| 吉利明,郑洪.试论马莳《素问注证发微》对王冰注的批判性继承与创新性发展[J].浙江中医药大学学报,2024,48(5):576-581. |
| 试论马莳《素问注证发微》对王冰注的批判性继承与创新性发展 |
| Discussion on MA Shi’s Critical Inheritance and Innovative Development of WANG Bing’s Annotations in Suwen Zhuzheng Fa?wei |
| DOI：10.16466/j.issn1005-5509.2024.05.010 |
| 中文关键词: 马莳 素问注证发微 王冰 素问 注释 黄帝内经 注本 |
| 英文关键词: MA Shi Suwen Zhuzheng Fawei WANG Bing Suwen annotation Huangdi Neijing notes |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 833 |
| 全文下载次数: 491 |
| 中文摘要: |
| [目的] 总结《素问注证发微》中马莳辩驳王冰注文的特点，探析马注与王注的关系。[方法] 查阅《素问注证发微》中马莳辩驳王冰的注文，分析马莳对王注提出的批评性观点，对比马莳与王冰对经文的不同理解，从用语表达、解经方法、医理阐发三个方面归纳马注特点，并总结马注与王注的关系。[结果] 马莳在辩驳王注时，常使用“非“”浅“”缺”三类用语，表示对王注不同程度的辩驳观点，其解经方法可归纳为五类引证分析法与四层文理分析法，且多引《素问》《灵枢》经文为证。在医理阐发上，马注在理论范围的认识、理论内涵的分析、穴位位置的确定上均与王注存在差异。[结论] 马莳运用更为全面的解经方法，从更广的理论层面解读经文，辩驳王注，不仅形成了系统的解经思路，亦启发了经文含义的更多可能。马注对王注既有批判性继承，也有创新性发展，推进了对《素问》的研究。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| [Objective] To summarize the characteristics of MA Shi’s refutations of WANG Bing’s annotations in Suwen Zhuzheng Fawei (Commentaries and Discussions on Suwen of Yellow Emperor’s Inner Canon)， and analyze the relationship between MA’s annotations and WANG’s annotations. [Methods] After consulting the annotations of MA Shi refuting WANG Bing in Suwen Zhuzheng Fawei， this paper analyzes MA Shi’s critical views on WANG’s annotations， compares the different understandings of MA Shi and WANG Bing on scriptures， and summarizes the characteristics of MA’s annotations from three aspects: expression of terms， method of interpreting scriptures and elucidation of medical theory. Finally it sums up the relationship between MA’s annotations and WANG’s annotations.[Results] When refuting WANG’s annotations， MA Shi often used three types of words to express different degrees of refutation on WANG’sannotations， which contained“ opposed”“ superficial” and“ lacking”. The methods of interpreting scriptures can be summarized into five kinds of citation analysis and four levels of literary analysis， and the scriptures of Suwen and Lingshu were mostly cited as evidence. In the elucidation of medical theory， MA’s annotations differed from WANG’s in the understanding of theoretical scope， the analysis of theoretical connotation and the determination of acupoint position. [Conclusion] MA Shi used the more comprehensive interpretation methods， interpreted the scriptures from the broader theoretical level and refuted WANG’s annotations， which not only formed asystematic way of interpreting the scriptures， but also inspired more possibilities of the meaning of the scriptures. MA’s annotations had both critical inheritance and innovative development to WANG’s annotations， which promoted the study of Suwen. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |