• Journal of Korean Medical classics
• /
• v.19 no.2 s.33
• /
• pp.301-304
• /
• 2006

양상선(楊上善)이 지은 ${\ulcorner}$황제내경태소(黃帝內徑太素)${\lrcorner}$삼십권(三十卷)은 ${\ulcorner}$황제내경(黃帝內徑)${\lrcorner}$의 초기 모습을 보여주고 있다. 지금 이십오권(二十五卷)만 존재하는 ${\ulcorner}$태소(太素)${\lrcorner}$는 ${\ulcorner}$황제내경(黃帝內徑)${\lrcorner}$을 연구하는 데에 반드시 참고해야 한다 . 양상선(楊上善)이 어느 시대의 사람이고, 언제 ${\ulcorner}$태소(太素)${\lrcorner}$가 지어졌는지는 학계에 여러 의견이 분분하다. 이 글은 풍부하고 구체적이며, 확실한 문헌사료에 근거하여 양상선(楊上善)이 당초인(庸初人)이며, ${\ulcorner}$태소(太素)${\lrcorner}$가 지어진 구체적인 시간은 A.D. 662년(年)에서 670년(年) 사이 (즉 당고종(庸高宗) 용삭이년(龍朔二年) 임술(壬戌)년에서 함형원년(或亨元年) 경오(慶午)년의 사이) 임을 밝히고 있다.

• Journal of Haehwa Medicine
• /
• v.7 no.2
• /
• pp.83-101
• /
• 1999

• Journal of Korean Medical classics
• /
• v.17 no.4
• /
• pp.64-68
• /
• 2004

당(唐)나라 고종시대(高宗時代)(7세기후반기(世紀後半期))에 유행(流行)했던 양상선(楊上善)이 선주(選注)한 "황제내경태소(黃帝內経太素)"가 일본(日本)에 전(傳)해진 것은 현종시대(玄宗時代)(8세기전반기(世紀前半期))였을 것으로 추측된다. 그 후 "태소(太素)"는 중국(中國) 송대(宋代)에는 이미 거의 모두 유실(流失)되었다. 일본(日本)에서도 점차 확실하게 전승(傳承)되지 못했지만 강호시대말기(江戶時代末期)에 이르러 경도(京都)의 인화사(仁和寺) 서고(書庫)에서 재발견(再發見)되었다. 따라서 지금 볼 수 있는 "태소(太素)"에 수록된 내용들은 모두 인화사(仁和寺)에 저장된 고권자초본(古卷子抄本)(이하(以下)에서 인화사본(仁和寺本)이라고 약칭(略稱))으로부터 유래(由來)해온 것이다. 이 초본(抄本)은 1165~1168년(年)에 단파뢰기(丹波頼基)가 직접(直接) 쓴 것이다. 그가 기초로 삼았던 원본은 일세대전(一世代前)의 단파헌기(丹波憲基)가 쓴 것이다. 이에 대하여 살펴본 결과, 인화사본(仁和寺本) "태소(太素)"의 정리(整理)에서 최초에 초사(抄寫)할 때 착오(錯誤)가 있었다는 것을 고려(考慮)할 필요성(必要性)이 일반고의적이상(一般古医籍以上)으로 크다고 말할 수 있으며, "소문(素問), "영추(靈樞)"와의 이동점(異同點)에 대해서도 교기(校記)할 필요(必要)가 없는 것을 응당 지적(指摘)해내야 한다. 그중 상당한 부분(部分)은 옮겨쓴 사람이 일본인이기 때문에 발생한 것이라 할 수 있다. 이런 것들은 일본인(日本人)에 의하여 교정(校正)하는 것이 더 편리(便利)하다고 생각된다. 단지 대륙(大陸)의 문화(文化)가 고대일본(古代日本)에 전입(轉入)되는 과정에서 고대한국인(古代韓國人)의 작용이 컸을 것으로 생각된다. 따라서 "태소(太素)"초본(抄本)에도 "일본적(日本的)인 착오(錯誤)"외에 "고대한국적(古代韓國的)인 착오(錯誤)"가 있을 가능성도 있다. 금후(今後) 이에 대한 많은 연구가 진행되기를 바란다.

• Journal of Korean Medical classics
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.31-49
• /
• 2012

硏究趣旨: "黃帝內经太素"是唐初杨上善对"黃帝內经"的內容进行分类整理, 并添加注释编纂而成的书籍. 在编纂"太素"的同时, 杨上善又将当的"黃帝明堂经"中的输穴分为12经脉和奇经八脉, 并对各个输穴的位置和针刺方法, 主治病症等做了详细的注释, 将其编为13卷的"黃帝內经明堂". "太素"和"明堂" 在公元763左右一同传入日本, 此后便成为了日本医生及针针灸敎育的主要教材. 但是"明堂"在9C末除序文和第一卷以外的12卷均遭到遗失, 只剩下了残卷仁和寺永仁本 永德本和尊经阁本. 不过值得庆幸的是, 984年丹波康赖编纂的 "医心方"第2卷关于输穴和针灸的內容中记载了杨上善"明堂"的內容, 因此对"太素"的输穴理论进行硏究时可以参考这本书. 硏究方法: 是从 "太素" 中选取有关输穴的篇章和语句后, 通过将杨上善的注释內容与 "黃帝內经", "难经"和"黃帝內 经 明堂", "医心方"的內容进行对比来加深对"太素" 输穴理论的理解. 然后后将选取的內容分为几大类, 并对各大类的核心语进行了归纳和演绎. 结论: 关于"太素"的输穴理论最后得出了以下几个结论. 1. 所谓输穴有着双重含义, 一是指经脉或脏腑的气经过输送所到达的地方, 另一个是指可以通过实施针灸等治疗方法使疾病痊愈的地方. 在这两个含义中, 杨上善更偏重于治愈疾病这层含义. 2. 脉气所发指的是脉气向经脉的流注路线以及临近部位发散的'气府'的概念. 因此根据位置邻近性原则, 输穴可以是所属完全不同的经脉的脉气所发穴. 对于脉气所发的气府槪念, 杨上善认为它不同于腧穴归经. 脉气所发穴适用于在发病部位的邻近部位近位取穴. 3. 原穴作为向本输输送脏腑原气的场所, 位于四肢的腕踝部位, 是脉动处和诊脉部位, 并且也是直接对脏腑原气进行调节的主要治疗处. 受"难经" 原气说的影响, 杨上善尤其重视本输中的原穴. 他的重视原气和原穴的思想在其对下焦的膀胱脉和部分路线并行的足三焦的说明中也有体现. 4. 对于'心不受邪'杨上善解释说此句是个部分否定句, 其意义不是说心完全不受邪气, 而是说其不太受外邪. 并用这句话对"本输"里没有手少阴心的本输, 而"经脉" 中却记载了心脉的是动所生病, "明堂"中记载了手少阴心的五输穴这一矛盾做出了解释. 5. 颈项部位有好几处输穴是能够观察脏腑气运的诊脉处, "本输"中记载有10处, "寒热杂说"中记载有5处. 这些穴名的特征是大多数都包含一个'天'字, 杨上善将这些输穴中的扶突, 人迎, 天牗, 天柱, 天府称为'五部大输'. 笔者认为这些输穴和本输部位的相应经脉的输穴都曾被看作是人迎寸口脉法等比较脉法的诊脉处, 但是"太素"编纂的当时好像并没有记其记载为比较诊脉处.

• Journal of Korean Medical classics
• /
• v.29 no.3
• /
• pp.101-111
• /
• 2016

Objectives : In this study, the meaning of Movement Qi between kidneys(腎間動氣) in Huangdineijingtaisu(黃帝內經太素) is researched for the purpose of understanding the differences between Huangdineijingtaisu and Nanjing(難經). Methods : The annotations related to Movement Qi between kidneys in Huangdineijingtaisu were selected and analyzed to overview the historical changes of the definition. Results : The meaning of Movement Qi between kidneys in Huangdineijingtaisu is not different from that of Nanjing basically, however, Yang Shangshan(楊上善) suggested additional new meanings including penetration meridian(衝脈), pass way for vital energy(氣街), visceral exhaustion pulse(眞藏脈) and so on. Conclusions : The reason that Yang Shangshan explained the circulation of primordial energy(原氣) focusing on penetration meridian is that he tried to connect the actual functions about Movement Qi between kidneys to clinical treatment than the ideal concept in Nanjing.

• Journal of Korean Medical classics
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.35-69
• /
• 2009

Yang Shangseon(楊上善)'s "Hwangjenaegyeongtaeso(黃帝內經太素)" was the first commentary book of "Hwangjenaegyeong(黃帝內經)", its importance often mentioned in level with Wang Bing (王冰)'s "Somun(素問)" "Yeongchu(靈樞)". The distinctive feature of Yang Sangseon(楊上善)'s commentary is that it is easy to comprehend in accordance with an organized classification, and that the explanations are simple and clear. Despite strict application of the Eumyang(陰陽, Yinyang) theory and Five phases[五行] theory throughout the text, should there be sentences which fall out of consistency with the basic theories, he added his own substantial commentary. His medical theory gives attention to the Meridian system[經絡], lays emphasis on developing the soul[神], and has a unique opinion about the Opening closing and pivot[開闔樞] theory along with the Myeongmun(命門). To explain the methods for preserving health[養生], he adopted the Nojang philosophy(老莊思想); to enrich the vitality he adopted the Buddhist philosophy(佛敎思想); and to analyze physiologic and pathogenic factors, he adopted the Confucian philosophy(儒家思想).

• Journal of Korean Medical classics
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.29-48
• /
• 2019

Objectives : The purpose of this study is to investigate which system the FanQie notation of "Taisu(太素)" followed by comparing FanQie notation appearing in "Taisu", with the Sound button(聲紐) and Rhyme system(韻類) of the FanQie notation appearing in the "Qieyun(切韻)" system phonology book and "Guangyun(廣韻)". Methods : Followed by organizing the FanQie list in "Taisu", in comparing this list with the top and bottom characters of FanQie in the "Qieyun" system phonology book and "Guangyun", this study explores the similarity of the system after noting the Sound button and the Rhyme system. Results & Conclusions : 1. Compared to FanQie of "Taisu" with that of "Qieyun" system, the Sound button and Rhyme system were 61.54% identical, and when comparing FanQie of "Taisu" with that of "Guangyun", the Sound button and Rhyme system were 55.45% identical. 2. Comparing FanQie top and bottom letters themselves of the "Taisu" and "Qieyun" system, of the 217 FanQie sound notation Chinese characters, FanQie top and bottom letters of 18 characters were the same, accounting for 8.29%, and when compared to the "Taisu" with the FanQie top and bottom characters of "Guangyun", 15 FanQie top and bottom characters were the same, accounting for 6.91%. 3. Of the total 11,500 characters in "Qieyun", the ratio of FanQie notation Chinese characters in "Taisu" was 1.89%, and among them, nine characters came out in "Taisu" FanQie notation while there was none in "Qieyun". This accounted for 4.15% of 217 FanQie notation sound Chinese characters in "Taisu", demonstrating that this represented a relatively high ratio. 4. Conclusionally "Taisu" was more closely related to "Qieyun" system phonology book than "Guangyun" in FanQie notation, and there is also a possibility that Yang Shangshan has created some FanQie notation by himself or additionally referred to other phonology books that are not "Qieyun" system phonology book.

• Journal of Korean Medical classics
• /
• v.24 no.5
• /
• pp.159-175
• /
• 2011

"Hwangjenaegyeong-taeso(黃帝內經太素)" is a classic work of Yang Sang-seon(楊上善), which comprises original articles of "Hwangjenaegyeong(黃帝內經)" along with "Somun(素問)", "Yeongchu(靈樞)", and "gapeul(甲乙)", as a one of the oldest annotated publications. Therefore, its significance lies in that "Hwangjenaegyeong-taeso(黃帝內經太素)" is a valuable work to reconstruct the original text of "Hwangjenaegyeong(黃帝內經)" and comprehend its fundamental ideas. The only printed edition of "Hwangjenaegyeong-taeso(黃帝內經太素)" was photocopied in 1981, and is currently known as 'Orient Edition'. While 'Orient Edition' was referred to as the draft for the latest revised edition, volume 21 and 27 were photocopied from hand-copied edition, not the original. The original publications of 'Orient Edition' have been stocked at 'Haengwuseook(杏雨書屋)' of Japan and were recently published. Hence, a comparative study between the two original volumes and the former ones has been conducted. Although the most of the differences were trivial, some may have led to distorted interpretation of the text. The errors of the former revised edition fall into a few specific categories, and the most significant ones were errors that were made during the hand-copying procedure. Moreover, there were errors that were made due to the low resolution of the former draft, and simple errors during the publishing. In this work, examples of such cases were presented, and the results were collected.