Seng-zhao has been honored as being the "best Chinese interpreter of sunyata" and having a profound understanding of prajna and emptiness, as shown in the Book of Zhao, which is his interpretation of the scriptures expounding emptiness. However, the T'ang Dynasty monk Cheng-guan criticized as "essentially Hinayanist" the viewpoint of Seng-zhao's essay Things Do Not Move that "the natures of things exist in a single moment". Kong-yin Zhen-cheng of the late Ming criticized it as a non-Buddhist heresy, and many contemporary scholars also doubt whether it matches the doctrine of emptiness. In this paper I will analyze the positions taken on Seng-zhao's Things Do Not Move by the "three masters of the late Ming," Yun-qi Zhu-hong, Zi-bo Zhen-ke, and Han-shan De-qing. I will show that they refrain from fixating on the phraseology of individual sections, but interpret the contents of Things Do Not Move from a relatively comprehensive perspective and with an eye to exploring the fundamental spirit of the text. Zhuhong emphasized that the essay was written in response to conventional understandings of the Dharma, rather than as a direct manifestation of the meaning of emptiness, and thus embodies elements of skillful means. He felt that Things Do Not Move should be read in conjunction with the three other essays in he Book of Zhao. Zi-bo felt that contemporary figures on both sides of the dispute bout Seng-zhao's interpretation lacked profound understanding, and he criticized their arguments as superficial, suggesting instead that one could only appreciate the Seng-zhao's inspired words through self-cultivation. Han-shan specifically pointed out that the ultimate truth of all the dharmas was the import not only of this one essay, but the Book of Zhao as a whole. The three masters' interpretations have points of commonality, yet each is unique and can be used to appreciate the differences of their approaches and the complexities of the original text.