Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article regards Ōbaku Canon as a cross-sectarian and transnational project, examines important facts that are not yet fully clear in previous research, and suggests that Jiaxing Canon, which served as the base text for the Ōbaku-zō, was likely not brought from China by Ingen Ryūki himself, but rather donated by the Nagasaki merchant Shingetsu Shōin. Through critical examination of various historical materials, it reveals the later changes in narrative and rhetorical techniques. As a result, the process of “individual donations” being reinterpreted as “sectarian merits” demonstrates the complex interplay of faith, institutionalization, memory, and textual compilation. This article proposes a viewpoint that redefines Ōbaku sect as not just a “collection of texts”, but a result of social practices that transcend sects, regions, and borders. This viewpoint provides important clues for us to understand the formation and dissemination of Buddhist scriptures, which are not only regarded as bibliographic objects, but also as dynamic processes intertwined with institutions, beliefs, economy and memory. These research explorations have deepened our understanding of Ōbaku Sect and Ōbaku-zō, to break through the simple method of literature research, but paying more attention to their social and practical aspects. However, studying Buddhist literature from this perspective (to focus on their social and practical aspects) may not be the mainstream method for studying the Tripitaka in China and Japan, but it has been practiced and explored early in the English academic community. Overall, this article has made certain academic contributions and breakthroughs, but there are still some shortcomings in terms of the comprehensive evaluation of previous researches (especially in English), definition of key concepts and terms, academic representations for historical figures, book titles, and calendars, which need further revision and improvement.

• In terms of understanding the previous reseaches, the author has a relatively sufficient understanding of relevant studies in Japanese and Chinese, but has paid little attention to some important research in the English academic community. As for the discussion of Ingen Ryūki, the author did not pay attention to Wu Jiang’s remarkable monograph, Leaving for the Rising Sun: Chinese Zen master Yinyuan and the authenticity crisis in early modern East Asia. The other case is Tetsugen Dōkō, the Iron Eye Zen Master, Helen J. Baroni’s monograph, Iron eyes: the life and teachings of the Ōbaku Zen master Tetsugen Dōkō, is ignored by the author. In fact, some of the topics discussed in the article, especially the historical facts and processes on these two monks, have already been extensively addressed in these two monographs.
• Regarding the topic of so-called cross-sectarian research. As a sect founded by Ingen Ryūki in Japan, Ōbaku Sect originated from the Linji Sect in China, integrating elements of Zen, Pure Land Sect, and Esoteric Buddhism, reflecting the characteristics of cross sects. Therefore, the study of Ōbaku Sect has never been limited to discussions within Zen/Chan or even Linji Sect from the beginning. From the characteristics of the Tripitaka, even the Tripitaka practiced by a certain sect often integrates the knowledge systems of multiple Buddhist sects, with a certain emphasis. The situation of the Ōbaku canon is the same. Therefore, discussing this topic from a cross-sectarian perspective is not a very groundbreaking research method innovation overall. In addition, there is also a problem of using both sect and school interchangeably and having unclear concepts in this article.
• The academic representation of historical figures and the titles of historical materials in this article is obviously quite arbitrary. When the Buddhist names of Chinese and Japanese monks appear in the text, Chinese characters and birth and death years should be marked when they first appear, but the author did not do so (such as Tetsugen Dōkō in the line 481, which is not the first time it appears). Some important historical materials mentioned in the article, such as Zuiryū Kaizan Tetsugen Oshō Kaji Hōgo 瑞龍開山鐵眼和尚假字法語，Boshan Yicao Xu 檗山遺草序, etc., have not translated this title into English and placed it in parentheses, while other materials have done so.

4) The phrase “the fifth day of the October” in lines 334-335 of the text should be changed to “the fifth day of the ten lunar month”.

5) The article states in lines 674-678: Tetsugen’s actions extended the practices of the medieval period, reminding us that even early modern figures were often shaped by medieval customs and sensibilities. The transition from the medieval to the early modern period did not mean that people instantly took on early modern characteristics;  rather, it was people like Tetsugen themselves who actively brought about that transformation. This judgment contains a very dangerous assumption that the Middle Period had certain specific essential characteristics, and the early modern period was no exception. If these essential features are valid, then are they the overall characteristics of the era or the characteristics of Buddhism; Is its scope the world, East Asia, or Japan? The authors did not provide clear explanations on these problems. If this transition from medieval to modern times cannot be limited to a specific scope, the power of Tetsugen will undoubtedly be overly exaggerated.

6) Each part of the article exhibits strong narrative features, and there is no comprehensive analysis at the end of each section, nor is there a sufficient explanation of the significant differences between the author’s judgment and previous research in the process of verifying some facts, which to some extent weakens the academic professionalism of this article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article transcends the common perspectives of sectarian and national boundaries in Buddhist history research, discussing the circulation, generation, and relationship between the Ōbaku Canon of Buddhist scriptures and modern Japanese Buddhist culture from the perspective of book generation（书籍史）, which holds considerable academic value. Especially in the context of limited research on the Ōbaku Canon and Ōbaku Sect in the English-speaking world (including other non-Japanese academic circles), this research is even more commendable. In the article, the author has conducted textual research on many important Buddhist history topics, such as how the first Jiaxing Collection came to Japan and how it was accepted, as well as the religious intentions of Tetsugen Dōkō in disseminating Buddhist scriptures, all of which have been uniquely examined and insightfully analyzed. This is also a very rare contribution that deserves recognition.

A few minor issues:

The author of this article has expressed commendation for the "transcending sectarianism" in disseminating the Ōbaku Canon in several chapters, with various monks of different identities such as Sōtō school and Ōbaku school participating in it. However, is this scene a unique existence in the history of the Tripitaka, or has it been a long-standing tradition that continues in the Japanese Tripitaka community? According to the records in the history of Chinese Tripitaka engraving, it may be a well-established practice for monks of different sects to reasonably engrave the Tripitaka. The author seems to be able to expand the writing on this tradition from the single narrative of "cross-sectarian fundraising" (Section 3).

Secondly, we observe that the author, for the sake of textual verification in the article, has utilized numerous "supplementary texts" from Buddhist literature, such as prefaces, postscripts, and donation records. These texts preserve clues about the time, place, and individuals involved in the engraving movement. However, based on the experience of studying the history of Chinese engraved Buddhist scriptures, such formally published and grandiose "supplementary texts" sometimes contain numerous "pitfalls" and may be embellished to varying degrees. Therefore, during the verification process, apart from the commonly seen prefaces and postscripts of Buddhist literature, it would be beneficial to utilize a wider range of documents for cross-verification (if they exist): such as diaries, letters, and engraving sponsors' inscriptions of those involved in the engraving process（藏经牌记）, which are first-hand documents and are more reliable.

Regarding the issue of the final references, the author is extremely familiar with Japanese research literature and has cited a considerable amount, which is understandable. However, there are still quite a few studies in the Chinese academic community that could be referenced but have not yet been included in the author's scope. For instance, the research conducted by Professor Liao Zhaoheng（廖肇亨） and Dr. Liu Jiaxing（刘家幸） from Taiwan may be helpful.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This submission presents a significant reassessment of our understanding of the development of the Ōbaku canon and the involvement of Tetsugen, Shōin, and Ingen. It quite effectively achieves its stated aims of showing how the Ōbaku canon came to fruition through trans-sectarian cooperation, fundraising efforts, and a shift in the social function of the canon from a meritorious repository to a tool for exposition and teaching the Dharma. I highly praise this contribution and recommend it for publication. The author's concluding suggestion that the Ōbakuzō be reconstructed is highly welcomed.

In terms of areas for revision, the main concern I have is that the submission is very effective at presenting factual information, but the narrative flow is somewhat lacking. This is not a significant issue, but the author should, for instance, pay attention to fully introducing figures upon their first mention, so the reader is not lost if an unfamiliar name comes up without contextualization.

The author should also be consistent stylistically—decide when to use Pinyin vs. Hepburn, and when to italicise titles, and when to use diacritics (e.g., in the abstract, we see both Obaku and Ōbaku). Also, generally I would recommend having the romanised names outside of parentheses, so 獨立性易 on line 121 should probably be in parentheses. At the start of part of section 2, the author introduces Ingen (Yinyuan), but does not provide any Hanzi/Kanji, and on line 142, we see Dazangjing as a Pinyin gloss of "Buddhist canon" but without any Hanzi/Kanji or Hepburn gloss. I think that it is good to provide this sort of information, but if the author wishes to limit it to make the text more readable, they should do so with consistent rules. The author needs to make a decision, for instance, on how to treat titles: does the English come outside parentheses, or inside (e.g., on line 256), do you provide the Hepburn inside or outside parentheses, and do you provide the Kanji/Hanzi? If so, what parts do you italicise? The titles at the beginning of section 3 are treated inconsistently—at line 333-334, we see Hepburn in italics, then Kanji, then an English translation in parentheses. Then, on line 336 we see Pinyin in italics, without any Hanzi or English translation. While the work is mostly well-written, some technical aspects, like this, need to be systematically decided upon according to a style guide (e.g., the Chicago Manual of Style) or the in-house style guide. 

The author should also pay attention to spacing. There is a space missing after 實 on line 152.

On line 282, the author talks about the Nanban people building walls to repel Arabs in Taiwan. I have conducted some research and could not find any information on Arabs in Taiwan at that time. Since this information is not readily available, it needs a second look and a citation (if true).

On line 534 the author writes that Ingen's disciples describe him as a "Chanren 禪人 (Zen practitioner)." Is this not referring to Japanese disciples of Ingen? Should it not be Zennin? And later 講主 Kōshu? As for 講主, I think this is indicating more than a "teacher of scripture" and is usually a "head teacher."

If these comments regarding areas for revision can be taken into account, I can fully recommend this valuable work of scholarship for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Consistency in language usage is the primary concern, as outlined in the comments and suggestions. This is something to which the author and a copyeditor should pay attention.

While the presentation of facts is effective, the narrative flow could be improved. Nonetheless, this will not be a significant issue for most readers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf