A Humane Kings Convocation Held in the Zhongxing Palace: A New Study of the P. 3808 Sutra Sermon
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper offers a general overview on the textual history of the Scripture for Humane Kings and the Performance of the Humane Kings Convocation. Some analysis are detailed and very helpful, for example, the difference between old and new translations of the Scripture for Humane Kings, and the detailed structure of the convocation reflected in the Dunhuang manuscript S. 6551. However, it does not engage enough with the secondary sources, since this paper seems to have two weaknesses as follows: 1) even though it does list Orzech and other scholars' publications, the paper's main text does not offer sufficient how it benefited from these secondary sources, what argument it supported or extended or revised based on previous scolarship; 2) this paper missed some important secondary sources especialy when it discusses Bukong, Liangbi, etc.. Here I just list some additional discussions on these figures and their relations with the Scripture for Humane Kings. These studies are far more extensive than what this paper discussed:
賴富 本宏: "護國經典と言われるもの─「仁王經」をめぐって" 東洋學術研究 14-3, 1975, pp.45~62.
山口 史恭, "良賁の生涯及び不空三蔵との関係について," 智山學報 53輯, 2004, pp. 393-421.
中田 美絵,"唐朝政治史上の『仁王経』翻訳と法会:内廷勢力専権の過程と仏教," 史學雜誌 115編3号, 2006, pp.38-63.
On the 莊嚴 issue, this paper should also look at Stephen F. Teiser's paper:
“Ornamenting the Departed: Notes on the Language of Chinese Buddhist Ritual Texts.” Asia Major 22, no. 1 (2009): 201–37.
This paper offers a general overview on the textual history of the Scripture for Humane Kings and the Performance of the Humane Kings Convocation. the latter part on the ritual of convocation certainly has its great scholarly merits. Some analysis in this paper are detailed and very helpful, for example, the difference between old and new translations of the Scripture for Humane Kings, and the detailed structure of the convocation reflected in the Dunhuang manuscript S. 6551. However, the biggest issue is that it does not engage enough with the secondary sources, since this paper seems to have two weaknesses as follows: 1) even though it does list Orzech and other scholars' publications, the paper's main text does not offer sufficient how it benefited from these secondary sources, what argument it supported or extended or revised based on previous scolarship; 2) this paper missed some important secondary sources especialy when it discusses Bukong, Liangbi, etc.. Here I just list some additional discussions on these figures and their relations with the Scripture for Humane Kings. These studies are far more extensive than what this paper discussed:
賴富 本宏: "護國經典と言われるもの─「仁王經」をめぐって" 東洋學術研究 14-3, 1975, pp.45~62.
山口 史恭, "良賁の生涯及び不空三蔵との関係について," 智山學報 53輯, 2004, pp. 393-421.
中田 美絵,"唐朝政治史上の『仁王経』翻訳と法会:内廷勢力専権の過程と仏教," 史學雜誌 115編3号, 2006, pp.38-63.
On the 莊嚴 issue, this paper should also look at Stephen F. Teiser's paper:
“Ornamenting the Departed: Notes on the Language of Chinese Buddhist Ritual Texts.” Asia Major 22, no. 1 (2009): 201–37.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the review. The reviewer provided me with some reference materials and areas where the article could be further improved. I had already read the references before, but I read them again after the reviewer's suggestion. These are all excellent articles, especially 中田 美絵's article. The reason why I did not reference their arguments in my article is mainly because their discussions and the topics of concern in this article are not closely related. Thanks again to the reviewer for their work!
Reviewer 2 Report
Pinyin words need to italicized in all instances (suren 俗人 and not suren 俗人).
仁王般若波羅蜜經 (T 245) is attributed to Kumārajīva, but many scholars doubt this attribution. The author must address this question of its attributed translator.
Citations need to be made clear as block quotes. The present version makes it look like quotes are paragraphs written by the author.
p. 6: "and its functions of national protection and rainmaking 255 were revered by people from all social classes."
What is the basis for making this claim? How can you prove that even the lower classes revered it? Are there any documents to prove this?
"one hundred surnames" -- I think 百姓 just means commoners.
p.7: "Although during the 332 reign of Emperor Taizong of the Tang Dynasty(唐太宗, 599-649, reigned 626-649), a different form of Humane Kings Convocation was developed, namely, a small-scale Humane 334 Kings Convocation held in each monastery that only required the recitation of the Scripture for Humane Kings."
What's the source that proves this? Need to cite someone or a primary source.
The bibliography looks a bit slim, especially in light of the fact that there are many articles on the 仁王經 in Japanese. The author should look through CiNii and maybe find and cite more relevant studies:
https://cir.nii.ac.jp/all?q=%E4%BB%81%E7%8E%8B%E7%B6%93&hasLinkToFullText=true&count=200&sortorder=0
The citations of Classical Chinese should be reformatted so that block quotes are clearly indicated.
Please fix the citations (block quotes). The English needs to be checked over. It is generally okay, but professional copyediting is necessary. Italicize all pinyin.
Author Response
Point 1
Pinyin words need to italicized in all instances (suren 俗人 and not suren 俗人).
Response 1:
Yes, The Pinyin needs to be checked over.
Point 2
仁王般若波羅蜜經 (T 245) is attributed to Kumārajīva, but many scholars doubt this attribution. The author must address this question of its attributed translator.
Response 2:
Yes, it is indeed a topic of endless debate as to who the translator of this Buddhist scripture really is. I discussed this issue in another article, which has not yet been published. I believe that this scripture was created by the Chinese. The reason why I did not discuss this topic in this article is mainly because the issues that this article intends to address are primarily related to the Tang and Five Dynasties periods. During this period, people believed that Kumarajiva was the translator of this Buddhist scripture, which was unquestionable at that time. Although we know that their understanding was incorrect.
Point 3
Citations need to be made clear as block quotes. The present version makes it look like quotes are paragraphs written by the author.
Response 3:
Yes, I will improve upon these citations.
Point 4
- 6: "and its functions of national protection and rainmaking 255 were revered by people from all social classes."
What is the basis for making this claim? How can you prove that even the lower classes revered it? Are there any documents to prove this?
Response 4:
My evidence is based on several historical sources:
The first is an decree issued by Emperor Taizong of the Tang Dynasty:
In the second year of the Zhenguan reign, the emperor issued a decree: At present, the crops are growing well and all the grain crops will yield a bumper harvest. However, I still fear that untimely wind and rain may cause the people to lose their livelihoods. ... Therefore, the monks, nuns, and Taoists in the temples and Taoist temples in the capital and all the counties and districts can hold scripture readings and perform rituals continuously for seven days and nights.
貞觀二年，下詔曰：今百穀滋茂，萬實將成。猶恐風雨失時，字養無寄。...可於京城及天下諸州寺觀，僧尼道士等七日七夜，轉經行道。
According to the record in the Bianzheng lun辯正論, here "scripture" refers to the Renwang Scripture and the Dayun Scripture大雲經.
The second comes from a collection of Tang-era tales called Duyizhi獨異志 by Li Kang李亢：
During the reign of Empress Wu Zetian, there was a severe drought, and the Emperor selected one thousand virtuous monks in Luoyang to recite the Renwang Scripture in the Tian Gong Temple to pray for rain. Among them were two old men with white hair and eyebrows, [who turned out to be the Dragon Kings of the Yi and Luo Rivers, respectively]. ...When the monk Tanlin 曇林asked them if they knew that reciting the sutra to bring rain, the old men replied, "How could we not know?"
第2條史料出自一部唐代的小說集，也是唐李亢《獨異志》：
唐天后朝……時大旱，有敕選洛陽德行僧徒千百人於天宮寺講《仁王經》，以祈雨澤。有二老人在眾中，鬚眉皓白。講僧曇林謂二老人曰：……“講經祈雨，二聖知之乎？”答曰：“安得不知？”
Through the above two historical records, we can see that whether in the official or folk traditions, the efficacy of the Renwang Scripture in praying for rain is well-known.
Point 5
"one hundred surnames" -- I think 百姓 just means commoners.
Response 5:
Yes, I will correct this.
Point 6
p.7: "Although during the 332 reign of Emperor Taizong of the Tang Dynasty(唐太宗, 599-649, reigned 626-649), a different form of Humane Kings Convocation was developed, namely, a small-scale Humane 334 Kings Convocation held in each monastery that only required the recitation of the Scripture for Humane Kings."
What's the source that proves this? Need to cite someone or a primary source.
Response 6:
Yes, it was my mistake. I did not cite the original text. The basis for this analysis is the following historical record:
《辯正論》：
In the third month of the third year of the Zhenguan era, the emperor issued an imperial decree, ordering the monks and nuns in the capital city to recite the Renwang Scripture and the Dayun Scripture大雲經 in their respective temples for seven days every month, starting from the second seventh day of the month.
[貞觀]三年（629年）孟春，降勅京城僧尼，於當寺每月二七日，行道轉《仁王》《大雲》等經。
Point 7
The bibliography looks a bit slim, especially in light of the fact that there are many articles on the 仁王經 in Japanese. The author should look through CiNii and maybe find and cite more relevant studies: https://cir.nii.ac.jp/all?q=%E4%BB%81%E7%8E%8B%E7%B6%93&hasLinkToFullText=true&count=200&sortorder=0
Response 7:
Yes, there is indeed a lot of research on this sutra. An important part of my doctoral thesis is to discuss this sutra and the humane kings convocation. The reason why this article does not cite many research articles is mainly because there are not many significant achievements in the study of this Sutra Sermon.
Point 8
The citations of Classical Chinese should be reformatted so that block quotes are clearly indicated.
Response 8:
Yes, I will reformat those citation.
Reviewer 3 Report
This research is good and interesting.
I have a few questions/suggestions:
1. The title is too long and fails to outline the main research point of this topic. I suggest the author change the title to make it simple.
2. The presentation of the abstract should be improved. I suggest the author add the research findings in this section.
3. Except for Albert Welter and Charles Orzech, most of the references came from Chinese and Japanese scholars. It is better to increase the discussions on Western scholars' work in the article, to make it better to engage with the scholarships.
4. In conclusion, the author mentions "The development and evolution of the Humane Kings Convocation from the Southern and Northern Dynasties to the Tang and Song Dynasties can be regarded as a microcosm of the development of Chinese Buddhism, reflecting a shift from elite Buddhism to a more secular form". It should have more elaboration and explanation to this change in the main text, especially how to define the term "secular form" in this way.
Author Response
1.The title is too long and fails to outline the main research point of this topic. I suggest the author change the title to make it simple.
Respond 1
Yes, I will change the title to: "A Humane Kings Convocation held in the Zhongxing Palace: A new study of the P. 3808 Sutra Sermon."
- The presentation of the abstract should be improved. I suggest the author add the research findings in this section.
Respond 2
Yes, I should make better revisions to the abstract.
- Except for Albert Welter and Charles Orzech, most of the references came from Chinese and Japanese scholars. It is better to increase the discussions on Western scholars' workin the article, to make it better to engage with the scholarships.
Respond 3
I have collected some Western scholars' works, but since they are not directly relevant to the issues discussed in this article, I have not included them in the text.
- In conclusion, the author mentions "The development and evolution of the Humane Kings Convocation from the Southern and Northern Dynasties to the Tang and Song Dynasties can be regarded as a microcosm of the development of Chinese Buddhism, reflecting a shift from elite Buddhism to a more secular form". It should have more elaboration and explanation to this change in the main text, especially how to define the term "secular form" in this way.
Respond 3
This is an excellent question, but I apologize that I do not currently have a better insight into it. I hope that in the future, I will be able to provide an answer to this question.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for revising.
Just make sure an editor reads over it closely.
Author Response
In this version of the document, I mainly performed the following tasks:
- Deleted some errors.
- Corrected some italics.
3.Addressed some of the issues raised by the reviewers.
Please find the attached document for the relevant modifications.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
