윤석열이 중국 간첩인 6가지 이유/ 일베 6줄 요약 1.친중 언론노조가 좌우 할 것 없이 윤석열을 대선 후보 지지율 1위로 처빰 2.그럼에도 문재인과 더불어민주당이 가만히 냅둠 3.김용민의 폭로에 의하면 윤석열의 스폰서는 양정철 홍석현이고 이들은 문재인과 아주 가까운 사이 4.윤석열이 문재인 정권 자체를 겨냥해 수사한 적이 없음. 문재인 정권 비리와 관계 없는 조국 개인 비리나 건듦. 그래서 이니 맘대로 다함 5.조선족들이 조직적으로 윤석열 띄우기 윤석열 처빨기를 하고 있음 6.보수도 아닌 친중좌빨 윤석열을 뜬금없이 보수의 희망인 것처럼 일베에서 처빨고 있는 상황이 너무 작위적임 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 이런 기막힌ㅡ사실을 아십니까??? 1.이재명의 뒤에는 이재학 목사라는 좌빨 총책이 있다. 이재학의 딸이 이인영 장관의 아내다. 성남에서 처음 시행되는 제도들은 모두ㅡ공산화와 관계있다. 공유재산 제도는 정부 재산을 좌빨 세력들이 소유 하려는 방책이다. 정신차려서 당신의 돈과 생명을ㅡ지켜라! - By 2. 박근혜탄핵 헌법재판관 이정미 관련사항 헌법재판관 이정미가 원천적 빨갱이였군요. 우파들은 이런 정보를 이제서야 아는데.. 좌파들은 이를 이미 알고 있었고.. 박근혜 대통령을 이런 빨갱이 이정미 앞으로 이끌어 간 것이다 그래서 법정에서 싸우자 하고 청와대를 떠나게 만든 것이다.. 이정미의 부친은 울산 용잠초등 이재만 교장이며 학교 설립자 이종만은 월북하여 이북에서 김일성 대학설립. 이정미 부친은 교장 재직 때 이북에 돈을 보내었다는 현 생존 교사의 증언이있다 박대통령 탄핵은 문재인과 이정미의 공작정치의계획된 탄핵의 칼이다. 이정미는 문재인과 오래 전부터절친 사이. 친정가족들과 문재인 양산집을 방문하는 이정미의 남편은 통진당 당원이다. 이정미는 박정희대통령 시해범 김재규를 의롭게 보여 법대 지망 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=79U3qJqLVfg ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 공산당 유사 조직 읍면동까지 파고든다 - 조우석 칼럼 2021.03.08 [뉴스타운TV] https://youtu.be/_MNINwRBqKg --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 이왕재 교수님이 코로나백신에 의한 집단면역은 허구임을 잘 설명해주고 있네요. 한강의기적2 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11328488719 이왕재 교수님이 코로나백신에 의한 집단면역은 허구임을 잘 설명해주고 있네요. 코로나 감염은 백신과 상관없이 진행되기 때문이죠. 즉 입안과 코의 점막에 감염되는 코로나바이러스는 백신에 의해 생성된 혈관내 항체가 영향을 미칠 수 없습니다. 집단면역을 이루기 위해 건강한 젊은이들도 코로나백신을 접종해야 한다는 말은 허구지요. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J8nBwwC1xC4&feature=youtu.be ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ “사회주의 경제가 10이면, 文정부는 이미 7~8까지 왔다” [송의달이 만난 사람] 강성진 한반도선진화재단 정책위 의장이 말하는 한국경제 송의달 선임기자 조선일보 2021.03.08 지난해 우리나라 경제 성장률은 1998년 이후 22년 만에 가장 낮았다. 취업자 수와 경제활동인구는 22년 만에 가장 많이 줄었다. 1인당 국민 소득은 2년 연속 감소했다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 차규근 구속영장의 수정 흔적...법원 안팎의 외압 때문이라면 '사법 농단' 박순종 기자 펜앤 2021.03.08 수원地法, 애초 '발부'에 도장 찍었다가 수정액으로 지우고 '기각'에 다시 도장 찍어 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Toby Harshaw Niall Ferguson: "The conclusion is not that inflation is inevitable. The conclusion is that the current path of policy is unsustainable." 결론은 "현재의 (인플레) 정책은 지속될 수 없다는 것이다."이다. The Fed Doesn’t Fear Inflation. Its Critics Have Longer Memories Milton Friedman saw the great uptick of the 1970s coming, and Larry Summers has similar warnings today. Jerome Powell would do well to listen. By Niall Ferguson ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The V-Shaped Recovery Never Happened Ryan McMaken Some may remember all that talk about a "V-shaped recovery" last year. That was back when we were being assured that just a few weeks of lockdowns was going to bring the economy roaring back. Clearly, that never happened. 브이 자 경제 회복은 없었다. https://mises.org/wire/v-shaped-recovery-never-happened ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 경제학을 이해하려면 먼저 사유재산을 이해해야 한다. 현대의 화폐는 상품의 기반이 없지만, 모든 화폐의 기원을 따라가면 사용 가치를 지닌 상품일 수 밖에 없다. 미제스는 화폐 가격은 교환에 의존한다는 것을 인식하고, 다음으로 통화 교환의 기원을 설명할 필요를 느꼈다. 로스바드는 미제스의 생각을 이어받아 시장에서의 교환의 선제 조건은 사유재산이고, 사유재산의 기원을 밝히는 일은 화폐나 통화 교환의 기원을 밝히는 만큼 중요하다고 생각했다. 즉 무엇인가를 교환하려면 사전에 무엇인가를 소유하고 있어야 하는 것이다. 고대에는 곡식이 세금으로 쓰였으므로 곡식이 없던 시절에는 국가가 존립할 수가 없었다. 그런데 작물의 재배가 국가의 성립을 앞섰으므로, 원시적인 상업 활동은 국가보다 일찍 나타났다. 로스바드는 원시 사회는 분명 모종의 사유재산권 제도를 갖고 있었다고 인식하고, 그 제도가 어떻게 나타났는지 자신의 이론을 제시하고 있다. To Understand Economics, First Understand Private Property Chris Calton In Man, Economy, and State, Murray Rothbard expounds the principles of economics by reconstructing an economy from the ground up. Following the practice of classical economists, he opens the book by imagining Robinson Crusoe alone on an island. After identifying the operative laws that apply even to isolated individuals, Rothbard’s second chapter considers Crusoe on an island with one other person, introducing the concept of direct exchange, or the barter economy. In the third and fourth chapters, Rothbard considers the origins of money and prices in an economy of indirect exchange. For a treatise on price theory, Rothbard recognizes the need to explain the origins of money prices, as Carl Menger and Ludwig von Mises did before him. In The Theory of Money and Credit, Mises built on Menger’s original explanation for the origin of money by formulating the regression theorem. When considering price changes back through time, Mises theorized, we must naturally come to points of origin and departure. Paper dollars today have no commodity foundation, but we can easily identify the point at which they were disconnected from specie. Going further back, we may not be able to identify empirically the moment at which specie, or any other commodity, was first used as a medium of indirect exchange, but we can logically deduce that such a moment must have occurred as primitive economies grew increasingly complex. Mises’s theorem offered a number of important insights for price theorists. Perhaps the chief insight is that even though modern money may have no commodity base, the origins of any money could only have been a commodity with some original value in use. No new media of exchange can undermine this history. Even cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin, can be traced back to a point at which they were first exchanged for dollars. Dollar prices then trace back to a point of disconnect from a commodity foundation, and those prices trace further to a point of original indirect exchange. Another insight derived from the regression theorem is that money prices depend on exchange. This may seem like an obvious truism, but in the early twentieth-century debates over socialism, the necessity of market exchange highlighted the crucial distinction between technical calculation (What do we need to build a given item?) and economic calculation (What should we build given the resources available?). In chapter 2 of Man, Economy, and State, before Rothbard summarizes Mises’s insights about the origins of money prices, he considers the origins of property rights. With a citation of John Locke, Rothbard asserts the principle of self-ownership and argues that the original appropriation of property comes from mixing labor with yet-unowned resources, such as clearing land for cultivation. Only after establishing a basis for property rights, does Rothbard turn to considerations of exchange and money prices. Even friendly scholars, happy to acknowledge the value of Rothbard’s treatise, often consider this passage an unwarranted deviation from value-free economic analysis. Rothbard, they claim, is importing libertarian ethical theory into his economic analysis. John Egger, for example, accuses Rothbard of putting on his “political scientist hat,” arguing that “the ethics adopted by . . . Rothbard cannot be derived from Austrian-school principles and are not necessary to Austrian economic analysis.”1 Even sympathetic Austrians rarely pay much attention to Rothbard’s explanation for the origin of property rights except to occasionally dismiss it as a libertarian deviation from scientific analysis, but I believe Rothbard is offering underappreciated economic insights. Mises recognized that money prices depended on exchange, and he saw the need to explain the origins of monetary exchange. Rothbard took Mises’s idea a step further, recognizing that the prerequisite for market exchange is private property and the origin of property norms is therefore just as relevant to economic analysis as the origins of money and monetary exchange. “Before we examine the exchange process,” Rothbard writes in no unclear terms, “it must be considered that, in order for a person to exchange anything, he must first possess it, or own it.” Critical readers might object that we cannot take it for granted that property rights originate in the way that Rothbard describes. Governments, of course, can establish property rights, even if in violation of Lockean ethics, that suffice to provide the conditions for market exchange. But such considerations would be inappropriate for Rothbard’s second chapter, as he is considering an unhampered market economy—one in which governments, as yet, play no role. For markets to exist sans government, then, private property norms must emerge spontaneously. To this last point, Rothbard never asserts that the Lockean rule of first appropriation is the proper means of establishing property rights (though he certainly believed that and made genuinely ethical arguments along those lines in other works, such as The Ethics of Liberty). In Man, Economy, and State, he simply considers the way property norms could logically emerge in an unhampered market. Man in a “free, unhampered market … may exchange any type of factor … for any type of factor,” Rothbard writes, but “it is clear that gifts and exchanges as a source of property must eventually be resolved into: self-ownership, appropriation of unused nature-given factors, and production of capital and consumers’ goods, as the ultimate sources of acquiring property in a free economic system” (emphasis in original). Rothbard’s argument follows a similar logical structure to Mises’s regression theorem, and in fact even extends the continuum of exchange that Mises outlines. When constructing his theorem, Mises views the end point of his analysis as modern monetary prices, and his point of origin is that moment when a commodity was first used as a medium for indirect exchange. Rothbard has the same end point in mind, but realizing that property rights are (1) necessary for exchange and (2) not a given for any society and therefore warrant explaining, he finds the origins of money prices in the original emergence of private property norms. Of course, people can provide alternative theories for the origin of private property, but the mere fact that Rothbard recognizes the need to explain property norms is itself a valuable contribution to economics that continues to go unappreciated. The most obvious objection people might offer to counter Rothbard’s theory is no different than the alternative explanation to Mises’s and Menger’s theories for the origins of money: the state must construct property rights and introduce money, thus creating markets. But as historians and anthropologists learn more about prehistory (the history of man prior to documentary evidence), the statist theories for both property rights and money crumble. Yale political scientist James C. Scott, for example, notes that evidence for the domestication of plants precedes the formation of the earliest states, arguing that states could not exist without a taxable base (grain, most commonly), and the domestication of plants and primitive commerce preceded state formation. Although he doesn’t address property rights directly, Scott notes that the formation of early states “required a host of products that originated in other ecological zones: timber, firewood, leather, obsidian, copper, tin, gold and silver, and honey,” which they obtained through long-distance trade of “pottery, cloth, grain, and artisanal products.” Recognizing that economic exchange preceded the state, both Rothbard and Mises raised valid considerations for the origins of money, exchange, and property norms. In offering their theories, they were in fact engaging in a common exercise among classical economists known as “conjectural history.” In the absence of empirical historical evidence, classical thinkers such as Adam Smith and Turgot speculated on the origins of observable, modern institutions based on assumptions about human nature. Although speculative, this method of history was not unscientific. The test of a good theory was that it explained more of what we can observe (both in terms of present society and extant evidence) and omitted less. Historians today who deal with areas of history that have scant documentary evidence, such as Africanists, still engage in conjectural history (even if they may not be aware of its roots in classical political economy). In this light, Rothbard’s explication for the origins of property norms is not a value-laden prescription for how societies should establish private property rights. Instead, Rothbard is recognizing that early societies must have established some system of private property rights, which individuals recognized reciprocally with respect to each other, and he provides a theory for how this system most likely emerged. It is not an uncontestable idea (no scientific theory is), but scholars dismissing it as a libertarian sidestep from proper economic analysis fail to understand the important economic contribution Rothbard was actually making. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 보행결을 통한 장중경 학술 분석 通过《辅行诀》，分析张仲景 曹东义、张培红、王红霞 河北省中医药科学院 《辅行诀脏腑用药法要》［1］（以下简称《辅行诀》），带着众多的疑点［2］，问世40多年以来，以其独特的价值［3］，正在逐渐引起学术界的重视，大有即将成为一部经典的趋势［4］。它就像中医界的《红楼梦》，让人在研究之中，破译很多古代中医之谜。 张仲景在中医历史上具有不可替代的作用，他的《伤寒杂病论》横空出世，有人说“仲景之前，有论无方；仲景之后，有方无论。”他的著作被后世尊为医经，他本人也获得了“医圣”的桂冠。他为何能够取得如此重大的成就？历代虽有一些医家进行研究，但不能以确凿的证据指出张仲景的学术来源。 谁启迪了张仲景的思想？他心中的英雄是谁？ 国医大师邓铁涛先生说，在汉代以前，医学有四大流派，分别是医经、经方、神仙和房中。张仲景主要继承前两家的学术，以医经家的理论结合临床实践(平脉辨证)去整理经方家的方药。“勤求古训，博采众方”，在前人的基础上研究出成果，确立了辨证论治这一中医精华，并整理出“以脏腑论杂病”和“以六经论伤寒”两大临床辨证系统，这使中医临床医学有了一个完整的学术体系。到今天我们还要深入学习《伤寒论》和《金匮要略》的理、法、方、药，可见其影响深远。 笔者按照《辅行诀》提供的线索，探索张仲景写作《伤寒杂病论》时的矛盾心理和大胆创新的学术贡献，以期抛砖引玉，就正于海内方家。 张仲景为何避而不谈《汤液经》？ 魏晋之际，皇甫谧（公元215-282）在《甲乙经》自序之中说：“仲景论广伊尹《汤液》为十数卷，用之多验。” 陶弘景(公元456─536)《辅行诀》说：“外感天行，经方（《汤液经》）之治，有二旦六神大小等汤。昔南阳张机，依此诸方，撰为《伤寒论》一部，疗治明悉，后学咸尊奉之。” 他们二人虽然相隔200多年，但是，都认定张仲景在写《伤寒论》时，主要依据了《汤液经》。但是，张仲景在自序之中，谈到了自己参考的前人著作，却只字未提《汤液经》。他说：“勤求古训，博采众方，撰用《素问》、《九卷》、《八十一难》、《阴阳大論》、《胎臚药录》，并平脉辨证，为《伤寒杂病论》合十六卷。” 张仲景并不避讳自己采用了前人的著作，但是却刻意不提《汤液经》，这是为什么？ 难道《汤液经》当时流传不广，不重要，不值得张仲景揭示出来？ 陶弘景《辅行诀》说：“汉晋以还，诸名医辈，张机、卫汜、华元化、吴普、皇甫玄晏、支法师、葛稚川、范将军等，皆当代名贤，咸师式此《汤液经法》，愍救疾苦，造福含灵。” 根据皇甫谧、陶弘景的说法，《汤液经》非常重要，而且当时流传很广，很多医学家都学习它，应用它。张仲景也应该见到了这部著作，并且采纳了其中的方剂内容。 陶弘景说《汤液经》有代表“六合正精”的系列方，是一套体系完整的组合方阵，分别是分为大小的阳旦汤、阴旦汤、青龙汤、白虎汤、朱鸟汤、玄武汤，这和古人对于时空整体的认识是完整一致的，并且各有深意：“阳旦者，升阳之方，以黄芪为主；阴旦者，扶阴之方，柴胡为主；青龙者，宣发之方，麻黄为主；白虎者，收重之方，石膏为主；朱鸟者，清滋之方，鸡子黄为主；玄武者，温渗之方，附子为主。此六方者，为六合之正精，升降阴阳，交互金木，既济水火，乃神明之剂也。” 对于《汤液经》“六合正精”的完整体系，张仲景的态度是完全否定，而不是继承发扬。陶弘景说：“张机撰《伤寒论》，避道家之称，故其方皆非正名也，但以某药名之，以推主为识耳。” 那么，张仲景为何否定“六合正精”、“避道家之称”？这需要结合那个时代的政治风云来加以考察。 东汉末年社会动荡，道教广泛传播 追求健康长寿的“神仙思想”，记载于《山海经》之中，在战国时期诸子著作里也时有探索，分布在楚地及燕齐地区，是流行很广的思想。秦皇汉武把求仙的活动，做到了极致，影响深远。但是西汉中期以后，方术少验，同时黄老之学在政治上日益失势，传人队伍逐渐萎缩，因此黄老学与神仙术遂逐渐结合在了一起，由宫廷走向民间，催生了道教的兴起。 张陵（公元34年？—公元156年），又称张道陵，于顺帝汉安元年(142年)，在鹤鸣山自称受太上老君之命，封为天师，创立天师道（俗称五斗米教），以老子《道德经》为蓝本，著作了《老子想尔注》，引道入教，把方术、黄老专为君王服务的做派，改为替普通百姓“降妖除魔，治病祛灾”，为后期道教发展奠立了基础。经过长期发展，其孙张鲁在巴蜀地区建立了政教合一的政权，长达20多年。张鲁于公元215年（建安二十年），被曹操降服之后，拜为镇南将军，天师道得以保存，此后逐渐向北方传播。 在北方，巨鹿郡张角(今河北省平乡人)创立的太平道，也是依托黄老之学，据说他得到道士于吉等人所传《太平清领书》，创“太平道”，自称“大贤良师”，拳事黄老道，以阴阳五行、符箓咒语为根本教法，信“中黄太一”之道，“持九节杖，为符祝，教病人叩头思过，因以符水饮之，得病或日浅而愈者，则云此人信道；其或不愈，则为不信道”。 起初，张角的活动似乎仍属普通的宗教活动。但经过不断传播，蓄积力量，到熹平年间（172－177），随着汉王朝内部宦官集团和外戚士人等政治斗争的加剧，社会动荡不安，民众思想混乱。张角以符水咒说为民治病，发展徒众，十余年间达数十万人，遍及青、徐、幽、冀、荆、扬、兖、豫八州，分大方三十六，小方六七千，各立渠帅。于灵帝中平元年(184年)，张角扬言“苍天已死，黄天当立，岁在甲子，天下大吉”，三十六方遂同时起事。他自号“天公将军”，以其弟张宝为“地公将军”、张梁为“人公将军”。部众皆着黄巾以为标帜，故称“黄巾军”。 汉灵帝慌忙调集各地精兵，进剿黄巾军。各地豪强地主也纷纷起兵，配合官军镇压起义，其中著名的有袁绍、袁术、公孙瓒、曹操、孙坚、刘备等。 黄巾军起义之后不久，张角病死于军中，张宝、张梁先后战败被杀。 黄巾起义之后，加速了东汉政权的衰败，中平六年(189)，董卓率兵进入洛阳，废少帝，立陈留王刘协（181-234）为帝，史称汉献帝。董自为相国，独揽朝政。次年关东诸侯推袁绍为盟主，讨伐董卓，卓败，挟持献帝西走长安，并驱使洛阳数百万口西迁长安。行前，董卓的士卒大肆烧掠，洛阳周围二百里内尽成瓦砾。到192年董卓被王允、吕布所杀，历时3年。社会经历了深刻的变革，此后三国群雄先后登场，成为乱世的开端。 曹操曾经在《薤露》诗中评价董卓之乱说：“贼臣持国柄，杀主灭宇京。荡覆帝基业，宗庙以燔丧。播越西迁移，号泣而且行，瞻彼洛城郭，微子为哀伤。” 蔡文姬在《悲愤诗》中深刻揭露董卓之乱造成灾难：“汉季失权柄，董卓乱天常。志欲图篡弑，先害诸贤良。逼迫迁旧邦，拥主以自强。海内兴义师，欲共讨不祥。卓众来东下，金甲耀日光。平土人脆弱，来兵皆胡羌。猎野围城邑，所向悉破亡。斩截无孑遗，尸骸相撑拒。马边悬男头，马后载妇女。长驱西入关，迥路险且阻。还顾邈冥冥，肝脾为烂腐。所略有万计，不得令屯聚。” 这就是张仲景著作《伤寒杂病论》的时代背景。 张仲景为何“避道家之称”？ 张仲景的时代，张陵、张鲁、张角、张宝、张胜等人，先后利用道家、道教建立政权，或者发动农民起义，是引发社会动荡的一个因素。张家人在当时“人才辈出”，惹人耳目。 张角等人的黄巾军起义，于公元184年被镇压；张鲁政权一直存在到公元215年，被统治者蔑称为“米贼”。 在这个时期，张仲景开始了《伤寒杂病论》的写作。他说：“余宗族素多，向余二百，建安纪年（公元196年）以来，犹未十稔（即205年之前），其死亡者，三分有二，伤寒十居其七。” 大病之后，常有大疫，在这长达几十年的社会动荡之中，站在潮头的张家人大批死亡和逃亡，张仲景的姓氏，由于名机，字仲景，是否受到“株连九族”的拖累？据说的他的师父叫张伯祖，也是老张家本族。 当然，张仲景“避道家之称”的原因，应该不仅仅是因为他姓张。 天师道首领张鲁以《老子道德经》为主要经典，他教育道徒要互助互爱，“诚信不欺诈”。道徒有病，则“自首其过”。为此，设立“靖庐”，作病人思过修善之所。又设“祭酒”，主要为病人请祷。对犯法之人，不随便处罚，“三原然后乃行刑”。他还命人在境内大路边建立“义舍”，教人们不要蓄积私财，多余的米肉交义舍，以供过往之人食用。不过，只能“量腹取足”，不可多吃多占，“若过多，鬼辄病之”。 天师道、太平道，借助为大众治病，来发展道教，号令天下的政治手段，已经引起了朝廷的注意，就好像前些年邪教利用“轮子功”危害社会，让气功一词一落千丈，很多人谈气功色变，不再相信气功了。 张仲景愤世嫉俗的情怀 社会上思想混乱，读书的士大夫阶层觉得生命如飘荡的蓬草，不再追求健康长寿的养生保健，而是得过且过的苟且偷生。张仲景批评说：“怪当今居世之士，曾不留神医药，精究方术，上以疗君亲之疾，下以救贫贱之厄，中以保身长全，以养其生，但竞逐荣势，企踵权豪，孜孜汲汲，惟名利是务，崇饰其末，忽弃其本，华其外，而悴其内，皮之不存，毛将安附焉。卒然遭邪风之气，婴非常之疾，患及祸至，而方震栗，降志屈节，钦望巫祝，告穷归天，束手受败，賫百年之寿命，持至贵之重器，委付凡医，恣其所措，咄嗟嗚呼！厥身已毙，神明消灭，变为异物，幽潜重泉，徒为啼泣，痛夫！举世昏迷，莫能觉悟，不惜其命，若是轻生，彼何荣势之云哉！而进不能爱人知人，退不能爱身知己，遇灾值祸，身居厄地，蒙蒙昧昧，蠢若游魂。哀乎！趋世之士，驰竞浮华，不固根本，忘躯徇物，危若冰谷，至于是也。” 在一本医学著作的序言里，如此批评社会，批评读书人，是非常罕见的。 张仲景对于从业医生的批评，也是很尖锐的。他说：“观今之医，不念思求经旨，以演其所知，各承家技，终始顺旧，省疾问病，务在口给。相对斯须，便处汤药，按寸不及尺，握手不及足，人迎趺阳，三部不参，动数发息，不满五十，短期未知决诊，九候曾无仿佛，明堂闕庭，尽不见察，所谓窥管而已。夫欲视死别生，实为难矣。” 张仲景批评社会，看不起当时读书人的浅薄；批评医学人才庸碌无为，他心目中的英雄和榜样，就是扁鹊秦越人以及少数古代名医。他说：“夫天布五行，以运万类，人禀五常，以有五藏，经络府俞，阴阳会通，玄冥幽微，变化难极，自非才高识妙，岂能探其理致哉！上古有神农、黄帝、歧伯、伯高、雷公、少俞、少师、仲文，中世有长桑、扁鹊，汉有公乘阳庆及仓公，下此以往，未之闻也。” 整个两汉时期，长达400多年，其中也有葫翁、郭玉等名医，但是在张仲景的眼里，都不是人物。“下此以往，未之闻也”，这样的论断，必定出于一个自视甚高的人物之口。 通过《辅行诀》，分析张仲景（二） 河北省中医药科学院 华佗的遭遇让张仲景有所顾忌？ 张仲景与华佗都生活在东汉末年，现有的资料没有说他们互相认识，但是，华佗的遭遇，张仲景应该有所耳闻。曹操杀害华佗的时间，虽然没有准确的日子，但爱子曹冲（196－208年）的夭折是一个佐证。尽管曹冲是一个神童，八岁时就能称象，却因病情危重难疗，死于非命。曹操拉着曹冲冰凉的小手，想起了华佗，他老泪横流，捶胸顿足地说：“吾悔杀华佗，令此儿强死！” 也就是说张仲景写《伤寒杂病论》序言的时候，华佗应该已经遇难了。 华佗何罪？怀璧其罪！不好好地为当权者服务，就可能引来杀生之祸。 张仲景“坐堂行医”的传说，应该不是空穴来风。也就是说，当权人士杀一个医生，在那个时代是很容易的。张仲景如果不做官，想回家做一个医生，他的待遇也许和华佗有某些相似，因此他才不得已而“坐堂行医”。 在这样的乱世，张仲景在著作的序言里，才有可能不再避讳东汉光武帝刘秀的名讳，而说“余每览越人入虢之诊，望齐侯之色，未尝不慨然叹其才秀也！” 在东汉末年，董卓之乱之后，张仲景不避讳“秀”字，还因为当时的书不是印刷品，文字狱还没发明出来。文人对君亲名字的避讳，还是一个尊重先辈的“自觉行为”，而不是罪名。 乱世出英雄，大胆创经典 在西汉儒教尊敬经典的时代，很难出现拆了《汤液经》，改造《素问》六经，编制《伤寒论》的事情。 东汉末年，群雄并起，天下大乱，天师道、太平道等大胆制造经典，才给了张仲景突破藩篱的精神力量，他对前人流传下来的医学经典，进行了颠覆性的改造。 首先，在著作的编排上，《汤液经》用脏腑辨证论百病，用“六合正精”系列方药，治疗外感热病和天行。先列五脏辨正体系，有小补心汤、大补心汤；小泻心汤、大泻心汤。也有小补肺汤、大补肺汤；小泻肺汤、大泻肺汤。还有补肝、泻肝；补肾、泻肾；补脾、泻脾的方剂，并且都是有大有小，对仗整齐，体系完整。 《伤寒杂病论》的编写体例与《汤液经》不同，后者五脏辨证百病在前，诊治热病天性的“六合正精”四神方在后。 张仲景如果按照《汤液经》的体例写一部新书，应该叫《百病热病学》，而不是《伤寒杂病论》。 《汉书艺文志》记载的经方，以及《素问》《灵枢》论述百病，都重视脏腑辨证。《金匮要略》虽然也重视脏腑，但是在形式上远没有《辅行诀》所收载的五脏补方、泻方各分大小那样规整，一般也不用脏腑命名方剂。 张仲景为了突出伤寒病的诊治，把百病统称为“杂病”，可见伤寒病的“独尊地位”的确立，是张仲景留给后人最重要的“家训”。此前的《素问》《灵枢》，只有用“热病”命名的章节，没有用伤寒命名的专篇。 张仲景之后，伤寒学家、伤寒著作逐渐涌现，“热病”、“天行”很快就成了“绝学”，没有人专门研究，也没有人撰写专著。 这是中医历史上，诊治模式的重大转化。模式是人们解决复杂问题，最简单实用的技术路线。此后，明清温病学家的崛起，也是“模式转化”的结果。 张仲景对于《素问·热论》的传经理论，以及《汤液经》的“六合正精”的方剂体系，从临床实际出发，进行了大胆的改造和创新。 改传经理论，尊古不泥经 《素问·热论》对于“伤于寒”的热病，按照每一日传一个经的模式，分类临床证候，发病日期具有“决定作用”，一日太阳，二日阳明，三日少阳，四日太阴，五日少阴，六日厥阴，日期与证候的对应关系，非常严格，固定不变。并且提出“其未满三日者，可汗而已；其满三日者，可泄而已”。 验之临床，“日传一经”，并与“三日前后分汗泄”联在一起叙述，其缺陷十分突出。是遵从经典，将错就错？还是大胆改革？如何改革？ 张仲景吸收《素问·热论》学说之精华，按六经分篇述其证治，同时又不拘泥“日传一经”，处处以证候为据，体现了辨证论治的治疗思想。如：“伤寒二三日，阳明少阳证不见者，为不传也”，“伤寒三日，三阳为尽，三阴当受邪，其人反能食而不呕，此为三阴不受邪也”。 《伤寒论》之中，论述伤寒的病程，经常见到“二三日”、“四五日”、“五六日”、“十余日”等不确定的日期描述，这种“或然”之词，完全基于临床实际情况，也是对于“日传一经”的明确否定。 当然，张仲景治疗伤寒病的丰富方法，也绝对不是汗法、泄法可以概括的。 变革“六合正精”，提倡“随证治之” 陶弘景《辅行诀》说：“外感天行，经方之治，有二旦六神大小等汤。昔南阳张机，依此诸方，撰为《伤寒论》一部，疗治明悉，后学咸尊奉之。山林辟居，仓卒难防，外感之疾，日数传变，生死往往在三五日间，岂可疏忽！若能深明此数方者，则庶无蹈险之虞也。” 陶弘景既主张《汤液经》与《伤寒论》之间的继承关系，又强调了《汤液经》治疗天行热病方剂的重要性。 陶弘景说阳旦、阴旦、青龙、白虎、朱鸟、玄武，“此六方者，为六合之正精，升降阴阳，交互金木，既济水火，乃神明之剂也。张机撰《伤寒论》，避道家之称，故其方皆非正名也，但以某药名之，以推主为识耳。” 《汤液经》的“六合正精”方剂，如同排兵布阵的战法，号称与天地阴阳、四时万物相呼应，具有“升降阴阳，交互金木，既济水火”的功效，被尊封为“神明之剂”。 对于“古贤”这样神圣的方剂，一般人都会膜拜不已。但是，张仲景却故意“避道家之称”，改名换药，经常加减，如同拆旧房盖新屋，把“六合正精”做成自己的原料。 按照衣之镖先生的研究［5］，阴旦汤、阳旦汤有一个共同的药物组成，都有芍药、甘草、生姜、大枣四味药，可以叫“混元汤”；它加桂枝为小阳旦，加黄芩则成小阴旦；再加人参，就成为“大方”。这是一个规律性很强的原则［6］。 张仲景在《伤寒论》之中，并没有完全遵循这些原则，而是“另起炉灶”，根据病情提倡“观其脉证，随证治之”。 以热病天行为例，仲景不仅注重外感病的发热，而且对发热的不同程度，发热的伴随症状，都进行了细致的区别，给予不同的治疗方法，也即辨证论治的方法。比如发热的同时伴有恶寒，属于表证发热，无论病程是几天，都需要发汗解表治疗。再进一步划分，在发热恶寒同时存在的时候，如果属于没有汗出，或有脉浮紧和呼吸喘促，可以使用麻黄汤；如果发热恶寒，伴有汗出，或有鼻鸣干呕，应当使用桂枝汤；如果是素有咳喘，又新有外感表证，则须选用桂枝汤加厚朴、杏仁；如果外感表证，发热恶寒的同时，有饮邪停聚心下，则需要用小青龙汤进行治疗；如果发热恶寒的同时，兼有内热口渴，烦躁身痛，则需要用大青龙汤治疗。 临床上常常有误治之后，表证未去又添新的正气损伤，如伤阴、伤阳、身痛、心悸、欲作奔豚等证，应当分别采用桂枝加葛根汤、桂枝加附子汤、桂枝加芍药生姜各一两人参三两新加汤、桂枝加蜀漆龙骨牡蛎汤、桂枝加桂汤等进行治疗。仲景还有桂枝加芍药汤、桂枝加大黄汤、桂枝麻黄各半汤、桂枝二麻黄一汤、麻黄杏仁甘草石膏汤、麻黄附子细辛汤、麻黄附子甘草汤、葛根汤、葛根芩连汤等与表证有关的方剂。 这样一来，既摆脱了《素问·热论》的“日传一经”束缚，也不受《汤液经》的“六合正精”限制，而是根据“辨证论治”的实际需要，产生出一系列的“经方”，每一个“经方”都是不同病机的概括，而不是膜拜“神明之剂”，不敢越雷池一步。 《伤寒论》对下法的使用，也很细致：用大承气汤、小承气汤、调胃承气汤治热结于里；桃核承气汤、抵当汤、抵当丸治疗血热互结；十枣汤、大陷胸汤、大陷胸丸、小陷胸汤治疗水热互结，或是痰饮与热互结，等等。 仲景治疗伤寒的法则、方药，细密如此！决非汗、泄二法，或汗、吐、下三法的几个药方，所能简单概括。 仲景六经辨证的内容，博大精深、丰富多彩。难怪王叔和《脉经序》说：“仲景明审，亦候形证，一毫有疑，则考校以求验。故伤寒有承气之戒，呕哕发下焦之问。而遗文远旨，代寡能用，旧经秘述，奥而不售。遂令末学，昧于原本，互滋偏见，各逞技能，至微疴成膏肓之变，滞固绝振起之望。良有以也。” 王叔和作为有幸整理《伤寒杂病论》的第一人，他在《脉经》之中，把张仲景的著作精华吸收进来，并且是按照“可”、“不可”汗、吐、下等治法进行分类，而不能完全揭秘张仲景六经辨证的突出贡献。 唐代医学大家孙思邈说：“伤寒热病，自古有之，名贤睿哲，多所防御，至于仲景特有神功。寻思旨趣，莫测其致，所以医人未能钻仰”。 王叔和、孙思邈所说的“伤寒热病”，强调了伤寒学家对于热病学术的继承，却没有揭示从热病到伤寒的“诊治模式转化”，也难以预见日后的温病学创新。 仲景六经辨证的学术特长，是在宋代之后才被认识的。由于缺乏《辅行诀》这样的学术著作提供线索，所以，在长达两千年的历史过程里，人们对于张仲景的困惑，以及他的贡献，知之不多，研究不够。 总之，张仲景在东汉末年，受到当时社会动荡，人们崇信道家、道教所遭受的深重创伤，故而“避道家之称”；也因为道家创始人张道陵、张角等大胆借助经典，开创新说的鼓舞，完成了由《素问·热论》、《汤液经》，到《伤寒杂病论》的升华，成为影响中医几千年的“医圣”