《玉篇》 ，充至切，恶也；痉，渠并切，风强病。二字义别。《素问》气厥、五常政
等篇
，及《伤寒》旧本痉皆作 。许叔微《百证歌》以为名异实同，而字仍作 ，不改。成无己
注
伤寒，则直云 字误，亦不改。今本作痉，传写者之故。近代但知痉，无有能知 者。泉案
作为是。古人列病，恒重乎证。 乃痉之总号，痉乃 之一端。观仲景云∶病身热足寒，
头项强急，恶寒，时头热面赤，目脉赤，独头摇，卒口噤，背反张者，痉病也。明此数者，
皆为恶候，故知当作 。若痉字则因劲而起，专指口噤、背反张言，不足以赅余恶。是痉者
证名， 者病名。人体强直，有似劲象，故谓之劲；去力加 即为痉，可逆溯而得也。《巢
源》亦作 ，故得与痫冒混称。痫固小儿之恶候，冒亦产家之恶候，病不同而恶则同，此其
所以混称之欤！《说文》 部无 字，厂部有 字，云碍止也。然则邪气碍止不去，乃见恶
候， 即 之讹。
古之所谓喘，即今之所谓气促。《说文》喘，疾息也。疾息，谓息之疾者。两经多以喘
息对
说，正以喘为疾息，息为平息故也，勿作串说。疾息正今之气促，而又非气短之谓。短气者
，息不必促，而其气不足以息，故不曰短息，而曰短气。气促者，气不必短，而其息不利于
气，
故《脉经》或谓之息促，而后世浑言之，则遂曰气促也。今之所谓喘，即古之所谓上气。郑
注《周礼》上气，逆气也。逆气谓其逆在气，则不仅责在息。人之将死，有张口抬肩而逆气
者此也。浅者不识上气，谬目为喘。由是，今之喘，重于古之喘数倍矣。岂知此喘，乃是气
逆，苟非不治，多有下之而愈者，如咳逆葶苈泻肺汤症，及《外台》备急丸症是也。若疾息
之喘，是肺实所致，宜用宣利，如太阳麻黄汤症是也。古人分别之严，原为治法设，非可苟
焉而已。自二症混，而治法乖矣。
《玉篇》中记载：“充”字的读音为“充至切”，意为厌恶、凶险；“痉”字的读音为“渠并切”，指因风邪导致的身体强直病症。这两个字的含义是不同的。在《素问》的气厥、五常政等大论篇章，以及《伤寒论》的旧版本中，“痉”字都写作“㾦”。许叔微在《百证歌》中认为这两个名字不同但实质相同，因此字形仍保留为“㾦”，未作更改。成无己注解《伤寒论》时，则直接指出“㾦”字是误写，但也未予改正。现在通行的版本写作“痉”，这是传抄者造成的错误。近代人只知道“痉”字，没有人能认识“㾦”字了。钱天来（泉）考证认为应当使用“㾦”字是正确的。古人列举疾病名称，往往重视症状表现。“㾦”是这类疾病的总称，而“痉”只是“㾦”病中的一种具体表现。看张仲景所说：病人身体发热、脚部发凉，头项强直僵硬，怕冷，有时头部发热、面部发红，眼结膜充血，只有头部摇动，突然牙关紧闭，角弓反张的，称为“㾦病”。明白这几种情况，都属于凶险的症状，所以知道应当写作“㾦”。如果写作“痉”字，则是从“劲”（强劲、僵硬）的意思衍生而来，专门指代牙关紧闭、角弓反张这些症状，不足以概括其他所有凶险症状。因此，“痉”是症状的名称，“㾦”才是疾病的名称。人体出现强直，类似强劲的样子，所以称之为“劲”；去掉表示力量的部分加上“疒”（病字旁）就构成了“痉”，可以逆向推演得出这个结论。《诸病源候论》中也写作“㾦”，所以能够与痫病、冒证混称。痫病确实是小儿的凶险症状，冒证也是产妇的凶险症状，虽然疾病不同，但凶险程度相同，这就是它们混称的原因吧！《说文解字》的“疒”部中没有“㾦”字，但在“厂”部中有“𤸃”字，解释为阻碍停止。既然这样，那么邪气阻碍停滞不去，就会出现凶险症状，“㾦”就是“𤸃”的讹误字。
古代所说的“喘”，就是今天所说的“气促”。《说文解字》解释“喘”为呼吸急促。“疾息”指的是呼吸快速。两部经典著作中经常将“喘息”对举说明，正是因为在古义中，“喘”指呼吸急促，“息”指呼吸平稳，所以不要将其连读理解为“串”。呼吸急促正是今天的“气促”，但这并不是“气短”的意思。“短气”的人，呼吸不一定急促，而是气息不足以维持呼吸，所以不叫“短息”，而叫“短气”。“气促”的人，气息不一定短少，而是呼吸不畅利，所以《脉经》有时称之为“息促”，而后世笼统地说，就变成了“气促”。今天所说的“喘”，就是古代所说的“上气”。郑玄注释《周礼》中的“上气”，解释为逆气。所谓逆气，是指气机逆乱，不仅仅局限于呼吸方面。人在临死前，有张口抬肩、气机上逆的情况，就是这种表现。浅薄的人不认识“上气”，错误地将其称为“喘”。因此，今天的“喘”病，比古代的“喘”病严重得多。哪里知道这种“喘”，实际上是气逆，如果不是不治之症，大多可以通过泻下法治愈，比如咳逆葶苈泻肺汤证，以及《外台秘要》备急丸证就是例子。如果是呼吸急促的“喘”，是由肺气实盛引起的，适宜用宣通利下的方法治疗，比如太阳病的麻黄汤证就是这样。古人区分得如此严格，原本是为了配合治疗方法设立的，不能马虎了事。自从这两种症状混淆之后，治疗方法也就错乱了。
According to the *Yu Pian* (Dictionary of Character Meanings), "chong" (㾦) is pronounced as "chong zhi qie" and means ominous or perilous; "jing" (痉) is pronounced as "qu bing qie" and refers to a disease characterized by stiffness and spasms caused by wind pathogen. The meanings of these two characters are distinct. In chapters such as Qi Jue (Qi Reversal) and Wu Chang Zheng Da Lun (Great Treatise on the Five Regular Administrations) from the *Su Wen* (Basic Questions), as well as in older editions of the *Shang Han Lun* (Treatise on Cold Damage Disorders), the character for this condition was written as "㾦". Xu Shuwei, in his *Bai Zheng Ge* (Song of Hundred Symptoms), believed that while the names differed, the reality was the same, so he retained the character "㾦" without change. Cheng Wuji, in his commentary on the *Shang Han Lun*, directly stated that "㾦" was a mistaken character but did not correct it. The current version uses "痉", which is due to errors in transcription. Modern people only know the character "痉"; no one can recognize "㾦". Qian Tianlai's research concludes that using "㾦" is correct. In ancient times, when listing diseases, emphasis was placed on symptoms. "㾦" was the general term for this category of illness, whereas "痉" referred to only one aspect of "㾦". Consider Zhang Zhongjing's description: When a patient presents with fever in the body and coldness in the feet, stiffness and rigidity in the head and neck, aversion to cold, occasional heat in the head and redness in the face, congestion of the eye vessels, isolated shaking of the head, sudden lockjaw, and opisthotonos (backward arching of the back), it is called a "㾦 disease". Understanding these manifestations reveals they are all ominous signs; thus, the character should be "㾦". If written as "痉", it derives from "jin" (stiff/strong), specifically referring to lockjaw and opisthotonos, which is insufficient to encompass other ominous symptoms. Therefore, "痉" is a symptom name, while "㾦" is the disease name. The human body becomes stiff, resembling strength or rigidity, hence termed "jin"; removing the power component and adding the "disease" radical (疒) yields "痉", allowing for reverse etymological derivation. The *Zhu Bing Yuan Hou Lun* (Source Book of Diseases and Syndromes) also writes it as "㾦", allowing it to be conflated with epilepsy (Xian) and fainting/dizziness (Mao). Epilepsy is indeed an ominous condition in children, and Mao is also an ominous condition in postpartum women; although the diseases differ, their ominous nature is the same, which explains why they were conflated. The *Shuo Wen Jie Zi* does not contain "㾦" in the "疒" radical section, but contains "𤸃" in the "Han" radical section, defined as obstructed or stopped. Thus, when pathogenic factors obstruct and stagnate, ominous symptoms appear; "㾦" is a corrupted form of "𤸃".
What was called "chuan" (panting/wheezing) in ancient times corresponds to what is now called "qi cu" (shortness of breath/tachypnea). The *Shuo Wen Jie Zi* defines "chuan" as "ji xi" (rapid breathing). "Ji xi" refers to rapid respiration. Two classic texts often contrast "chuan" and "xi" (breath); this is because "chuan" denotes rapid breathing, while "xi" denotes calm breathing. They should not be read together as a single compound word. Rapid breathing corresponds to modern "qi cu," but it is not equivalent to "duan qi" (shortness of breath/lack of vital energy). In cases of "duan qi," respiration is not necessarily rapid, but there is insufficient Qi to sustain breathing; hence it is called "duan qi" rather than "duan xi." In cases of "qi cu," the Qi volume may not be short, but the respiration is difficult or labored; thus, the *Mai Jing* (Pulse Classic) sometimes calls it "xi cu," while later generations generalized it as "qi cu." What is called "chuan" today corresponds to what was called "shang qi" (rebellious Qi ascending) in ancient times. Zheng Xuan’s commentary on the *Zhou Li* (Rites of Zhou) defines "shang qi" as rebellious Qi. Rebellious Qi implies rebellion within the Qi mechanism itself, not merely concerning respiration. For example, near death, some individuals gasp with open mouths and raised shoulders due to rebellious Qi. Superficial scholars do not understand "shang qi" and erroneously label it as "chuan." Consequently, the modern concept of "chuan" is several times more severe than the ancient concept. It must be known that this type of "chuan" is actually Qi rebellion; if not incurable, it can often be cured by purgative methods, such as in cases suitable for Kemi Tingli Xiefei Tang (Cough-reversing Thladiapinia Lung-draining Decoction) or the Beiji Wan (Emergency Pill) case from the *Waitai Miyao*. However, the "chuan" characterized by rapid breathing ("ji xi") is caused by excess in the Lungs and is appropriate for treatment using dispersing and draining methods, such as in Taiyang syndrome cases suitable for Mahuang Tang (Ephedra Decoction). The ancients distinguished these strictly because it was designed to guide therapeutic methods; one cannot be casual about it. Since these two conditions have been conflated, therapeutic methods have become erroneous.