목이 잠긴 황교안 대표의 눈물겨운 호소
"저희들과 함께 싸워주시겠습니까"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
공포특급] 사라진 빨갱이들을 찾습니다 - 썰방 [RETURNS] 하이라이트 2019-05-03
안정권
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
북한의 김 돼지 가족은 권력을 유지하기 위해 북한 주민을 굶주리도록 해야 한다. 그들은 주민들의 번영을 원치 않는다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
중국의 청년들이 막시즘을 이용해 공산당에 반기를 들다
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
시진핑이 5.4 운동 100주년을 기념하면서, 애국만 말하고 전제군주 반대에 대해서는 언급하지 않았다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
아이스크림을 처음으로 맛본 스탕달: 너무나 맛있다! 이것이 금지되지 않았다니!
마크 트웨인: 금지될수록 그것은 더욱더 인기를 끈다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
경제위기로
돈이 없어서 가족들이 동반자살 엄청 하고 있음.....
근데 아주 작게 기사만 나오고
조용히 들어감
대부분 자영업자 폐업러쉬와
30~40대 제조업 폐업으로 인한 경제위기로 선택한 자살임
소득주도라고 서민을 살린다더니
서민을 죽음으로 몰고가는 정책을 밀고나감
한번쯤 특집이나 다큐로 달아볼법도 한 뉴스인데
진짜 조용하고 잠잠히 넘어감
어찌보면 정말 무섭다
경제위기로
돈이 없어서 가족들이 동반자살 엄청 하고 있음.....
근데 아주 작게 기사만 나오고
조용히 들어감
대부분 자영업자 폐업러쉬와
30~40대 제조업 폐업으로 인한 경제위기로 선택한 자살임
소득주도라고 서민을 살린다더니
서민을 죽음으로 몰고가는 정책을 밀고나감
한번쯤 특집이나 다큐로 달아볼법도 한 뉴스인데
진짜 조용하고 잠잠히 넘어감
어찌보면 정말 무섭다
[출처] 요새 공중파에서 존나게 잠잠한 뉴스......
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seriously cheesed off not to have been invited to this. I mean, really:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The tragedy of Venezuela: first the catastrophe of Chavez's
socialism, and then the failure of the US to give effective
backing to the democratic restoration that Venezuelans
crave.
미국은 과거 실패한 개입에 겁을 먹고 그동안 베네수엘라 사태를 방관했다.
하지만 보스니아와 코소보의 인종청소를 종결시키고, 1989년 파나마 독재자를 축출하는 등 미국의 개입으로 개선된 사례도 적지 않다.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
국가주의, 사회주의, 혁명
막스는 사회주의의 도래는 필연적이고, 물질적 생산력이 가능한 모든 것을 성취했을 때에 도래한다고 했지만, 한편으론 혁명을 해야 한다고 주장했다. 소렐은 혁명과 사회주의의 필연성 사이에는 모순이 존재한다는 것을 알았다.
소렐은 혁명을 통해 신디컬리즘Syndicalism(조합주의)을 성취해야 한다고 믿었다.
프랑스 신디컬리즘은 레닌, 무솔리니, 히틀러 등에게 영향을 끼쳤고, 그들은 소렐의 행동의 사상, 살육의 사상에 영향을 받았다. 막스의 사상에 무엇인가를 공헌한 유일한 사람은 바로 소렐이다.
막스는 민족국가의 원칙을 완전히 무시했다. 민족국가의 원칙에 따르면, 각각의 언어 집단은 독립적인 국가를 설립해야 한다는 것이다.
막스가 국가 사회주의의 선구자라고 주장하는 사람도 있지만, 그것은 틀리다. 막스는 하나의 정부로 통합된 세계를 원했다.
막스는 사람들의 차이는 교육 때문이라고 믿었다. 따라서 멍청이와 단테가 같은 교육을 받았다면, 그들 사이의 차이는 없게 된다. 막스의 추종자들 역시 막스의 이런 생각을 이어 받았다.
막스는 뚜렷한 근거도 없이 우리가 국제주의 시대에 살고 있으며, 모든 국가적 특성이 사라질 거라고 가정했다. 또 국가 간의 모든 분쟁은 부르주아의 간계에 의해 발생한다고 해석했다.
막스는 국가 간의 전쟁은 무의미한 것이라고 말했지만, 내전, 즉 혁명은 필요하다고 말했다.
윌슨은 민주국가들은 전쟁을 원하지 않는다는 맨체스터 자유주의자들의 선언을 수용했다. 하지만 경제 정책에서 개입주의가 나타나면서, 맨체스터 선언이 실현될 가능성이 사라졌다는 사실을 그는 알지 못했다.
1830년대에 사회주의는 공산주의와 동일한 의미로 쓰였지만, 후에 공산주의가 망각되고 사회주의가 독점적으로 쓰였다.
Nationalism, Socialism, and Violent Revolution
Ludwig von Mises
Marxian doctrine doesn’t deny the possibility of absolute truth, but it maintains that absolute truth can be attained only in the classless society. Or in the proletarian class society.
Lenin’s main book, or at least his most voluminous book (now available in the Collected Works of Lenin), led some people to call him a philosopher. Most of Lenin’s critique of the ideas of his adversaries consists of calling them “bourgeois.” Lenin’s philosophy is merely a restatement of the philosophical ideas of Marx; to some extent it is not even up to the level of other Russian writers on Marxism.
Marxist theory or philosophy had no development in countries where there were Communist parties. Persons whom we call Marxians consider themselves merely interpreters of Marx; they never tried to change anything in Marx. However, there are contradictions in Marx. So it is possible to quote passages from his writings from all points of view. The influence of Marx on all authors and writers who have lived since Marx died has been considerable, even though it is not usually admitted that these authors were influenced by Marx.
Although Marxians considered themselves solely interpreters of Marx, one Marxian, one writer, added something and had a strong influence, not only on the small group of his followers, but also on other authors. Georges Sorel [1847–1922]—not to be confused with Albert Sorel [1842–1906]—an important historian, developed a philosophy in many respects different from the Marxian philosophy. And it influenced political action and philosophic thinking. Sorel was a timid bourgeois intellectual, an engineer. He retired to discuss these things with his friends at a bookshop owned by Charles Péguy [1873–1914], a revolutionary socialist. In the course of the years, Péguy changed his opinions and at the end of his life he was a very ardent Catholic author. Péguy had serious conflicts with his family. Péguy was remarkable for his intercourse with Sorel. Péguy was a man of action; he died in action in 1914 in the first weeks of the war.
Sorel belonged psychologically to the group of people who dream of action but never act; he didn’t fight. As a writer, however, Sorel was very aggressive. He praised cruelty and deplored the fact that cruelty is more and more disappearing from our life. In one of his books, Reflections on Violence, he considered it a manifestation of decay that Marxian parties, calling themselves revolutionary, had degenerated into parliamentary parties. Where is the revolution if you are in Parliament? He also didn’t like labor unions. He thought the labor unions should abandon the hopeless venture of seeking higher wage rates and should adopt, instead of this conservative pattern, the revolutionary process.
Sorel saw clearly the contradiction in the system of Marx who spoke of revolution on the one hand and then said, “The coming of socialism is inevitable, and you cannot accelerate its coming because socialism cannot come before the material productive forces have achieved all that is possible within the frame of the old society.” Sorel saw that this idea of inevitability was contradictory to the idea of revolution. This is the contradiction all socialists ask themselves about—Kautsky, for one. Sorel completely adopted the idea of revolution.
Sorel asked of the labor unions a new tactic, action directe—attack, destroy, sabotage. He considered these aggressive policies only preliminary to the great day when the unions would declare a “general strike.” That is the day when the unions will declare “Now we don’t work at all. We want to destroy the life of the nation completely.” General strike is only a synonym for the live revolution. The idea of action directe is called “syndicalism.”
Syndicalism can mean ownership of the industry by the workers. Socialists mean by this term ownership by the state and operation for the account of the people. Sorel wanted to attain this by revolution. He didn’t question the idea that history leads toward socialism. There is a kind of instinct that pushes men toward socialism, but Sorel accepted this as superstition, an inner urge that cannot be analyzed. For this reason his philosophy has been compared with that of Henri Bergson’s élan vital (myths, fairy stories, fables, legends). However, in the doctrine of Sorel, “myth” means something else—a statement which cannot be criticized by reason.
1. Socialism is an end.
2. The general strike is the great means.
Most of Sorel’s writings date from 1890 to 1910. They had an enormous influence on the world, not only on the revolutionary socialists, but also on the royalists, supporters of the restoration of the House of Orange, the “Action française,” and in other countries the “Action nationale.” But all these parties gradually became a little bit more “civilized” than Sorel thought they should be.
It was the idea of French Syndicalism that influenced the most important movement of the twentieth century. Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler were all influenced by Sorel, by the idea of action, by the idea not to talk but to kill. Sorel’s influence on Mussolini and Lenin has not been questioned. For his influence on Nazism, see the book by Alfred Rosenberg titled The Myth of the 20th Century. The fundamental idea of racism was borrowed from Frenchmen. The only man who really contributed something to the Marxian idea was Sorel, along with a group of syndicalists—a comparatively small group composed exclusively of intellectuals and even of idle rich and intellectuals, like the “penthouse Bolshevists” of New York. They repeated again and again that only the workers have enough vigor and enough class consciousness in order to search out and to destroy the bourgeois system.
The center of Marxian activity shifted from Germany to France. The greatest portion of Marxian writings are in French. Sorel’s work was done in France. Outside of Russia, there are more Marxians in France than in any other country; there is, however, more discussion of communism in France than in Russia. The École Normale Supérieure in Paris was an important center of Marxian teachings. Lucien Herr [1864–1926], the librarian, had a great deal of influence. He was the father of French Marxism. As former students of École Normale Supérieure became more and more important, the school spread Marxism all over France.
By and large, the same condition prevailed in most European countries. When the universities seemed slow to accept Marxism, special schools were endowed to educate the rising generations in orthodox socialism. This was the goal of the London School of Economics, a Fabian institution founded by the Webbs. But it couldn’t avoid being invaded by persons of other ideas. For instance, [Friedrich A.] Hayek [1899–1992] taught for some years at the London School of Economics. This was the case in all countries—European countries had state universities. People generally ignored the fact that Marxians, not free traders, were appointed by the Tsar at the imperial universities in Russia. These professors were called legal, or better “loyal,” Marxians. When the Bolshevists came to power in Russia, it was not necessary to fire the professors.
Marx didn’t see any differences between the various parts of the world. One of his doctrines was that capitalism is one stage in the development of socialism. In this regard, there are some nations that are more backward than others. But capitalism was destroying the trade barriers and migration barriers that once prevented the unification of the world. Therefore, the differences in the evolution of the various countries with regard to their maturity toward socialism will disappear.
In the Communist Manifesto in 1848, Marx declared that capitalism was destroying all national peculiarities and unifying into one economic system all the countries of the world. The cheap prices of products were the means capitalism used to destroy nationalism. But in 1848, the average person didn’t know anything about Asia or Africa. Marx was even less informed than the average English businessman who knew something about business relations with China and India. The only attention Marx gave to this problem was his remark, later published by Vera Zasulich, to the effect that it might be possible for a country to skip the capitalist stage and proceed directly to socialism. Marx saw no distinction between various nations. Capitalism, feudalism, brings about progressive impoverishment everywhere. Everywhere there will be mature economies. And when the age of mature capitalism comes, the whole world will have reached socialism.
Marx lacked the ability to learn by observing political events and the political literature being published around him. For him practically nothing existed but the books of the classical economists, which he found in the library of the British Museum, and the hearings of the British Parliamentary Commissions. He didn’t even see what was going on in his own neighborhood. He didn’t see that many people were fighting, not for the interests of the proletariat, but for the principles of nationality.
Marx completely ignored this principle of nationality. The principle of nationality asked that every linguistic group form an independent state and that all the members of such a group should be recognized and unified. This was the principle which brought about the European conflicts, led to the complete destruction of the European system, and created the present-day chaos in Europe. The principle of nationality doesn’t take into account that there are large territories in which linguistic populations are mixed. Consequently there were struggles between the various linguistic groups which finally resulted in the situation we have today in Europe. I mention this because it is a principle of government which was unknown up to now.
According to this principle there is no such nation as India. It is possible that this principle of nationality will break India up into many independent states fighting one another. The Indian Parliament uses the English language. The members of the various states cannot communicate with one another, other than by employing the language of the government, a language which they have practically expelled from their country. But this situation will not last forever.
In 1848, when the Slavs of Europe met for a Panslavist Congress in Moscow, they had to speak with one another in German. But this didn’t prevent later developments in a different way.
Karl Marx and Engels didn’t like the nationalistic movement and never took notice of it. It didn’t fit into their plans or schemes. If, on account of the unfriendly remarks Marx and Engels made about various linguistic groups of Austria-Hungary and the Balkans, some authors, especially French authors, think Marx was a forerunner of National Socialism—Nazism—they are wrong. Marx said that what he wanted was to create a one-world state. And that was Lenin’s idea too.
By 1848 Marx had already assumed that socialism was just around the corner. Given such a theory, there was no reason to form a separate linguistic state. Such a state could only be very temporary. Marx simply assumed that the age of nationalities would come to an end, and that we were on the eve of an age in which there would no longer be differences between various types, classes, nations, linguistic groups, etc. Marx absolutely denied any differences among men. Men would all be of the same type. There was never any answer in Marx as to what language the people in his one-world state would use, or what the nationality of the dictator would be.
Marx was furious when someone said there were differences between men in the same nation, the same city, the same branch of business, just as all Marxists became furious when someone told them there were differences between Englishmen and Eskimos. According to Marx, the only difference was due to education. If an idiot and Dante had been educated in the same way, there would have been no difference between them. This idea influenced Marx’s followers, and it is still one of the guiding principles of American education. Why is not everybody equally intelligent? Many Marxians assume that in the future socialist commonwealth the average person will be equal in talents, gifts, intelligence, artistic attainments, to the greatest men of the past, such as Trotsky, Aristotle, Marx, and Goethe, although there will still be some more gifted people.
It never occurred to Marx that, in the best case, education can only transfer to the pupil what the teacher already knows. In the case of Marx, it wouldn’t have been enough for him to have been educated in a school by perfect Hegelian teachers because then everything he would have produced would have only been Hegelianism again. By educating people in the knowledge of the generation preceding motor cars, it wouldn’t have been possible to produce motor cars. Education can never bring about progress as such. That some people, thanks to their positions, inheritance, education, and so on, have the gift to go one step farther than preceding generations cannot be explained simply by education.
Similarly, it is impossible to explain great things and the great acts of some men simply by referring to their national affiliation. The problem is, why were these people different from their brothers and sisters? Marx simply assumed, without any reason, that we are now living in the age of internationalism and that all national traits will disappear. In the same way that he assumed that specialization would disappear, because machines can be operated by unskilled workers, he assumed there would no longer be any differences between various parts of the world and various nations. Every kind of conflict between nations was interpreted as the consequence of the machinations of the bourgeoisie. Why do Frenchmen and Germans fight? Why did they fight in 1870? Because the ruling classes of Prussia and the ruling classes of France wanted to fight. But this had nothing to do with the interests of nations.
In regard to his attitude toward war, Marx was, of course, influenced by the idea of the Manchester laissez-faire liberals. In using the term “Manchester liberalism” always as an insult, we tend to forget the essential statement in that famous declaration of the Manchester Congress where the term originated. It was said there that in the world of free trade there is no longer any reason for nations to fight one another. If there is free trade and every nation can enjoy the products of every other nation, the most important cause of war disappears. The princes are interested in increasing the territorial size of their princely province to get greater income and power, but nations as such are not interested, because it doesn’t make any difference under free trade. And in the absence of immigration barriers it doesn’t matter to the individual citizen whether his country is large or small. Therefore, according to the Manchester Liberals, war will disappear under popular democratic rule. The people will not then be in favor of war because they have nothing to win—they have only to pay and to die in the war.
It was this idea that was in the mind of President [Woodrow] Wilson [1856–1924] when he went to war against Germany. What President Wilson didn’t see was that all this about the uselessness of war is true only in a world when there is free trade between the nations. It is not true in a world of interventionism.
Sir Norman Angell [1872–1967] still argues in the same way. What did the individual Germans gain in 1870? This was almost true then, because there was comparatively free trade. But today the situation is different. Italy’s own policies made it impossible for Italians, in the world of interventionism, to get the raw materials they needed. It is not true in today’s interventionist world that the individual person does not gain something from war.
The League of Nations is one of the great failures in world history—and there have been many failures in world history. During the League’s 20 years the trade barriers had been more and more intensified. Tariffs became unimportant as trade barriers because embargoes were established.
Because the liberals said war was no longer economically advantageous because the people will not gain anything from it, therefore, a democratic nation will no longer be eager to fight wars. Marx assumed that this was true even in the interventionist world which was developing under his very eyes. This was one of the fundamental errors of Marxism. Marx was not a pacifist. He didn’t say war was bad. He only said—because the liberals said so—that war between nations had no importance or meaning at all. He said war—i.e., revolution, by which he meant civil war—was necessary. Nor was Friedrich Engels a pacifist; he studied military science day in and day out in order to prepare himself for the position he had assigned himself as commander-in-chief of all nations, as commander-in-chief for the proletarians of all countries united. Remember that he participated in fox hunting in a red coat, which he told Marx this was the best exercise for a future general.
Because of this idea of revolution—civil war, not international war—the Marxian International began to discuss peace. In 1864 Marx founded in London the First International. A group of persons who had very little to do with the people and the masses met together. There was a secretary for every country. The secretary for Italy was Friedrich Engels and many of the other countries were represented by persons who only knew the countries they represented as tourists. Arguments between the members disrupted the whole International. Finally it was moved to the United States and then fell apart in 1876.
The Second International was formed in Paris in 1869. But this Second International didn’t know what to deal with. The unions had arisen and the unions were opposed to free trade and free migration. Under such conditions, how could you find subjects to be discussed at an international congress? Then they decided to discuss peace and war, but only on a national level. They said they were all proletarians and they agreed they would never fight the wars of the bourgeoisie. The Germans included Engels and Karl Kautsky. There were some “bad” Frenchmen in the group who asked, “What do you mean when you say we can’t defend our own country? We don’t like the Hohenzollerns.” The French at this time made an agreement with the Russians and the Germans didn’t like that. Every few years there was such an international congress and each time the newspapers said it heralded the end of war. But these “nice fellows” didn’t discuss the real causes of friction, migration barriers, etc. The outbreak of World War I disrupted the International Congresses.
What Marx planned was a revolution. But what really happened was that he created a bureaucratic organization in the European countries which was, by and large, innocent because it lacked the power to execute its theories. Then there developed in the East a Communist organization that unfortunately has the power to execute people and to threaten the whole world. And all this was started in the Reading Room of the British Museum in London by a man, who was not in this regard a man of action, but who was able to bring about violent action. It was the timid bourgeois characters, Karl Marx and Georges Sorel, who created all this mischief. Most of the violent ideas of our times have come from men who themselves wouldn’t have been able to resist any aggression.
Wilson accepted the doctrine of the Manchester Liberals, namely that so far as war was concerned, democracies don’t like to fight wars; democracies fight only wars of defense because the individual citizen cannot expect any improvement of his conditions from war, not even if his country is victorious. But Wilson didn’t see that this was true only in a world of free trade. He didn’t see that this was quite different already in the age in which he lived, which was an age of interventionism. He didn’t realize that an enormous change in economic policies had deprived this theory of the Manchester Liberals of its practicability. Trade barriers were comparatively innocent in 1914. But they were very much worsened during the years of the League of Nations. While free traders were meeting with the League in Geneva and talking about reducing trade barriers, people at home were increasing them. In 1933, there was a meeting in London to bring about cooperation among the nations. And precisely at this time the richest country, the United States, nullified the whole thing with monetary and financial regulations. After this the whole apparatus was absolutely useless.
Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage is that it is to the advantage to a nation to have free trade even if all other nations cling to their trade barriers. If the United States alone today adopted free trade there would be certain changes. But if all other countries clung to protectionism with import barriers, it would not be possible for the United States to buy more goods from other countries.
There are isolationists not only in this country; there are also isolationists in other countries. Imports must be paid for by exports and exports have no other purpose than to pay for imports. Thus the establishment of free trade by the richest and most powerful nation only would not change the situation for the Italians, for instance, if they retained their trade barriers. It would not make any difference for other countries either. It is advantageous for any country to have free trade even if all other countries do not, but the problem is to remove the barriers of the other countries.
The term “socialism,” when it was new in the second part of the 1830s, meant exactly the same as “communism”—i.e., the nationalization of the means of production. “Communism” was the more popular term in the beginning. Slowly the term “communism” fell into oblivion and the term “socialism” came into use almost exclusively.
Socialist parties, social democratic parties, were formed and their fundamental dogma was the Communist Manifesto. In 1918, Lenin needed a new term to distinguish his group of socialists from those groups which he called “social traitors.” So he gave to the term “communism” a new meaning; he used it to refer, not to the final goal of socialism and communism, but only to the tactical means for attaining them. Until Stalin, communist meant simply a better method—the revolutionary method—as against the peaceful, socialist, method of the “socialist traitors.” At the end of the 1920s, without great success, Stalin in the Third International tried to give a different meaning to the term “communism.” However, Russia is still called the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).
In a letter, Karl Marx distinguished between two stages of socialism—the lower preliminary stage and the higher stage. But Marx didn’t give different names to these two stages. At the higher stage, he said, there will be such an abundance of everything that it will be possible to establish the principle “to everybody according to his needs.” Because foreign critics noticed differences in the standards of living of various members of the Russian Soviets, Stalin made a distinction. At the end of the 1920s he declared that the lower stage was “socialism” and the higher stage was “communism.” The difference was that at the lower socialist stage there was inequality in the rations of the various members of the Russian Soviets; equality will be attained only in the later, communist, stage.
--------------------------------------------------
辨呕哕吐
辨呕哕吐
一辨呕
（12）太阳中风，阳浮而阴弱。阳浮者，热自发；阴弱者，汗自出。啬啬恶寒，淅淅恶风，翕翕发热，鼻鸣干呕者，桂枝汤主之。
３３）太阳与阳明合病，不下利，但呕者，葛根加半夏汤主之。
（146）伤寒六七日，发热，微恶寒，支节烦痛，微呕，心下支结，外证未支者，柴胡桂枝汤主之。
（97）血弱气尽，腠理开，邪气因入，与正气相博，结于胁下。正邪分争，往来寒热，休作有时，嘿嘿不欲饮食，脏腑相连，其痛必下，邪高痛下，故使呕也，小柴胡汤主之。服柴胡汤已，渴者，属阳明，以法治之。
（96）伤寒五六日，中风，往来寒热，胸胁苦满，嘿嘿不欲饮食，心烦喜呕，或胸中烦而不呕，或渴，或腹中痛，或胁下痞硬，或心下悸、小便不利，或不渴、身有微热，或咳者，小柴胡汤主之。
（230）阳明病，胁下硬满，不大便而呕，舌上白苔者，可与小柴胡汤。上焦得通，津液得下，胃气因和，身葺然汗出而解。
（379）呕而发热者，小柴胡汤主之。
（266）本太阳病，不解，转入少阳者，胁下硬满，干呕不能食，往来寒热，尚未吐下，脉沉紧者，与小柴胡汤。
▲诸黄，腹痛而呕者，宜柴胡汤。 (21)
（103）太阳病，过经十余日，反二三下之，后四五日，柴胡证仍在者，先与小柴胡汤；呕不止，心下急，郁郁微烦者，为未解也，与大柴胡汤下之则愈。
▲温疟者，其脉如平，身无寒但热，骨节疼烦，时呕，白虎加桂枝汤主之。(4)
（173）伤寒，胸中有热，胃中有邪气，腹中痛，欲呕吐者，黄连汤主之。
（123）太阳病，过经十余日，心下温温欲吐，而胸中痛，大便反溏，腹微满，郁郁微烦。先此时自极吐下者，与调胃承气汤；若不尔者，不可与；但欲呕、胸中痛、微溏者，此非柴胡汤证，以呕故知极吐下也。调胃承气汤。
▲干呕而利者，黄芩加半夏生姜汤主之。11
▲呕而肠鸣，心下痞者，半夏泻心汤主之。(10)
（158）伤寒中风，医反下之，其人下利，日数十行，谷不化，腹中雷鸣，心下痞鞕而满，干呕心烦不得安。医见心下痞，谓病不尽，复下之，其痞益甚。此非结热，但以胃中虚，客气上逆，故使鞕也。甘草泻心汤主之。
（377）干呕，吐涎沫，头痛者，吴茱萸汤主之。
（▲呕而胸满者，茱萸汤主之。(8)
（243）食谷欲呕，属阳明也，吴茱萸汤主之。
▲诸呕吐，谷不得下者，小半夏汤主之。方见痰饮中。(12)
▲干呕，吐逆，吐涎沫，半夏干姜散主之。(20)
▲病人胸中似喘不喘，似呕不呕，似哕不哕，彻心中愦愦然无奈者，生姜半夏汤主之。(21)
▲干呕、哕，若手足厥者，橘皮汤主之。(22)
（378）呕而脉弱，小便复利，身有微热，见厥者难治，四逆汤主之。
（324）少阴病，饮食入口则吐，心中温温欲吐，复不能吐，始得之，手足寒，脉弦迟者，此胸中实，不可下也，当吐之。若膈上有寒饮，干呕者，不可吐也，当温之，宜四逆汤。
（315）少阴病，下利，脉微者，与白通汤；利不止，厥逆无脉，干呕，烦者，白通加猪胆汁汤主之。服汤，脉暴出者死；微续者生。
（317）少阴病，下利清谷，里寒外热，手足厥逆，脉微欲绝，身反不恶寒，其人面色赤；或腹痛，或干呕，或咽痛，或利止脉不出者，通脉四逆汤主之。
▲腹中寒气，雷鸣切痛，胸胁逆满，呕吐，附子粳米汤主之。(10)
▲心胸中大寒痛，呕不能饮食，腹中寒，上冲皮起，出见有头足，上下痛而不可触近，大建中汤主之。(14)
（▲妇人乳中虚，烦乱呕逆，安中益气，竹皮大丸主之。(10)
▲呕吐而病在膈上，后思水者，解，急与之。思水者，猪苓散主之。(13)
（152）太阳中风，下利呕逆，表解者，乃可攻之。其人絷絷汗出，发作有时，头痛，心下痞硬满，引胁下痛，干呕短气，汗出不恶风者，此表解里未和也，十枣汤主之。
（376）呕家有用脓者，不可治呕，脓尽自愈。
（204）伤寒呕多，虽有阳明病，不可攻之。
（3）太阳病，或已发热，或未发热，必恶寒、体痛、呕逆、脉阴阳俱紧者，名为伤寒。
（339）伤寒热少微厥，指（一作稍）头寒，嘿嘿不欲食，烦躁，数日，小便利，色白者，此热除也，欲得食，其病为愈；若厥而呕，胸胁烦满者，其后必便血。
325）少阴病，下利，脉微涩，呕而汗出，必数更衣，反少者，当温其上，灸之。
二 辨哕
（194）阳明病，不能食，攻其热必哕，所以然者，胃中虚冷故也。以其人本虚，攻其热必哕。
（226）若胃中虚冷，不能食者，饮水则哕。
（380）伤寒大吐大下后，极虚，复极汗出者，其人外气怫郁，复与之水，以发其汗，因得哕。所以然者，胃中寒冷故也。
（20）阳明病，潮热，大便微硬者，不可与之。若不大便六七日，恐有燥屎。欲知之法，少与小承气汤，汤入腹中，转失气者，上有燥屎也，乃可攻之。若不转失气者，此但初头硬，后必溏，不可攻之。攻之必胀满不能食，欲饮水者，与水则哕。其后发热者，必大便复硬而少也。以小承气汤和之。不转失气者，慎不可攻也。
(98）得病六七日，脉迟浮弱、恶风寒、手足温，医二三下之，不能食而胁下满痛，面目及身黄，颈项强，小便难者，与柴胡汤，后必下重。本渴饮水而呕者，柴胡汤不中与也，食谷者哕。
111）太阳病中风，以火劫发汗。邪风被火热，血气流溢，失其常度，两阳相熏灼，其身发黄。阳盛则欲衄，阴虚小便难。阴阳俱虚竭，身体则枯燥，但头汗出，剂颈而还。腹满、微喘、口干、咽烂，或不大便，久则澹语，甚者至哕、手足躁扰、捻衣摸床。小便利者，其人可治。
（209）阳明病，潮热、大便微鞕者，可与大承气汤；不鞕者，不可与之。若不大便六七日，恐有燥屎，欲知之法，少与小承气汤，汤入腹中，转失气者，此有燥屎也，乃可攻之；若不转失气者，此但初头鞕，后必溏，不可攻之，攻之必胀满不能食也。欲饮水者，与水则哕，其后发热者，必大便复鞕而少也，以小承气汤和之；不转失气者，慎不可攻也。
（231）阳明中风，脉弦浮大，而短气，腹都满，胁下及心痛，久按之气不通，鼻干，不得汗，嗜卧，一身及目悉黄，小便难，有潮热，时时哕，耳前后肿，刺之小差，外不解，病过十日，脉续浮者，与小柴胡汤。
（232）脉但浮，无余证者，与麻黄汤。若不尿，腹满加哕者，不治。
（381）伤寒哕而腹满，视其前后，知何部不利，利之即愈。
▲哕逆者，橘皮竹茹汤主之。(23)
三．辨吐
（397）伤寒解后，虚羸少气，气逆欲吐，竹叶石膏汤主之。
（29）伤寒脉浮、自汗出、小便数、心烦、微恶寒、脚挛急，反与桂枝，欲攻其表，此误也。得之便厥、咽中干、烦躁、吐逆者，作甘草干姜汤与之，以复其阳。若厥愈足温者，更作芍药甘草汤与之，其脚即伸；若胃气不和谵语者，少与调胃承气汤；若重发汗，复加烧针者，四逆汤主之。
▲食已即吐者，大黄甘草汤主之。《外台》方：又治吐水。17
（165）伤寒，发热汗出不解，心中痞硬，呕吐而下利者，大柴胡汤主之。
（359）伤寒本自寒下，医复吐下之，寒格更逆吐下，若食入即吐，干姜黄芩黄连人参汤主之。
（89）病人有寒，复发汗，胃中冷，必吐蛔。
（326）厥阴之为病，消渴，气上撞心，心中疼热，饥而不欲食，食则吐蛔，下之利不止。
（338）伤寒脉微而厥，至七八日肤冷，其人躁，无暂安时者，此为藏厥，非蛔厥也。蛔厥者，其人当吐蛔。今病者静，而复时烦者，此为藏寒。蛔上入其膈，故烦，须臾复止；得食而呕，又烦者，蛔闻食臭出，其人常自吐蛔。蛔厥者，乌梅丸主之。又主久利。
（283）病人脉阴阳俱紧，反汗出者，亡阳也，此属少阴，法当咽痛而复吐利。
（309）少阴病，吐、利，手足逆冷，烦躁欲死者，吴茱萸汤主之。
（324）少阴病，饮食入口则吐；心中温温欲吐，复不能吐。始得之，手足寒、脉弦迟者，此胸中实，不可下也，当吐之；若隔上有寒饮，干呕者，不可吐也，当温之，宜四逆汤。
（388）吐利汗出，发热恶寒，四肢拘急，手足厥冷者，四逆汤主之。
（389）既吐且利，小便复利而大汗出，下利清谷，内寒外热，脉微欲绝者，四逆汤主之。
（386）霍乱，头痛、发热、身疼痛、热多欲饮水者，五苓散主之；寒多不用水者，理中丸主之。
▲卒呕吐，心下痞，膈间有水，眩悸者，小半夏加茯苓汤主之。
▲假令瘦人脐下有悸，吐涎沫，而癫眩，此水也，五苓散主之。
▲胃反，吐而渴欲饮水者，茯苓泽泻汤主之。(18)
▲胃反呕吐者，大半夏汤主之。《千金》云：“治胃反不受食，食入即吐。《外台》云：治呕，心下痞鞕者。”(16)
（387）吐利止而身痛不休者，当消息和解其外，宜桂枝汤小和之。
（391）吐、利、发汗，脉平，小烦者，以新虚不胜谷气故也。
282）少阴病，欲吐不吐，心烦但欲寐，五六日自利而渴者，属少阴也。虚故引水自救：若小便色白者，少阴病形悉具；小便白者，以下焦虚有寒，不能制水，故令色白也。（292）少阴病，吐、利，手足不逆冷，反发热者，不死。脉不至者，（至一作足）灸少阴七壮。
（296）少阴病，吐、利、躁烦、四逆者，死。
（382）问曰：病有霍乱者何？答曰：呕吐而利，此名霍乱。
（383）问曰：病发热、头痛、身疼、恶寒、吐利者，此属何病？答曰：此名霍乱。霍乱自吐下，又利止，复更发热也。
▲趺阳脉浮而涩，浮则为虚，涩则伤脾，脾伤则不磨，朝食暮吐，暮食朝吐，宿谷不化，名曰胃反。脉紧而涩，其病难治。(5)
▲问曰：病人脉数，数为热，当消谷引食，而反吐者，何也？师曰：以发其汗，令阳微，膈气虚，脉乃数，数为客热，不能消谷，胃中虚冷故也。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기