Deciphering the Interaction between Daoism and Buddhism in the Wei-Jin Period Tale of “The Golden Pot of Futi”

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The subject of your paper is interesting and, based on your discussion of prior scholarship on Buddhist elements in the Record of Gleanings, seems worthwhile (though I think your precise intervention still needs to be clarified and developed). I also appreciate the care with which you have researched and explained the material and cultural underpinnings of the Buddhist themes at play in the “Golden Pot.” This all makes for very promising material! But I think there’s still much work to be done with respect to developing and presenting your argument.

Part of the work that remains to be done might be intellectual; the other part is structural.

With respect to the intellectual:  The argument is presently too broad and therefore vague. The main point of this paper seems to be that the “Golden Pot of Futi” evinces Buddhist influence in many different respects (which the body of the paper examines in detail), and that it synthesizes Buddhist themes with Daoist concerns in a way that reflects the relationship between Buddhist and Daoist thought during the Wei and Jin periods (which you also reflect upon in detail). Based on your description of the text, however, its constituent Buddhist and Daoist themes would be evident to any scholarly reader; and, moreover, according to your discussion, the Buddhist-Daoist dynamic that plays out in the text merely reflects what we already know about the historical dynamic between these idea systems—it does not seem to reveal anything new. This leads me to ask: What is at stake in this analysis? In other words, what historical, intellectual, or creative textual developments would we risk omitting or overlooking without your analysis of this story?

You could begin thinking through this by returning to the brief literature review you provide in your introduction. On page 1, lines 30–32, you merely state that scholars haven’t fully considered this story. You also say this story is particular crucial to understanding the text in which it appears. Could you explain more specifically and concretely what this story offers that others in this collection do not? And how can we ascertain the special significance this story holds in relation to the text? Is it really more significant or essential than any of the other stories? Why?

In lines 34–39, you build a sense of anticipation for the forthcoming analysis, gesturing towards the questions that arise from the narrative’s interplay of Buddhist and Daoist themes. But the answers to these questions end up feeling a bit anticlimactic, perhaps a bit too straightforward or simple. This is, I think, largely due to the likelihood that you haven’t yet worked out what is at stake in your analysis. But this sense of analytic shortcoming is also certainly an outcoming of this manuscript’s current structural limitations, which I’ll elaborate on below.

Section one carefully combs through the Buddhist themes that appear throughout the “Golden Pot of Futi.” It identifies and situates each theme in relation to Indian and Chinese cultural and material contexts. The amount of factual detail you provide alongside each theme is admirable, but your discussion of this rich evidence never develops to the point of articulating a coherent argument about what this particular combination of themes allows this story to do. Moreover, the sheer volume of evidence pulls the reader deeply into a factual understanding of each theme, to the extent that it’s easy to lose the forest (of the scholarly justification for attending to this story) for the trees. In other words, the evidence pulls you away from what might be the connecting thread of your overall discussion—indeed, it’s difficult to see whether there actually is a connecting thread that runs throughout! This is already the case just in the first two paragraphs of section one, where what the reader really needs is some conceptual anchoring for the analysis that is yet to come.

Before revising your paper, I strongly suggest that you read Eric Hayot’s chapter on the “uneven U” in his book on the Elements of Academic Style. The “connecting thread” of your analysis and argument should appear somewhere around levels 4 and 5 (using language from his chapter), where a writer tends to develop and elaborate on the themes or concepts they have abstracted from the evidence at hand. The present manuscript is replete with paragraphs that set forth at level 2 or 3, that is to say, statements that merely present evidence or fairly direct observations about the evidence.

An additional outcome of this structural trend, which is especially clear in sections one and two, is that there’s often a sense of confusion regarding what (analytic) relationships pertain between passages of evidence and reasoning. Section one frequently links paragraphs with simple, structural transitions (as opposed to conceptually anchored discussion that explains the significance of moving from one passage of analysis to the next) (see P5, L218; P6, L252; P7, L289; P8, L313);  or by merely repeating a key idea from the end of one paragraph at the end of another (see P4, L135; P4, L145; P4, L159). In other cases, there’s no transition whatsoever (see P3, L116; P4, L172; 

Section two suffers less from these structural issues, but, because the interpretive/argumentative thread in this manuscript is not yet well developed, it’s not clear what is at stake in (i.e., important about) your extended discussion of Dao’an and Wang Jia. What I surmise is that you are tentatively suggesting that Wang Jia somehow composed this story in response to Dao’an’s social and cultural influence upon the monk’s arrival in Chang’an. But your discussion of this possibility is buried in the middle of the section, so it’s not clear at the outset that this is your argument.

Yet more confusing is the thematically abrupt transition to a discussion of fiction at the bottom of page 15, when you start discussing Lu Xun. In fact, fiction is not a key theme at work in your discussion of this text. If it’s operating in the background of your earlier analyses, you should make it more explicit. Otherwise, I suggest doing away with this subargument. Also important: the “Golden Pot of Futi” is NOT A NOVEL. It is, instead, merely a narrative. And it’s absolutely unclear to what extent it should be classified as “fiction”! The very last paragraph of this manuscript, particularly in its discussion of literature, says nothing of particular consequence.

Smaller comments:

-       Double-check your footnote and punctuation formatting (including dashes).

-       Since you do not use tonal marks throughout, I suggest omitting them altogether. Pinyin alone is sufficient.

-       The Chen Yinke quote is too long.

Here is a list of statements I found very interesting, but the constituent ideas of which demand elaboration:

P3 L114–115, P4 L131–134: The relationship between the jambu tree and the ink

P4 L136–137: The significance of the characters.

L143–146: The theme of unimpeded bodily action and its narrative significance in the context of this story.

P5, L207–208

P6: What’s important about the ink pot, apart from the fact that it’s Indian? Why does this matter for an understanding of this narratives cultural or intellectual significance?

P8: Your discussion of Wang Jia should probably appear closer to your introduction.

Section 2 contains your paper’s strongest interpretive statements, though I think these interpretations still need interpretive development/elaboration and refining (for cohesion and coherence). See:

-       P10 L364–365, 375–380, 390–394

-       P12 L446–449, 456–459

-       Also (in section 3), P15, L574–575

 

-       NOTE: The discussion on P13 seems important, but the thinking expressed in L503–519 seems to waffle back and forth on the relationship between Dao’an and Wang Jia, which is very confusing for the reader.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Overall, the language of this article is clear and accurate, but I still found several typos and small grammatical errors that you’ll want edited out before this paper’s final submission. Here's a partial list of errors:

P1

L11 "the ways" --> ?

L21 tale of "Parrot --> tale of the "Parrot

L25 move footnote citation outside period

L30 ditto

L34 "the legendary narrative of the founder of Daoism, Laozi" --> "the legendary narrative of Laozi, the founder of Daoism"

P3 L117: dash should be an em-dash.

P5 L216: delete "the"

P6 L249: delete "a"

P7 L265–269 & L274: Revise for parallelism

P7 L283–284: Change too "involved the circulation of not only people but also material goods."

P7 L289: "literature" should be "literary" or (better yet) "written" or "textual."

P8 L319: Should be "(present-day Hotan)"

P10 L372–373: Revise for clarity

P10 L388: "Poeme" --> Poems

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your thorough review of my paper. Your invaluable assistance has prompted me to devote additional time to a more meticulous revision.

 

1. I have supplemented the introductory section, as you recommended, to elucidate my central arguments and underscore the research's essential nature.

 

2. I have read through the books you suggested in their entirety. During this period, I found myself grappling with the challenges of crafting the paper, and your recommendations proved exceedingly helpful, extending far beyond the section on the U-shaped argument. I extend my sincere gratitude once again. I have carefully addressed each of your suggestions regarding the evidence.

 

3. Through this period of reflection, I have also undertaken a comprehensive self-examination of other sections of the paper. I have duly marked the revisions made for your convenience during your review.

 

4. Incorporating Lu Xun's perspective aligns with my academic background. As a doctor of literature, my scholarly pursuits have predominantly centered on early Chinese novels over the past decade. Within the realm of novel studies, "The Record of Gleanings" undoubtedly stands as a quintessential early Chinese novel. Whether it be the seminal contributions to the history of Chinese fiction by Lu Xunin "A Brief History of Chinese Fiction" or authoritative research works such as Li Jianguo's "A History of Strange Stories Before the Tang Dynasty," Wang Guoliang's "Research on Strange Stories of Wei, Jin, and Northern and Southern Dynasties," or even annotated editions of "The Record of Gleanings," there exists a consensus on the novelistic essence of "The Record of Gleanings." What I am trying to reiterateat the end of this paper is to emphasize that, for the strides made in historical or religious studies, the utilization of early Chinese novels remains insufficient, despite their potential to serve as rich repositories for understanding religious propagation, the history of cross-cultural exchanges, and the evolution of ideological paradigms. In light of your feedback, I have made substantive modifications and enhancements to the conclusion. However, I remain steadfast in my assessment of the novelistic nature of "The Record of Gleanings," as I believe this perspective does not detract from the work's inherent value.

 

5. I have also meticulously addressed the minutiae of style and annotations in this submission. I eagerly await your further critique and guidance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a very interesting and original research topic. The arguments that the author made, including the merging of Buddhism and Taoism in the story; the blurring of origins of both religions in the Shiyi ji; the complex relationship between Buddhism and Taoism during the Wei and Jin dynasties, etc, are well-appreciated. The close-reading analysis of the story of “Golden Pot of Futi” (pp 2–8) is especially spot on. It is insightful and well-presented. The way in which the author makes connections between the text and material artifact is also applaudable. 

 

I do take issues with some terms and concepts on which the author based their thesis.  

 

p. 1 (ll. 32–34)

This particular story is crucial and emblematic within the Record of Gleanings. This study examines how Taoist Wáng Jiā, the author of the novel, incorporates elements from Buddhism into the legendary narrative of the founder of Taoism, Laozi.  

First, it is misleading to refer to the Shiyi ji as a “novel,” which I assume was a direct and anachronistic translation of the term xiaoshuo. It is equally problematic to talk about Wang Jia as the “author” of the “novel.” It should be noted that the surviving fragments of the texts included in the “xiaoshou jia”小說家 category of the bibliographical treatises of Han shu (漢書藝文志) appear to be expository writings with political intent. In the early medieval context, 小說家 (“masters of minor tales”) typically collected minor anecdotes to compose trivial pieces of writing. Therefore, the term xiaoshuo is probably better rendered in line with “[minor] tales, [otherwise unattested] anecdotes, [trivial] tall stories.” By the same token, the text Shiyi ji should be termed as something like “a collection of miscellaneous tall tales.” And Wang Jia’s alleged role should likewise be described as a combination of compiler/editor/‘secondary content-creator,’ rather than simply as the “author” of the collection. And even in that capacity, Wang Jia’s association with the collection is ostensible and by convention only. 

 

Second, the author refers to Wang Jia’s identity as a Daoist “clear and authoritative” (ll.647–48) However, his Daoist identity is only circumstantially suggested (at best) rather than positively confirmed in texts. Wang Jia’s biographical account in the Jinshu refers to him as a fangshi 方士, who lived as a recluse before he dabbled in politics. Fangshi, conventionally translated as ‘adepts of methods,’ were specialists in the occult arts, especially the techniques of prolonging life. But being a fangshi recluse and on a strict grain-free diet (bushi wugu 不食五穀) does not necessarily make one a Daoist, authoritative or not. Even if he were indeed a Daoist practitioner (which we do not know for sure), it still does not automatically put him in the position to speak for and advocate Daoism as the author seems to suggest.

Third, some of the generalizations (taken as given in the paper) display a somewhat native and facile understanding of Laozi as the figure behind the text Daodejing. It is a scholarly consensus that the Daodejing as the fundamental text of both philosophical and religious Daoism, is not a work of a single author. Given that it is still up to debate whether there was a historical figure Laozi, it is not advisable to speak of Laozi, the legendary author of the text, as the founder of Taoism. 

 

“It is with this Way of the Celestial Masters (天師道) that the history of organized religious Daoism may be said to begin, in that there has been an unbroken continuity from that time down to the present day, as the movement soon spread to all of China.”----See Anna K. Seidel and Michel Strickmann, “Daoism,” Encyclopaedia Britannica https://www.britannica.com/topic/Daoism/General-characteristics

 

Fourth, the author’s treating the Shiyi ji as a text that has remained intact from Wang Jia’s time to the present day is also oversimplified. According to the Siku quanshu zongmu tiyao 四庫全書總目提要, the person who is directly responsible for the extant version of the Shiyi ji is a sixth century editor named Xiao Qi 蕭綺 (little is known about this Xiao Qi). Xiao’s preface mentions that the original text contained 19 juan 卷, consisting of 220 pian 篇, and he organized them into ten juan and added remarks. The transmitted version of the text also contains stories that, because of the inclusion of some anachronistic details in the account, were apparently added after Wang Jia’s time. One would expect that the textual history, on which the author anchors their thesis, is taken into due consideration. 

 

The author would probably do better justice to their interesting topic by coming up with a more informative title than simply saying it is “a new interpretation.” The article could benefit from a clearer structure to guide readers through the complex interplay of Buddhist and Taoist influences in early medieval China. The author would serve the reader better by providing headings for each section, clearly highlighting the gist of each one. 

 

In addition, one may also want to quibble that the references and citations are not well-documented; the stylistic practices, such as pinyin and date information, are not consistently carried out throughout the paper. 

 

In conclusion, it seems that the author has an insightful reading of this story in the Shiyi ji and the method of combining textual and material evidence holds a lot of promise. Such promise however is significantly frustrated by some oversimplified and at times flawed ideas fundamental to the thesis of the article. 

 

 

See “Shiyi ji” entry in Siku quanshu zongmu tiyao 四庫全書總目提要, juan 142.

 

See also “Shiyiji,” in Six Dynasties Texts: A Bibliographic Guide, Chennault, Cynthia et al. pp 302–305 (Berkeley: The Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, 2015).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you once again for your critiques and reminders. In response to your comments, I have made the following revisions and responses, and I hope they demonstrate my efforts and progress:

 

1.Regarding the nature of the "Record of Gleanings." For the past 12 years, I have been dedicated to the study of ancient novels (Gu Xiao Shuo). Defining novels (Xiao Shuo) from before the Tang Dynasty is a crucial and complex issue in the field of Chinese literature. From my perspective, considering the "Record of Gleanings" as an early novel or a proto-novel aligns more closely with the prevalent understanding and translation practices in contemporary Chinese academia. I also understand that this concept is quite different from the Western notion of a novel. Therefore, the issue you raised remains a significant topic of ongoing discussion among researchers in this area.

2.

Regarding Wang Jia's identity as a Daoist. In novel and Daoist studies in China, there is a general consensus that Wang Jia was a Daoist. During the Wei and Jin periods, the distinction between "fangshi" (alchemists) and Daoists was not very clear. For example, in "Study of the Origins and Development of the Daoist Canon" (道藏源流考), Chen Guofu notes that although the term "Daoist" originated in the Han dynasty, it was not until after the Jin dynasty that "fangshi" ceased to be commonly used and was replaced by "Daoist." The "History of Chinese Daoism," (中国道教史), edited by Ren Jiyu, an important work in Daoist studies, states that Wang Jia studied under Liang Kan and passed on his teachings to Sun Che, making him one of the early representatives of the Louguan Daoism (楼观道). Wang Jia's identity as a Daoist is widely accepted. While it is possible to view him as both a fangshi and a Daoist, doing so would blur the focus of this study and detract from its aim of discussing the early interactions between Daoism and Buddhism. However, your feedback prompted me to consider whether Wang Jia, as a representative of Louguan Daoism, might have written this tale. I have addressed this possibility in the conclusion of the paper.

3.

The question of Laozi as the author. From the perspective of literary research, I do not definitively claim that Laozi was the sole author of the "Dao De Jing." My discussions aim to explore how people in the Wei and Jin periods understood the founder of Daoism and the origins of Daoist classics. There is no doubt that historical records, literary works, and religious texts from the Wei and Jin periods attribute the founding of Daoism and the authorship of the "Dao De Jing" to Laozi. My interpretation of this tale reveals another unusual account of Laozi's authorship, beyond the well-known legends of “Laozi’s departure” and “Laozi converting the barbarians.” I explore how, during the Wei and Jin periods, Buddhist elements were integrated into the narrative of Daoism's origins and the composition of Daoist classics. This reflects the motivations and understanding of Daoist figures at that time. This issue is separate from the actual authorship, editing, and dissemination of the "Dao De Jing." My focus is on the perception of these matters, not on the textual history. You might suggest that I should note that the "Dao De Jing" was possibly not written by Laozi, but I believe this would stray from the main theme of this paper. An article cannot exhaustively mark every widely accepted concept with such caution as it would impede the progression of my argument.

However, following your advice, I have included concise sentences in the article to clarify that Laozi's authorship of the "Dao De Jing" is a legend that is currently under question in religious studies.

4.

Is Wang Jia the author of "Record of Gleanings"? Prior to your inquiry, this question was generally undisputed among previous literary scholars. During my master's studies in classical Chinese literature, I focused on classical Chinese literature studies and was familiar with "Comprehensive Bibliography of the Four Repositories." However, delving deeper into earlier index books reveals that the nature, attribution, and arrangement of volumes in the "Record of Gleanings" are uncertain, a common phenomenon in early Chinese tales. Xiao Qi compiled and organized the "Record of Gleanings," and his annotations are found at the end of each volume. Esteemed scholars like Lu Xun, Li Jianguo, and Wang Guoliang have not questioned the authorship, nor have they raised doubts about any interpolations beyond Xiao Qi's compilation. Their conclusions likely stemmed from considerations of overall textual style, extant literature, and cataloging records. Of course, the authorship of early tales has always been subject to scrutiny, and I am willing to reassess the reliability of this consensus, as you've suggested. While I've provided some clarification at the end of the article, I must stress that if I were to scrutinize the nature, authenticity, and classification of early texts to this extent, diverging from established consensus, it would significantly impede the discussion of religious interactions I aim to explore.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract comes across as confusing, as the central discursive thread is obscured, firstly, by the incredibly vague phrase “multifaceted Buddhist essence.” Ideally, the statements that follow the phrase would clarify what this means, but (1) the sentence “Especially in terms… Buddhist material culture” is unclear; (2) the next sentence “Regarding the narrative aspect…” is too zoomed out from the text to offer any compelling details; and (3) the phrase “the ways and progression of Buddhist dissemination” that appears in the next sentence is really unclear. It’s also very unclear how these three ideas are related to one another. Hopefully you can revise the abstract some more.

The material that was added to the first paragraph of the article itself makes that paragraph's main idea very confusing. I recommend that you reorganize and condense your introduction some more. Material added elsewhere needs some language-editing but is otherwise helpful.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Passages that were added to version 2 contain syntactic redundancies and grammatical errors. Further editing is strongly recommended.

Author Response

Thanks again for your help. I have checked and modified the whole text again according to your reminder.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf