What do you think?
Rate this book
Enlightenment in Dispute: The Reinvention of Chan Buddhism in Seventeenth-Century China
Enlightenment in Dispute is the first comprehensive study of the revival of Chan Buddhism in seventeenth-century China. Focusing on the evolution of a series of controversies about Chan enlightenment, Jiang Wu describes the process by which Chan reemerged as the most prominent Buddhist
establishment of the time. He investigates the development of Chan Buddhism in the seventeenth century, focusing on controversies involving issues such as correct practice and lines of lineage. In this way, he shows how the Chan revival reshaped Chinese Buddhism in late imperial China. Situating
these controversies alongside major events of the fateful Ming-Qing transition, Wu shows how the rise and fall of Chan Buddhism was conditioned by social changes in the seventeenth century.
establishment of the time. He investigates the development of Chan Buddhism in the seventeenth century, focusing on controversies involving issues such as correct practice and lines of lineage. In this way, he shows how the Chan revival reshaped Chinese Buddhism in late imperial China. Situating
these controversies alongside major events of the fateful Ming-Qing transition, Wu shows how the rise and fall of Chan Buddhism was conditioned by social changes in the seventeenth century.
457 pages, Hardcover
First published March 20, 2008
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
June 4, 2013
June 4th, 2013.
This monograph represents a seamless merging of Chinese and US academic practices. While Chinese academia overemphasize primary materials and ignore secondary (especially Western sinologist) research, US sinologists (grad students, not seasoned researchers) seem to lack (comparatively speaking) a certain mastery of primary materials in Chinese but actively engage with academic discussions in both Chinese and US academia through broad literature review of secondary materials. Wu's first book skillfully negotiates these academic boundaries and produces a work that is top-notch judging from both sides: an extensive analysis of primary materials (some of them never been studied before) followed by an concise overview of major academic debates relevant to the primary materials.
This may set a new standard for students of Chinese studies--a viable model to meaningfully engage with both academia.
Nevertheless, due to its primary focus on textual studies (undoubtedly biased by Confucian view because confucian literati still dominate publishing and writing in late Ming), some of the so-called general patterns of Buddhist revival seem stretched--one can use the same pattern to describe the rise of Neo-confucianism, Wangyangming school, Daoism, New confucianism--a pattern that can describe anything is NOT a pattern. Issues that Wu has not engaged with (also not acknowledged in his own concluding remarks) are: what is Buddhism? what does it mean to be religious? Can we use religion/buddhism/daoism as a meaningful category of historical or social analysis? Does monastics represents a religion like Buddhism? To be fair, the general pattern is probably more of an after-thought or demanded by the publisher (to answer the so-what question) but I'd appreciate a more careful treatment of these categories (Wu himself reveals the eclectic nature of 'pure' Chan)
I will re-read this book again sometime soon and use it as a model to design my dissertation. Disagreements aside, this monograph is a top-notch first book. I only hope that I can produce sth of similar quality in 6 years.
May 4th,2013.
"the emergence of a rhetoric or a reinvention should be considered creative and be treated as a legitimate force in the historical process of religious transformation p288"--totally agree, but I really hope that Wu had gone one step further to point out the "reinvention" of rationality during the Enlightenment shared similar dynamics. Thus studying the "irrationality" of Chan forces us to view our own rational "irrationality".
Issues left for further discussion: relation between Chan and pureland, between Tibetan Buddhism (kind of state/court religion) and Chinese practitioners,
p289 cultural exchanges/integrations of Confucian literatti and Chan practitioners, Qing buddhism and inner quarters (many women read Surangama Sutra, elite women). Also an unsolvable problem is the focus on textual sources that privilege a certain group of people.
Interesting, I love this book more in my second reading. I'll re-read this book in detail this summer.
This monograph represents a seamless merging of Chinese and US academic practices. While Chinese academia overemphasize primary materials and ignore secondary (especially Western sinologist) research, US sinologists (grad students, not seasoned researchers) seem to lack (comparatively speaking) a certain mastery of primary materials in Chinese but actively engage with academic discussions in both Chinese and US academia through broad literature review of secondary materials. Wu's first book skillfully negotiates these academic boundaries and produces a work that is top-notch judging from both sides: an extensive analysis of primary materials (some of them never been studied before) followed by an concise overview of major academic debates relevant to the primary materials.
This may set a new standard for students of Chinese studies--a viable model to meaningfully engage with both academia.
Nevertheless, due to its primary focus on textual studies (undoubtedly biased by Confucian view because confucian literati still dominate publishing and writing in late Ming), some of the so-called general patterns of Buddhist revival seem stretched--one can use the same pattern to describe the rise of Neo-confucianism, Wangyangming school, Daoism, New confucianism--a pattern that can describe anything is NOT a pattern. Issues that Wu has not engaged with (also not acknowledged in his own concluding remarks) are: what is Buddhism? what does it mean to be religious? Can we use religion/buddhism/daoism as a meaningful category of historical or social analysis? Does monastics represents a religion like Buddhism? To be fair, the general pattern is probably more of an after-thought or demanded by the publisher (to answer the so-what question) but I'd appreciate a more careful treatment of these categories (Wu himself reveals the eclectic nature of 'pure' Chan)
I will re-read this book again sometime soon and use it as a model to design my dissertation. Disagreements aside, this monograph is a top-notch first book. I only hope that I can produce sth of similar quality in 6 years.
May 4th,2013.
"the emergence of a rhetoric or a reinvention should be considered creative and be treated as a legitimate force in the historical process of religious transformation p288"--totally agree, but I really hope that Wu had gone one step further to point out the "reinvention" of rationality during the Enlightenment shared similar dynamics. Thus studying the "irrationality" of Chan forces us to view our own rational "irrationality".
Issues left for further discussion: relation between Chan and pureland, between Tibetan Buddhism (kind of state/court religion) and Chinese practitioners,
p289 cultural exchanges/integrations of Confucian literatti and Chan practitioners, Qing buddhism and inner quarters (many women read Surangama Sutra, elite women). Also an unsolvable problem is the focus on textual sources that privilege a certain group of people.
Interesting, I love this book more in my second reading. I'll re-read this book in detail this summer.
Displaying 1 of 1 review