d), all those whose income in the market society is smaller than d are favored by the substitution of socialism for capitalism. It may happen that this group of people includes the majority of men. At any rate it becomes evident that the doctrine of the harmony between the rightly understood interests of all members of the market society is untenable. There is a class of men whose interests are hurt by the very existence of the market economy and who would be better off under socialism."
The liberals contest the conclusiveness of this reasoning. They believe that p will lag so much behind P that d will be smaller than the income that even those earning the lowest wages get in the market society. There can be no doubt that the objection raised by the liberals is well-founded. However, their refutation of the socialist claims is not based on praxeological considerations and therefore lacks the apodictic and incontestable argumentative power inherent in a praxeological demonstration. It is based on a judgment of relevance, the quantitative appraisal of the difference between the two magnitudes P and p. In the field of human action such quantitative cognition is obtained by understanding, with regard to which full agreement between men cannot be reached. Praxeology, economics, and catallactics are of no use for the settlement of such dissensions concerning quantitative issues.
The advocates of socialism could even go further and say, "Granted that each individual will be worse off under socialism than even the poorest under capitalism. Yet we spurn the market economy in spite of the fact that it supplies everybody with more goods than socialism. We disapprove of capitalism on ethical grounds as an unfair and amoral system. We prefer socialism on grounds commonly called noneconomic and put up with the fact that it impairs everybody's material well-being."
It cannot be denied that this haughty indifference with regard to material well-being is a privilege reserved to ivory-tower intellectuals, secluded from reality, and to ascetic anchorites. What made socialism popular with the immense majority of its supporters was, on the contrary, the illusion that it would supply them with more amenities than capitalism. But however this may be, it is obvious that this type of prosocialist argumentation cannot be touched by the liberal reasoning concerning the productivity of labor.
"Whereas in a capitalist society selfishness incites everyone to the utmost diligence, in a socialist society it makes for inertia and laxity."
If no other objections could be raised to the socialist plans than that socialism will lower the standard of living of all or at least of the immense majority, it would be impossible for praxeology to pronounce a final judgment. Men would have to decide the issue between capitalism and socialism on the ground of judgments of value and of judgments of relevance. They would have to choose between the two systems as they choose between many other things. No objective standard could be discovered that would make it possible to settle the dispute in a manner that allows no contradiction and must be accepted by every sane individual. The freedom of each man's choice and discretion would not be annihilated by inexorable necessity.
However, the true state of affairs is entirely different. Man is not in a position to choose between these two systems. Human cooperation under the system of the social division of labor is possible only in the market economy. Socialism is not a realizable system of society's economic organization because it lacks any method of economic calculation. …
The establishment of this truth does not amount to a depreciation of the conclusiveness and the convincing power of the antisocialist argument derived from the impairment of productivity to be expected from socialism. The weight of this objection raised to the socialist plans is so overwhelming that no judicious man could hesitate to choose capitalism. Yet this would still be a choice between alternative systems of society's economic organization, preference given to one system as against another.
However, such is not the alternative. Socialism cannot be realized because it is beyond human power to establish it as a social system. The choice is between capitalism and chaos.
A man who chooses between drinking a glass of milk and a glass of a solution of potassium cyanide does not choose between two beverages; he chooses between life and death. A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society.
Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings. To stress this point is the task of economics as it is the task of biology and chemistry to teach that potassium cyanide is not a nutriment but a deadly poison.
This article is excerpted from chapter 24 of Human Action under the subtitled "The Harmony of the 'Rightly Understood' Interests."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
치자후박탕 임상 경험
치자, 후박, 지실 3가지 약재로 구성된 간단한 약이지만, 간단히 보아서는 안 되는 치자후박탕의 다양한 효능
栀子厚朴汤证:
古代的理气除烦方，适用于以烦热，胸闷、腹胀为特征的疾病。
【经典配方】栀子十四枝，厚朴四两，枳实四枚。上三味，以水三升半，煮取一升半，去滓，分二服。温进一服，得吐者，止后服。（《伤寒论》）
【常用剂量】山栀子15g，川朴l5g，枳壳15。
【煎服法】以水100Oml，煮沸后调文火再煎煮40分钟，取汤液300ml，分2～3次温服。
【经典方证】心烦、腹满、卧起不安者。（79）
【适用疾病】急性食道黏膜损伤、食道炎、急慢性胃炎、慢性支气管炎、支气管哮喘、焦虑症、抑郁症、神经症、睡眠障碍、精神分裂症、老年性痴呆、更年期综合征、胆囊炎、胆道感染、急性肝炎、慢性肝炎急性发作、鼻出血、舌痛、多汗症、麻疹、妊娠期肝内胆汁淤积症、新生儿黄疸、小儿肺炎、小儿支气管炎、小儿哮喘、小儿厌食等。
【加减法】食道炎、胃炎、慢性支气管炎、支气管哮喘见胸闷气喘，但痰不多，或腹胀、腹痛、大便不畅，发作时患者常常焦躁不安，舌红唇红、咽喉充血者，合半夏厚朴汤，或合大柴胡汤；焦虑、睡眠障碍、心境障碍为特征的疾病，如焦虑症、抑郁症、神经衰弱、精神分裂症、老年性痴呆、更年期综合征等，合半夏厚朴汤，或合温胆汤，或合黄连解毒汤；以黄疸为特征的疾病，如胆囊炎、胆道感染、急性肝炎、慢性肝炎急性发作、妊娠期肝内胆汁淤积症、新生儿黄疸等，合茵陈蒿汤。
【药理研究】具有镇静、利胆、抗菌等作用。
【注意事项】山栀子久服易导致眼圈发黑或面色发青，停服后可以消退。有报道称，中药栀子内服出现荨麻疹或粟粒样丘疹的过敏反应。
梔子厚朴湯：
梔子十四個，擘 厚朴四兩，炙，去皮 枳實四枚，水浸，炙令黃 上三味，以水三升半，煮取一升半，去滓。分二服，溫進一服。得吐者，止後服。
梔子厚朴湯是一張小方，小得很不起眼，也沒有大多少人重視。我對此方卻情有獨衷。《傷寒論》說“傷寒下後，心煩腹滿，卧起不安者，梔子厚朴湯主之。”此方雖小，主治卻很明了。梔子除心煩，厚朴消胸腹脹滿，枳實除心下痞悶。此方與小承氣湯僅一味之差，雖都治腹滿，然小承氣湯所治偏下，本方所主則病位偏上。“卧起不安”點出了病情的嚴重程度，也暗含了失眠之義。臨床上遇到神經官能症、焦慮症、失眠症，我常以此方配合半夏厚朴湯或四逆散治之，往往腹脹消除，睡眠改善，則患者的精神狀態随之好轉。
本方的運用除了抓主證外，舌象也是重要的參考。臨床所見其舌象多爲舌質紅而舌苔粘膩較厚。《傷寒論》2２1條提及“舌上苔”，厚朴所主，舌苔也多厚膩。另外，梔子、黃連、連翹均可治煩，但煩的性質和部位都不同。黃連之煩是煩悸，梔子之煩是煩悶、連翹之煩是煩而汗；黃連煩悸而心下痞，梔子煩悶而胸中窒，連翹煩汗而咽中痛，此爲鑑别要點。但臨床煩熱而胸中窒者，多易患咽痛、目赤、鼻衄、小便短赤澀痛、舌紅等證，因此三者又常常合用。
一、烦满（神经宫能症）
刘渡舟医案，曹某某，女，72岁，l995年10月26日初诊，心烦持续2年，近有逐渐加重之势。西医诊断为神经官能症，给服镇静安神药，末见好转，转请中医治疗。刻下心烦，苦不堪言，家人体恤其情，谨慎扶持，亦不能称其心，反遭斥呵。烦躁不宁，焦虑不安，烦急时欲用棍棒捶打胸腹方略觉舒畅。脐部筑动上冲于心．筑则心烦愈重，并有皖腹胀满如物阻塞之感。伴失眠，惊惕不安，呕恶纳呆，大便不调，溺黄。舌尖红，苔腻，脉弦滑。辨证：火郁胸膈，下迫胃肠。立法：宣郁清热，下气除满。处方：
栀子14克，枳实10克，厚朴15克。
7剂药后，心烦减半，心胸霍然畅通，性情渐趋平稳安静，夜能寐，食渐增，获此殊效，病家称奇，又自进7剂。复诊时仍有睡眠多梦，口舌干燥，口苦太息，小便黄赤等热末全解之症。转方用柴芩温胆汤合栀子厚朴场，清化痰热，治疗月余而病除。
（《刘渡舟临证验案精选》1996：47）
按语：本案以心烦懊依，脘腹胀满为主要表现，为热郁胸膈，下及脘腹。虽腹满，但无疼痛拒按，大便不通等实证，犹为无形邪热之郁结，非阳明可下之证。故治以栀子厚朴汤清热除烦，宽中消满。
二、狂证（精神分裂症）
萧美珍医案：萧某，男，17岁，1987年3月19日初诊。思者于1983年因受刺激致精神失常，狂言奔走。1986年病情加重，某精相病院诊为“精神分裂症”，经用镇静剂等治疗可暂时缓解，近1月又因情志不遂而复发。现脘腹痞满，卧起不安，甚则彻夜不眠，稍不遂愿即怒不可遏，詈骂不休，心烦口渴溲黄便干，舌质红、苔黄，脉滑数。辨为热郁胸膈，痰蒙心窍，腑气不通，神明逆乱。治以清热除烦镇心涤痰。方药：
栀子20克，枳实12克，厚朴15克，生铁落30克（先煎）。日1剂，水煎早晚顿服。
3剂后便泻如风泡，日3—5次，臭秽异常，狂躁遂减，诊其舌质红，苔薄黄，脉弦数。效不更方，仍宗上方加麦冬15克养心安神继进7剂。药后精神状态明显好转，安然入睡，仍心烦、寐差、腹满脉舌同前，以上方稍事出入，继进20剂，诸症若失，病告痊愈。十年后信访未复发，现在某院校读书，成绩优良。（湖南中医学院学报1989）
三、郁证（挠病）
萧美珍医案：任某，女，26岁，1982年4月5日初诊。2年前因情志不遂致精神失常。发病前先觉胸中烦乱异常，脘腹胀满，坐卧不安，时常悲伤啼哭不能自控，继而两目不睁，呼之不应，移时症消如常人。一周或半月发作1次，通精神刺激则发作更趋频繁。某医院诊为“癔病”，经暗示治疗稍有好转。近月来诸症加重，精神恍惚，终日烦闷不安，哭笑无常，口渴纳差腹满，尿黄便于。经色黑量少，经期正常。舌质红、苔黄，脉弦数。诊为郁证，证属肝郁化火，上忧心神。方药：
山栀15克，厚朴12克，炒枳实10克，日1剂，水煎服。
剂后自感腹内舒适，情志舒畅，食欲增进，舌红、苔黄，脉数。继以上方合甘麦大枣汤，进20剂后，症消病除，追访已结婚生子，至今末复发。（湖南中医学院学报1989）
四、黄疸（传染性肝炎）
萧美珍医案：李某，男，27岁，1986年2月27日初诊。近1月来院腹胀满，右胁下隐痛，心烦失眠，卧起不安，经常自服安眠药才能入睡。一星期前恶心呕吐，口苦口渴，厌油腻，小便短黄，大便秘结。昨在某医院肝功能检查异常，诊为“急性黄疸肝炎”，查眼白睛及全身皮肤轻度黄染，舌质红，苔黄腻，脉滑数。诊为黄疸阳黄，湿
热熏蒸，热重于湿。治宜清热利湿除烦，行气宽中消满。方药：
生山栀15克，枳实10克，厚朴l0克，茵陈蒿30克。水煎，日服1剂。
服药7剂后，口苦及腹满减轻，纳可，心情舒畅，安卧如常。继以原方及甘露消毒丹加减交替服用2月余而愈。一年后迫访，曾在某医院多次复查肝功能正常，至今体健。
（湖南中医学院学报1989；＜2）：95）
按语：以，亡三案均为胸脯之热证，皆有心烦腹满，卧起不安等见证，乃热邪扰于胸膈，下及脘腹所致，施以栀子豉汤为主方，随证加减治疗获效。足见仲景之方，药少而精，灵活化裁，可治百病。
旋覆代赭汤合栀子厚朴汤治疗失眠验案作者：魏风人2013
王某，女，42岁，运城某院手术室麻醉师。失眠半月余，每天需服强力安眠剂方可睡4、5个小时，伴腹胀，嗳气，心烦，大便不利。观其舌红，苔薄白而干，按其脉寸关弦大而尺脉弱小。
证属胃气上逆，热扰胸膈。
处方：
代赭石6克 旋覆花15克 法半夏30克
生苡仁30克 焦栀子10克 川朴10克
知母20克生 甘草4克
三剂，水煎服，每日一剂。
二诊：服药三剂，未服安眠药，睡眠特好（未服安眠药），余症均除，脉象平和，遂停药。
按：《伤寒论》第161条云：“伤寒发汗,若吐,若下,解后,心下痞硬,噫气不除者,旋覆代赭汤主之”。第79条云：“伤寒下后,心烦腹满,卧起不安者,栀子厚朴汤主之”。
患者心烦、失眠为热扰胸膈，心神不宁；腹胀为气机不畅。《内经》云：胃不和则臥不安。患者嗳气、腹胀，乃胃气上逆之的候，故以旋覆代赭汤合栀子厚朴汤加减治之。
方中栀子清心中郁热，厚朴消腹中胀满。旋覆花、代赭石镇逆气之上冲；半夏降逆和胃，伍苡仁乃治失眠之佳配。知母秉秋金之气，清润而降泄，故药后诸症皆愈。
栀子厚朴汤治胃胀
2014年3月8号，邓某，男，40岁。患者近来喝酒多，致胃胀不想吃饭6天。
患者大小便正常，不害怕食凉性食品，还喜欢吃凉性食品如苹果香蕉等，食后感觉还挺舒服，患者说心不烦，口干。
把脉左手弦细，右手弱，舌润不燥。
处方：栀子9克厚朴6克枳实6克。两副胃胀愈。
经文：伤寒下后，心烦腹满，卧起不安者，栀子厚朴汤主之。
复诊时患者说药不是那么苦的难喝。
栀子厚朴汤合方治顽固性便秘
来自苏州的Z姑娘昨天来复诊了，这次的脸色红润，明亮的眼睛洋溢着喜悦。她兴奋地告诉我，服药以后每天能正常排便了！
她便秘多年，这一年来更加严重，必须服用大量泻药。经常腹胀、反流，而且，每夜尿意频急，严重影响睡眠。她为此辞去了工作。4月中旬来诊时，眼圈发黑，情绪低落。我先服用柴胡加龙骨牡蛎汤合栀子厚朴汤加连翘麻黄，无效；用大柴胡汤合栀子厚朴汤，依然无效；5月中旬三诊，我仍然用柴胡加龙骨牡蛎汤和栀子厚朴汤，不过服法变化，采用临睡前服用栀子厚朴汤加连翘：栀子20克、厚朴20克、枳壳20克、连翘60克。起床后服用柴胡加龙骨牡蛎汤：柴胡15克、黄芩5克、姜半夏15克、党参10克、桂枝12克、茯苓15克、制大黄10克、龙骨15克、牡蛎15克、干姜10克、红枣20克。以上两方每剂药均分两天服用。
柴胡加龙骨牡蛎汤也是治疗便秘的好方，但必须有神情抑郁以及失眠者，其人多表情淡漠。方中大黄柴胡，能推陈致新（《本经》），都有通便功效。这里要重点说一下栀子厚朴汤。
栀子厚朴汤见于《伤寒论》，治疗“伤寒下后，心烦腹满，卧起不安者”。心烦，是焦虑，是抑郁，就是睡眠障碍；腹满，是腹胀，是多气，是不欲食或食之无味，是便秘或欲便不能。卧起不安，是提示心烦腹满的程度。栀子厚朴汤能抗焦虑，除胀满，能助眠。当年读叶天士《临证指南医案》，见其用栀子豆豉等治疗便秘，一直不得其解，后来临床一多，发现许多便秘患者多有心烦胸闷失眠等，而此正是栀子证的“心中懊”“胸中窒”，而随着睡眠状况的好转，大便也随之而畅。连翘功效与栀子相近。《本经》说主“结热”，《药性论》说“除心家客热”。温病家治疗温邪入里，发热神昏，用连翘配犀角等，方如《温病条辨》清宫汤。连翘是疮家圣药，古代疡医将连翘治疗疮家睡卧不宁，方如《证治准绳》清心汤。我用连翘配栀子厚朴汤，除烦更胜原方，大剂量使用还能通便。
两方分服也是本案例的亮点。晚服栀子厚朴汤，早服柴胡加龙骨牡蛎汤的试用，基于两点考虑。一是古方加味合方应慎重，按原方煎煮是否更有效？二是栀子厚朴汤除烦，是否夜服利于睡眠？柴胡加龙骨牡蛎汤解郁，是否晨服可让白天神清气爽？效果还不错，Z姑娘服药后夜尿次数顿减，睡眠一好，白天情绪自然愉悦，气机畅达，大便自然顺解。
【黄煌教授医话：大柴胡汤合栀子厚朴汤治疗老年肺部感染】
美国回来后的第二天早上，我与老家堂姐通话，询问2月前股骨颈骨折的伯母的病情。堂姐高兴地告诉我：老人已经可以下床，扶住藤椅走路了。
伯母今年已经95岁的高龄了，瘦瘦的，但没有大病，只是有便秘和舌痛，按我的建议，已经服用三黄片多年。她记忆力好，三字经还能大段背诵，奥运会之际还写诗。不幸5月底不慎倒地骨折，拍片提示股骨颈骨折，也没有住院，就在家躺着。6月中旬的一天早晨，堂哥打电话来，告诉我老人发高烧，神智也不是太清醒。问我如何办是好？当时，我考虑老人肺部感染，一般应该住院，但老人骨折搬动又不便，便决定暂不住院，服用中药：柴胡30克、黄芩10克、姜半夏15克、枳壳30克、白芍20克、制大黄10克、厚朴15克、栀子15克、连翘60克、干姜3克、红枣15克。嘱取两剂，每剂煎取600毫升，一天内分3-4次服用。
翌日早晨，堂哥来电话说，服药以后，夜半大汗，体温已经下降，尚有几分低烧，稍有咳嗽，但痰不多。嘱继续服用原方，此后，连续三天，体温接近正常，而且，大便通畅，神智清楚，食欲恢复。端午节，我专程去老家看望老人。她已能坐在藤椅，精神很好，午饭还吃了好几块红烧肉。
用大柴胡汤合栀子厚朴汤治疗老年肺部感染，是我这几年积累的经验。张仲景本用大柴胡汤治疗“按之心下满痛”的宿食病，也治疗“伤寒十余日，热结在里，复往来寒热者”以及“ 呕不止，心下急，郁郁微烦者”。栀子厚朴汤治疗“心烦腹满，卧起不安”者。“按之心下满痛”，是指医生用手按压上腹部以及两肋下有明显的抵抗感，患者常有胀满感及疼痛感。这一指证不仅在胆囊胰腺以及上消化道疾病中可见，而且，呼吸道疾病也常见，特别是肺部感染以及支气管哮喘。此外，两肋下硬满，按之有明显的抵抗感。“郁郁微烦”“心烦”“卧起不安”是精神症状，许多肺部感染患者多有烦躁、谵妄、意识模糊等。“往来寒热”是发热持续。据此，大柴胡汤和栀子厚朴汤用于肺部感染也有经典的依据。
临床发现，许多肺部感染患者，大多伴有胃反流，特别是老年人和昏迷患者，反流常常导致吸入性肺炎，从而导致肺部感染反复难愈。而大柴胡汤是传统的反流抑制剂，所谓的通里攻下，就是这个意思。据我经验，大柴胡汤对反流性胃炎、胰腺炎、胆石症、便秘等均有很好的疗效，所以，对老年人来说，控制上消化道的反流，有利于控制肺部感染。当然，也不能将大柴胡汤的抑制反流视为治疗肺部感染的机理。大柴胡汤中的柴胡、黄芩，有良好的退热抗炎作用，也不能忽略。栀子除烦，特别对胸中窒闷者最有效果。配合大黄、黄芩，可以清解胸膈中的郁热，是我治疗老年肺部感染的常用合方。为何加连翘？连翘也是清热除烦的要药，温病家擅用，治疗热在胸膈，烦热有汗者。据我经验，连翘用于肺部感染发热，量要大，大量连翘与大量柴胡配伍，退热迅速，但大多伴有发汗。
栀子厚朴汤的功效。
身体是革命的本钱，所以当我们出现各种各样的问题的时候一定要引起重视，不要等到这种疾病越来越严重了才开始着急，在平时生活中就应该注重自己的养生保健，多吃这些养生保健的食物。
栀子厚朴汤见于《伤寒论》，治疗“伤寒下后，心烦腹满，卧起不安者”。心烦，是焦虑，是抑郁，就是睡眠障碍;腹满，是腹胀，是多气，是不欲食或食之无味，是便秘或欲便不能。卧起不安，是提示心烦腹满的程度。栀子厚朴汤能抗焦虑，除胀满，能助眠。
当年读叶天士《临证指南医案》，见其用栀子豆豉等治疗便秘，一直不得其解，后来临床一多，发现许多便秘患者多有心烦胸闷失眠等，而此正是栀子证的“心中懊”“胸中窒”，而随着睡眠状况的好转，大便也随之而畅。连翘功效与栀子相近。
《本经》说主“结热”，《药性论》说“除心家客热”。温病家治疗温邪入里，发热神昏，用连翘配犀角等，方如《温病条辨》清宫汤。
连翘是疮家圣药，古代疡医将连翘治疗疮家睡卧不宁，方如《证治准绳》清心汤。
我用连翘配栀子厚朴汤，除烦更胜原方，大剂量食用还能通便。 两方分服也是本案例的亮点。晚服栀子厚朴汤，早服柴胡加龙骨牡蛎汤的试用，基于两点考虑。一是古方加味合方应慎重，按原方煎煮是否更有效? 二是栀子厚朴汤除烦，是否夜服利于睡眠?柴胡加龙骨牡蛎汤解郁，是否晨服可让白天神清气爽?效果还不错，Z姑娘服药后夜尿次数顿减，睡眠一好，白天情绪自然愉悦，气机畅达，大便自然顺解。
栀子厚朴汤，可以帮助减缓自己的压力，对于经常失眠的人来说它还可以起到助眠的作用，所以当我们身边的时候，不要总想到吃各种各样的失眠药物，因为那样更会容易引起副作用而是通过这种食疗的方法，才是更健康科学的。
----------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기