The Healing Heuristic of the Medicine Buddha in Bhutan
Paolo Roberti Di Sarsina
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsVery interesting article
Author Response
We thank reviewer 1 for their review and encouraging comments
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This is a very interesting article about the role of contemplative practices around the Medicine Buddha in Bhutan, and especially for nurses, showing thus a very significant intersection between Vajrayāna Buddhism, traditional Bhutanese medicine, and modern medicine.
Nevertheless, as academic article submitted to the journal Religions, this article needs to be revised according to the standards of scholarship in Indian, Tibetan, and Bhutanese studies.
First, Sanskrit terms need to be written with diacritics (ex: not Vajrayana but Vajrayāna, etc.).
But most importantly, in its current state, the article shows a poor rendition of Dzongkha and classical Tibetan terms. Precise phonological transcription for English speaking readers, and exact Wylie Romanized transliteration of Dzongkha and classical Tibetan must be provided.
Ex: The classical Tibetan for Medicine Buddha should be rendered as such, with first the pronunciation, and then the spelling in italics, in parentheses: Sangye Menla (sang rgyas sman bla).
There is thus an important work to be done in order to reference properly all the categories of Bhutanese practices and healing techniques in this article. For guidelines on these linguistic conventions in this field, see for example the following website: https://treasuryoflives.org/
As for the contents, the title mentions the notion of “healing heuristic,” but most of the statements about Vajrayāna and traditional medicine remain rather general. It would be interesting to delve deeper into how nurses personally experiment the activity of healing from a more phenomenological perspective (describing the related cognitive and affective operations, and their deeper philosophical or spiritual significance). Moreover, what about practices of “self-healing” for patients? Distinguishing spiritual, mental, energetic (Tibetan: rlung), and physical diseases may also be useful.
Then the article mentions “mindfulness practices.” Mindfulness, originally a core Buddhist concept (Pāli: sati; Sanskrit: smṛti; Tibetan: dran pa; Chinese: nian 念) has become more integrated into modern medicine (especially physiology of stress, with Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction) and cognitive psychology (Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy), etc. Is the article referring to these modern scientific and secular programs? Or how is mindfulness been referred as it is taught in a more traditional Bhutanese Buddhist context? Is there any integration in Bhutan of traditional teachings on mindfulness, and modern medical perspectives on mindfulness, especially in the context of medical or nursing training? What could be the connection between the Medicine Buddha and mindfulness practice? Isn’t the Medicine Buddha the symbol to connect with the healing power of one’s inherent Buddha nature, mindful wisdom, and compassion? How could this be described in the healing experiences of nurses, or self-healing experiences of patients?
Then some specific corrections:
- P. 3, line 127: it should read “accomplished” guru instead of “practiced” guru.
- P. 4, lines 180-184: the list and references of the 5 major and 5 minor sciences should be entirely corrected in terms of classical Tibetan (phonology and spelling), and English translation. In its current state, it is very inaccurate. This information can be found easily in the existing literature, please refer to it.
- P. 10, line 527, it would be better to reference the book of Lama Zopa Rinpoche with the name “Zopa” instead of “Rinpoche” since Rinpoche is a title used for most major masters, and is thus not specific enough for an academic bibliographical reference.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English is fine apart from few minor edits.
Author Response
Comment 1: This is a very interesting article about the role of contemplative practices around the Medicine Buddha in Bhutan, and especially for nurses, showing thus a very significant intersection between Vajrayāna Buddhism, traditional Bhutanese medicine, and modern medicine.
Response 1: Thank you for your positive comment.
Comment 2: Nevertheless, as academic article submitted to the journal Religions, this article needs to be revised according to the standards of scholarship in Indian, Tibetan, and Bhutanese studies.
Response 2: We have revised the article accordingly
Comment 3: First, Sanskrit terms need to be written with diacritics (ex: not Vajrayana but Vajrayāna, etc.).
Response 3: We consider that given these terms are now familiar to English speakers this is not critical
Comment 4: But most importantly, in its current state, the article shows a poor rendition of Dzongkha and classical Tibetan terms. Precise phonological transcription for English speaking readers, and exact Wylie Romanized transliteration of Dzongkha and classical Tibetan must be provided.
Ex: The classical Tibetan for Medicine Buddha should be rendered as such, with first the pronunciation, and then the spelling in italics, in parentheses: Sangye Menla (sang rgyas sman bla).
Response 4: Transliteration for Bhutanese and Tibetan terminologies are incorporated in the first instance but not repeated throughout the paper for ease of readability.
Comment 5: There is thus an important work to be done in order to reference properly all the categories of Bhutanese practices and healing techniques in this article. For guidelines on these linguistic conventions in this field, see for example the following website: https://treasuryoflives.org/
Response 5: Corrected
Comment 6: As for the contents, the title mentions the notion of “healing heuristic,” but most of the statements about Vajrayāna and traditional medicine remain rather general. It would be interesting to delve deeper into how nurses personally experiment the activity of healing from a more phenomenological perspective (describing the related cognitive and affective operations, and their deeper philosophical or spiritual significance). Moreover, what about practices of “self-healing” for patients? Distinguishing spiritual, mental, energetic (Tibetan: rlung), and physical diseases may also be useful.
Response 6: We have incorporated more data to authenticate the phenomenology perspectives of the practicing nurses in close relation to the heuristic healing of the Medicine Buddha, its effects and benefits in the nursing profession.
Comment 7: Then the article mentions “mindfulness practices.” Mindfulness, originally a core Buddhist concept (Pāli: sati; Sanskrit: smṛti; Tibetan: dran pa; Chinese: nian 念) has become more integrated into modern medicine (especially physiology of stress, with
Response 7: Several lived experiences of the nurses on healing or the effects of treatment are now cited.'
Comment 8: Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction) and cognitive psychology (Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy), etc. Is the article referring to these modern scientific and secular programs? Or how is mindfulness been referred as it is taught in a more traditional Bhutanese Buddhist context? Is there any integration in Bhutan of traditional teachings on mindfulness, and modern medical perspectives on mindfulness, especially in the context of medical or nursing training? What could be the connection between the Medicine Buddha and mindfulness practice? Isn’t the Medicine Buddha the symbol to connect with the healing power of one’s inherent Buddha nature, mindful wisdom, and compassion? How could this be described in the healing experiences of nurses, or self-healing experiences of patients?
Response 8: We have not set out to compare various mindfulness techniques, but rather how Medicine Buddha is utilised by nurses in Bhutan.
Comment 9: P. 3, line 127: it should read “accomplished” guru instead of “practiced” guru.
Response 9: resolved
Comment 10: P. 4, lines 180-184: the list and references of the 5 major and 5 minor sciences should be entirely corrected in terms of classical Tibetan (phonology and spelling), and English translation. In its current state, it is very inaccurate. This information can be found easily in the existing literature, please refer to it.
Response 10: Appropriate changes now made
Comment 11: P. 10, line 527, it would be better to reference the book of Lama Zopa Rinpoche with the name “Zopa” instead of “Rinpoche” since Rinpoche is a title used for most major masters, and is thus not specific enough for an academic bibliographical reference.
Response 11: This is resolved with “Zopa” instead of “Rinpoche” and moved within the text
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciated this project. I appreciate both the kinds of questions asked and the way in which they are being pursued here. And I want this paper to be published.
Below are first, some broader reflections/suggestions and then some more detailed, smaller comments.
There is also a challenge inherent in presenting this project in a short article and I am not sure how to address this challenge. The challenge is that there is a lot of basic background information that is necessary for understanding the core of the research. In this case, the interviews with the nurses start on the bottom of page 5 and end on page 8. The first five pages are general introduction. They largely feel like a brief encyclopedia article presenting very schematic overviews to provide background for what came next. For a reader such as myself, familiar with Bhutanese/Himalayan Buddhism, all this felt very elementary and I don’t think the authors would suggest that any of it is an actual contribution to scholarship. The challenge is that without this elementary overview, it would be hard for readers unfamiliar with Himalayan Buddhism to make sense of the interviews that follow.
I think the fact that the actual new research presented here is less than half the article gives me pause. To me it gives the article a little bit of a feeling of being too brief, not substantial enough.
I am not sure what to suggest. Perhaps the section presenting and analyzing the interviews can be more developed. The methodology talks about narrative, but there wasn’t a whole lot of narrative from the interviewees. I would suggest allowing the reader to hear more from the nurses, more of their narrative, more of their story, and how practicing medicine is a form of religious practice.
OK…here are some more specific comments.
1. There were times when the prose was a little awkward (for example the “such as” on p. 1, line 29). Or, 91. I would think “From then on…” is better then “From then…”
Or, 115, “and hence are increasingly practiced…”
Or, for example, 299-302.
383: “In the Vajrayāna…” (and personally, I would say, “Vajrayāna traditions” as it is not one monolithic tradition but a set of traditions.
404: the “the” before “body, speech, and mind” feels awkward to me.
My sense, as a native English speaker, was that the author(s) may not be native English speakers. Their writing is far superior to anything I could do in another language and I admire their work. And, it could benefit from a native English speaker reviewing the prose.
2. Beyond the prose, there were some times when more editing was needed. For example, p. 1, line 41, where the period should be a comma, but even with the comma, there is a word or two missing). And the short paragraph of 125-132 is repeated. As a referee, it does not look good when an article is submitted with a whole paragraph repeated, as it suggests the submission was not carefully edited.
3. p.2, 48-51: yes, this is true. And, the body also refers to actions of the body from an ethical and karmic perspective. I suspect that in this context it could also mean the actions of nurses as they do the bodily dimension of their work with patients.
4. 47-71: I think it would be helpful to say a bit more explicitly what is meant by “integrating body, speech, and mind.”
5. I am not sure why proper names are italicized. Gautama (74), Buddha-Dharma (75), and Sangay Menlha (76) are not typically italicized. What convention is being used to make these italics?
6. 87: I find “South-East Asia” confusing. “Southeast Asia” refers to the region of Thailand, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, etc. Are the authors referring to the southern part of East Asia? It seems they are referring to Tibet, for example, which I have never understood to be part of southeast Asia or the southern part of East Asia.
In fact, while the authors don’t mention it, as Kate Crosby has shown, esoteric or tantric Theravāda practices in Southeast Asia were indeed highly integrated with medicine.
7. Is it the journal’s style not to use diacritics (Vajrayāna, Mahāyāna, etc. don’t have the diacritics that most scholars use)? Some presses are doing away with diacritics to make their publications more accessible. Most scholars have not yet followed.
I hope these comments are helpful. While I do not think this submission should be published in its current form, I do think it could be published in a revised form in the future.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagesee above.
Author Response
Comments 1: I appreciated this project. I appreciate both the kinds of questions asked and the way in which they are being pursued here. And I want this paper to be published.
Response 1: Thank you for your positive feedback.
Comments 2: There is also a challenge inherent in presenting this project in a short article and I am not sure how to address this challenge. The challenge is that there is a lot of basic background information that is necessary for understanding the core of the research. In this case, the interviews with the nurses start on the bottom of page 5 and end on page 8. The first five pages are general introduction. They largely feel like a brief encyclopedia article presenting very schematic overviews to provide background for what came next. For a reader such as myself, familiar with Bhutanese/Himalayan Buddhism, all this felt very elementary and I don’t think the authors would suggest that any of it is an actual contribution to scholarship. The challenge is that without this elementary overview, it would be hard for readers unfamiliar with Himalayan Buddhism to make sense of the interviews that follow.
Response 2: Background information has been condensed and more data from participants has been included
Comments 3: I think the fact that the actual new research presented here is less than half the article gives me pause. To me it gives the article a little bit of a feeling of being too brief, not substantial enough.
Response 3: We have included significantly more data in the revision, detailing several of the nurses' lived experiences
Comments 4: I am not sure what to suggest. Perhaps the section presenting and analyzing the interviews can be more developed. The methodology talks about narrative, but there wasn’t a whole lot of narrative from the interviewees. I would suggest allowing the reader to hear more from the nurses, more of their narrative, more of their story, and how practicing medicine is a form of religious practice.
Response 4: More narrative is provided as advised.
Comments 5: There were times when the prose was a little awkward (for example the “such as” on p. 1, line 29). Or, 91. I would think “From then on…” is better then “From then…”
Or, 115, “and hence are increasingly practiced…”
Or, for example, 299-302.
Response 5: Appropriate edits completed
Comments 6: 383: “In the Vajrayāna…” (and personally, I would say, “Vajrayāna traditions” as it is not one monolithic tradition but a set of traditions.
404: the “the” before “body, speech, and mind” feels awkward to me.
Response 6: The concept on body, speech and mind is elaborated more in revised form.
Comments 7: My sense, as a native English speaker, was that the author(s) may not be native English speakers. Their writing is far superior to anything I could do in another language and I admire their work. And, it could benefit from a native English speaker reviewing the prose.
Response 7: The lead author is Bhutanese. Co-authors are native English speakers who have sometimes erred on maintaining the leading author ‘voice’ throughout
Comments 8: p.2, 48-51: yes, this is true. And, the body also refers to actions of the body from an ethical and karmic perspective. I suspect that in this context it could also mean the actions of nurses as they do the bodily dimension of their work with patients.
Response 8: Yes -- thank you for your comments
Comments 9: 47-71: I think it would be helpful to say a bit more explicitly what is meant by “integrating body, speech, and mind.”
Response 9: We have done major revision on this concept.
Comments 10: I am not sure why proper names are italicized. Gautama (74), Buddha-Dharma (75), and Sangay Menlha (76) are not typically italicized. What convention is being used to make these italics?
Response 10: Error corrected
Comments 11: 87: I find “South-East Asia” confusing. “Southeast Asia” refers to the region of Thailand, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, etc. Are the authors referring to the southern part of East Asia? It seems they are referring to Tibet, for example, which I have never understood to be part of southeast Asia or the southern part of East Asia.
In fact, while the authors don’t mention it, as Kate Crosby has shown, esoteric or tantric Theravāda practices in Southeast Asia were indeed highly integrated with medicine.
Response 11: For the scope of this paper, we only focused in the context of Bhutan only -- but we have also corrected the text
Comment 12: Is it the journal’s style not to use diacritics (Vajrayāna, Mahāyāna, etc. don’t have the diacritics that most scholars use)? Some presses are doing away with diacritics to make their publications more accessible. Most scholars have not yet followed.
Response 12: Diacritics are not used
