On the Origin of “Laozi Converting the Barbarians”: A Historical Background Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Most of Laozi's studies tend discussion on Laozi's Daodejing道德經 rather than other issues, so this research topic is new and innovative.
But the author should elaborate more on the literature review on this issue. Moreover, the author should explain more about this study's significance and contributions.
The author did good arguments and analysis in the main text, but what is something new that this study tries to deliver to the academia? As this article wants to publish in Religions, how is the research topic related to religious studies? In other words, how Laozihuahu concept could lead us to know more about Taoist philosophy or ancient Chinese thought?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
We thank you for many helpful comments and suggestions. We have taken all these comments and suggestions into account as follows:
Point 1: The author should elaborate more on the literature review on this issue.
Response 1: Thank you for your consideration. We totally understand your concern. The inquiry into the "Laozi huahu" has been studied for over a century, with various academics, including Wang Weicheng, Erik Zürcher, Kusuyama Haruki, Ōfuchi Ninji, Liu Yi and Jiang Sheng, having contributed articles on this issue. However, our study specifically delves into a subsidiary aspect, which is the origin of “huahu”. Although this is an important point, it has received very limited attention before. Therefore, reviewing the literature is quite challenging. We have explained this background in the Introduction part. In fact, it is imperative to conduct a literature review on some interconnected subjects, including the inquiry into the deification of Laozi (Please see Part 4 of the manuscript). However, to maintain the coherence and flow of the article, these topics have been appropriately relocated to prevent excessive content at the outset. We kindly request your understanding in this matter.
Point 2: Moreover, the author should explain more about this study's significance and contributions.
Response 2: Thanks for your comments. The suggestion put forth is highly commendable, and it is noteworthy that other reviewers have also raised similar concerns. The primary contributions of this article can be summarized as follows: 1. This article explores the pre-Eastern Han section of "Laozi huahu". At that time, there were oral accounts of "huahu". 2. A reasonable hypothesis is given for the origin of "huahu", which may stem from the story of "heroes moving across borders" and the notion of Laozi as the teacher for disciples of various schools. 3. The study of "Laozi huahu" is extended from the religious field to the secular field, or a bridge is built between these two fields. All three of these points are mentioned to varying degrees in the manuscript, and in order to emphasize the value of the study, we have taken into account the suggestions of other reviewers and added their major parts to the abstract.
Point 3: The author did good arguments and analysis in the main text, but what is something new that this study tries to deliver to the academia? As this article wants to publish in Religions, how is the research topic related to religious studies? In other words, how Laozihuahu concept could lead us to know more about Taoist philosophy or ancient Chinese thought?
Response 2: We gratefully appreciate your comment. The value and contribution of this study have been explained in the previous responses. “Huahu” involves many issues, as Liu Yi once pointed out, “huahu is” an important historical issue that involves how Daoist theology developed and was established during the formative period of Daoism (Liu 2005, p. 302). Not only that, huahu is also closely related to the issue of the struggle between Buddhism and Daoism in ancient China (Tang 2016, pp.80-81). Therefore, any research related to “huahu” is related to religion, which is why this article is suitable for publication in Religions. In addition, the concept of "Huahu" has been circulating for a long time in ancient China, but it is not within the mainstream of ancient Chinese thought, therefore its study can greatly enrich the content of ancient Chinese thought. By the way, it should make a distinction between Daojia 道家and Daojiao 道教, corresponding to the English terms "philosophical Taoism" and "religious Daoism". Generally speaking, Laozi belonged to the Daojia or "philosophical Daoism" in the Warring States period (Huang 2004). However, we are discussing "religious Daoism" rather than "philosophical Daoism".
References
Huang, Haide黃海德. 2004. Daojia daojiao yu daoxue 道教、道教與道學. Zhongjiaoxueyanjiu 宗教學研究 4: 1-9.
Liu, Yi劉屹. 2005. Jingtian yu chongdao: zhonggu jingjiao daojiao xingcheng de sixiangshi beijing 敬天與崇道：中古經教道教形成的思想史背景. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju 中華書局.
Tang, Yongtong 湯用彤. 2016. Laozi huahushuo kaozheng shenchashu 老子化胡說考證審查書. In Tang yongtong xueshu lunwenji 湯用彤學術論文集. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju 中華書局.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
please see my attached document
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
some minor issues, see file
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Thank you for your comments and suggestions concerning our manuscript. The comments and suggestions are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval.
We have revised the manuscript in which major changes are highlighted in yellow. These changes are summarized below following a point-by-point response It is worth noting that at the beginning of the comments, the reviewer gives several examples to point out two shortcomings， which are the formatting of primary source citations and the use of terms. These examples are repeatedly mentioned in the following (Please see Point 6, Point 29, Point 31 and Point 38). Therefore, We have chosen to respond later and will consider the corresponding comments in the opening section.
Point 1: Line 50-51: This leaves out that this theory claims that Laozi BECAME Buddha, and then turned the Barbarians into Buddhists (that is believers in Buddha – aka Laozi). This element is important to state, bc claiming Laozi went and turned the Barbarians into Buddhists could imply Laozi convinced them to believe in Buddhism – if you don t state that an identity of Laozi and Buddha is assumed in this theory the whole idea does not make much sense, Laozi becomes a missionary for Buddha, which was not the point of the theory at any time.
Response 1: Thank you for your rigorous consideration. We have added your suggestion in this part.
Point 2: Line 60: even during the civilized era: this is a very unclear wording. What is a civilized era? Maybe “time of Greek civilization” or so?
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We have made correction according to the comments.
Point 3: Line 75: Siep 2017. If I am not mistaken the last name is Stuurman, and he should be cited as Stuurman 2017.
Response 3: Thank you so much for your careful check. We've corrected it in the manuscript.
Point 4: Line 80: Wilhelm Eduard Weber was a German physicist (1804-1891) who had nothing to do with sociology. I assume this should rather be Max Weber? (His full name would be Maximilian Carl Emil Weber, 1864-1920).
Response 4: Thank you for your advice. We are very sorry for our incorrect writing.
Point 5: Line 87: On what is this similarity with the villages in Peru based? Who says they are similar? To make such a statement across different regions and cultures you need to show some evidence or cite the person who compared these two (if Cameiro does that, say where he does it) – it does not become clear why this comparison is drawn here, the mere similarity is not convincing, it needs more documentation.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing out this problem in the manuscript. There is very little value in comparing these two issues. We have deleted the village argument and directly stated this very generalized phenomenon. It could avoid unnecessary confusion for the readers.
Point 6: Line 95, again, it would be good to mention Guoyu as a title here instead of Wei 2019, which sounds like a scholarly study.
Response 6: We totally understand your concern. However, the citation format of the manuscript needs to conform to the journal’s requirements. According to the published articles in Religions , the format should meet the standards.
Point 7: Line 98: when Sima Qian wrote the Shiji. Article is needed here.
Response 7: Thanks very much. We have added the era of writing according to your suggestion.
Point 8: Line 98-107: It does not become clear where exactly Sima Qian constructs an association of the Xiongnu with Xiahoushi in this discussion. Here maybe the Xiongnu zhuan from Shiji should be cited in line 101.
Response 8: Thank you for your comment. We've corrected it based on your comment.
Point 9: Line 114: inheritance of knowledge is a strange expression. Maybe transmission of knowledge would be better – at least it would make more sense in view of the explanation offered in the text.
Response 9: We gratefully thanks for the precious remarks. We have corrected them.
Point 10: Line 124-125: This argument is not clear(“explained his divine authority in Yue people’s cultural traditions) maybe try to reword so the sense becomes clear.
Response 10: Thank you very much. We have rewrote the sentences: “Qinshi Huang deliberately exerted his authority in ‘Yue people’s cultural traditions,’ which was a form of external demonstration of educational authority.”
Point 11: Line 126: the term “races” seems off hand here – race and racism has a long history, but in my view it might not apply to ancient China. There is also much critical discussion and hence attention on this term, so using it lightly is not a good idea. I suspect “ethnicities” “ethnic groups” or “people” would be a better term here – as it is used also at the end of the paragraph.
Response 11: Thank you for pointing out this problem in manuscript. We have revised it as your suggestion.
Point 12: Lines 142-152 and Lines 153-156 give very different examples: the first is a military conquest, the second is an educational /civilizational mission – this difference should be made explicit.
Response 12: Thank you for your comments. We have been improved in the revised manuscript by adding a sentence: “Though the story bears the hallmarks of military conquest, the effect of spreading civi-lization is the same.”
Point 13: Line 159-160: Wuyi Yuanjian, later in line 160 and 163 is called Yan Jian , in line 183 Yuan Jian – consistency of pinyin transcript is important, so please correct the names. Overall, the story is unclear – It seems that Wuyi Yuanjian was a Qiang (as it says in the Chinese text, but not in the translation) He is captured by the Qin, and then burnt but doesn’t die, and then the Qiang make him their leader. It really does not become clear how he represents the image of a Chinese culture hero/teacher-civilizer who brings the Chinese culture to the barbarians. Maybe there is a part of the story in the middle that was left out where Yuanjian learns Chinese culture? If so, this needs to be made very clear, because the way it is presented here, a Qiang who teaches other Qiang to raise animals, it does not seem a good example for a Chinese culture hero.
Response 13: Thank you for your comment. We have been revised by adding a sentence: “Yuanjian spread the Chinese lifestyle to Qiang-people, he taught them how to farm and raise animals. This shows that Yuanjian is essentially an example of a Chinese cultural hero.” To be consistent, we have changed all to “Yuanjian” in the revised manuscript.
Point 14: Line 172: maybe reconsider “backward” ethnic groups? “other ethnic groups” would be enough too.
Response 14: Thank you, we have corrected the above problem.
Point 15: Line 182: Laozi’s status as a shengxian is very debatable – is there evidence in early texts that he was called shengxian? Please cite that.
Response 15: We totally understand the reviewer's concern. In early texts such as Shijing 詩經 and Shangshu 尚書, "Sheng 聖" could be used to describe the person who had wisdom and understood etiquette (Lu 2006). Laozi was clearly in this category. The term "Xian 賢" may refer to a wider range of people. The narrowing of the semantic meaning of "Shengxian" may relate to the later Confucian construction, it should require further examination.
References
Lu, Xiaoqing盧曉晴. 2006. Sheng xian yu junzi: zhongguo chuantongwenhua zhongde lixiangrenge 聖、賢與君子——中國傳統文化中的理想人格. Dongguan ligongxueyuan xuebao 東莞理工學院學報 2: 60-63.
Point 16: Line 185: it is only one step away from (instead of it takes …)
Response 16: Thank you for pointing out the mistakes. We have revised it as your suggestion.
Point 17: Line 192: Laozi meeting Confucius is not really a “historical story”, rather a pseudo historical legend, at least as far as I know.
Response 17: Thank you for pointing out this problem in the manuscript. The issue is so complex that some professional scholars have attempted to sort it out, but have been unable to give a definitive answer (Guo 2022, pp. 15-55). On the whole, the meeting of Laozi and Confucius is questionable as a matter of historical fact but should be of value as part of the intellectual history. It should be enough to achieve the purpose of this article by using this legend.
References
Guo, Yongbing郭永秉. 2022. Laozi tongshi《老子》通識. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju 中華書局.
Point 18: Line202 and 209: “born naturally” and “taken after conception” are very awkward translations of xiantian and houtian: they are more commonly translated as “precosmic” and “cosmic” , with the idea that xiantian, precosmic, is timeless bc it precedes the cosmos and time.
Response 18: Thank you, We have made this correction in as your suggestion.
Point 19: Line 211: it is not only Chen Jinhua to differentiate between hagiography and biography – that is a very common differentiation that existed for a long time. Furthermore, these two are genres of literature, not conceptual terms for understanding figures, so this distinction does not really apply logically to “understanding the duality of religious figures…”(213), it can be used only for the 3 literature– and for the Laozi we do not have any “biographical” literature as far as I know, not even Sima Qians biography in the Shiji qualifies there…..
Response 19: It is really true as you suggested that this distinction does not really apply logically. We have deleted all of the citations of Chen Jinhua in the revised manuscript. Below is the deleted text : “The concept of natural-born and post-conception-born Laozis distinguishes and summarizes the duality in his identity as both human sage and divine immortal. In modern academic circles, Chen Jinhua also differentiates between hagiographical and biographical data when examining Buddhist scriptures (Chen 2007, pp. 1-12; and 2013, pp. 91-92). This is one way of understanding the duality of religious figures’ identities from a historical perspective.” Corresponding references have also been removed.
Point 20: Line 268: General Yin Xi? I thought he was the guardian of the pass?
Response 20: Thank you, we are very sorry for our negligence. We have deleted the word “General”.
Point 21: Line 275-276: It is thinkable that Laozi was revered in some places and among some people as an immortal, and in other places and among other people as a sage. Especially when speaking about Daoism it is important to keep in mind that China was not a monolithic unity, local differences always played a role, and they might very well be relevant for the different images or imaginaries of Laozi, especially because people and groups of people moved (like the tianshidao adherents moving from Sichuan to Hanzhong to Changan and Luoyang and then south to Jiangnan – just an example to explain what I mean). In particular the immortality cults were very localized, also bc they kept their scriptures and teachings esoteric. Compare Gil Raz, the Emergence of Daoism. Routledge 2012.
Response 21: Thanks for your comments. It should make a distinction between Daojia 道家and Daojiao 道教, corresponding to the English terms "philosophical Taoism" and "religious Taoism". Generally speaking, Laozi belonged to the Daojia or "philosophical Taoism" in the Warring States period (Huang 2004). The distinction in time is a prerequisite, and it could be inappropriate to introduce " local differences " into the discussion of the image of Laozi before the Han Dynasty.
References
Huang, Haide黃海德. 2004. Daojia daojiao yu daoxue 道教、道教與道學. Zhongjiaoxueyanjiu 宗教學研究 4: 1-9.
Point 22: Line 279: please give dates for Gao You.
Response 22: Considering the your suggestion, we have given approximate dates for Gao You: “(fl. first half of the third century)”. Unfortunately, the exact year of Gao You's birth and death is unknown.
Point 23: Lines 277-294: It would be important to give rough dates for the texts mentioned, also because “before the Tang” includes a long time span where Buddhism was introduced and things got even more complex than before.
Response 23: Thank you for the above suggestions. We have added two descriptive sentences： “Ding Peiren 丁培仁 pointed out that some of these books were written before the North and South Dynasties (420-589) (Ding 2007, pp. 575-76). They should summarize many versions since the Eastern Han Dynasty.”
References
Ding, Peiren 丁培仁. 2007. Zengzhu xinxiu daozang mulu 增注新修道藏目錄.Chengdu: Bashushushe 巴蜀書社.
Point 24: Line 310: “taught Yin Xi using two chapters on Wuqianwen” is very unclear and could confuse readers. I suggest. Where he transmitted [the Daode jing] in two chapters in Five Thousand Words (wuqianwen) to Yin Xi. Just a suggestion – it would make it clearer that you are talking about the Daode jing.
Response 24: Thank you. We have revised it as your suggestion.
Point 25: Line 312: “during entered the Hu” please change to “at the time when he entered [the land of] the Hu, he was known as Futujun, during Han dynasty [he was known as] Wang Fangping.
Response 25: We gratefully thanks for the professional advice. We have corrected them.
Point 26: Line 313: please start Chinese source text in a new line.
Response 26: Thank you for your suggestion. However, considering the journal's formatting standards, it looks like a new line conld be unnecessary.
Point 27: Line 322: “included generations of supernatural elements” is really unclear. Maybe “production of supernatural elements”? Or should this be “included generations of supernatural teachers? Please clarify, the English is unclear here.
Response 27: We gratefully thanks for the precious remarks. It should be “generations of supernatural teachers”.
Point 28: Line 342: “this convinced Emperor Wen…a common propaganda tactic used by Fangshi” - what does this mean here? The sense is not clear in the context.
Response 28: Thank you for pointing out this problem in our manuscript. We have been improved in the revised manuscript: "According to Shenxianzhuan, Heshangong demonstrated his divine power when he met Emperor Wen, it convinced Emperor Wen. Such displays were a common propaganda tactic used by Fangshi.”
Point 29: Line 345: does “alchemists” here refer to Fangshi, or to a separate category of practitioners? If it refers to Fangshi, maybe better to use the term Fangshi.
Response 29: Your opinion is right about the paper. We have changed all to “Fangshi” in the revised manuscript.
Point 30: Line 346: Although deified, Laozi could convert barbarians to Buddhism, as mentioned in previous texts. This does not make sense here – Laozi can convert anybody to Buddhism only when Buddhism is known in China. So it makes sense that Laozi can convert people to his teachings. But in order to say Laozi can convert people to Buddhism, you need to first have Buddhism around.
Response 30: Thank you for your remarks. We have been improved in the revised manuscript: “In addition, deified Laozi had the opportunity to convert barbarians to Buddhism, as mentioned in previous “Laozi bianhua jing”, he could enter [the land of] the Hu. However, during the Han Dynasty period, the goal of the Fangshi was simply the pur-suit of wealth and status, and they had no incentive to build further details of Laozi's entry into Hu’s land. Therefore, when Buddhism entered China, the role of the Fangshi in structuring "huahu" was limited.”
Point 31: Line 348+351: alchemists should maybe again be Fangshi? I am not sure how to understand this, it should be clarified when you use “alchemists” and when you use “fangshi”. In Western literature, alchemists is used mostly for a small group of the Jiangnan traditions , ca 3rd century (see e.g. Highest Clarity, Fabrizio Pregadio), while Fangshi is used mostly for Han dynasty “masters of esoterica” (or so, there are several translations around, Fangshi is ok too just like that). These two groups are related but not necessarily identical. E.g. the Taiping jing is not really associated with alchemy.
Response 31: Thank you for the above suggestion. Fangshi should be “masters of esoterica”.
Point 32: Line 374: Wang 2014 could be Wang Mingke or Wang Ka, please specify.
Response 32: Thanks for your suggestion. But we believe that the “Wang 2014” here is Wang Ming (Taiping jing hejiao太平經合校).
Point 33: Line 385: “some similarities and some differences” instead of “differences” – xiang churu (HYDCD 6. Meaning) covers both, difference and similarity, and that makes more sense in the sentence.
Response 33: Thank you for the above suggestion. We have changed it.
Point 34: Line 398: whose birth was first (not “in front”)
Response 34: We gratefully thanks for the professional advice. We have corrected it.
Point 35: Line 410 : “upper-middle-class people” refers presumably to “shang zhong xian/sheng” or so – a rank in a grading of sages or wise people? If so, the term upper middle class is misleading because it has a strong association with a social class of educated people – which I do not think is intended here. Maybe better: a sage of the upper middle category, or a wise man (xian) of the upper middle category [from a system of 9 ranks].
Response 35: We gratefully thanks for the precious remarks. It should be “upper-middle-category (from a system of 9 ranks)”.
Point 36: Line 436: What is Whiggism here supposed to mean? How can this term that comes from the British War of three kingdoms in the 17th century be useful here? It does not make much sense to this reviewer. Its significance should be explained, or the term and sentence eliminated. And Herbert 1931 is not listed in the bibliography.
Response 36: We gratefully appreciate for your valuable suggestion. “Whiggism” is not from the British War of three kingdoms in the 17th century. Generally speaking, the notion of history represented by this term tends to understand the “past” in light of the “present” or understand the “before” in light of the “after”. In addition, we have adjusted the references.
Point 37: Line 494: Replace Laotzu (Wade Giles transcription) with Laozi.
Response 37: Thank you so much for your careful check. We are very sorry for our incorrect writing. We have corrected them to “Laozi” in the revised manuscript.
Point 38: Line 495: To speak of Laozi in “people’s spiritual world” , interpreting Han dynasty as a unified monolithic “people” with no regional differentiation and all planned from an emperor seems naïve and unrealistic. From here on the discussion suffers in this reviewers view from such simplifying assumptions, furthermore a very uncritical use of the expression “convert to Buddhism” – I strongly suggest to go over this last part of section 4 and the conclusion in detail again and rephrase some parts, taking the consideration as of when we actually can speak of “converting to Buddhism” instead of “converting the barbarians” as part of the reflections.
Response 38: Thanks for your suggestion. Several of the latter comments relate to section 4, and our responses are interrelated. We believe that "people's spiritual world" is not a unified monolithic, but we do think that in pre-industrial societies, where people's minds are relatively simple, the complexity must contain the mainstream. If we do not discuss "people's spiritual world", we will not be able to understand how "huahu" could have been passed down for thousands of years in the vast land of China. This may involve another topic, but it should also be helpful in understanding the thought of this article. In addition, we have rewritten the last parts of section 4.
Point 39: Line 503-504: Where exactly does it say Xiwang mu could convert barbarians to Buddhists? That seems highly implausible and there is no citation. Maybe this should rather be “convert the barbarians” - or please support with evidence that Xiwangmu “converts barbarians to Buddhism”. The rest of the discussion makes more sense, although line 529-530 again states Xiwangmu would convert Barbarians into Buddhists – there is a big difference in stating she could convert barbarians or convert barbarians into Buddhists. The latter to me does not make sense, and there is no supporting evidence cited. The association with Dongwanggong does not support a connection to Buddhism.
Response 39: We are very sorry for our negligence in formulation. The problem with this passage affects the understanding of the later text, even the section 4. It should be: ”In the Han Dynasty’s divine system, Xiwangmu (Queen Mother of the West) might be a great deity with the ability to “convert barbarians into Buddhists.” Although there is no reference to this saying, assuming and discussing it can be likened to drawing auxiliary lines in solving a geometry problem - it helps clarify certain viewpoints.” Incidentally, the main point of the “Dongwanggong” is to illustrate the strong plasticity of the story of Xiwangmu.
Point 40: Lines 531-545: This argument is important, see also for example the studies of Wu Hong (Monumentality in China) – it does seem that Xiwang mu belief was an early point where incoming Buddhist ideas coalesced with Chinese beliefs, but this concerned mainly afterlife beliefs and funerary culture.
Response 40: We agree with the reviewer that Xiwangmu belief was an early point where incoming Buddhist ideas coalesced with Chinese beliefs. We will continue to explore this topic in our future work
Point 41: Line 546-552: The paragraph is unclear and confused. If the coalescence of funerary and afterlife beliefs that we can see in tombs, where Xiwangmu is connected to early Buddhist ideas and images (this is what is documented) does indicate anywhere a connection to the Huahu traditions, these connections need to be specified and cited. Otherwise this is not a sustainable thesis.
Response 41: Thank you. In fact, in the study of "huahu", if any of the cases we have listed appear, scholars have considered it as evidence of “huahu” (see Wang 2008). However, if the main character is replaced by Xiwangmu, who has higher divine power, there is no such thing as "Xiwangmu huahu." What we need to reflect on is not the methodology of the study of "huahua." Instead, we believe that it is not reasonable to understand "Laozi huahu" in terms of the Han Dynasty deity system. We have added a similar explanation in the manuscript.
References
Wang, Rui王睿. 2008. Kongwangshan moyazaoxiang yu laozi huahushuo 孔望山摩崖造像與老子化胡說. Lianyungangrenwen 連雲港人文 1: 1-4.
Point 42: Line 558: “that Laozi became a religious leader” does make no sense in this context. Maybe rather “that Laozi was considered as a religious founder” or that Laozi was believed to have been a religious founder or deity” etc.
Response 42: We thank the reviewer for providing the suggestions. We have revised it as your suggestion.
Point 43: Line 559: Lzozi huahu should be Laozi huahu.
Response 43: We are very sorry for our incorrect writing. We have corrected them to “Laozi” in the revised manuscript.
Point 44: Line 577 ff: Li Daoyuan is of course quite late, he could have been aware of the fully developed Laozi huahu shuo (where Laozi is said to have become the Buddha). The issue of mountains and rivers (line 581) is interesting but does not seem to relate to anything in the discussion before, so it does not make sense to start this new argument in the conclusion. Also the rest of the conclusion is speculative, the fact that the theory was around in different oral versions makes a lot of sense, but is not really a scientific discovery, at least it is not supported with any convincing evidence. Maybe this could be reworded to make it into a more careful statement: e.g. It seems highly plausible that there were versions of Laozi converting the barbarians circulating in oral accounts without any written version or being recorded in any existing books long before the theory appears in the received literature. Or something in that direction.
Response 44: Thank you. We have revised it as your suggestion.
Point 45: Lastly: The point made in Note 4 strikes me as very important and it should be part of the main text, not just of a note.
Response 45: We gratefully thanks for the precious remark. We've put Note 4 into the corresponding place of main text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a great essay overall. It is informative, innovative, clear, and a pleasure to read.
I have some comments about minor changes, but this essay should certainly be published.
- The first sentence of the abstract is not very clear.
- This sentence, from the introduction, could be added or rewritten and put into the abstract:
“This article examines the historical background of “Laozi huahu shuo” and investigates 46 its generation mode and constituent elements. It also discusses and reflects on issues such 47 as the origin of “huahu” and Laozi’s deification.”
I think adding this would make the abstract more clear. As it is it does not do the article justice. - The author(s) do an excellent job of citing a lot of relevant literature. There is one article in English they may want to consider including in some way: “A Daoist Critique of the Huaxia Civilization Project” Author: Daniel Sarafinas
- I would use “Daoism” and “Daoist” instead of “Taoism” and “Taoist.” The rest of the paper uses pinyin instead of Wade-Giles.
- There are other inconsistencies that need to be addressed such as the author(s) sometimes referring to “Laozi” and other times to “Lao Zi” (there is also a misspelling of “Lzozi” which occurs twice.
- Overall I think having a good native writer of English proof this would be very helpful. Some of the phrasing is odd. It is difficult sometimes for people to read and fully appreciate the importance of an article when it has strange or incorrect phrasing. As mentioned above, this is a great article, so having it edited would be very helpful.
- Overall I think having a good native writer of English proof this would be very helpful. Some of the phrasing is odd. It is difficult sometimes for people to read and fully appreciate the importance of an article when it has strange or incorrect phrasing. As mentioned above, this is a great article, so having it edited would be very helpful.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
We would like to thank you for your careful reading, helpful comments, and constructive suggestions, which has significantly improved the presentation of our manuscript.
Point 1: The first sentence of the abstract is not very clear.
Response 1: Thank you for your rigorous consideration. We have now rewritten the first sentence of the abstract.
Point 2: This sentence, from the introduction, could be added or rewritten and put into the abstract:“This article examines the historical background of “Laozi huahu shuo” and investigates 46 its generation mode and constituent elements. It also discusses and reflects on issues such 47 as the origin of “huahu” and Laozi’s deification.”I think adding this would make the abstract more clear. As it is it does not do the article justice.
Response 2: We thank the reviewer for providing the suggestions. We have added them in the revised manuscript.
Point 3: The author(s) do an excellent job of citing a lot of relevant literature. There is one article in English they may want to consider including in some way: “A Daoist Critique of the Huaxia Civilization Project” Author: Daniel Sarafinas
Response 3: Thank you for your nice advice. The recommended literature has some relevance to our article and will increase the breadth of the references. However, this recommended literature is mainly related to Zhuangzi and has limited relevance to Laozi. Moreover, this article tends to be more in the field of philosophy than in religion. We are discussing "religious Daoism" rather than "philosophical Daoism". Philosophical Taoism" used to be in a heated dispute with Confucianism, and the recommended article demonstrates their different views on the issue of "Huaxia". "Huahu" does contain some of the ideas of "Religious Daoism" on the issue of " Huaxia ", but our article does not discuss this issue. We are fortunate to have your recommendation, our subsequent research will indeed address the "Huaxia" issue. We will consider the recommended literature in our future work.
Point 4: I would use “Daoism” and “Daoist” instead of “Taoism” and “Taoist.” The rest of the paper uses pinyin instead of Wade-Giles.
Response 4: Thank you for pointing out this problem in manuscript. To be consistent, we have changed all to “Daoism” or “Daoist” in the revised manuscript.
Point 5: There are other inconsistencies that need to be addressed such as the author(s) sometimes referring to “Laozi” and other times to “Lao Zi” (there is also a misspelling of “Lzozi” which occurs twice.
Response 5: Thank you so much for your careful check. We are very sorry for our incorrect writing. We have corrected them to “Laozi” in the revised manuscript.
Point 6: Overall I think having a good native writer of English proof this would be very helpful. Some of the phrasing is odd. It is difficult sometimes for people to read and fully appreciate the importance of an article when it has strange or incorrect phrasing. As mentioned above, this is a great article, so having it edited would be very helpful.
Response 6: We gratefully appreciate your valuable suggestion. We have thoroughly checked and corrected the grammatical errors and typos we found in our revised manuscript. The manuscript has been carefully revised by a native English speaker to improve the grammar and readability, we hope it can meet the journal's standard.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the author's response and amendment to the article.
The author has made appropriate amendments and added new references to the report. I am satisfied with the current article.
