Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think this is an original contribution and can be published. It discusses the education of novices based on physical evidence from Dunhuang. There are a great many details that will mostly only be of interest to Buddhist Studies scholars and Sinologists, so the expected audience won't be so broad. Still, it is an original and unique contribution, so it should be published. I think a few minor revisions could be done.

 

Some comments:

 

Footnote 1: "T no. 1804, vol. 40, p. 25."

Please explain what text is T 1804. You cannot just cite the Taisho like this.

You should explain that the text you're citing is the 四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔. Who wrote it? When?

Also this is a Chinese exegesis of the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya. This is Buddhist monastic regulations as they are understood in China, not India. You need to clarify the differences.

 

Line 23: "However, historical practices in China sometimes deviated from this norm."

 

Why would we assume that Vinaya-based regulations were ever the norm in China? They're not the norm in China today. Institutions like 法鼓山 have their own seminary programs, which is quite unlike the Vinaya. They also eat snacks after noon. The Vinaya was never strictly upheld anywhere historically either. Authors like 道宣 might have thought people should follow the Vinaya rules, but in reality, barely anyone did.

 

"Mentorship is crucial within monastic education, as it provides primary guidance for a novice prior to full ordination, significantly shaping their cultural and spiritual growth."

 

This doesn't sound like a critical (secular) academic voice. You're saying that mentorship is very important, but according to who? Monks and nuns? Scientific scholars do not make these sort of judgments when writing critically about religion. You can qualify this statement by saying "according to Buddhist tradition."

 

 

"During this phase, they often rely on their mentors for oral transmission or attend recitations led by experienced monks to familiarize themselves with the scriptures."

 

According to who? Personal experience? Observation? 

 

Why are you assuming that monks are always literate or ought to have been?

 

"Therefore, transcribing difficult characters and their phonetics is an important self-learning technique for novice monks as they advance in their studies."

 

Is or was? Present or past?

 

The author might check the following book in Japanese for additional discussion:

 

中国仏教における戒律の研究

佐藤, 達玄

サトウ, タツゲン

 

Although it might not be directly relevant to the present paper, the author might check to see all the primary sources cited by Sheng Yen in his 戒律學綱要. He discusses 沙彌 in detail, based on the Vinaya texts in Chinese.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Check tense. This study is talking about the past, not the present, so be careful about that.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the thorough and professional feedback. I have meticulously revised the paper based on your suggestions. Below is some feedback addressing the specific issues you raised.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is very interesting, and contains relevant and innovative information.

Two main remarks are important:

    1. More information should be given on the lists of texts that we find in the article: lists for studying, lists for copying, and rituals. Information is not totally absent, but more help for the reader to grasp what young monastics learn would greatly enhance the impact of this article. Ther structure is very fine, so the information an be added to the relevant sections.

2   2. Some more consistency in diacritics and the use of pinyin would be welcome. It is already quite good, but some inconsistency or mistakes remain.

Below are some minor remarks (I also indicated some typos, but I also might have missed some):

Notes 1 and following: when referring to the Taishō edition, it would be very helpful to add more than only the page (and also indicate the exact passage), as well as to give information on which text has been used.

Line 26: what is paraphrase, what is translation. That is not clear.

Line 74: it would be interesting to add some information on the common punctuation system in Tang (classical) texts so as to show how this system is parallel or not to the commonly used system.

Line 97: Weimo jing: italics

Line 122: it would be interesting to explain the administrative system in more detail.

Line 158: italics missing

Line 196: add ‘by one person’?

Line 226: lüe

Lines 250-251: diacritics missing

Line 266: the Small Vehicle? (see also 364)

The plural of ‘codex’ is codices or codexes

Line 279: Dunhuang

Line 296: translation of the title: no italics needed

Line 385: it would be very interesting to add some more information on these texts.

Line 388: tradition

Line 399 and others: Yogacara, diacritics

Line 411: as above, some more information on the texts can be useful

Line 434: it would be interesting to explain what Guiyi army means.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

just some typos

Author Response

Thank you very much for the thorough and professional feedback. I have meticulously revised the paper based on your suggestions. Below is some feedback addressing the specific issues you raised.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article leverages materials unearthed from Dunhuang to examine the study and reading of Buddhist scriptures by novice monks, with a particular focus on analyzing numerous details that are seldom observable in extant materials. The author’s utilization and interpretation of the Dunhuang materials are deemed appropriate. Notably, the usage and elucidation of materials such as P. 3092V provide insights into the reading pace of ancient monks. The scenarios depicted by these materials starkly contradict the common perceptions I previously held. It is often documented that many monks could recite hundreds of sheets of scriptures daily, yet the author demonstrates that, under normal circumstances, a monk might only be able to memorize several dozen characters in a day. Although I still harbor skepticism regarding this seemingly low rate of recitation, it is imperative to acknowledge that these are authentic records. This perhaps is the most enchanting aspect of historical research—it continually challenges our conventional understanding and stereotypes. In my view, this study presents a distinct perspective, enriching our knowledge of the social life of ancient Buddhist monks.

Beyond the scope of the current analysis, it is suggested that the author could further refine the work by offering a more extensive exposition on the scholarly importance of the research topic. This would serve to clarify for the audience the rationale underpinning the author's pursuit of this inquiry. While the primary focus of the discourse is on the study of Buddhist scriptures by novice monks, known as Śrāmaṇera, it would be advantageous to delineate the additional forms of training these individuals are subjected to. Although it is not obligatory for the author to furnish a response within the parameters of the present paper, it would be beneficial to present the reader with a rudimentary schematic of the broader educational framework.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There is no problem with the English of this article.

Author Response

Thank you for your affirmation of this article. Your suggestion is very constructive. I have supplemented the content of the education that novice monks must receive at the beginning of the article. The study of monastic discipline is a key focus of my subsequent research, and I hope to complete it promptly.

 

Q: Beyond the scope of the current analysis, it is suggested that the author could further refine the work by offering a more extensive exposition on the scholarly importance of the research topic. This would serve to clarify for the audience the rationale underpinning the author's pursuit of this inquiry. While the primary focus of the discourse is on the study of Buddhist scriptures by novice monks, known as Śrāmaṇera, it would be advantageous to delineate the additional forms of training these individuals are subjected to. Although it is not obligatory for the author to furnish a response within the parameters of the present paper, it would be beneficial to present the reader with a rudimentary schematic of the broader educational framework.

A: Thank you for your affirmation of this article. Your suggestion is very constructive. I have supplemented the content of the education that novice monks must receive at the beginning of the article. The study of monastic discipline is a key focus of my subsequent research, and I hope to complete it promptly.