Vajravārāhī in Khara Khoto and Prajñāpāramitā in East Java: Connected by Pearl Ornaments
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is an excellent article, original and very clear. Its touches some lesser known aspects of international routes in Asia and therefore presents extremely interesting subject matter.
Some remarks. of figure 5 (right) I cannot clearly see whether this is indeed Shiva. It is possible but I cannot see what is on the front of the crown the figure is wearing. Jatamukuta can also indicate Avalokiteshvara (I cannot see whether Amitabha is there), so can the flywhisk (camara). In Java though Shiva and Bodhisattvas can look very similar.
Another matter, the Newar community of Nepal is mentioned, but could play a larger part than mentioned here. It is possible that Khubilai Khan got to know tantric Buddhism through Arniko and his company rather than through Krtanagara (though that last idea is very challenging!!). You could mention this maybe? And maybe a somewhat larger role for the Newars (unless you doubt this, of course).
One more thing: why is the Manjushri (fig. 14) given the name ARAPACANA Manjushri? Is the ARAPACANA it in an inscription or so?
I was happy to read about this Manjushri image. In the university of Utrecht (The Netherlands) there is a copy of this particular image. The original was supposedly lost or in St Petersburg. In the 1980's the whereabouts of the original were unknown. The story was that is was imported from Singasari, stood for along time in a garden in The Hague (the Utrecht copy was supposedly made in that time), then was taken to Berlin and disapperaed from there, maybe to Russia. But now we know it is there!
Is the spelling of udharabandha alright? udarabandha?
Overall, very qualified! Thanks, it was very interesting!
Author Response
Reviewer 1. I agreed with the suggestion where necessary; I amended the spelling where requested, added the Chinese names where required, and elaborated on the areas in the section titled "Major Issues." I have removed the requested passages in No.14 and No.18.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am honored to have the opportunity to review this paper for Religions. While my expertise lies primarily in the textual scholarship of Buddhism, I found the author’s research and arguments compelling overall. As such, I support the publication of this article. However, I have a few suggestions for the author’s consideration, outlined below.
Major Issues
- Handling of Buddhist Doctrines and Practices:
The author’s treatment of Buddhist doctrines and practices requires greater precision and clarity. This is particularly evident in paragraphs 6, 10, and 15, where the discussions appear somewhat inconsistent or inaccurate. As I am not a specialist in Southeast Asian Buddhism, I cannot fully assess the accuracy of the arguments in that part. However, there may also be issues in that part, and I urge the author to carefully review their analysis and ensure it aligns with established scholarship.
- Writing and Coherence:
The paper’s writing poses some challenges. At times, the meaning of certain sentences is unclear, and the overall flow of the argument is disrupted. This is especially apparent in paragraphs 9, 12, and 18. I recommend the author revisit these places to improve clarity and coherence, ensuring that the progression of ideas is logical and easy to follow. Additionally, some stylistic issues need attention, as seen in paragraphs 1, 2, and 13.
1. The term for Xixia should be unified. Now, we see “Tangut empire” (ll. 32–33), “Xixia” (l. 33), “Western Xia” (ll. 57–58), “Tangut state of Xixia” (n. 7), “Tangut Xia State” (n. 9), etc.
2. l. 91: The author uses Wade-Giles for the Chinese name Zhao Rukuo 趙汝适 (“Chau Ju Kua”) and his book Zhufan zhi諸蕃志 (“Chu fan chi”). This contradicts the established convention of using pinyin. Unless there is a specific reason to do, the author should change to the pinyin system. If the author is using a specific English translation of the work, whose title is in Wade-Giles, then the author should also state so (but still giving the names in pinyin). Chinese script is also better provided. Pinyin and script for the following terms: Arabs (Dashi 大食), Java (Shepo 闍婆), and Sanfoqi 三佛齊.
3. l. 134: mani – maṇi
4. l. 153: ca – ca.
5. n. 7: The dates for Xixia are 1038–1227, as author already stated, so not from the 10th century but the 11th. Also, Hwang Ho should be Huanghe or simply the “Yellow River.” A reference to the rise of tantric Buddhism in Xixia should also be given here.
6. l. 200: I am not sure what “Hevajra current” means. Hevajra tantra? Vajravārāhī is certainly also central deities in other tantras like Cakrasaṃvara, so not just Hevajra. In fact, the image here is likely associated with the many Cakrasaṃvara teachings transmitted into Xixia and not Hevajra since the teachings of the latter are only a few whereas former is abundant. The author may want to check some writings by Wei Wen 魏文 and Hou Haoran 侯浩然 on this topic.
7. l. 201: The author should provide the information about how it is dated to 1189–1200.
8. l. 209: Kara – Khara (or everything should be Kara)
9. ll. 208–210: “reflecting the fact that Muslim traders and many from the Pāla region in northeastern India also found their way to Kara Khoto in Xixia.” I am not sure how this sentence is connected to the previous one: “This painting belongs to a corpus of hundreds of Buddhist artefacts showing both Chinese and Tibetan styles.” How is the previous sentence a reflection of the latter? How do we know people from the Pāla region travelled to Khara Khoto and what is the connection between Muslims and the Sino-Tibetan style of Buddhist paintings?
10. ll. 216–17: “enemies of the Hevajratantra”? How could a tantra have enemies? Does the author mean the enemies of the deity described in the tantra?
11. l. 221: “demonic” cannot be the right word here because she is not a demon. I suggest “wrathful presentation” for “demonic nature.”
12. ll. 288–92: “artists worked in different styles, for instance, northern Song and Chinese Buddhism or Indian Pāla styles associated with Tibetan Buddhism.” I cannot follow the sentence. Should this be “northern Song styles associated with Chinese Buddhism or Indian Pāla styles associated with Tibetan Buddhism”?
13. l. 319. “c. 1280.” See §4. Author should unify the use of c. and ca.
14. ll. 621–24: “The description by Khokhlov highlights how easy it is for scholars who are not trained to study ornamentation and textile patterns to miss the crucial commonalities between Central Tibet, the Hexi corridor and Xixia and East Java art styles that this article describes.” While this is not related to the paper itself, I would strongly suggest the author remove the passage. The passage is very jarring here. It is enough to present what the author has and unnecessary to judge the academic training in the field at all. Those who find the author’s argument convincing will judge for themselves.
15. l. 626: “early 7th century” is inaccurate. Buddhism itself only started to flourish in 8th century Tibet (with probably hints of it in the 7th century, but mainly from China, not India). Saying that there were already strong Indo-Tibetan Buddhist connections in the early 7th century is based only on later narratives and does not reflect the actual historical development.
16. l. 633: The term “Mongol dynasty” is weird. “Mongol Empire” is better. But note he named himself and was not by the electorates, thus resulting in the disintegration of the empire itself.
17. l. 712: “Western Xia or Xixia as known by its Chinese name.” Sentence here is redundant.
18. ll. 730–35: why is the author here repeating every piece of information that has already been introduced at the beginning?
Author Response
Reviewer 2. I have included a description in Fig 5, added material on the Newar in Footnote 15, and explained the meaning of Arapacana on Pg. 23 and Footnote 18 and amended the spelling where requested.
I believe I have agreed with and implemented all that the reviewers have requested.
