The Siddha with a Thousand Faces: Non-Tantric and Tantric Elements in the Construction of the Buddhist Siddha in *Jñānākara’s Commentary to the Introduction to the [Path of] Mantra

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think that this is a great topic for an article, but the article needs some work to bring it up to a higher standard. I have left extensive comments and corrections in the copy of your article attached below.  

The fact that the final section of the article concludes with a long piece of translated material that has been taken from another author and then simply cuts off tells me that you probably ran out of time preparing to submit this draft. 

My recommendation would be to sit with this topic a bit more, find a way to very clearly articulate just why this text is interesting and important to our understanding of tantric Buddhist traditions (and I have no doubt that it is), and then devise a very clear and coherent strategy for presenting both the data from the text itself and your argument.

Essentially, I would rework the entire paper around the idea of Jñanākara's strategies for promoting a view of tantric practice in line with mainstream Mahāyāna buddhism and drop the whole  broader "siddha complex" topic. It would also be more interesting to compare Jñānākara's strategies for doing this against other authors who were engaged in the same kind of thing throughout the 10th–14th centuries (and beyond, in Tibet) than to spend so much time discussing the basic Mahāyāna treatises that Jñānākara may (or may not) be referencing. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I would like to thank you for your detailed and excellent comments that helped me to improve the contents of this article. I have tried to incorporate the your and the editors’ comments diligently. The argument about the siddha-complex was deleted altogether and, as suggested by the editors, I tried to situate Jñanākara’s ideas in a broader framework of tantric scholasticism. I have introduced the reviewer’s stylistic changes and revised the conclusion.
Answering specifically to the reviewer’s comments:
I followed the reviewer’s comments and shifted significant parts of the text in parentheses to the footnotes.
I have discussed the relationship between the root-text and the commentary and referenced the statement of authorial intent.

Comment 35: These are more along the lines of ritual actions (karman), not siddhis. And they are not transgressive. They are entirely acceptable in the kriyātantras as rites performed by an ācārya and/or vidyādhara. Many kriyātantras don't even worry about justifying ritual actions that cause harm to other beings, and there is no mention at all of them being understood as "transgressive."
Answer: Actually, killing, paralyzing, etc. are listed as the lower siddhis in many of the tantras I have studied. Also the kriyātantras, such as the Mañjuśriymūlakalpa or Susiddhikara set up special conditions for their execution, so they are considered transgressive.
Comment 38: I don't think this statement is accurate for Buddhist kriyātantras.
Answer: This distinction is also listed in the Susiddhikara, which differentiates between the highest, intermediate and lower siddhis.  

Other detailed revisions, you can find them in my revised article.

Reviewer 2 Report

There are minor faults in transcription (probably font problem)

Author Response

Thank you for your detailed and excellent comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a truly outstanding paper. It is an important contribution to the field,  and it is very focused and finely written. I have just a few corrections and recommendations:

Line 27: All page ranges, date ranges, etc. should be indicated using an en-dash rather than a hyphen. So "2006: 34-35" should read 2006: 34–35.

Line 20: The phrase "Indo-Tibetan world" could be criticized for washing over the significant cultural differences between India and Tibet, so I would consider replacing it with "Indian and Tibetan worlds" throughout.

Line 61–71: Really excellent writing here! Very clear and a refreshing perspective.

Line 81: Correct "Māhayānist" to Mahāyānist.

Lines 353, 372: Sanskrit diacritics are rendering incorrectly here in the terms "vaśīkaranạ" and "saṃsāra," with the diacritic not stacking on top of the letters but instead standing on their own. This issue occurs sporadically throughout the document. Please make sure this doesn't occur in the published version.

Line 440: Regarding "within the path the sense powers," there seems to be a typo here. Should it not be "within the path of the sense powers"?

Line 777: I would recommend replacing "Pe cin" with Beijing.

Line 831: As above, I would recommend replacing "Pe cin" with Beijing.

Author Response

Thank you for your detailed and excellent comments.