The “Adbhuta-Dharma” Narratives in Translated Chinese Sarvāstivāda Texts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article fully absorbs the research achievements of scholars from Europe, America, Japan and China, and discusses the various usages of adbhuta-dharma in translated Chinese Sarvāstivāda texts in its Āgamas, Vinayas, Abhidharmas, Dārstāntika works and other texts such as the Buddhacarita (Ch. Fosuoxing zan). The analysis of the relationship between adbhuta and abhijna, ie the close tie between adbhuta and the conceptual development of the Buddha’s supernormal powers, is of much significance. Based on Chinese Buddhist texts, the discussion of the relationship between adbhuta and jatakas, avadanas and nidanas in this article is also meaningful, which helps international scholars better understand the importance of Chinese Buddhist texts.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, these comments were very helpful.

Please see the reply for my response specifically.Thanks a lot.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for this excellent and interesting article on a topic that has been largely ignored in recent scholarship. I congratulate the author on the meticulous work involved in defining and drawing out nuances of adbhuta-dharma from Sarvāstivādin texts. This article started with a review of academic literature in English, Chinese and Japanese that has studied adbhuta-dharma. The author identified five different types of adbhuta-dharma (p. 4) in addition to Egaku Maedo’s threefold typology. This refinement expands Maedo’s typology one, “exceptional qualities and virtues of the Buddha, his disciples and his teachings” (p. 3) into three separate categories of the Buddha’s, the teaching’s and the community’s adbhuta (p.4). The author’s fifth category about the wondrous phenomena is equivalent to Maedo’s second typology. What is new is the author’s fourth category of “adbhuta related to protecting the teaching.” The author then follows to identify the close relationship between adbhuta and abhijñā, effectively as abhijñā producing adbhuta and the two terms effectively being used interchangeably. In the analysis of the adbhuta narratives in the Madhyamāgama, Saṃyuktāgama, Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣa Śāstra, Chuyaojing, Buddhacarita and Dārṣṭāntika works, the author offers classifications of selected accounts based on Egaku Maedo’s typology. The author notes the evolution of the adbhuta-dharma starting with extraordinary events related to the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha; followed by encompassing events related to householders; to eventually take on many other meanings. Finally, the author draws the conclusions that these miraculous accounts popularized Sarvāstivādin doctrines as well as formed the early prototype for Mahāyāna literature.

While generally detailed and well-written, there are a few problems that I wish to highlight here. The research objective of this article is unclear. What is the purpose of analyzing the conceptual frameworks and narrative structures of miracle accounts in Sarvāstivādin literature? Similarly, what is the rationale for tracing the developments of the term adbhuta in these texts? In lines 106-108 and 144-146, the author relates what will be done but not the motivation for doing so.

The innovative five types of adbhuta-dharma identified on p.4 was not followed through. Why did the author list these five different types if they are not used again in the text?

With no reference made to contemporary Indian literature, the reader can only infer that the motivation of adbhuta-dharma to “promote the Buddha’s status as a great being” (pp. 178-179) must be an accepted practice of the time. Has the author compared with Indian literature of that time?

In reading this article, I got the impression that the author is looking at the translation of the term of adbhuta-dharma in the texts. However, there are also transliterations taking place. Are there any differences if the author searches for its transliterated term, such as 阿浮多達摩? If not, perhaps it will help to include this transliteration to show the comprehensiveness of the study. If there are different accounts, then it should be included in the analysis.

There seems to be a missing in-text quotation from Akira Hirakawa after line 570.

Overall, this manuscript carried an informative title and an excellent abstract. This study is significant because most research about adbhuta-dharma did not take place in recent years. Also, it is common to associate adbhuta-dharma with Mahāyāna texts and hence, it is refreshing to see this analysis on Sarvāstivādin passages, especially as this research suggests a progression from Sarvāstivādin accounts to the Mahāyāna ones.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, these comments were very helpful.I have made clarifications in the paper,please see the attachment.

Thanks a lot.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf