2009, Vol.22, No.1

A Study on Gi(氣) Conversion in 『Somun(素問)·Eumyang-eungsangdaeron(陰陽應象大論)』

Yousang Baik | 2009, 22(1) | pp.1~14 | number of Cited : 8

PDF

A Study on the Sunya Theory(宣夜說) in 『Hwangjenaegyeong(黃帝內經)』

Eun Seok-min | 2009, 22(1) | pp.15~26 | number of Cited : 1

PDF

A study on The Assignment of Jangbu(臟腑) to Chon·Gwan·Cheok(寸·關·尺) in 『Maekyojeongmiron(脈要精微論)』

양광렬 | 2009, 22(1) | pp.27~34 | number of Cited : 5

PDF

A Study of Acupuncture Documentary Characteristics of 『Chimgugapelgyeong(鍼灸甲乙經)』

김정호 , Kim, Ki Wook , Park Hyun-Gook | 2009, 22(1) | pp.35~60 | number of Cited : 5

PDF

The acupuncture documentary characteristics of the 『Chimgugapeulgyeong』 can be summarized into 7 parts such as the following. 1. After Imeok(林億)'s revised edition of the 『Gapeulgyeong(甲乙經)』 was printed during the Song dynasty, there were no reprints during the Southern Song, Geum(金) and Won(元) eras, and the first printed edition that remains today is the ‘Uihakyukgyeong edition[醫學六經本]’ published by Omyeonhak(吳勉學) during the Mallyeok(萬曆) era of the Myeong(明) dynasty. This publication was put into the 『Uitongjeongmaek(醫統正脈)』 collection in the 29th year of the Manlleok(萬曆) era(1601). Most of the remaining copies have been restored during the Cheong dynasty at bookstores, and we can see that much was restored because of damage and missing characters. Also, the ‘Namgyeokcho edition[藍格抄本]’ and ‘Yukgyeong edition[六經本]’ of the Myeong dynasty do not come from the same original document, which allows the correction of the former in many places. However, this edition was not copied well, so the order of contents is different, and there are many mistakes. The ‘Sagojeonseo edition[四庫全書本]’ and the ‘Gajeong edition[嘉靖本]’, which Yeounsu(余云岫) quoted from, coincide with each other, making them worth much reference. So, the 『Gapeulgyeong』 and ‘Yukgyeong edition’ should be seen as the original, with the ‘Myeongcho edition[明抄本]’ as the main revision, and the ‘Sago edition[四庫本]’ as a reference edition. The so-called ‘Chojeongtong edition(鈔正統本)’ has many problems and marks of forgery, so therefore cannot be used in revising the 『Gapeulgyeong』 through comparison. 2. The table of contents[序例] in the front of the current edition was in the original edition and was not added by Imeok. The structure of sentences quoted by medical books before the Song dynasty also coincide with the 'table of contents' but the edition remaining differs much from this 'table of contents' so it was edited or erased by people from future generations, especially after the Song dynasty. 3. The remaining edition of 『『Gapeulgyeong』 consists of at least 4 parts. The original edited by Hwangbomil(皇甫謐), annotations added by medicinal practitioners before the Song dynasty, Imeok's revisionary annotations during the Song dynasty, and annotations after the Song dynasty. 4. Expressions such as ‘Somun says[素問曰]’ ‘Gugwon says[九卷曰]’ and explanatory annotations like ‘Hae says[解曰]’ are old writings from the original text and were not added by someone later. 5. Almost all of the ‘Double lined small letter annotations[雙行小字注文]’ of the ‘Yukgyoeng edition’ was by people during the Song dynasty. 6. There are many omitted and wrong letters in the remaining edition and there are also many places where future generations edited and supplemented the text. The table of contents differ greatly from the original text. 7. The medical books that quote 『Gapeulgyeong』 a lot are 『Cheongeumyobang(千金要方)』、『Oedaebiyobang(外臺秘要方)』、『Seongjaechongrok(聖濟總錄)』、『Chimgujasaenggyeong(鍼灸資生經)』、『Yuyusinseo(幼幼新書)』、and 『Uihakgangmok(醫學綱目)』and such. However, the method used in using the text differs between the medical books, so the quotation from the same book comes from a quotation used by a doctor from a different era in one(『Cheongeumyobang』), or the quotation was taken from each medical book(『Chimgujasaenggyeong』) or the quotation was all taken from another book(『Yuyusinseo』). The reason we need to know about this problem properly is because we must use medical books that quote the original text of the 『Gapeulgyeong』 when we are looking for text that we can use to revise through comparison.

A Discussion on the Controversy of Relation between the Five Changes theory(五行論) and the Five Viscera from 『Geummun-Sangseo(今文尙書)』 and 『Gomun-Sangseo(古文尙書)』

Jang Woo Chang | 2009, 22(1) | pp.61~70 | number of Cited : 3