The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 21 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Scriptural Exegesis and Doctrinal Authority in Late Ming Buddhism: The Śūraṅgama Sūtra, Literati Interpretation, and Huayan Doctrinal Learning
Open accessAbstract
During the late Ming period, the Śūraṅgama Sūtra 楞嚴經 became a prominent site for negotiating the relationship between scriptural interpretation, religious practice, and doctrinal authority. This article examines how literati, lay Buddhists, Chan-oriented readers, and scholastic monks participated in the interpretation of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, and how these interpretive activities reshaped the place of Huayan doctrinal learning (Huayan yixue 華嚴義學) within late Ming Buddhism. Rather than treating the sūtra merely as an object of commentary, the article argues that its reception reveals a broader contest over who could legitimately interpret Buddhist scriptures and define the proper relation between textual understanding and disciplined cultivation. Among literati readers, the Śūraṅgama Sūtra resonated with Yangming learning and Chan-oriented discourses of mind-nature (xinxing 心性), giving rise to modes of textual spirituality in which reading, intuitive insight, moral reflection, and claims to interpretive authority became closely connected. At the same time, monastic critics worried that such approaches risked detaching realization from precepts, practice, and doctrinal training. Against this background, Huayan doctrinal learning emerged as a crucial framework for interpreting the Śūraṅgama Sūtra and for reasserting the authority of doctrinal Buddhism. While Li Tongxuan’s 李通玄 (635–730) Huayan thought appealed to literati and Chan-oriented circles because of its flexible synthesis of Huayan and Chan, some scholastic monks increasingly emphasized Chengguan 澄觀 (738–839) as a more systematic doctrinal authority. By tracing these intersecting debates, this article shows that late Ming interpretations of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra were inseparable from wider efforts to renegotiate the authority of Chan, literati exegesis, and Huayan doctrinal learning in Chinese Buddhism.
Overview
CoChat Summary
TL;DR
The article argues that late Ming reception of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra became a contested site for defining who could authoritatively interpret Buddhist scripture and how textual understanding related to cultivation. It shows literati, Chan-oriented readers, and scholastic monks negotiated these questions through Huayan doctrinal learning, especially the competing authority of Li Tongxuan and Chengguan.
Key findings
- Late Ming literati produced no fewer than forty-six commentaries and subcommentaries on the Śūraṅgama Sūtra (Wu 2008, p. 25), far exceeding literati output on other Buddhist scriptures; their readings were shaped by Yangming learning, Chan mind-nature discourse, and what Wu Jiang calls “textual spirituality.”
- Monastic critics such as Hanshan Deqing and Yunqi Zhuhong warned that literati Chan could become verbal display, neglecting precepts, Pure Land practice, meditation, and scriptural study; Yuan Hongdao criticized the mutual dilution of Chan and Yangming learning from within literati Buddhist circles.
- Huayan doctrinal learning became a dominant framework for interpreting the Śūraṅgama Sūtra; Qian Qianyi’s *Shujie meng chao* used a Huayan lens while criticizing literati overreach, whereas Tiantai figures Youxi Chuandeng and Ouyi Zhixu resisted Huayan-based readings.
- Within Huayan authority, late Ming literati and Chan-oriented circles favored Li Tongxuan’s accessible *Huayan helun*, while scholastic monks such as Ouyi Zhixu, Hanshan Deqing, and Yunqi Zhuhong elevated Chengguan’s *Shuchao* as a more systematic doctrinal authority.
Methods
- Historical-textual study; the paper states that no new data were created or analyzed. It examines late Ming commentaries, prefaces, letters, and polemics on the Śūraṅgama Sūtra and Huayan doctrinal learning.
- Sample includes literati lay Buddhists (e.g., Tu Long, Yuan Hongdao, Qian Qianyi, Li Zhi, Zhao Dazhou, Jiao Hong, Feng Mengzhen), Chan and scholastic monks (e.g., Hanshan Deqing, Yunqi Zhuhong, Ouyi Zhixu, Youxi Chuandeng, Xuelang Hong’en), and Huayan exegetes (Li Tongxuan, Chengguan, Changshui Zixuan, Fazang, Zongmi).
- Main analysis is close reading and contextual interpretation of exegetical debates over scriptural authority, Chan-doctrine relations, sudden versus gradual cultivation, and canon formation.
Limitations
- The paper states no formal limitations section; its Data availability statement says, “No new data were created or analyzed in this study.”
- Evident from the text: the study is qualitative and selective, centered on elite literati and monastic writings, with no systematic quantitative survey beyond cited counts; its interpretive claims about “textual spirituality” and interpretive authority rest on close readings of chosen figures and commentaries.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 Valid · 8 Not valid · 32 Not checked · 110 Own results and interpretations
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the same time, monastic critics worried that such approaches risked detaching realization from precepts, practice, and doctrinal training.”
§ Scriptural Exegesis and Doctrinal Authority in Late Ming Buddhism: The Śūraṅgama Sūtra, Literati Interpretation, and Huayan Doctrinal Learning > Abstract
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“He argued that such engagement was essential to ensure that “Chan does not fall into heterodox paths.” 3 禪不墮邪途.”
§ Scriptural Exegesis and Doctrinal Authority in Late Ming Buddhism: The Śūraṅgama Sūtra, Literati Interpretation, and Huayan Doctrinal Learning > 2. Why the Literati Chose the Śūraṅgama Sūtra: Doctrinal and Cultural Dimensions
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, he explicitly notes that the title “xuanyi” (Doctrinal Essentials) is modeled after Zhiyi's Fahua xuanyi 法華玄義 (Doctrinal Essentials of the Lotus Sūtra), thereby aligning himself with the Tiantai exegetical lineage.”
§ Scriptural Exegesis and Doctrinal Authority in Late Ming Buddhism: The Śūraṅgama Sūtra, Literati Interpretation, and Huayan Doctrinal Learning > Changshui Zixuan's
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The truth is, during the period spanning the Wanli 萬曆 reign (1573-1620) through the early Qing dynasty, the Śūraṅgama Sūtra became the object of markedly increased attention within literati circles.”
§ Scriptural Exegesis and Doctrinal Authority in Late Ming Buddhism: The Śūraṅgama Sūtra, Literati Interpretation, and Huayan Doctrinal Learning > 1. Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In his Ke qixin lun zhijie hou xu 刻起信論直解後序 (Postscript to the Annotated Straight Explanation of the Awakening of Faith), Hanshan Deqing 憨山德清 (1546-1623) emphatically underscored the importance of textual study for Chan practice, listing the Śūraṅgama, Laṅkāvatāra, and Awakening of Faith as the legitimate “correct path” (zhengdao 正道) for cultivating Chan.”
§ Scriptural Exegesis and Doctrinal Authority in Late Ming Buddhism: The Śūraṅgama Sūtra, Literati Interpretation, and Huayan Doctrinal Learning > 2. Why the Literati Chose the Śūraṅgama Sūtra: Doctrinal and Cultural Dimensions
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
73 more claims
Create a free account to see all 150 claims and every source verdict.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 52
- Probably not a substantial claim. 34
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Scriptural Exegesis and Doctrinal Authority in Late Ming Buddhism: The Śūraṅgama Sūtra, Literati Interpretation, and Huayan Doctrinal Learning > Abstract
“Chengguan 澄觀 (738-839)”
§ Scriptural Exegesis and Doctrinal Authority in Late Ming Buddhism: The Śūraṅgama Sūtra, Literati Interpretation, and Huayan Doctrinal Learning > Changshui Zixuan's
“Chengguan 澄觀 (n.d.)”
Citations
Cites
Out of the Cloister: Literati Perspectives on Buddhism in Sung China, 960–1279
Halperin, M. (2006) · doi:10.2307/j.ctt1tm7fwp · Cited by 41
Praying for Power: Buddhism and the Formation of Gentry Society in Late-Ming China
Brook, T. (1994) · doi:10.1163/9781684170180 · Cited by 41
Felperin, H. (1986) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198128960.001.0001 · Cited by 16
Gong, J. (2023) · Studies in Chinese Religions · doi:10.1080/23729988.2023.2244344 · Cited by 1
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Chen, Yongge (2009). Yangming xuepai yu wanming fojiao 陽明學派與晚明佛教 [The Yangming School and Late Ming Buddhism], Renmin University of China Press 中國人民大學出版社.
- Fish, Stanley (1980). Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities, Harvard University Press.
- Li, Zhi (2011). Fenshu, xu fenshu jiaoshi 焚書·續焚書校釋 [A Book to Burn and Its Sequel: A Collated and Annotated Edition], Yuelu Publishing House岳麓書社. Annotated by Renren Chen 陳仁仁.
- Pellauer, David (1995). Figuring the Sacred: Religion, Narrative, and Imagination, Fortress Press.
- Zhao, Zhenji (1999). Zhao Zhenji shiwenji zhu, Vol. 22 趙貞吉詩文集註（第22卷） [Annotated Collection of Zhao Zhenji’s Poetry and Prose], Bashu Publishing House 巴蜀書社. Annotated by Zhangchi Guan 官長馳.
Cited by
Still being checked.
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, S., & Wang, Q.
- Affiliations
- Ningbo University (CN)
- Fudan University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Wang, Siyao
- Wang, Qiyuan
- ORCID
- Wang, Qiyuan
- Venue
- Religions
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2026-07-29
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 903
- ISSN
- 2077-1444 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W7171654195
- Semantic Scholar
- dadc8d99028df4f04303a0822ec757dc06c7c63f
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Religions (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Indian and Buddhist Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Chinese history and philosophy
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Study and Philosophy of Religion
- Keywords
- Zen Buddhism, scriptural exegesis, doctrinal authority, Chengguan, Yangming learning, Chinese Buddhism
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-12, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-12 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
