赵嗣真曰愚尝疑合病与并病之为难明也久矣因姑释之盖合病者二阳经或三阳经同受病病
之不
传者也并病者一阳经先病又过一经病之传者也且如太阳阳明并病一证若并而未尽是传未过尚
有表证仲景所谓太阳证不罢面色赤阳气怫郁在表不得越烦躁短气是也犹当汗之以各半汤若并
之已尽是为传过仲景所谓太阳证罢潮热手足汗出大便硬而谵语者是也法当下之以承气汤是知
传则入腑不传则不入腑所以仲景论太阳阳明合病止出三证如前于太阳阳明并病则言其有传受
如此也又三阳经互相合病皆曰下利仲景于太阳阳明合病则主以葛根汤太阳少阳合病主以黄芩
汤少阳阳明合病主以承气汤至于太阳少阳并病其证头项强痛眩 如结胸心下痞硬当刺大椎肺
俞肝俞不可汗下太阳阳明并病已见上论但三阳合病仲景无背恶寒语句虽别有口燥渴心烦背微
恶寒者乃属太阳证而非三阳合病也三阳若与三阴合病即是两感所以三阴无合病例也
按三阳合病证治见伤寒论阳明例篇
赵嗣真曰按仲景论谓冬月冒寒伏藏于肌肤而未即病因春温气所变则为热夫变者改易之义
也至
此则伏寒各随春夏之气改变为温为热既变之后不得复言其为寒也所以仲景云温病不恶寒者其
理可见矣活人书却于温病曰阳热未盛为寒所制岂有伏寒既已变而为温尚可言寒能制其阳热耶
又
于热病曰阳热已盛寒不能制亦不当复言其为寒也盖是春夏阳热已变其伏寒即非有寒不能制其
阳热尔外有寒能折阳气者乃是时行寒疫仲景所谓春分以后秋分节前天有暴寒为时行寒疫也三
月四月其时阳气尚弱为寒所折病热则轻五月六月阳气已盛为寒所折病热则重七月八月阳气已
衰
为寒所折病热亦微是知时行寒疫与温热二病所论阳气盛衰时月则同至于论暴寒之寒与伏寒已
变之寒自是相违名不正则言不顺矣仲景又云其病与温及暑病相似但治有殊者要在辨其病源寒
热温三者之殊则用药冷热之品味判然矣
谨按王安道伤寒立法考曰读仲景书当求其立法之意不然则疑信相杂未免通此而碍彼也夫
伤寒
有即病者则为伤寒不即病者则谓之温与暑焉其类虽殊其所受之源则不殊也夫仲景之书三阴经
寒证居热证十之七八彼不即病之温暑但一于热耳何由而为寒哉就三阴寒证而详味之然后知予
言之不妄或谓三阴经寒证本是杂病为王叔和增入其中又或谓其证之寒盖由寒药误治而致若此
者非也夫叔和之增入者辨脉平脉与可汗可下等诸篇而已其六经病篇必非叔和所能赞辞也但厥
阴经中下痢呕哕诸条却是叔和因其有厥逆而附遂并无厥逆而同类者亦附之耳至若以药误治而
成变证则为太阳为多纵使三阴证亦或有寒药误治而变寒者然岂应如是之众乎夫惟后人以仲景
书通为伤寒温暑者设遂致诸温剂皆疑之而不敢用韩祗和虽觉桂枝汤之难用但谓今昔之世不同
然未悟仲景书本为即病之伤寒设也且其着微旨一书又纯以温暑作伤寒立论而即病之伤寒反不
言及此已是舍本从末全不能窥仲景藩篱又以夏至前胸膈闷呕逆气塞肠鸣腹痛身体拘急手足逆
冷等证视为伤寒谓与仲景三阴证脉理同而证不同遂别立温中法以治以予观之其胸膈满闷呕逆
气塞等证既与仲景所叙三阴证不同则是内伤杂病岂温暑病乎况仲景所叙三阴证求对于春夏温
暑之病不亦 乎虽然祗和时内伤之理未明而又适当温暑病作之际其为感也固宜若非内伤杂病
则不止暴寒所中之病也且但曰寒而当温然未尝求其所以为寒之故也能求其故则知温暑本无寒
证其为寒证者皆内伤杂病与暴寒所中也至于刘守真出亦以温暑作伤寒立论而遗即病之伤寒其
所处辛凉解散之剂固为昧者有中风伤寒错治之失而立盖亦不无桂枝麻黄难用之惑也既于此则
无由悟夫仲景立桂枝麻黄汤之有所主用桂枝麻黄汤之有其时矣故原病式曰夏热用桂枝麻黄之
类热药发表须加寒药不然则热甚发黄或出斑矣殊不知仲景主桂枝麻黄汤本不欲用于夏月之时
矣苟悟夫桂枝麻黄本非温暑之剂则群疑冰泮矣何也夫寒之初客于表也开腠理郁阳气而为热故
非辛温之药不能开腠理以泄其热此麻黄汤之所由立也至于风邪伤表虽反疏腠理而不闭然邪既
客表则表之正气受伤而不能流通故亦发热也必以辛甘温之药发其邪则邪去而腠理自密矣此桂
枝汤之所由立也其所以不加寒药者盖由寒风在表又当天令寒冷之时而无所避故也后人不知仲
景立法之意故有惑于桂枝麻黄之热有犯于春夏之司气而不敢用于是有须加寒药之论夫欲加寒
药于桂枝麻黄之中此乃不悟其所以然故如此耳若仲景为温暑立方必不如此必别有法但惜其遗
帙不传致使后人有多岐之患若知仲景伤寒论专为即病伤寒作则知麻黄桂枝所宜用之故除传经
热病之外其直伤阴经与太阳不郁热即传阴经诸寒证皆有所归着而不复疑为药寒误下而生矣若
春夏有恶风恶寒有汗无汗之证盖春夏暴中风寒之新病非冬时受伤过时而发者不然则或者温暑
将发而复感于风寒或因感风寒而动乎久郁之热遂发温暑也仲景曰太阳证发热而渴不恶寒者为
温病观此则知温病不当恶寒而当渴其恶寒而不渴者非温病矣仲景虽不言暑病然暑病与温病同
但复过一时而加重于温病矣其不恶寒而渴则无异也春夏虽有恶寒恶风表证其桂枝麻黄二汤终
难轻用勿泥于发表不远热之语也于是而用辛凉解散庶为得宜苟不慎而概用之诚不能免夫狂躁
斑黄衄血之变而亦无功也虽或者行桂枝麻黄于春夏而效乃是因其辛散之力而偶中于万一断不
可视为常道而守之后人以通解散百解散之类不问四时中风伤寒一例施之虽非至正之道然较之
不慎而轻用麻黄桂枝以致变者则反庶几矣若夫仲景于三阴经每用温药亦由病之所必须与用之
有其时其若概以三阴寒证视为杂病而外之得无负于仲景济人利物之至仁而误后世乎自先觉不
示伤寒温暑异治之端绪但一以寒凉为主而诸温热之剂悉在所略致使后之学人视仲景书欲仗焉
而不敢以终决欲弃焉则犹以为立法之祖而不能外也能明夫仲景本为即病者设法则桂枝麻黄未
必难用诸温热之剂未必可略矣若谓仲景法不独为即病者设则凡时行及寒疫温疟风温等证亦通
似伤寒六经病诸方治之乎故仲景曰冬温之毒与伤寒大异为治不同又曰寒疫与温病及暑病相似
但治有殊耳是知温暑及时行寒疫温疟风温等病必别有治法今不见者亡之也观其所谓为治不同
所谓温疟风温温毒温疫脉之变证方治如说之语岂非有法而亡之乎决不可以伤寒六经病诸方通
治也夫素问谓人伤于寒为病热者言常而不言变也仲景谓或寒或热而不一者备常与变而弗遗也
仲景概言古人之所未言大有功于古人者虽欲偏废可乎
按上说与前论互有发明皆甚有功于仲景矣然伤寒卒病与夫时行寒疫但在脉证相符而治之
何以
能致变逆也夫审伤寒杂病脉异则所用辛温辛凉之剂判然矣大抵于既传之后变异多端岂无实肖
杂证者故仲景叔和论次虽例有混淆而证因标本不同治则权变不一证例多同而治疗有殊故不能
不使人致疑也人能求其意合而归一以观之则证例自定证定则治法不瘥矣但要将经论熟读玩味
有疑处兼看别书如赵氏为活人书释疑曰活人书之可疑者甚多仲景论亦有可疑者如白虎汤仲景
既云表不解者不可与而白虎加人参汤证一曰恶风一曰恶寒岂非表不解而复用白虎何耶盖恶风
曰微则但见于背而不至甚于恶风曰时时则时或乍寒而不常是表证已轻非若前证脉浮发热与汗
全不解者加之大热大渴所以用白虎而无疑也又曰仲景论太阳病得之八九日如疟状发热恶寒热
多寒少其人不呕清便欲自可一日二三度发脉微缓者为欲愈若脉微而恶寒者此阴阳俱虚不可更
发汗更下更吐也面色反有热色者未欲解也以其不能得小汗出身必痒宜桂枝麻黄各半汤仲景之
意盖以得病八九日如疟状发热恶寒热多寒少十六字为自初至今之证以下文乃是以后拟病防
变
之辞当分作三截看若其人不呕清便欲自可一日二三度发脉浮缓为欲愈此一节乃里和无病而脉
微者邪气微缓也阴阳同等脉证皆向安之兆可不大汗而欲自愈若脉微而恶寒者此阴阳俱虚不可
更发汗更下更吐之此节宜温之若面色反有热色者未欲解也以其不能得少汗出其身必痒宜各半
汤此一节必待汗而后愈也活人书不详文意却将其人不呕清便欲自可九字本是欲愈之证反以他
证各半汤汗之又将不可汗吐下证及各半汤证语句并脱略而不言取此证而用彼药汗其所不当汗
何也若是可见仲景文法多如此学人必须反复详玩熟观其意其例自见则治不瘥矣故赵氏尝曰仲
景之书一字不同则治法霄壤读之者可不于片言只字以求其意欤幸相与勉焉
赵嗣真说:我长久以来就怀疑合病与并病的概念难以阐明,于是姑且加以解释。所谓合病,是指两阳经或三阳经同时受邪发病,病情没有传变的过程;所谓并病,是指一阳经先发病,随后又传至另一经,这是病情发生传变的情况。例如太阳阳明并病这一证候,如果并而未完全传尽,说明传变尚未越过界限,表证依然存在,这就是张仲景所说的“太阳证不罢,面色赤,阳气怫郁在表不得越,烦躁短气”的情形,此时仍应当用发汗法,使用桂枝麻黄各半汤。如果并之已尽,说明已经传变过去,这就是张仲景所说的“太阳证罢,潮热,手足汗出,大便硬而谵语”的情形,治法应当用攻下法,使用承气汤。由此可知,传变则入腑,不传变则不入腑。所以张仲景在论述太阳阳明合病时,只列出前文所述的三种证候;而在论述太阳阳明并病时,则详细说明了其有传变的情况。
另外,三阳经互相合病都表现为下利。张仲景对于太阳阳明合病,主治以葛根汤;太阳少阳合病,主治以黄芩汤;少阳阳明合病,主治以承气汤。至于太阳少阳并病,其症状表现为头项强痛、眩晕、如结胸状、心下痞硬,应当针刺大椎穴、肺俞穴、肝俞穴,不可使用汗法和下法。太阳阳明并病已在上面论述过。但是,在三阳合病中,张仲景没有提到“背恶寒”的语句;虽然另有“口燥渴,心烦,背微恶寒”的描述,但这属于太阳病证,而非三阳合病。如果三阳经与三阴经合病,就是所谓的“两感”,所以三阴经没有合病的病例。
赵嗣真说:按照张仲景的论述,冬季感受寒邪,潜伏藏匿于肌肤之中而没有立即发病,到了春季被温气所改变,从而化为热证。“变”的意思是改易。到了这个时候,潜伏的寒邪各自随着春夏之气改变为温或热。既然已经改变,就不能再说它是寒邪了。所以张仲景说温病不恶寒,其中的道理由此可见。《活人书》却说温病是“阳热未盛,为寒所制”,难道潜伏的寒邪既然已经变为温病,还能说寒能制约其阳热吗?又在热病中说“阳热已盛,寒不能制”,也不应当再说它是寒邪。大概是因为春夏阳气已盛,变化的伏寒已非真正的寒邪,不能制约阳热罢了。此外,有寒邪能折损阳气的,那是指时行寒疫。张仲景所说的是:“春分以后,秋分节前,天有暴寒,称为时行寒疫。”三月四月,此时阳气尚弱,被寒邪折损,患病发热则较轻;五月六月,阳气已盛,被寒邪折损,患病发热则较重;七月八月,阳气已衰,被寒邪折损,患病发热也微弱。由此可知,时行寒疫与温热二病所论述的阳气盛衰与时令月份是一致的。至于论述暴寒之寒与潜伏寒邪已变之寒,自然是相互违背的。名分不正,言语就不顺当。张仲景又说:“其病与温及暑病相似,但治疗有所不同,关键在于辨别病源,寒、热、温三者不同,那么用药的冷、热品味也就判然不同了。”
谨按:王安道在《伤寒立法考》中说:读张仲景的书应当探求其立法的本意,否则就会疑信参半,难免通晓此理却妨碍彼理。伤寒中有即期发病的,称为伤寒;有不即期发病的,称为温病与暑病。它们的类别虽然不同,但所受之源则没有区别。张仲景的书中,三阴经的寒证占热证的十之七八,那些不即期发病的温暑病只是一味属热,怎么会变成寒证呢?仔细玩味三阴寒证,然后就知道我的话不是妄言。有人说三阴经寒证本是杂病,是王叔和增入其中的;又有人说这些寒证是由于误用寒药治疗导致的。像这样的说法都是不对的。王叔和增入的只是《辨脉》、《平脉》以及可汗、可下等诸篇而已,六经病篇必定不是王叔和所能撰写的。只是厥阴经中关于下痢、呕哕的各条,确实是王叔和因为其中有厥逆症状而附会的,甚至连没有厥逆但属于同类者也都附上了。至于因药物误治而成变证,则以太阳经为多,即使三阴证也有因误用寒药而变为寒证的,但难道会如此众多吗?正是因为后人将张仲景的书通篇视为针对伤寒、温暑而设,导致对各种温剂都产生怀疑而不敢使用。韩祗和虽然觉得桂枝汤难以使用,但认为今昔时代不同,然而并未领悟张仲景的书原本是为即期发病的伤寒而设立的。而且他所著的《微旨》一书,又纯粹以温暑当作伤寒来立论,反而不提即期发病的伤寒,这已经是舍本逐末,完全不能窥见张仲景学术的藩篱。他又将夏至前出现的胸膈闷、呕逆、气塞、肠鸣、腹痛、身体拘急、手足逆冷等证候视为伤寒,认为与张仲景三阴证的脉理相同而证候不同,于是另立温中法来治疗。在我看来,他所说的胸膈满闷、呕逆、气塞等证候既然与张仲景所叙述的三阴证不同,那就是内伤杂病,难道是温暑病吗?况且张仲景所叙述的三阴证,用来对应春夏温暑的病,不是很荒谬吗?虽然韩祗和当时对内伤的理论还不明确,又恰逢温暑病发作之际,他的感受固然适宜,但如果不是内伤杂病,就不止是暴寒所中的病。而且他只说是寒证而应当用温法,却未曾探究其之所以为寒的原因。如果能探究其原因,就会知道温暑本来没有寒证,那些表现为寒证的,都是内伤杂病与暴寒所中。至于刘守真出现后,也以温暑当作伤寒来立论,而遗漏了即期发病的伤寒。他所处方的辛凉解散之剂,固然是为了纠正庸俗之人将中风、伤寒错治的失误而立,但也并非没有对桂枝、麻黄难用的困惑。既然对此无法领悟张仲景设立桂枝汤、麻黄汤有所主用,以及桂枝汤、麻黄汤有其适用之时,所以在《原病式》中说:“夏季炎热,使用桂枝、麻黄之类热药发表,必须加入寒药,不然则会热甚发黄或出斑疹。”殊不知张仲景主张使用桂枝、麻黄汤,本就不打算用于夏月之时。如果领悟到桂枝、麻黄汤本就不是治疗温暑的方剂,那么各种疑惑就会像冰融化一样消散。为什么呢?寒邪初客于体表,开启腠理,郁闭阳气而化热,所以非辛温药物不能开泄腠理以发散其热,这就是麻黄汤创立的原因。至于风邪伤表,虽然使腠理疏松而不闭塞,但邪气既客居体表,则体表的正气受伤而不能流通,所以也会发热。必须以辛甘温的药物发散邪气,邪去而腠理自然致密,这就是桂枝汤创立的原因。其中不加寒药的原因,是因为寒风在表,又正值天气寒冷之时,无处躲避,故需辛温以散之。后人不知张仲景立法的本意,所以对桂枝、麻黄的温热性质感到困惑,触犯春夏的主气而不敢使用,于是有了需要加入寒药的言论。想在桂枝、麻黄中加入寒药,这是因为不理解其所以然的缘故。如果张仲景为温暑立方,必定不会如此,必定另有方法,可惜其遗稿失传,致使后人有多歧之患。如果知道张仲景《伤寒论》专为即期发病的伤寒而作,就知道麻黄、桂枝适宜的用途,除了传经热病之外,其直伤阴经与太阳不郁热即传阴经的各种寒证,都有了归属,不再怀疑因药寒误下而产生变证。如果在春夏出现恶风、恶寒、有汗、无汗的证候,大概是春夏突发中风寒的新病,而不是冬季受伤过时而发的。否则,或者是温暑即将发作而又感受风寒,或者是因为感受风寒而动摇了久郁的热邪,遂发为温暑。张仲景说:“太阳病,发热而渴,不恶寒者为温病。”看这一点就知道温病不应当恶寒而应当口渴,其恶寒而不渴的,就不是温病了。张仲景虽然没有提及暑病,但暑病与温病相同,只是经过一段时间加重于温病罢了。其不恶寒而口渴则没有差异。春夏虽然有恶寒、恶风的表证,但桂枝、麻黄二汤终究难以轻率使用,不要拘泥于“发表不远热”的话。于是使用辛凉解散之法,才算是得当。如果不谨慎而一概使用,确实不能避免狂躁、发斑、发黄、鼻衄血等变证,而且也没有功效。虽然有人可能在春夏使用桂枝、麻黄而见效,那也只是因为其辛散之力偶然中肯,绝不能视为常道而坚守。后人将通解散、百解散之类的方子,不问四时,中风、伤寒一例施用,虽然这不是最正统的方法,但比起不慎而轻用麻黄、桂枝以致产生变证的情况,反而稍微好一些。至于张仲景在三阴经每用温药,也是由于病情所需,并且有其适用的时机。如果把所有的三阴寒证都视为杂病而排斥在外,岂不是辜负了张仲景济世救人的至仁之心,而误导后世吗?自从先觉者没有指示伤寒与温暑异治的头绪,只是以寒凉为主,而各种温热之剂都被忽略,致使后之学人看待张仲景的书,想依靠它却又不敢决断,想抛弃它又认为它是立法的始祖而不能除外。如果能明白张仲景原本是为即期发病者设法,那么桂枝、麻黄未必难用,各种温热之剂也未必可略。如果说张仲景的法度不仅为即期发病者设立,那么凡时行及寒疫、温疟、风温等证候,也都通用于伤寒六经病的诸方治疗吗?所以张仲景说:“冬温之毒与伤寒大异,为治不同。”又说:“寒疫与温病及暑病相似,但治疗有不同耳。”由此可知,温暑及时行寒疫、温疟、风温等病,必定别有治疗方法,现在不见记载的是亡佚了。看他所谓“为治不同”,所谓温疟、风温、温毒、温疫脉之变证方治如说的话语,难道不是有法而亡佚了吗?决不可以用伤寒六经病的诸方通治。《素问》说人伤于寒,为病热,是说常理而言,不说变理。张仲景说或寒或热而不一,是备述常理与变理而不遗漏。张仲景概括地阐述了古人之所未言,大有功于古人,虽然想偏废它,可以吗?
按上述说法与前文论述互有发明,都对张仲景很有功劳。然而,伤寒卒病及时行寒疫,只要在脉证相符的情况下治疗,为什么会导致变逆呢?大抵在于审察伤寒与杂病的脉象不同,那么所用辛温、辛凉的药剂也就判然不同了。大致在病情传变之后,变异多端,难道没有实相类似杂证的情况吗?所以张仲景、王叔和的论次虽然条例有混淆,但因为证候因标本不同,治疗则权变不一,证例多同而治疗有殊,所以不能不使人产生疑惑。人能探求其意,合而归一以观察,那么证例自然确定。证例确定,则治法就不会差错了。只要将经论熟读玩味,有疑问的地方兼看别书。如赵氏为《活人书》释疑说:《活人书》中可疑的地方很多,张仲景的论述也有可疑之处。如白虎汤,张仲景既然说表不解者不可给予,而白虎加人参汤证中,一说恶风,一说恶寒,难道不是表不解而复用白虎吗?其实,如果是“恶风曰微”,则仅见于背部,不至于比一般的恶风严重;如果是“时时恶风”,则是时或乍寒而不经常,这说明表证已轻,不像前证那样脉浮、发热、出汗完全不解。加之有大热、大渴,所以用白虎汤无疑。又有人说:张仲景论述太阳病得之八九日,如疟状,发热恶寒,热多寒少,其人如果不呕,清便欲自可,一日二三度发,脉微缓者为欲愈;若脉微而恶寒者,此阴阳俱虚,不可更发汗、更下、更吐。面色反有热色者,未欲解也,以其不能得小汗出,身必痒,宜桂枝麻黄各半汤。张仲景的意思,大概是以“得病八九日,如疟状,发热恶寒,热多寒少”这十六字作为从初起到现在的证候,以下文乃是以后推测病情以防变的言辞,应当分作三段来看。如果“其人不呕,清便欲自可,一日二三度发,脉浮缓”,这是欲愈的一节,乃里和无病而脉微者,是邪气微缓,阴阳同等,脉证皆向安之兆,可不待大汗而欲自愈。若“脉微而恶寒者”,此阴阳俱虚,不可更发汗、更下、更吐,这一节宜用温法。若“面色反有热色者,未欲解也,以其不能得少汗出,其身必痒,宜各半汤”,这一节必待汗而后愈。《活人书》不详察文意,却将“其人不呕,清便欲自可”九个字,本是欲愈的证候,反而用其他证候的桂枝麻黄各半汤发汗,又将不可汗、吐、下的证候及各半汤证的语句并脱略而不说,取此证而用彼药,汗其所不当汗,为什么呢?从这里可以看出,张仲景的文法大多如此,学人必须反复详玩,熟观其意,其条例自然显现,则治法不差矣。所以赵氏曾说:张仲景的书,一字不同,则治法霄壤之别。读它的人,能不于片言只字中探求其意吗?希望共同勉励吧。
Zhao Sizhen said: I have long suspected that the concepts of *hebing* (combined disease) and *bingbing* (consecutive disease) are difficult to clarify, so I will tentatively explain them. The term *hebing* refers to a condition where two Yang meridians or three Yang meridians are simultaneously affected by pathogenic factors, without the process of disease transmission; whereas *bingbing* refers to a condition where one Yang meridian is first affected, and subsequently transmits to another meridian, indicating the occurrence of disease transmission. For example, in the case of Taiyang-Yangming *bingbing*, if the combination is not yet fully transmitted, it indicates that the transmission has not crossed the boundary, and exterior symptoms still exist. This corresponds to what Zhang Zhongjing described as "Taiyang syndrome unrelieved, redness of the face, oppression of Yang Qi in the exterior unable to vent, irritability, and shortness of breath." In such cases, diaphoresis (sweating method) should still be employed, using Guizhi Mahuang Ge Ban Tang (Cinnamon Twig and Ephedra Half-Volume Decoction). If the combination is complete, it indicates that transmission has occurred. This corresponds to Zhang Zhongjing's description of "Taiyang syndrome resolved, tidal fever, sweating of hands and feet, hard stool, and delirium." The treatment method should then be purgation (downward draining), using Chengqi Tang (Gut-Clearing Decoction). From this, we know that if transmission occurs, the pathogen enters the Fu organs; if not, it does not. Therefore, when discussing Taiyang-Yangming *hebing*, Zhang Zhongjing only lists the three syndromes mentioned earlier; but when discussing Taiyang-Yangming *bingbing*, he details its potential for transmission.
Furthermore, when the three Yang meridians combine (*hebing*), they all present with diarrhea. For Taiyang-Yangming *hebing*, Zhang Zhongjing primarily prescribes Gegen Tang (Kudzu Decoction); for Taiyang-Shaoyang *hebing*, Huangqin Tang (Scutellaria Decoction); and for Shaoyang-Yangming *hebing*, Chengqi Tang (Gut-Clearing Decoction). As for Taiyang-Shaoyang *bingbing*, the symptoms include stiffness and pain in the head and neck, dizziness, a sensation like chest binding (Jie Xiong), and hardness below the heart. Acupuncture at Dazhui (GV14), Feishu (BL13), and Ganshu (BL18) should be employed, and neither diaphoresis nor purgation should be used. Taiyang-Yangming *bingbing* has been discussed above. However, in cases of San Yang (Three Yang) *hebing*, Zhang Zhongjing does not mention "aversion to cold on the back"; although there is a separate mention of "dry mouth and throat, vexation, and slight aversion to cold on the back," this belongs to Taiyang syndrome, not San Yang *hebing*. If the three Yang meridians combine with the three Yin meridians, it is called "Liang Gan" (Double Contraction), so there are no cases of *hebing* involving the three Yin meridians.
Note: The syndromes and treatments for San Yang *hebing* can be found in the Yangming Chapter of the Shanghan Lun (Treatise on Cold Damage).
Zhao Sizhen stated: According to Zhang Zhongjing's discussion, in winter, one contracts cold pathogens which lie dormant in the skin and muscles without immediate onset. When spring arrives, the warming Qi transforms this latent cold into heat. The term "transform" (Bian) means alteration. At this point, the latent cold changes according to the Qi of spring and summer into warmth or heat. Once transformed, it can no longer be referred to as cold. Thus, Zhang Zhongjing's statement that warm diseases do not present with aversion to cold becomes understandable. However, the *Huren Shu* (Book for Saving Lives) states that in warm disease, "Yang heat is not yet abundant and is constrained by cold." How can it be said that latent cold, having already transformed into warmth, is still constrained by cold? Furthermore, regarding hot diseases, it states "Yang heat is abundant, and cold cannot constrain it," implying it should not be referred to as cold again. Essentially, because Yang heat is abundant in spring and summer, the transformed latent cold is no longer true cold and cannot constrain Yang heat. Additionally, there are instances where cold pathogens damage Yang Qi; these refer to epidemic cold plagues (Shi Xing Han Yi). Zhang Zhongjing defined this as: "After the Spring Equinox and before the Autumnal Equinox, sudden cold weather is called an epidemic cold plague." In the third and fourth lunar months, Yang Qi is still weak; when damaged by cold, the resulting fever is mild. In the fifth and sixth months, Yang Qi is abundant; when damaged by cold, the resulting fever is severe. In the seventh and eighth months, Yang Qi is declining; when damaged by cold, the resulting fever is also mild. Thus, the discussion of Yang Qi abundance and decline in relation to seasonal months is consistent between epidemic cold plagues and warm-hot diseases. However, the discussion of sudden cold versus latent cold that has already transformed is contradictory. If names are not correct, words do not flow smoothly. Zhang Zhongjing further stated: "The disease resembles warm and summer-heat diseases, but the treatment differs significantly. The key lies in distinguishing the disease source; the differences among cold, heat, and warmth dictate whether the medicinal properties used should be cooling or warming."
Respectfully noted: Wang Andao, in *Shanghan Lifa Kao* (Study on the Legislative Principles of Cold Damage), stated: When reading Zhang Zhongjing's works, one must seek the intent behind his legislative principles; otherwise, doubt and belief will mix, leading to understanding one aspect while hindering another. Cold damage includes cases that manifest immediately, termed "Shanghan" (Cold Damage), and those that do not manifest immediately, termed "Wen" (Warm Disease) and "Shu" (Summer-Heat Disease). Although their categories differ, their origin is the same. In Zhang Zhongjing's book, cold syndromes of the three Yin meridians account for seventy to eighty percent of the heat syndromes. How could the non-immediate Wen and Shu diseases, which are purely heat, become cold? By carefully examining the cold syndromes of the three Yin meridians, one will realize my words are not baseless. Some argue that the cold syndromes of the three Yin meridians were originally miscellaneous diseases added by Wang Shuhe; others claim these cold syndromes resulted from erroneous treatment with cold medicines. Such views are incorrect. What Wang Shuhe added were merely chapters like *Bian Mai* (Differentiating Pulse), *Ping Mai* (Assessing Pulse), and discussions on diaphoresis and purgation. The Six Meridian Disease chapters were certainly not written by Wang Shuhe. It is true that in the Jueyin chapter, entries regarding diarrhea, vomiting, and hiccups were indeed appended by Wang Shuhe due to the presence of Jue Ni (Reversal Cold), even attaching similar cases without Jue Ni. Regarding variable syndromes caused by medicinal error, Taiyang meridian cases are most common. Even among Yin meridian cases, some may turn cold due to erroneous use of cold medicines, but surely not to such a large extent. It is precisely because later scholars treated Zhang Zhongjing's entire work as applicable to both Shanghan and Wen/Shu that they doubted and dared not use various warming agents. Han Zhihe felt that Guizhi Tang (Cinnamon Twig Decoction) was difficult to use, attributing it to differences between ancient and modern times, but failed to realize that Zhang Zhongjing's book was originally established for immediate-onset Shanghan. Moreover, his work *Weizhi* (Subtle Principles) exclusively treats Wen/Shu as Shanghan, omitting immediate-onset Shanghan entirely. This is putting the cart before the horse and failing to grasp the essence of Zhang Zhongjing's scholarship. He viewed symptoms occurring before the Summer Solstice—such as chest fullness, vomiting, qi obstruction, borborygmus, abdominal pain, body stiffness, and cold extremities—as Shanghan, claiming they shared pulse logic with Zhang Zhongjing's Yin meridian syndromes despite different presentations, and thus established a "Warming Middle" method. In my view, since these symptoms differ from Zhang Zhongjing's Yin meridian descriptions, they are internal injury miscellaneous diseases, not Wen/Shu diseases. Comparing Zhang Zhongjing's Yin meridian syndromes with spring-summer Wen/Shu diseases is absurd. Although Han Zhihe lacked clarity on internal injury theories at the time and encountered an outbreak of Wen/Shu diseases, his approach was understandable. However, if it were not internal injury, it would not just be sudden cold invasion. He simply stated it was cold requiring warming, without investigating the cause. Investigating the cause reveals that Wen/Shu inherently lacks cold syndromes; any cold presentation stems from internal injury or sudden cold invasion. Liu Shouzhen later also treated Wen/Shu as Shanghan, omitting immediate-onset Shanghan. His辛凉 (Acrid-Cool) dispersing formulas were established to correct lay errors in treating wind-stroke and cold damage, yet he too harbored doubts about the usability of Guizhi and Mahuang. Failing to understand why Zhang Zhongjing established these formulas for specific indications and timings, Liu wrote in *Yuan Bing Shi*: "In summer heat, using hot drugs like Guizhi and Mahuang for diaphoresis requires adding cold drugs; otherwise, excessive heat causes jaundice or macules." Little did he know that Zhang Zhongjing never intended to use Guizhi or Mahuang Tang in summer. If one realizes that Guizhi and Mahuang are not agents for Wen/Shu, all doubts will melt away. Why? When cold initially invades the exterior, it opens the pores and constrains Yang Qi, generating heat. Only acrid-warm drugs can open the pores to vent this heat, hence the establishment of Mahuang Tang. When wind pathogens invade the exterior, they loosen rather than close the pores. However, since the pathogen resides in the exterior, the body's righteous Qi is injured and cannot circulate freely, causing fever. Acrid-sweet-warm drugs are needed to disperse the pathogen, allowing the pores to seal naturally, hence the establishment of Guizhi Tang. Cold drugs are not added because the wind-cold is in the exterior during cold weather, necessitating warmth to counteract it. Later scholars, unaware of Zhang Zhongjing's intent, were confused by the heat of Guizhi and Mahuang, fearing violation of spring-summer Qi, and thus proposed adding cold drugs. This addition stems from a lack of understanding. If Zhang Zhongjing had formulated for Wen/Shu, he would not have done so; he surely had other methods, though lost to history. If one understands that *Shanghan Lun* is specifically for immediate-onset Shanghan, the appropriate use of Mahuang and Guizhi becomes clear. Excluding transmitted heat diseases, direct invasion of Yin meridians and Taiyang cases without constraint that transmit to Yin meridians all have their place, removing doubts about cold-induced errors. If in spring and summer one encounters aversion to wind/cold with or without sweat, these are likely new cases of sudden wind-cold in spring/summer, not delayed manifestations from winter injuries. Otherwise, it might be Wen/Shu about to erupt triggered by new wind-cold, or wind-cold stirring long-constrained heat, leading to Wen/Shu eruption. Zhang Zhongjing stated: "Taiyang syndrome with fever, thirst, and no aversion to cold is Warm Disease." This implies Warm Disease should feature thirst, not aversion to cold; aversion to cold without thirst is not Warm Disease. Although Zhang Zhongjing did not explicitly discuss Summer-Heat Disease, it is similar to Warm Disease but worsens over time. Its lack of aversion to cold and presence of thirst are identical. Although spring and summer may present with aversion to cold/wind exterior symptoms, Guizhi and Mahuang Tangs should rarely be used lightly. Do not cling to the saying "dispersing exterior does not avoid heat." Using acrid-cool dispersing methods is more appropriate. Imprudent general use inevitably leads to mania, macules, jaundice, and epistaxis, yielding no benefit. Occasionally, using Guizhi/Mahuang in spring/summer may succeed due to their acrid-dispersing power hitting the mark by chance, but this should not be regarded as standard practice. Later scholars applied general dispersing formulas indiscriminately across seasons for wind-stroke and cold damage. While not orthodox, this is safer than recklessly using Mahuang/Guizhi which causes complications. Zhang Zhongjing used warming drugs for Yin meridian diseases due to necessity and timing. Dismissing all Yin cold syndromes as miscellaneous diseases betrays Zhang Zhongjing's benevolence and misleads future generations. Since early masters did not clarify the distinction in treating Shanghan vs. Wen/Shu, favoring cooling agents and neglecting warming ones, later students hesitate to rely on Zhang Zhongjing yet cannot discard him as the ancestor of legislation. Understanding that Zhang Zhongjing legislated for immediate-onset cases clarifies that Guizhi/Mahuang are not necessarily difficult to use, and warming agents should not be neglected. If Zhang Zhongjing's laws applied to all epidemic, cold plague, warm malaria, and wind-warm cases, would they all be treated with Six Meridian formulas? Zhang Zhongjing said: "Winter warm toxins differ greatly from Shanghan, with different treatments." And: "Cold plague resembles warm and summer-heat diseases, but treatment differs." Thus, Wen/Shu, epidemics, warm malaria, and wind-warm diseases must have distinct treatments, now lost. His mentions of differing treatments and specific pulse/syndrome/formula variations for warm malaria, wind-warm, warm toxin, and warm epidemic imply these methods existed but were lost. They definitely cannot be treated uniformly with Six Meridian Shanghan formulas. *Suwen* states "injury by cold results in heat disease," describing constant principles, not variations. Zhang Zhongjing describes varying cold and heat, covering constants and variations without omission. Zhang Zhongjing elaborated on what ancients omitted, greatly benefiting humanity; how can it be partially discarded?
As noted above, these arguments complement each other and greatly aid the understanding of Zhang Zhongjing. However, regarding Shanghan, sudden death diseases, and epidemic cold plagues, why do deviations occur even when pulse and syndrome match? Generally, after transmission, variations are numerous, resembling miscellaneous diseases. Thus, although Zhang Zhongjing and Wang Shuhe's compilations have mixed categories, the syndromes' root and branch differ, and treatments vary flexibly. Similar syndromes require different treatments, causing confusion. If one seeks the underlying meaning and unifies observation, syndromes will clarify, and treatments will be accurate. One must study the classics thoroughly and consult other books when in doubt. For instance, Zhao's commentary on *Huren Shu* notes many ambiguities in both *Huren Shu* and Zhang Zhongjing's text. Take Baibu Tang (White Tiger Decoction): Zhang Zhongjing says it is contraindicated if the exterior is unresolved, yet Baihu Jia Renshen Tang (White Tiger Plus Ginseng Decoction) lists both "aversion to wind" and "aversion to cold." Is this not contradicting the rule? Actually, "slight aversion to wind" appears only on the back and is less severe than general aversion to wind. "Intermittent aversion to wind" implies occasional chills, indicating the exterior syndrome is light, unlike previous cases with floating pulse, fever, and complete lack of sweating. Coupled with high fever and intense thirst, Baibu Tang is undoubtedly indicated. Another example: Zhang Zhongjing discusses Taiyang disease lasting eight or nine days, resembling malaria with fever and chills, more heat than cold. If the patient does not vomit and bowel movements are normal, occurring 2-3 times a day with a slightly slow pulse, recovery is expected. If the pulse is faint with aversion to cold, both Yin and Yang are deficient, and diaphoresis, purgation, or emesis are contraindicated. If the face shows redness, resolution is not imminent; inability to produce slight sweat causes itching, warranting Guizhi Mahuang Ge Ban Tang. Zhang Zhongjing's intent is to treat the "eight-nine days... malaria-like... more heat than cold" as the current state, while the following text offers predictive advice for prevention. This should be read in three parts. 1. "No vomiting, normal bowels, intermittent发作, floating-slow pulse": Interior is harmonious, pathogen is weakening, Yin-Yang balanced, indicating spontaneous recovery without drastic sweating. 2. "Faint pulse, aversion to cold": Yin-Yang deficiency, requiring warming. 3. "Red face, itching, needs slight sweat": Requires diaphoresis via Ge Ban Tang. *Huren Shu* fails to parse the text correctly, applying Ge Ban Tang to the "no vomiting/normal bowels" section (which indicates recovery) and omitting the contraindications for sweating/vomiting/purgation, thereby using the wrong drug for the wrong syndrome. This illustrates Zhang Zhongjing's precise textual style. Scholars must repeatedly examine the text to grasp the intent and rules, ensuring accurate treatment. Zhao once said: "In Zhang Zhongjing's book, a single character difference leads to vastly different treatments." Readers must seek meaning in every word. Let us encourage each other.