Tattva, vrata, caryā: On the Relationship of View and Practice in the First Chapter of Padmavajra’s Guhyasiddhi

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author,

thank you for submitting your paper which certainly is thought provoking. To be brief, the following suggestions may be considered:

– Given that one draws a connection between “worldview“ and the concept of tattva, in the sense of the ‘correct view of how things are in the world (and beyond),’ and given that one wishes to bring in the two levels of practice leading to this 'view,’ namely utpatti- and utpannakrama, then it may be advised here to point to the connection of these also on the fundamental level of the meaning of these two and what they refer to: the stage of practice which 'gives rise' to the right view (utpattikrama) and the stage where one further works with this view 'that has arisen’ (utpannakrama) in order to attain full realisation.

– The edition of the Sanskrit text and its English translation could be, and perhaps should be, revisited and polished here and there. The attached file only shows a few of such places.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

In general, the English needs to be corrected in many places. Apart from dozens of obvious, smaller mistakes, such as typos etc., the English also needs to be polished in a number of places, including the correction of the syntax in many sentences. Apart from these clear errors, one may consider breaking down longer formulations into shorter sentences in order to enhance the readability. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for the comments. Especially the idea to refer to the actual meaning of utpatti and utpannakrama (ad verbum) has been considered.

Reviewer 2 Report

I have left comments on the author's introduction to their translation and edition of GS chapter 1 primarily noting issues in content but also organization, style, and grammar. The methodology seems a bit misguided, and I suggest here that the author find a way to ground their presentation of contemplative theory and worldview in GS in a voice from the tradition instead of reading commonly worked-over hermeneutics like dvyatsatya and neyārtha/nītārtha into the material. Otherwise, the author risks intervening in this textual tradition in a way that might misrepresent the Padmavajra's presentation, and that places the author in a methodologically murky space between academic and theologian. I have not commented on the edition or translation. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Organization and structure could be improved a bit, and there were some style and grammar issues that ned tobe addressed. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the various comments and suggestions. Although I do not totally agree with comments on neyārtha and nītārtha (hence the parallel from the Sūtaka), I have implemented your suggestions in many cases. Although I thought this to be the case (and somewhat evident), your comments highlighted that more clarity was needed regarding what is my analysis (implementation of GS into discourse) and what is Padmavajra's exegesis. I have revisited and more carefully reformulated possibly ambiguous or too generally formulated passages.

thank you!

Reviewer 3 Report

please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for your comments and suggestions. your idea to mention actual practices and as well to emphasize the fact that the text is an exegesis of a particular tradition, i.e., the GST, has been implemented.

As a side note, the compound śūnyatākaruṇā is indeed found in some sources in the sense of prajñopāya. See, e.g., evaṃkāra iti śūnyatākaruṇābhinnarūpiṇī mahāmudrā ||  (Mekhalāṭīkā ad Kāṇhadohākośa 21) or atha vā bolakakkolayogena bindunādam ekīkaraṇam | āḥkāraṃ padmaṃ, aḥkāraṃ vajraṃ, śūnyatākaruṇādvayaṃ vā (Guḍhapadā as MNS 27, Hodgeson 34, fol. 22r) and some more.

Thanks a lot!

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Some very important clarifications and corrections have been made to this article after the initial review. However, the introduction still leaves the reader with the demonstrably false impression that the categories of paramārtha/samṿrttisat and neyārtha/nītārtha are in any way presented in Padmavajra's exegesis or considered important or even useful hermeneutics by Padmavajra himself. The author seems to have at least admitted that śamatha/vipaśyanā have little to nothing to do with this text or the Grub pa sde bdun, but still seems to want to include them in their presentation of the material.