《内经》与《难经》针刺补泻理论之区别  

Differences on Acupuncture Reinforcing and Reducing Theory Between Neijingand Nanjing

作　　者：李素云[1] LI Su-yun(Institute of Acupuncture and Moxibustion, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100700, China)

机构地区：[1]中国中医科学院针灸研究所,北京100700

出　　处：《针刺研究》2017年第1期79-84,共6页Acupuncture Research

基　　金：北京市自然科学基金资助项目(No.7163223);国家重点基础研究发展计划"973"项目(No.2013CB 532006);中央级公益性科研院所基本科研业务费专项资金资助(No.ZZ 16009)

摘　　要：补泻刺法是传统针刺手法中的精华,早期中医经典《内经》《难经》对此记载颇丰。本文从补泻刺法的原则及内涵和操作时的刺激部位、手法、时机3个关键因素等方面对两部经典有关补泻刺法的论述进行梳理和比较。基于原文的客观分析,发现《内经》与《难经》有关补泻刺法的论述在上述各方面均存在明显差异,从而推断两者可能是出自我国早期不同医学学派的针刺补泻理论。Reinforcing and reducing manipulation is the elite of traditional acupuncture needling methods.Abundant records could be found in Neijing（The Yellow Emperor＇s Inner Canon）and Nanjing（The Classic on Medical Problems）at early times.In the present paper,the author collates and compares the recordation of reinforcing and reducing acupuncture manipulation in these two classics on the basis of the principle and connotation of the two manipulations and from three key factors as stimulus location,manipulation technique and needling time.Based on objective analysis of the original text,distinct differences were found in above three aspects.Therefore,the conclusion is that Neijing and Nanjingresemble different medical school of thoughts at an early phase of acupuncture theories.

关 键 词：《内经》 《难经》 针刺 补泻 区别 

分 类 号：R221.3[医药卫生—中医基础理论]