摘要
通过对经外奇穴概念的历史发展脉络进行梳理,发现元、明、清古医籍中所用"奇穴""经外奇穴""漏经穴""经外穴""别穴"等名词术语,实际表达了"经穴之外奇效之穴"和"经穴之外腧穴"这两种不同的概念。前者应以"经外奇穴"为规范术语,以"奇穴"为简称;后者则应以"经外穴"为规范术语,以"漏经穴""别穴"为别名。现代针灸学教材由于没能澄清这两种不同的概念,特别是对"经外奇穴"之"经外"的误读,在"经外奇穴""经外穴"的定义上不能形成共识,因而在规范术语的厘定上一直徘徊不定,从早期的"经外奇穴"到中期的"奇穴""经外穴",近期又回到"经外奇穴"。教材中这些术语的混淆又直接影响了针灸术语国家标准和国际标准相关术语的厘定。
Through an analysis of the historical development of the concept of extra ordinary point,it is found that the terms of"Qi point""extra ordinary point""Loujing point""extra meridian point"and"Bie point"used in the ancient medical books in the Yuan,Ming,and Qing Dynasties actually expressed two different concepts of"extra ordinary points with the magical effects"and"extra points other than the meridian points".The standardized term for the former concept should be"extra ordinary point"(Qi point for short),and the standardized term for the latter concept should be"extra meridian point",which is also called"Loujing point"and"Bie point".Since these two different concepts are not clarified in modern acupuncture textbooks,especially the misreading of"Jing Wai",no consensus has been reached on the definition of"extra ordinary point"and"extra meridian point",and the standardized terms have not been decided,which changed from"extra ordinary point"to"Qi point"and"extra point"and recently returned to"extra ordinary point".These confusions in textbooks have a direct impact on the determination of the related acupuncture terms used in national and international standards.
作者
李宝金
孟醒
武晓冬
黄龙祥
LI Bao-jin;MENG Xing;WU Xiao-dong;HUANG Long-xiang(School of Acupuncture-moxibustion and Tuina,Beijing University of Chinese Medicine,Beijing 100029,China;Institute of Acupuncture and Moxibustion,China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences,Beijing 100700)
出处
《针刺研究》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2020年第9期746-750,共5页
Acupuncture Research
基金
国家标准制定项目(No.20170321-T-468)。
关键词
经外奇穴
经外穴
概念演变
术语规范化
Extra ordinary point
Extra meridian point
Evolution of concept
Term standardization
