Rethinking Terms: Dohā, Vajra-, and Caryāgīti

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please correct the following:

37-39 please reformulate the repetition of  “scholarly literature”. Please add something like,  When investigating these terms, especially their use and classification within scholarly literature, it will be argued that many of the classifications found in scholarly literature likely originated outside the Indian cultural sphere, such as in the Tibetan or Newar cultural spheres.

39 please change the repetition of “cultural spheres”

40 please add some references for terminological and contextual confusion within academic and scholastic traditions.

58 what are other songs with similar content? Please add a note.

62-63 references to the secondary sources discussing these terms together is missing

120 granting not grating  

Footnote 1 Rinpoche not Ronpoche, Dwivedi not Dwivedie

Footnote 1, second line: a general not a gerenal

Footnote 1, second line, encompasses, not emcompasses

Footnote 1, line 3, displayed, not deisplayed

Footnote 1, line 3, conduct, not condcut

Footnote 1, line 4, reference, not refrence

Footnote 1, line 4 and reference may be given, not refrence may given here

Footnote 1, line 4, that are transmitted not are transmitted

Footnote 1, line 5, to the early formation of Indian not to the early formation of India

Footnote 2, line 1, optative, not optataive

Footnote 2, line 1, render, not redner

Footnote 2, line 2, I don’t understand what the author means by: “the ways how a realized siddha may act rather than being meant as compelled actions”. Something seems to be off here.

Footnote 4, line 2, listed not “listst”

Footnote 4, line 2, it represents one of the main claims, not “it represents a main claims’

Footnote 4, line 4 lifetime, not “life time”

127 and the religious practices of the siddhas, not “and their religious practices of the  siddhas”

128 dohaas should be in italics

Footnote 6, line 7, has been classified as Middle-Indic Prakrit, not “has been arranged”

Footnote 6, line 7, or in other words as belonging to the, not “in other words, belonging to the”

Footnote 9, line 2, synonymous expressions, not “synonymous expression”

Footnote 10, line 2, is found only four times, not “is found in only four times”

footnote 10, line 3, roughly comparable in number to the collection, not “roughly comparable number to the collection”

194 “the use of such endeavour” seems strange, please reformulate

197 further evidence, if more was needed, not, “if more were needed”

227 that seem to be based on not “that seem based on”

232 terminological conflicts? Please reformulate, e.g. terminological ambiguities

234-236 the same quotation by Lara Braitstein has already been given above 229-230. Please reformulate in such a way that the repetition is avoided.

291 to explore their implications further, not “explore further into their implications”

Footnote 24, with refard?

Footnote 24, “it may be helpful in first engaging” Please reformulate, I am not sure what does it mean

Footnote 24, line 2, regarding not “redgardin”

Footnote 24, 3, as a necessary not “necissary”

Footnote 24, line 4, subsumed, not “sybsumed”

Footnote 24, line 4, larger not “lager”

Footnote 24, line 4, song-poetry not “song-poety”

Footnote 25, line 3, referred to as cacaa-songs not “referred to cacaa-songs”

Footnote 25, line 4, and also dohaas, not “but as well dohaas”

Footnote 25, line 4, this information, not “these information”

326 saadhanaa not sadhana

329-342 is a repetition of 314-328. Please delete

Footnote 26, line 2, have been transmitted, too, not “have are transmitted, too”

Footnote 26, line 4, the texts contained show? Please reformulate

Footnote 26, line 4 “cannot be taken similar to generic labels”, please change to cannot to taken to refer to generic labels

Footnote 30, line 1, reference not “refrence”

Footnote 30, line 3, academic not “axademic”

Footnote 30, line 7, elusive, not “eluswive”

392, please connect the two sentences, beginning with “indeed..” and “this implies”. Now, the first sentence does not have an object of the sentence. It should be “indeed, the fact that…implies that composing skills…”

Footnote 33, line 1, number, not “numer”

Footnote 33, line 1, addressed, not addressed”

Footnote 33, line 2, might be worthy of further exploration, e.g. “Impro and Improvisation and the Theatre by Keith Johnstone….Please delete: “to explore if wishing to engage into this, in regard to Buddhist literature, thus far unexplored topic. Literature such…”

Footnote 33, line 4, writings, not “wrtings”

416, please change to: which elements were added over the centuries through scriptural Indian and Tibetan compositional and editorial practices.

434 appear to have been written not “appear to be written”

Footnote 35, line 2, for the text type, not “txt type”

Footnote 35, line 4, perceived, not ‘preceived”

Footnote 35, line 4 differences not “difefrences”

Footnote 35, line 5, currently not “currectly”

Footnote 35, line 5, accessible, not “accesiible”

Footnote 35, line 5, formally not “firmally”

Footnote 35, line 5, for instance, not for “instance”

Footnote 35, the footnote is cut off, please supply the missing passage

Footnote 36, line 1, smaller not “amller”

Footnote 36, line 3, there is some mistake “well couls fuction aslo” please correct

508-512 is a repetition of 503-507. Please delete

519 please delete the second “to a large extend (sic!)”

526 I invite other scholars to reflect on the question, not “I invite other scholars to reflect the question”

527 to which extent not “to which extend”

527 title not “tittle”

530-533 is a repetition of 526-529, please delete

English is fine

Author Response

I adjusted all spotted mistakes. 

The remark "62-63 references to the secondary sources discussing these terms together is missing" has not been followed since the respective information is found below, as stated in the sentence.

Reviewer 2 Report

The author makes a compelling argument about the usage of the terms dohā, vajragīti, and caryāgīti. This is a valuable contribution to the scholarship on Tantric literature, and it should be published.

There are a few typos and small errors that need to be cleaned up first, however.

The abstract (line 5) mentions vajragīti twice, where presumably caryāgīti is meant in the second instance. The same issue is found in the keywords (line 19), which also has vajragīti twice without a mention of caryāgīti.

In line 51, the author claims that the observation of shared literary themes and contexts of dohā-type verses “suggests a religious function beyond orality, raising crucial and previously unexplored questions that are vital for a more comprehensive understanding of this text type.” Could a little more be said about that religious function? I don’t see much explicit discussion of that later in the paper.

In line 71, a small clarification is needed when the author writes that the term caryāgīti “does not appear to be attested at all”. Why discuss something that is not attested? Although this is made clear later in the essay, it would be helpful for the reader if it is clarified here that the Tibetan equivalent spyod pa’i glu is attested.

Line 124: Does the word “sanity” belong in this sentence?

Something seems to have gone wrong with the sentence in lines 217-218:

 “The fluidity in definitions and the interchangeability of how can be referred to similar poetic forms…”

Lines 226-233 have almost identical content to the next paragraph.

In line 239, “Somewhat without making any statement about the ritual setting or context…” does not quite make sense.

The paragraph in lines 314-128 is identical in content to the following paragraph.  

In lines 392-393: “Indeed, the fact that Apabhraṃśa was not spoken but masterfully utilized in poetry alongside other commonly used languages” is an incomplete sentence. The paragraph in lines 392-397 contains a lot of the same material as the following paragraph.

The paragraph in lines 503-507 is also identical to the following one in content, if not in wording, and the paragraph in lines 526-529 is substantially identical to following paragraph as well.

The use of English is fine. There are just some minor typos and repetitions to clean up. 

Author Response

All spotted mistaken have been cleaned up and I have rewritten the sentence to which the remark that "Could a little more be said about that religious function? I don’t see much explicit discussion of that later in the paper" refers.