关于苏轼文与《华严经》之间的关系,钱谦益提出的“苏文有得于《华严》”说关注到了一个前人未曾注意的问题,即苏轼《司马温公行状》《富郑公神道碑》这类看似与佛教绝无关涉的史体文在文章形式上与《华严经》的相似性。他因此十分推崇苏轼此类文字,其同乡后学也有不少人继承了这一观念,并认为此类文字乃苏轼“大文章”。但在传统评价中,苏轼长于策论而短于叙事。钱谦益的观点与苏文的传统评价产生了分歧,因而并未被时论所接受,他效法苏文而作的碑传文也颇受后人诟病。 As for the relationship between Su Shiwen and The Sutra of the Sutra, Qian Qianyi’s “Su Wenyou got the title of” Huayan “from the perspective of a man who has not paid attention to the issue before. That is, Su Shi, ”Fu Cheng Kung Temple monument“ such a seemingly unrelated to the history of the Buddhist text in the form and ”Sutra“ similarities. Therefore, he highly respected such words of Su Shi. Many of his fellow returnees inherited this concept and regarded such writings as Su Shi ”big essay ". However, in the traditional evaluation, Su Shi longer than the theory and shorter than the narrative. Qian Qianyi’s views diverged from those of Su Wen’s traditional evaluation and were therefore not accepted by the Times. His inscriptions on imitating Su Wen were also much criticized by later generations.