Protocols of Conversion: Indigenous Gods and Eminent Monks in East Asian Buddhism
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article deserves publication after some changes. I suggest to provide clearer connections between your main arguments and the material used to illustrate it. Also clarify what the term “gods” refers to. It feels like when referring to Indian Buddhism you treat is as an equivalent of deva (a very narrow term that excludes numerous other spirits, etc.) while when referring to East Asian Buddhism you are using it in a much broader sense, to include dragons, etc.
15-6 <This study provides insights into the complex interactions between different religious traditions > As the article focuses almost exclusively on Buddhism, this statement is misleading
10 <spiritual source derives> is an awkward statement
63-64 Specify which scholars of Buddhism did this “lumping together.” Your statement does not apply to the Tibetan scholarship, for example.
69, 75, and 85ff. You are addressing the rūpadhātu as one of the three realms, but in the citation meant to illustrate your points you are talking about kāmadhātu and Śākra’s wish to be reborn into Brahma Heaven which is a subdivision of rūpadhātu. At the end of the citation you are talking about Śākra’s wish to be reborn from Rupa-dhatu (sic.) into the heavenly realm (presumably arūpadhātu). How can Śākra who acc. to Buddhist cosmology dwells in the kāmadhātu, wish to be reborn from rūpadhātu into arūpadhātu? Check whether in your sources the desire realm is not included into the form realm, since both contain materiality/forms in contrast to arūpadhātu.
Check all the Sanskrit terms for misspellings. They include rupa, samatha, Sangha, Dharmagupta, sutra, pañcasīla, icchantiaka, uposatha, Nirvana
Provide dates for Chinese dynasties
115: change <buddhas> to <gods>
126-7 The sentence is misleading: there are numerous categories for numerous divinities, spirits, etc., in Indian Buddhism. Only some of them are classified as deva. If you are referring to gods in a narrow sense that excludes, say, yakṣas, etc., you have to specify that.
140 better change <Buddhist law> to Buddhism
141ff. clarify what you mean by “inherent violence”
146-7 unclear how gods can “transform their corporeal body to the Buddha body”; simply leaving the three realms of saṃsāra does not necessarily transform one into a buddha.
206-7 unclear what “being reborn as a Buddhist ” means here.
216 <a precept> or <precepts>?
241 how can invisible gods possess “physical power”?
254 what does “core” refer to?
261 change <god’s precepts> to <gods’ precepts>
278 what does telling the Bodhisattva precepts mean?
281 “wonderland” sounds awkward here
367 the Christian term “sins” does not work well in the Buddhist context
392 remove space after <requ>
412 change <clearer> to <clear>
434 change <are> to <is>
Rewrite the last paragraph: instead of providing conclusion and what the article has accomplished, it mostly addresses what it has not accomplished.
Some minor changes are needed
Author Response
- We would like to thank the anonymous reviewer whose suggestions helped improve and clarify this manuscript.
- Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This article is interesting and overall, is well structured and argued. There are, nonetheless, a few points for improvement.
First, I would suggest one more careful reading for writing problems. Overall, it is well written, but there are some issues here and there. For example, on page 6, there mention of "localized tactic" but what is clearly meant is "tactic of localization." Another example is found on the same page: "Chajang disliked splendor and state." I have no idea what "state" means!
Second, you must emphasize/explain much more clearly and strongly the point you raise on p. 8: "A comparison of entries....Buddhists." You must highlight this more strongly at the start and reemphasize it throughout the paper because as things stand, I often feel like the red thread of the argument is disappearing.
Finally, the final paragraph needs to be cut down and rewritten. It reads like a list of all the things this article is not. Fine. A single article cannot deal with everything. But this also feels desperate, like a plea for forgiveness for not being politically correct or sufficiently woke. Focus on one such thing, but by and large you must emphasize your core arguments/findings--that is, what you did do, rather than NOT do.
The English overall is fairly good and merely will require a good editor to polish up a few things here and there. The most obvious element was verb tenses (again, here and there).
Author Response
- We would like to thank the reviewer for careful reading of our manuscript and many insightful comments and suggestions.
2. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
