其证卒然仆倒，昏迷不醒，痰涎壅塞，咽喉作声。或口眼 斜，四肢瘫痪，或半身不遂，或口噤舌强，喑不能言。（卒
倒者中脏，重证。不倒者中血脉等，轻证。详下。）风有外
风，有内风。内风者，即人身中之气也。（《经》曰∶人身之气，以天地之疾风名之。又气有余便是火，
火气之标疾如风也。又肝属风。）外风由于外感，内风由于内伤，此证有纯是内伤者，有内伤
兼外风者，从无纯只外风者。若单只感冒外风，不过为头疼发热，自汗等轻证。如
仲景《伤寒论》所云而已。乌有昏迷卒倒，濒于死亡，如前所举诸重证哉？（前项重证，皆
由内伤亏败而然。风若非寒，纵极狂暴，无令人昏倒之事。惟西北方寒风，令人冻僵仆倒则有之，然此即属
中寒，不名中风矣。）按王安道谓卒暴僵仆等证，昔人以为外中于风，及刘河间、李
东垣、朱丹溪出，所论始与昔人异。河间主火，东垣主气，丹溪主湿，（详下。）反以风
为虚象。盖三子以相类中风之病，混同立论，致使后人狐疑云云。后人祖其说，
咸以古人所言者为真中风，三子所论者为类中风。张景岳又谓∶三子所论，与外中
风邪无涉，固不可以中风名之，并不可以类中风名之，直名之为非风可耳。（瑶）按∶三子
所论，乃指内风立说，与外感之风对讲，内风、外风皆可云中，故予仍旧概以中风
名之，使人知有内风之义，非故与王、张诸公立异也。
其症状表现为突然仆倒，昏迷不醒，痰涎壅盛阻塞气道，咽喉部发出声响。或者出现口眼歪斜，四肢瘫痪，或半身不遂，或牙关紧闭、舌体僵硬，失音不能言语。（突然仆倒的属于中脏，是重症。没有仆倒的属于中血脉等，是轻证。详见下文。）风有外风和内风之分。内风，就是人体内的气机紊乱。（《内经》说：人体的气，可以用天地的疾风来命名。另外，气有余就会变成火，火气的表现急骤如同风一样。还有，肝在五行中属风。）外风是由于外感邪气所致，内风是由于内伤所致，这种病证有纯粹由内伤引起的，也有内伤兼夹外风的，从来没有纯粹只由外风引起的。如果只是单纯感冒外风，不过是头痛发热、自汗等轻症。就像张仲景《伤寒论》中所描述的那样。怎么会有突然昏迷仆倒、濒临死亡，像前面列举的那些重症呢？（前面的那些重症，都是由内伤亏损败坏而导致的。风如果不是寒邪，即使极其狂暴，也没有让人昏倒的事情发生。只有西北方的寒风，让人冻僵仆倒是有可能的，然而这属于中寒，不叫中风了。）按照王安道的说法，突然暴发的僵硬仆倒等症状，过去的人认为是外感风邪，到了刘河间、李东垣、朱丹溪出现后，他们的论述才与过去的人不同。刘河间主张病机主于火，李东垣主张主于气，朱丹溪主张主于湿，（详见下文），反而认为风是一种虚象。大概这三个人把类似中风的病证混同在一起立论，致使后人产生疑惑等等。后人沿袭他们的学说，都认为古人所说的才是真中风，这三个人所论述的是类中风。张景岳又说：这三个人所论述的内容，与外感风邪无关，本来就不可以称为中风，也不可以称为类中风，直接称之为非风就可以了。（何梦瑶）按：这三个人所论述的，是指内风而立论，是与外感之风相对照的，内风和外风都可以称为中，所以我仍然一概以中风命名，是为了让人们知道有内风的含义，并不是故意与王、张诸位先生立异。
The clinical manifestations include sudden collapse, unconsciousness, accumulation of phlegm and saliva obstructing the airway, and sounds in the throat. Alternatively, there may be deviation of the mouth and eye (facial paralysis), paralysis of the four limbs, hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body), lockjaw with a stiff tongue, aphasia (loss of ability to speak). (Sudden collapse indicates involvement of the Zang organs, which is a severe syndrome. Absence of collapse indicates involvement of the meridians and vessels, which is a mild syndrome. See below for details.) Wind is categorized into External Wind and Internal Wind. Internal Wind refers to the disorderly movement of Qi within the human body. (The *Classic of Internal Medicine* states: The Qi of the human body can be named after the violent winds of heaven and earth. Furthermore, excess Qi transforms into Fire; the manifestation of Fire-Qi is rapid like wind. Additionally, the Liver corresponds to Wind in the Five Elements.) External Wind arises from external pathogenic invasion, while Internal Wind arises from internal injury. This condition may be caused purely by internal injury, or by internal injury combined with External Wind; it never occurs solely due to External Wind. If it were merely a simple case of contracting External Wind, it would present only as mild symptoms such as headache, fever, and spontaneous sweating, as described in Zhang Zhongjing’s *Treatise on Cold Damage Diseases*. How could it result in sudden coma and collapse, nearing death, as the severe syndromes listed above? (These aforementioned severe syndromes are all caused by the depletion and failure of internal injuries. Wind, unless it is Cold, even if extremely violent, does not cause people to faint or collapse. Only the cold winds of the northwest regions may cause people to freeze and collapse, but this belongs to Cold Strike (Zhong Han) and is not termed Wind Strike.) According to Wang Andao, symptoms such as sudden rigidity and collapse were previously considered to be caused by external Wind invasion. However, when Liu Wansu, Li Dongyuan, and Zhu Danxi appeared, their theories differed from those of the ancients. Liu Wansu emphasized Fire as the primary pathogenesis, Li Dongyuan emphasized Qi, and Zhu Danxi emphasized Dampness (see below), regarding Wind instead as a sign of deficiency. Presumably, these three scholars conflated diseases similar to Wind Strike in their theoretical discussions, causing confusion among later generations. Later generations followed their teachings, considering what the ancients said to be "True Wind Strike" and what these three discussed to be "Similar Wind Strike." Zhang Jingyue further stated that the theories of these three scholars have nothing to do with external Wind pathogens; thus, they should not be called Wind Strike, nor Similar Wind Strike, but directly termed "Non-Wind" (Fei Feng). (He Mengyao notes:) The theories of these three scholars refer specifically to Internal Wind, established in contrast to externally contracted Wind. Both Internal Wind and External Wind can be termed "Struck by Wind"; therefore, I continue to use the general term Wind Strike to ensure people understand the concept of Internal Wind, not to deliberately contradict Mr. Wang, Mr. Zhang, and other scholars.