On the Qingjinghaiyan jing of Zhang Shangying
Open accessAbstract
Dahui Zonggao (_??__??__??__??_) is famous as the Chan master who established “Kanhua-Chan (_??__??__??_)”. Dahui explains the structure of Kanhua-Chan by using the concepts of “shijue (_??__??_)” and “benjue (_??__??_)”, that appear in the Dacheng qixin lun (_??__??__??__??__??_). However Dahui quoted these terms not from the Dacheng qixin lun, but from another text, the Qingjinghaiyan jing (_??__??__??__??__??_) written by Zhang Shangying (_??__??__??_).First, we verify from the descriptions of the Shoulenyanjing zhizhangjie (_??__??__??__??__??__??_) and the Shoulenyanjing gelun (_??__??__??__??__??_) that the Suramgama-samadhi-nirdesa (_??__??__??_) is rewritten by Zhang Shangying as the Qingjinghaiyan jing. Next, we examine Dahui's intention to quote the words shijue (_??__??_) and benjue (_??__??_) from the Qingjinghaiyan Jing.It was only a part of the beginning of Suramgama-samadhi-nirdesa that Dahui quoted from the Qingjinghaiyan Jing. This part, that is rushi wo wen, yishi fo zai (_??__??__??__??_, _??__??__??__??_), is a sentence commom to every sutra, verifying that what follows is the true word of the Buddha. This was the main reason why Dahui quoted it.The real intention of Buddha for Dahui was that one must experience and master Awakening by himself. Then, Dahui strongly criticized the method of Mozhao Chan (_??__??__??_), which claims that we obtain original Buddhahood as it is. That was also the reason why Dahui put emphasis on Kanhua-Chan.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This article examines the *Qingjinghaiyan jing* (清浄海眼経), a text attributed to the layman Zhang Shangying (張商英, 1043–1121), arguing that it is a rewritten and annotated version of the *Shoulengyan jing* (楞厳経). It then asks why Dahui Zonggao (大慧宗杲) cited the terms "shijue" (始覚) and "benjue" (本覚) from this text rather than from the *Dacheng qixin lun* (大乗起信論).
Key findings
- Drawing on Qing-dynasty Datian Tongli's *Lengyan jing zhizhang shu xuanshi* and Ming-dynasty Qian Qianyi's *Lengyan jing shujie mengchao*, the paper concludes the *Qingjinghaiyan jing* was produced by Zhang Shangying "brushing and revising" (刷修) the *Shoulengyan jing* — deleting, rearranging, and altering passages — and adding his own annotations; critics such as Lei'an Zhengshou (雷庵正受) in the *Lengyan jing helun* condemned this as tampering with scripture.
- Dahui's quotations from the text are limited to the opening passage "如是我聞一時仏在" (rushi wo wen yishi fo zai), which Zhang Shangying interpreted as "eight accomplishments" (八成就) rather than the standard "six accomplishments" (六成就).
- Zhang's definitions of the eight items are: 如/是 = 理/事; 我 = 三界独尊; 聞 = 心洞十方; 一 = 多之所宗; 時 = 一之所起; 仏 = 始覚合本 (with 在 absent) — an interpretation the paper reads as grounded in Huayan teaching.
- Dahui's reason for citing this text rather than the *Qixin lun* was to stress the necessity of awakening: he used the passage to criticize Mozhao Chan (黙照禅) for treating original Buddhahood as already attained, and to emphasize Kanhua Chan (看話禅).
Methods
- Textual and philological analysis of Chan Buddhist sources, including the *Dahui yulu* (大慧語録), the four-fascicle *Dahui pushuo*, the *Lengyan jing helun*, the *Lengyan jing shujie mengchao*, and the *Xianjue zongcheng*.
- The paper compares Zhang Shangying's eight-accomplishment definitions with Dahui's annotations on each item to reconstruct Dahui's soteriology of shijue/benjue.
Limitations
- The paper states that the *Qingjinghaiyan jing* is no longer extant in full; only portions survive in the *Lengyan jing helun* and *Lengyan jing jiemeng chao*, so its complete content cannot be known.
- It notes that the relationship between the two apparently distinct texts — the rewritten *Qingjinghaiyan jing* and the annotated *Zhu qingjinghaiyan jing* — is unclear, and the paper treats them together under one title.
- The identity of the monk Huiyin (慧印), who published the text with Dahui's endorsement, is unknown; the paper only suggests Daochang Huiyin fits chronologically (stated in the text).
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 2 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingreasoning§ Abstract
Dahui strongly criticized the method of Mozhao Chan, which claims that we obtain original Buddhahood as it is.
“Then, Dahui strongly criticized the method of Mozhao Chan(黙 照 禅), which claims that we obtain original Buddhahood as it is.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning§ Abstract
Dahui quoted only the beginning part of the Shoulengyan jing from the Qingjinghaiyan jing.
“It was only a part of the beginning of Suramgama-samadhi-nirdesa that Dahui quoted from the Qingjinghaiyan Jing.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ Abstract
Dahui did not seek the source of the terms 'shijue' and 'benjue' in the Dacheng qixin lun, but in Zhang Shangying's Qingjinghaiyan jing.
“However Dahui quoted these terms not from the Dacheng qixin lun, but from another text, the Qingjinghaiyan jing (清 浄 海 眼 経)written by Zhang Shangying(張 商 英).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingcitation§ Abstract
The Qingjinghaiyan jing is a rewritten/annotated version of the Shoulengyan jing by Zhang Shangying.
“we verify from the descriptions of the Shoulenyanjing zhizhangjie (楞 厳 経 指 掌 解)and the Shoulenyanjing gelun (楞 厳 経 合 論)that the Suramgama-samadhi-nirdesa(楞 厳 経)is rewritten by Zhang Shangying as the Qingjinghaiyan jing.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites 達天通理
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites 錢謙益
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning§ Abstract
The fact that the quoted passage is common to every sutra and verifies the true word of the Buddha was the main reason Dahui quoted it.
“This was the main reason why Dahui quoted it.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The opening passage 'rushi wo wen, yishi fo zai' is a sentence common to every sutra, verifying that what follows is the true word of the Buddha.
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- May combine two claims. 1
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 1
The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown data§ AbstractDahui explains the structure of his own realization using the concepts 'shijue' and 'benjue' from the Dacheng qixin lun.
“Dahui explains the structure of Kanhua-Chan by using the concepts of”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ AbstractDahui's emphasis on Kanhua-Chan was also motivated by his criticism of Mozhao Chan and his view of the Buddha's true intention.
“That was also the reason why Dahui put emphasis on Kanhua-Chan.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Interpretationreasoning§ AbstractThe real intention of the Buddha for Dahui was that one must experience and master Awakening by himself.
“The real intention of Buddha for Dahui was that one must experience and master Awakening by himself.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
The paper relies on this without support.
The opening passage 'rushi wo wen, yishi fo zai' is a sentence common to every sutra, verifying that what follows is the true word of the Buddha.
“This part, that is rushi wo wen, yishi fo zai(如 是 我 聞 、 一 時 仏 在), is a sentence commom to every sutra, verifying that what follows is the true word of the Buddha.”
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.
The labels for 如 and 是 are reversed
MinorThe summary assigns 如 to [2] and 是 to [3], but the quoted definitions assign 是 to [2] and 如 to [3].
“[ 2 ] [ 3 ] ﹁ 如 ﹂ ﹁ 是 ﹂ = ﹁ 理 ﹂ ﹁ 事 ﹂”
“理 無 不 如 ︑ 之 謂 是 [ 2 ] ︑ 事 無 不 是 ︑ 之 謂 如 [ 3 ]”
- Authors
- HIROTA, S.
- Affiliations
- The Institute For Zen Studies (JP)
- Corresponding author
- HIROTA, Sogen
- Venue
- JOURNAL OF INDIAN AND BUDDHIST STUDIES (INDOGAKU BUKKYOGAKU KENKYU)
- Published
- 2005
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 143-149,1251
- ISSN
- 0019-4344 (ISSN-L)
- 1884-0051
- OpenAlex
- W2331728895
- Semantic Scholar
- 8e8fe891f1199be56e9670649d5cc3ed0db9ed44
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- JOURNAL OF INDIAN AND BUDDHIST STUDIES (INDOGAKU BUKKYOGAKU KENKYU) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Indian and Buddhist Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Chinese history and philosophy
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Classical Studies and Philology
- Keywords
- Zen Buddhism, textual transmission
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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-28.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-28.
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
