“Ritual and Magic” in Buddhist Visual Culture from the Bird Totem

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research title is interesting and has its research value.

But there are some problems with the empirical research and research findings:

1. Although the author stated that the previous scholars paid less attention to the role of Bird Totems in Buddhism, it should not be denied some of the articles related to the bird totems in the Tibetan culture. The author should do a literature review in "section 1" and explain how this study engages with the previous scholarship.  

2. It is hard to find the author's opinion and new research findings in section 2. In lines 135-139 the author stated

"Through the reading of popular online articles, popular books written by contemporary Chinese and Tibetan scholars, and relevant journal articles published in recent years, including interpretations of relevant archaeological excavations in China, and documents such as biographies of Chinese Buddhist monks. As a conclusion, the function of Buddhist Bird Totem worship is divided into two categories....."

Yes, the content in sections 2.1 and 2.2 are more to conclude the research findings from the previous references. It is clear to see the author followed the arguments of other scholars such as Marchman, Koichi Shinohara, and Muzraeva. What is something new that could be delivered by the author in this section?

3. The author should carefully define some of the terms in the text. For example the "orthodox Buddhist". Does this concept exist? How to define it? Is any difference between the term "Buddhist" understood by the author with the "orthodox Buddhist"? 

In addition, the author should carefully distinguish the Tibetan Buddhism and Chinese Buddhism. The article is more focused on the discussion of Bird totem culture in Tibetan Buddhism but lacks evidence in Chinese Buddhism. The author has to understand it is the quite big differences between the cultures of Tibetan Buddhism and Chinese Buddhism. Do the evidence and discussion in the article reflected the whole situation of Chinese Buddhism with the bird totem?

4. The conclusion made in section 3.2 seems naive. 

Line 410- 412 "This sound is an attribute of Buddhist music with divine and demonic energies. Thus, traditional Buddhism holds music in high regard as the most sacred aspect of the religion."

Does this argument valid and sound? First, how to identify the term "Traditional Buddhism"? Secondly, as the evidence came from the Pure Land Sutra and some of the places in India and Japan, does the situation is appropriate to reflect the entire culture of Buddhism or the such "Traditional Buddhism"? 

 

Author Response

I appreciate you taking the time to review this manuscript. In the following dialogue, we carefully address all of your questions, especially those related to the definition of orthodox Buddhism, and whether the article's evidence and discussion reflect the overall picture of bird totems in Chinese Buddhism. Please refer to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very important topic, and deserves to be researched. The present version of this paper is not, however, ready for publication. Several issues regarding citation of sources, biased representations, contradictory claims, casual rather than scholarly tone, etc., are noted in the attached. I stopped making detailed comments after the third page, however, as the changes needed are so extensive as to require extensive rewriting.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please accept our sincere thanks for reviewing this manuscript and for the detailed comments you provided during our research. My response to each of your questions has been compiled and collected in the response letter for your convenience. In the meantime, I have carefully reviewed and responded to each note in your attachment.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

It really is an interesting contribution. I have one question that remains unsolved: why do you take up the term 'totem' for the birdimages in Buddhism? That remains unclear. What is the particular reason for this choice?

A second thing: figure 7 does not show Vishnu. It is an image of the goddess Sarasvati playing the lute. The bird is a goose (hamsa) and not Garuda.  

Author Response

Thanks for reviewing this manuscript; your comments and questions are exactly what I was looking for. It was pleasant to be asked such thoughtful questions, especially regarding why I engaged in a study of totemic image worship and why I used the bird to represent Chinese Buddhist totemic culture. In order to make it easier for you to read each message, I have divided the questions below into three sub-questions and will respond to each in turn.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The reviewer is satisfied with the revisions made.

Author Response

We would like to thank you again for your assistance. The revised manuscript has been re-proofread in its entirety, including footnotes for grammar and spelling corrections. Please accept our sincere thanks for your consideration. We believe that your input has greatly improved our manuscript, and we look forward to hearing back from you.  

Reviewer 2 Report

l. 199: Shanda should be Shandao

ll. 282, 283: Sutta should be Sutra

abstract & l. 308: you use the terms witchcraft & witch, but nowhere else, nor with any definition

l. 384: what is "khon"??

These are details, of which there may be others, and another review of the English for standard use would be advisable.

Otherwise, this is much improved, and a very interesting essay.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing this manuscript. We have carefully addressed all your questions, especially your concerns regarding whether all of the terms in the revised manuscript are adequately explained.

Please accept our sincere thanks for your kind response. We believe that your contributions have greatly enhanced our manuscript and look forward to your decision.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf