Zhiyan’s 智儼 Theory of Suchness (Ch. Zhenru 真如) and the Dependent Arising of the One Vehicle of the Distinct Teaching: With a Focus on the Influence of the Ratnagotravibhāga (Ch. Jiujing Yisheng Baoxing Lun 究竟一乘寶性論)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease reconsider the minor details as follows:
1. You need to distinguish between Dasheng qixin lun and "Dilun thoughts." As noted in Otake (2017, 482), the Dasheng qixin lun does not show any influence from Dilun thoughts.
2. "Zhiyan criticizes three types of emptiness of mind."(p.7) -> "Zhiyan criticizes the three types false view of the emptiness."
3. (p.9) "Thus, it is not surprising if Zhiyan had knew and read the Sanskrit text of the Jiujing yisheng baoxing lun, which was translated by Huiguang’s teacher, Ratnamati. " → It is quite suspicious whether Zhiyan actually read the Sanskrit version of RGV since there are no relevant records or circumstantial evidences.
4. (pp.13-4) "In his translation of the RGV, Ratnamati directly and extensively quotes from the Chinese Buzeng bujian jing 不增不減經 (T668, Skt. Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta; The Sutra of Non-Increase and Non-Decrease), which was translated by Bodhiruci." → It is logically wrong. Since the Buzeng bujian jing was translated in 525. (《貞元新定釋教目錄》卷9：「不增不減經一卷(正光六年於洛陽出)」(CBETA, T55, no. 2157, p. 839, b6) If you accept Ui's suggestion that the RGV was translated within 511-515, then it was Bodhiruci who quoted the Chinese translation of Ratnamati.
Thanks for the interesting argument.
Author Response
Dear my reviewer,
Thank you so much for your comments! Although I don't know your name, I am very grateful for your thorough review and valuable feedback. You pointed out several specific yet very important issues. I basically agree with all your suggestions and have made specific responses or modifications. The details are as follows:
1. You need to distinguish between Dasheng qixin lun and "Dilun thoughts." As noted in Otake (2017, 482), the Dasheng qixin lun does not show any influence from Dilun thoughts.
Thank you for your reminder. I forgot mentioning this point. As you have noticed, I uploaded a new PDF revision of my article. In this revised version, I added some explanations about this in the 3rd paragraph of the 5th page.
2. "Zhiyan criticizes three types of emptiness of mind."(p.7) -> "Zhiyan criticizes the three types false view of the emptiness."
Thank you for pointing this out. I revised this in the 2nd paragraph of the 8th page.
3. (p.9) "Thus, it is not surprising if Zhiyan had knew and read the Sanskrit text of the Jiujing yisheng baoxing lun, which was translated by Huiguang’s teacher, Ratnamati. " → It is quite suspicious whether Zhiyan actually read the Sanskrit version of RGV since there are no relevant records or circumstantial evidences.
I confess that your opinion is likely correct. Since we currently lack definitive evidence on this matter, based on your suggestions, I have added some content in the 2nd paragraph of the 10th page.
4. (pp.13-4) "In his translation of the RGV, Ratnamati directly and extensively quotes from the Chinese Buzeng bujian jing 不增不減經 (T668, Skt. Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśaparivarta; The Sutra of Non-Increase and Non-Decrease), which was translated by Bodhiruci." → It is logically wrong. Since the Buzeng bujian jing was translated in 525. (《貞元新定釋教目錄》卷9：「不增不減經一卷(正光六年於洛陽出)」(CBETA, T55, no. 2157, p. 839, b6) If you accept Ui's suggestion that the RGV was translated within 511-515, then it was Bodhiruci who quoted the Chinese translation of Ratnamati.
Thank you for detecting this logical false. I revised here in the 2nd (and 3rd) paragraph of the 12th page.
As you can see, besides the aforementioned changes, I have also made substantial modifications and adjustments to the overall structure of the article. All changes have been highlighted in blue. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate your guidance.
Thank you sincerely for your review and significant comments!
Best wishes,
The author
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper needs to be rewritten (preferably making it significantly shorter).
Minor, but important technical problems (considering that Religions is not a Sinological journal):
1. All technical terms of Buddhism must be consistent -- do not alternate freely Suchness/Thusness/zhenru/tathatā. Stick to one term for one concept, and select the best known variant, normally English or Sanskrit. Either provide a list of the terms [I would do that], or give all the variants (Sanskrit/Chinese/Pinyin/English) only once, at the first occurrence of the term. -- Obviously, when you discuss different Chinese renderings of the same Sanskrit term, you may repeatedly refer to the Chinese word, but Pinyin is enough.
2. The same with titles of works and names. For the titles you constantly refer to, use clear short references. RGV is good for the Ratna-gotra-vibhāga; for the Jiujing yisheng baoxing lun I would suggest RGV(Ch). For the Dasheng qixin lun perhaps "Awakening of Faith" or AF. Dilun, Shelun and Huayan are fine, but they must be explained at their first occurrence.
In the Bibliography, for the primary sources give author, translator, Sanskrit and English also.
---
Major problem: the structure of your argument is far from clear. A paper is a linear thing, one reads it from the beginning to the end. Since reality is multidimensional, a major part of planning a paper is finding out how your facts and arguments can be best ordered so that it could be understood without jumping forward and back again and again.
That you did not even try to do this is apparent from the many sentences that are repeated at different places. E.g. the (quite strange) sentence "However, we cannot find even one clear interpretation defining {tathatā/zhenru} as unconditioned dharma in the Dasheng qixin lun." appears four times.
So take a piece of paper, and make a linear sketch of your argument. Everything must appear only once, and everything that an item presupposes must come before it. It may take a long time, maybe even two weeks -- but the result will be a good paper.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
You need the help of someone with really good (written) English. Currently (and probably for quite some years to come), no AI can do the job. It produces syntactically correct English, but right at the most important places it will be absurd.
Author Response
Dear my reviewer,
Thank you so much for your comments! Although I don't know your name, I am very grateful for your thorough review and valuable feedback. You have provided macro-level suggestions on the overall structure and arguments of my article, which can significantly enhance its readability. Additionally, you have offered recommendations for improving my term choice and expressions. I sincerely appreciate your guidance. It must waste your time.
I basically agree with all your suggestions and have made specific responses or modifications. The details are as follows:
1. All technical terms of Buddhism must be consistent -- do not alternate freely Suchness/Thusness/zhenru/tathatā. Stick to one term for one concept, and select the best known variant, normally English or Sanskrit. Either provide a list of the terms [I would do that], or give all the variants (Sanskrit/Chinese/Pinyin/English) only once, at the first occurrence of the term. -- Obviously, when you discuss different Chinese renderings of the same Sanskrit term, you may repeatedly refer to the Chinese word, but Pinyin is enough.
Thank you for your reminder. As you have noticed, I uploaded a new PDF revision of my article. In this revised version, I dealt with the issues about terms according to your suggestion. All of them have been highlighted in blue.
2. The same with titles of works and names. For the titles you constantly refer to, use clear short references. RGV is good for the Ratna-gotra-vibhāga; for the Jiujing yisheng baoxing lun I would suggest RGV(Ch). For the Dasheng qixin lun perhaps "Awakening of Faith" or AF. Dilun, Shelun and Huayan are fine, but they must be explained at their first occurrence. In the Bibliography, for the primary sources give author, translator, Sanskrit and English also.
Thank you for pointing this out. I revised this in blue according to your suggestions in the revised version.
3. The structure of your argument is far from clear. A paper is a linear thing, one reads it from the beginning to the end. Since reality is multidimensional, a major part of planning a paper is finding out how your facts and arguments can be best ordered so that it could be understood without jumping forward and back again and again. That you did not even try to do this is apparent from the many sentences that are repeated at different places. So take a piece of paper, and make a linear sketch of your argument. Everything must appear only once, and everything that an item presupposes must come before it.
Thank you very much for pointing out the shortcomings in the structure and arguments of this article from a macro perspective. I have carefully considered your feedback and, following your suggestions, made significant adjustments to the structure and the order of the entire text. I have also deleted some paragraphs and related content. I hope that through these revisions, the paper will become as logical and readable more or less as you hoped. All changes have been highlighted in blue. I understand that even with these modifications, it may still be difficult to fully reach the ideal level you hope for. However, it should be significantly improved compared to the previous version.
As you can see, besides the aforementioned changes, I have also made substantial modifications and adjustments to the overall content of this article, following the overall direction of your comprehensive revision suggestions. All changes have been highlighted in blue. If you think that there are still some major problems in this revised version, could you please give me further opportunity to revise again?
By the way, I am also an anonymous reviewer for the journal Religions. To date, I have reviewed nearly ten submissions for Religions in these four years, over 70% of which have eventually been published. As a reviewer, I am very pleased that my suggestions have helped improve the quality of these articles to help these scholars for their careers. Meanwhile, a few years ago, one of my own submitted paper was also published in Religions.
As is well known, scholars in humanistic fields today face serious challenges to pursuing and disseminating the research—decreases in funding, disappearing academic positions, and a growing disconnect between academia and the public sphere. To be honest, this submission is very important to me. I believe that this paper should present new academic discoveries and contributions, despite addressing a relatively minor issue. If this paper can actually be published, it would greatly aid my ability to continue in my current position. Your thoughtful feedback has been very useful and invaluable, and I sincerely hope that you can be one of my academic mentors during this uncertain period.
Thank you sincerely for your review and significant comments!
Best wishes,
The author
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMuch better than the previous version, although still quite difficult to read.
Some words and expressions that need to be corrected are highlighted in the attached PDF.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
[Comment] Some words and expressions that need to be corrected are highlighted in the attached PDF.
[Response] Thank you so much for your careful review and valuable feedback! I have made the corrections you pointed out and highlighted this time in green. The specific revisions are all included in the second revised version I have uploaded this time. Please review it if you have time.
I want to express my heartfelt gratitude for your support and assistance. Although I do not know your name, your help and guidance have been invaluable to me during this difficult time. Your detailed review and suggestions have taught me a lot and provided me with strength. Through carefully reading your feedback and making revisions to my paper, I have gained a deeper understanding and reflection on the writing process of academic papers in the English world.
Once again, I extend my sincere gratitude to you!
Best wishes,
The author
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
