Reconsidering the Relationship Between Sengzhao’s Things Do Not Shift and the Doctrine of Kṣaṇikavāda—With a Reassessment of Whether His Thought Reflects Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya Doctrinal Affiliation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author reviewed the historical debate over the connection between Sengzhao’s Things Do Not Shift and sarvāstivāda’s school’s thought. Based on the review and analysis, the author argues that while Sengzhao’s treatise appears to align with sarvāstivāda thought on the surface, significant differences exist between them. Overall, the paper is well constructed, the reasoning process is clear, the evidence is solid, and the body of literature is fully reviewed. With minor revision, I believe the paper is ready to be published. Here are some suggestions for revision:

 

1. The author on quite a number of occasions referred to the distinction between early school’s notion of co-dependent arising and Mahayana’s notion of emptiness, and used such distinction as the base to analyze Sengzhao’s non shift theory. Such a distinction should be fully discussed citing relevant literature. (As a reviewer I do not want to insert my own view on the subject but the author may refer to several early Buddhist sutras that appear in both northern Agamas and Southern Nikayas, which show that the early school’s notion and Mahayana’s emptiness are essentially the same and there is little distinction).

 

See SA. 293. 為彼比丘說賢聖出世空相應緣起隨順法。

 

20. 1258 (SN.20.7/7. Āṇisuttaṃ). 於如來所說修多羅甚深明照。難見難覺。不可思量……當來比丘不修身.不修戒.不修心.不修慧。聞如來所說修多羅甚深明照空相應隨順緣起法。彼不頓受持。不至到受。Bikkhu Sujato translated the matching Pālitext as such, “In the same way, in a future time there will be mendicants who won’t want to listen when discourses spoken by the Realized One—deep, profound, transcendent, dealing with emptiness—are being recited.”

 

2. The conclusion section is short and abrupt. The author should further elaborate on the implications of the findings. For example, the author may want to relate Sengzhao’s subject to the said distinction between early school’s notion and Mahayana’s notion on emptiness so that the topic is more theoretically meaningful. The author may also want to discuss whether the issue of non-shift falls into the certain topics that the Buddha refuses to discuss.
3. Formatting: the long direct quotes should be indented to show it is not part of the author’s arguments. (p.4, line 141-158; p. 5, line 213-216; etc.)
4. Eliminate the comma in the first line of Abstract: “The relationship between Sengzhao’s Things Do Not Shift and sarvāstivāda school, has long sparked debate.”
5. 3, line 106, eliminate the letter T in the beginning
6. 6, line 283, “sūtra. Affirmed Things Do Not Shift”: the period should be a comma and “affirmed” instead of “Affirmed”

Author Response

Comments 1:

The author reviewed the historical debate over the connection between Sengzhao’s Things Do Not Shift and sarvāstivāda’s school’s thought. Based on the review and analysis, the author argues that while Sengzhao’s treatise appears to align with sarvāstivāda thought on the surface, significant differences exist between them. Overall, the paper is well constructed, the reasoning process is clear, the evidence is solid, and the body of literature is fully reviewed. With minor revision, I believe the paper is ready to be published. Here are some suggestions for revision:

Response 1:

Thank you very much for your overall affirmation. Below is my response to your suggestions with revisions made point by point.

 Comments 2:

1. The author on quite a number of occasions referred to the distinction between early school’s notion of co-dependent arising and Mahayana’s notion of emptiness, and used such distinction as the base to analyze Sengzhao’s non shift theory. Such a distinction should be fully discussed citing relevant literature. (As a reviewer I do not want to insert my own view on the subject but the author may refer to several early Buddhist sutras that appear in both northern Agamas and Southern Nikayas, which show that the early school’s notion and Mahayana’s emptiness are essentially the same and there is little distinction).

See SA. 293. 為彼比丘說賢聖出世空相應緣起隨順法。

1. 1258 (SN.20.7/7. Āṇisuttaṃ). 於如來所說修多羅甚深明照。難見難覺。不可思量……當來比丘不修身.不修戒.不修心.不修慧。聞如來所說修多羅甚深明照空相應隨順緣起法。彼不頓受持。不至到受。Bikkhu Sujato translated the matching Pālitext as such, “In the same way, in a future time there will be mendicants who won’t want to listen when discourses spoken by the Realized One—deep, profound, transcendent, dealing with emptiness—are being recited.”

  Response 2:

Thank you very much for this suggestion. I have supplemented and improved the comparison of similarities and differences between Sengzhao’s Things Do Not Shift and the concept of “momentary arising and ceasing” in section 3.1 of the paper as an additional refinement.

 

I fully agree with your view that “the early school’s notion and Mahāyāna’s emptiness are essentially the same and there is little distinction.” However, this is a very broad topic. In my opinion, we should acknowledge that there are some specific differences in the teaching methods between the two, but they are consistent in terms of being therapeutic means.

 

Comments 3：

1. The conclusion section is short and abrupt. The author should further elaborate on the implications of the findings. For example, the author may want to relate Sengzhao’s subject to the said distinction between early school’s notion and Mahayana’s notion on emptiness so that the topic is more theoretically meaningful. The author may also want to discuss whether the issue of non-shift falls into the certain topics that the Buddha refuses to discuss.

Response 3:

Thank you very much for your suggestion. I have now significantly enriched the comparative sections. Specifically, I have compared Sengzhao’s “not shifting based on śūnyatā” with Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakośabhāṣya “not shifting based on Kṣaṇikavāda”, as well as compared concepts such as “not shifting based on the abide of inherent nature” and time in Sengzhao’s thought with concepts like substance and time in Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. These comparisons are further extended in the final conclusion section.

 

The question you raised regarding whether the issue of “not shifting” falls into the categories of topics that the Buddha refused to discuss is very interesting. I hope to have the opportunity to write a dedicated paper on this in the future. Here, I will respond briefly: In my view, Sengzhao’s exposition in Things Do Not Shift itself serves as a form of therapy rather than establishing a metaphysical thesis. This paper of his was aimed at addressing those who suffered from afflictions due to erroneous views, hoping to rectify such misconceptions through this work.

 

Comments 4:

1. Formatting: the long direct quotes should be indented to show it is not part of the author’s arguments. (p.4, line 141-158; p. 5, line 213-216; etc.)

Response 4:

I have followed your suggestion and indented all long direct quotes. Additionally, in light of other reviewers’ comments, I have added Chinese translations, hoping that this approach will make the content more intuitive.

 

Comments 5:

1. Eliminate the comma in the first line of Abstract: “The relationship between Sengzhao’s Things Do Not Shift and sarvāstivāda school, has long sparked debate.”

Response 5:

I have followed your suggestion and removed the comma.

 

Comments 6:

1. 3, line 106, eliminate the letter T in the beginning

Response 6:

I have followed your suggestion and removed the initial letter “T”.

 

Comments 7:

1. 6, line 283, “sūtra. Affirmed Things Do Not Shift”: the period should be a comma and “affirmed” instead of “Affirmed”

Response 7:

I have followed your suggestion and made the revisions accordingly.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article certainly has promise. Chinese Buddhist philosophical thought, especially after Tang dynasty, is still understudied and deserves more scholarly attention. However, in the present form the article can only be considered as a preliminary draft that still requires improvements before it is suitable for publication.  

The article does not reference one important previous study, which was incidentally published in the same journal:

Liu, Y.; Anderl, C.; Dessein, B. Seng Zhao’s The Immutability of Things and Responses to It in the Late Ming Dynasty. Religions 2020, 11, 679. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11120679

The article by Liu, Anderl and Dessein already offers a well-structured and informative English-language overview of Ming dynasty debates concerning Sengzhao’s Wubuqianlun. In the case of the article under review, the main original contribution seems to be the attempt to relate these Ming debates to contemporary scholarly disagreements about the influence of Sarvāstivāda thought on Sengzhao. While this approach is potentially promising, it suffers from several issues that must be addressed by the author in the revised versions of this paper.

(1)The author needs to make clear whether Chengguan and Ming dynasty authors actually had a clear distinct idea of "Sarvāstivāda" as a school- or only a very broad conception of "Small Vehicle" Buddhism. While these authors may have quoted from Abhidharmakośabhāṣya etc., it appears that their critiques of Sengzhao were framed largely in terms of very general oppositions between Great and Small Vehicle, or between (orthodox) Buddhist vs. non-Buddhist stance. The idea of analyzing Sengzhao’s thought in terms of specific Buddhist schools, such as Sarvāstivāda, Sautrāntika, or Madhyamaka, may have emerged only in modern (20th-century) scholarship. The author indirectly acknowledges this crucial point when (s)he states:

"Chengguan first suggested that Sengzhao’s treatise might not be mahāyāna, but he did not specify which hīnayāna school" (165-66)

but also repeatedly obscures it through unclear or contradictory statements, such as:

"In reality while Chengguan acknowledged the possibility that Things Do Not Shift could reflect a sarvāstivāda viewpoint..." (116-18)
"Zhencheng adopted Chengguan’s perspective, arguing that Sengzhao’s Things Do Not Shift could be explained through the sarvāstivāda doctrine..." (223-24)
"By the Ming dynasty, the idea that Things Do Not Shift expressed the sarvāstivāda concept of momentary arising and perishing without movement had gained acceptance among some scholars..."  (243-45)

etc.

All these statements appear problematic, as long as the author does not demonstrate that Chengguan or late Ming authors actually used the concept of "Sarvāstivāda school/doctrine" in their writings.

(2)In the concluding discussion, when the author presents their own views on the relation between Sengzhao and Sarvāstivāda, (s)he does not refer to modern scholars who brought up this issue in the first place. However, in the article's introduction the author clearly mentions contemporary scholars such as Luo, Lin, Hur, Goodman etc. who (at least according to the author’s interpretation) perceive some similarity between Sengzhao and Sarvāstivāda. Since the author seems to disagree with this position, one would expect some engagement with the arguments of these scholars - is the author's intention to refute them, or is there no contradiction between their views after all?

(3)Overall, the article would greatly benefit from including an introductory section that explains what Sengzhao argues for in his Wubuqianlun and why his views have been so controversial. Specifically, the author should spend more effort clarifying which aspects of Sengzhao’s thought have been taken to resemble Sarvāstivāda doctrines - and why. The concluding discussion should not merely reference Sengzhao’s ideas in general, but include direct citations of his work. As it stands, the article is unnecessarily difficult to follow for any reader who is not very familiar with the Wubuqianlun and with earlier scholarly debates referenced by the author.

(4)It does not help that the author's own comments and paraphrases are often opaque or ambiguous, e.g.:

Unfortunately, scholars have commonly emphasized that, while Sengzhao only patially borrowed philosophical concepts from the sarvāstivāda school.."  (56-7)

(why "unfortunately"?)

However, Things Do Not Shift is regarded as the starting point for the thought of the sarvastivada school..."  (134-35)

(why "starting point"?)

"the prevailing scholarly view is that Chengguan referred to the sarvāstivāda school, particularly emphasizing the sarvāstivāda concept of svabhāva (Lin, 2018). Nonetheless, a closer examination reveals that Chengguan’s statement originates from the abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya and is generally viewed as reflective of the sarvāstivāda perspective." (166-170)

(why is "nonetheless" used here? and is it really a "prevailing" view, if only one scholar is quoted?)

(5) Even for a draft, the article contains far too many typographical mistakes and other careless errors. The use of capital letters, Sanskrit diacritics etc. is inconsistent and often incorrect. Quotations from primary sources are not clearly delineated as separate blocks of text. It would also be a good idea to include original Chinese text alongside English translations – this seems to be standard practice in current scholarship on Chinese Buddhist philosophy.  

Other points to consider:

(6) The narrative structure in Section 2 is somewhat counter-intuitive. The author jumps from Chengguan to Zhencheng, and then goes back to discuss the views of Yanshou – even though in the late Ming Yanshou was certainly not less influential than Chengguan. Perhaps it would be more clear to contrast the views of Chengguan and Yanshou first, and then proceed to developments in the late Ming?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article needs to be reviewed by a proofreader who is not only a native English speaker but also has some familiarity with Buddhist philosophical discourse. In some cases, editing will be necessary not only to improve phrasing, but also to help the author present their arguments with greater precision and clearer structure.

Author Response

Comments 1:

This article certainly has promise. Chinese Buddhist philosophical thought, especially after Tang dynasty, is still understudied and deserves more scholarly attention. However, in the present form the article can only be considered as a preliminary draft that still requires improvements before it is suitable for publication.  

Response 1:

Thank you very much for your affirmation of my paper and for your many highly constructive comments. These have been of great help in revising my paper and improving its structure. Below is a detailed response to your suggestions, addressing each point one by one.

Comments2:

The article does not reference one important previous study, which was incidentally published in the same journal:

Liu, Y.; Anderl, C.; Dessein, B. Seng Zhao’s The Immutability of Things and Responses to It in the Late Ming Dynasty. Religions 2020, 11, 679. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11120679

The article by Liu, Anderl and Dessein already offers a well-structured and informative English-language overview of Ming dynasty debates concerning Sengzhao’s Wubuqianlun. In the case of the article under review, the main original contribution seems to be the attempt to relate these Ming debates to contemporary scholarly disagreements about the influence of Sarvāstivāda thought on Sengzhao. While this approach is potentially promising, it suffers from several issues that must be addressed by the author in the revised versions of this paper.

Response 2:

I have included this paper and supplemented it with research findings on other relevant debates over Things Do Not Shift during the late Ming Dynasty. I had already carefully read the paper you mentioned earlier; it provides an overall framework for understanding the late Ming debates over Things Do Not Shift, which is of significant value for contextualizing the discussion.

 

I have fully incorporated your suggestions and revised the approach of my paper. I now focus on examining Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya as the main thread, particularly its “not shifting based on Kṣaṇikavāda” to explore its influence on Sengzhao. Furthermore, I address the academic disagreements regarding the influence of Sarvāstivāda thought on Sengzhao by delving into the issue of the doctrinal affiliation of the “not shifting based on Kṣaṇikavāda” in Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. Considering your point that ancient Chinese monks only referred to “Hīnayāna” without specifying the Sarvāstivāda school, which I fully agree with, I now limit my discussion to the “Hīnayāna” as represented by Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya and temporarily set aside the topic of the Sarvāstivāda school.

 

Thus, I attempt to put forward the view that, from both intellectual history and comparative philosophy perspectives, the controversy over the relationship between Sengzhao’s Things Do Not Shift and Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya does not revolve around the connection between the concepts of “not shifting based on Kṣaṇikavāda” and “not shifting based on śūnyatā”. This is because both sides of the debate agree that these two concepts are distinct. The key issues lie in whether Sengzhao employed the Kṣaṇikavāda perspective from Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, as well as related questions concerning substance and time. Therefore, in Section 3 of the paper, I have further elaborated on these comparisons.

 

Comments3:

(1)The author needs to make clear whether Chengguan and Ming dynasty authors actually had a clear distinct idea of "Sarvāstivāda" as a school- or only a very broad conception of "Small Vehicle" Buddhism. While these authors may have quoted from Abhidharmakośabhāṣya etc., it appears that their critiques of Sengzhao were framed largely in terms of very general oppositions between Great and Small Vehicle, or between (orthodox) Buddhist vs. non-Buddhist stance. The idea of analyzing Sengzhao’s thought in terms of specific Buddhist schools, such as Sarvāstivāda, Sautrāntika, or Madhyamaka, may have emerged only in modern (20th-century) scholarship. The author indirectly acknowledges this crucial point when (s)he states:

"Chengguan first suggested that Sengzhao’s treatise might not be mahāyāna, but he did not specify which hīnayāna school" (165-66)

but also repeatedly obscures it through unclear or contradictory statements, such as:

"In reality while Chengguan acknowledged the possibility that Things Do Not Shift could reflect a sarvāstivāda viewpoint..." (116-18)
"Zhencheng adopted Chengguan’s perspective, arguing that Sengzhao’s Things Do Not Shift could be explained through the sarvāstivāda doctrine..." (223-24)
"By the Ming dynasty, the idea that Things Do Not Shift expressed the sarvāstivāda concept of momentary arising and perishing without movement had gained acceptance among some scholars..."  (243-45)

etc.

All these statements appear problematic, as long as the author does not demonstrate that Chengguan or late Ming authors actually used the concept of "Sarvāstivāda school/doctrine" in their writings.

Response 3:

Your suggestion has given me great insight. It is true that they (Chengguan and late Ming authors) did not use concepts like Sarvāstivāda. I mistakenly projected modern academic studies onto historical figures, and I fully agree with your observation that “their critiques of Sengzhao were framed largely in terms of very general oppositions between Great and Small Vehicle, or between (orthodox) Buddhist vs. non-Buddhist stance.”

 

As a result, I have revised the descriptions to be more in line with the original texts, replacing references to the Sarvāstivāda school with an examination of the concept of momentary arising and perishing in Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. I have also restructured the title and framework of the paper. All parts that previously mentioned the Sarvāstivāda school have been revised to focus on the theory of momentariness in Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, ensuring consistency with the revised theme of the paper. I sincerely appreciate your suggestion.

Comments 4:

(2)In the concluding discussion, when the author presents their own views on the relation between Sengzhao and Sarvāstivāda, (s)he does not refer to modern scholars who brought up this issue in the first place. However, in the article's introduction the author clearly mentions contemporary scholars such as Luo, Lin, Hur, Goodman etc. who (at least according to the author’s interpretation) perceive some similarity between Sengzhao and Sarvāstivāda. Since the author seems to disagree with this position, one would expect some engagement with the arguments of these scholars - is the author's intention to refute them, or is there no contradiction between their views after all?

Response 4:

Following your previous suggestion, I believe your perspective is more accurate, so I have adjusted the focus of the paper to the theory of momentary arising and perishing in Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya rather than the Sarvāstivāda school.

 

Based on this more historically accurate and objective approach, in the conclusion section of the paper, I have extended the discussion to the academic controversy over whether Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya belongs to the Sarvāstivāda school, as a response to the question of whether Sengzhao’s Things Do Not Shift reflects Sarvāstivāda views.

 

I attempt to argue that the understanding of Sengzhao’s Things Do Not Shift through the lenses of Sarvāstivāda or Sautrāntika is a product of modern comparative philosophy. From the tradition of Chinese Buddhist history, this connection should first be traced back to Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. However, due to the complexity of Vasubandhu’s stance in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, this issue is indeed difficult to resolve. Nevertheless, the tradition of Chinese Buddhist history reveals a unique connection between Sengzhao’s Things Do Not Shift and the theory of Kṣaṇikavāda.

Comments 5:

(3)Overall, the article would greatly benefit from including an introductory section that explains what Sengzhao argues for in his Wubuqianlun and why his views have been so controversial. Specifically, the author should spend more effort clarifying which aspects of Sengzhao’s thought have been taken to resemble Sarvāstivāda doctrines - and why. The concluding discussion should not merely reference Sengzhao’s ideas in general, but include direct citations of his work. As it stands, the article is unnecessarily difficult to follow for any reader who is not very familiar with the Wubuqianlun and with earlier scholarly debates referenced by the author.

       Response 5:

I fully agree with your view. I have extensively revised and supplemented the introduction section, with a particular focus on introducing the controversies surrounding Sengzhao in relation to the “not shifting based on Kṣaṇikavāda” and the Sarvāstivāda school. Additionally, in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of the paper, I discuss the concepts of substance and the passage of time in Sengzhao’s treatise, which bear similarities to those in Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. Furthermore, the conclusion has been expanded with additional content, incorporating academic debates about the stance of Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya to explain why our paper shifts to a discussion centered on Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya rather than directly addressing the Sarvāstivāda or Sautrāntika schools.

Comments 6:

(4)It does not help that the author's own comments and paraphrases are often opaque or ambiguous, e.g.:

Unfortunately, scholars have commonly emphasized that, while Sengzhao only patially borrowed philosophical concepts from the sarvāstivāda school.."  (56-7)

(why "unfortunately"?)

However, Things Do Not Shift is regarded as the starting point for the thought of the sarvastivada school..."  (134-35)

(why "starting point"?)

"the prevailing scholarly view is that Chengguan referred to the sarvāstivāda school, particularly emphasizing the sarvāstivāda concept of svabhāva (Lin, 2018). Nonetheless, a closer examination reveals that Chengguan’s statement originates from the abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya and is generally viewed as reflective of the sarvāstivāda perspective." (166-170)

(why is "nonetheless" used here? and is it really a "prevailing" view, if only one scholar is quoted?)

These are indeed issues with my expression. For the first point, I have rewritten the paragraph. For the second point, I have deleted the phrase “starting point for the.” For the third point, I have also removed the problematic words.

Comments 7:

(5) Even for a draft, the article contains far too many typographical mistakes and other careless errors. The use of capital letters, Sanskrit diacritics etc. is inconsistent and often incorrect. Quotations from primary sources are not clearly delineated as separate blocks of text. It would also be a good idea to include original Chinese text alongside English translations – this seems to be standard practice in current scholarship on Chinese Buddhist philosophy.  

Response7:

I have followed your constructive suggestions by carefully proofreading the paper again to correct spelling errors, issues with capitalization, and inconsistencies in the use of Sanskrit terms. Additionally, I have formatted primary source quotations as separate blocks of text, and for each citation involving Chinese content, I have included the original Chinese text alongside the translations.

Comments 8:

(6) The narrative structure in Section 2 is somewhat counter-intuitive. The author jumps from Chengguan to Zhencheng, and then goes back to discuss the views of Yanshou – even though in the late Ming Yanshou was certainly not less influential than Chengguan. Perhaps it would be more clear to contrast the views of Chengguan and Yanshou first, and then proceed to developments in the late Ming?

Response 8:

I strongly agree with your suggestion. I have revised the structure of the paper to follow a more intuitive flow: “Chengguan’s citations → Yanshou and Zhencheng’s two interpretive approaches → responses from late Ming monks.”

Comments 9:

The article needs to be reviewed by a proofreader who is not only a native English speaker but also has some familiarity with Buddhist philosophical discourse. In some cases, editing will be necessary not only to improve phrasing, but also to help the author present their arguments with greater precision and clearer structure.

Response 9:

I have had a professional proofreader review the paper, who revised issues related to spelling, grammar, and expression. I have also proofread the paper again myself, hoping that it now meets your requirements.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised submission may in fact be considered as a new paper, with a new title and a new main thesis. While the author has resolved some of the issues pointed out in my previous review, some other issues remain and a few new ones have appeared. In general, however, after reading this revised version I am even more convinced that the idea behind this paper is interesting and that it will merit publication after the next round(s) of revisions, which should center on the following points:

(1) The clarity of the introduction - the paper should start with a brief introduction to Sengzhao's treatise and its main arguments; the term "Ksanikavada" should be very carefully explained, and grounded in previous literature. The author should make clear from the very outset that the reader is on the same page regarding the basic understanding of concepts that are used further in the article.

(2) The clarity of purpose - the link between modern scholarly discussions of Sengzhao, on the one hand, and Chinese debates in the Ming on the other is still not sufficiently clearly articulated. In the current formulation the author seems to imply that there is some (genetic? typological?) connection between these two issues, but we never learn what exactly this connection is.

(3) The clarity of language - the original passages from Buddhist texts quoted in this article are already quite dense and may be difficult to follow at times; it is therefore imperative that their paraphrases and the comments provided by the author are expressed in clear, precise and easy to understand language. Unfortunately, this is still not always the case.  In the attached file I have highlighted some passages where, in my opinion at least, readers may have difficulties understanding the author's intent right away. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language of this paper is generally gramatically correct, but it is not always idiomatic and not always sufficiently clear. 

Author Response

First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude for your affirmation of both the value of my thesis topic and the revisions made to my paper. I am deeply honored to have received such recognition, which undoubtedly constitutes a significant encouragement in my academic career and reinforces my enthusiasm for persisting with this research topic. I will provide responses to each of the issues you have raised in the following sections.

 

Comments 1. The revised submission may in fact be considered as a new paper, with a new title and a new main thesis. While the author has resolved some of the issues pointed out in my previous review, some other issues remain and a few new ones have appeared. In general, however, after reading this revised version I am even more convinced that the idea behind this paper is interesting and that it will merit publication after the next round(s) of revisions, which should center on the following points

(1) The clarity of the introduction - the paper should start with a brief introduction to Sengzhao's treatise and its main arguments; the term "Ksanikavada" should be very carefully explained, and grounded in previous literature. The author should make clear from the very outset that the reader is on the same page regarding the basic understanding of concepts that are used further in the article.

Response1:  I have followed your suggestions by first revising the opening paragraph, where I have supplemented it with a brief introduction to the relevant figures and their viewpoints. Additionally, upon the first mention of Kṣaṇikavāda, I have included a footnote to elaborate on the existing research that addresses this concept. The specific revisions are as follows:

Sengzhao 僧肇, a renowned Buddhist monk of the Eastern Jin Dynasty in China, was a disciple of Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什, the great master of Buddhist scripture translation. Sengzhao is widely recognized as a pivotal founder in the dissemination and development of the Madhyamaka school in China, and he is often regarded as the first Chinese thinker who could fully and accurately grasp the essence of Indian Madhyamaka philosophy; moreover, the ideas in Sengzhao’s treatises (Zhaolun肇論) have exerted a profound influence on later generations. However, among the five core treatises in Zhaolun, Things Do Not Shift (wubuqianlun 物不遷論, hereafter TDNS)—which specifically explores "whether things are in flux and change"—has sparked continuous and intense academic debates since its inception. The controversy has always centered on whether the ideological essence of TDNS faithfully inherits the fundamentals of Indian Madhyamaka philosophy, yet there remains no fully unified conclusion to this day.

The object of the Buddhist doctrine of momentariness is not the nature of time but existence within time. Rather than atomizing time into moments, it atomizes phenomena temporally by dissecting them into a succession of discrete momentary entities. Its fundamental proposition is that all phenomena — more precisely, all conditioned entities (saṃskṛta, saṃskāra), that is, everything but those special entities which have not been caused (hence their designation as asaṃskṛta, “unconditioned”), but which have always existed in the past and which always will exist in the future — pass out of existence as soon as they have originated and in this sense are momentary.

 

Comments 2. (2) The clarity of purpose - the link between modern scholarly discussions of Sengzhao, on the one hand, and Chinese debates in the Ming on the other is still not sufficiently clearly articulated. In the current formulation the author seems to imply that there is some (genetic? typological?) connection between these two issues, but we never learn what exactly this connection is.

Response2: I have revised the Introduction section through to the concluding remarks in light of your suggestions, as follows:

This paper contends that the widespread tendency among contemporary scholars to associate Sengzhao’s thesis with the Kṣaṇikavāda—specifically, their interpretation of momentariness as propounded in “Hīnayāna” traditions such as Sarvāstivāda or Sautrāntika—has deep roots in a historical trajectory of interpretation within Chinese Buddhism, one that first took shape in the Tang and culminated in explicit debates during the late Ming.

This trajectory began with Chengguan 澄觀 in the Tang dynasty, whose interpretive strategy laid its foundational stones: by drawing parallels between Vasubandhu’s AKBh and the conceptual framework of Sengzhao’s treatises, and highlighting their affinities, he established an interpretive lens that linked Sengzhao to momentariness-oriented thought—thus planting the seeds for later controversies. This lens was further scrutinized and rearticulated by Yanshou延壽 during the late Tang-early Song transition, before evolving into heated debates in the late Ming. A pivotal shift occurred here: Ming scholar-monk Zhencheng 鎮澄 reinterpreted TDNS as aligned with heterodox, non-Buddhist ontologies, redirecting the debate’s focus toward reconciling the treatise with doctrines like “not shifting based on śūnyatā” or “tathagatagarbha (matrix of the tathāgatas)/ buddhadhātu (buddha nature).” This redirection, while sidelining the treatise’s relation to momentariness, inadvertently solidified a conceptual binary— “not shifting based on Kṣaṇikavāda” versus “not shifting based on śūnyatā”— that would later be reinscribed in modern scholarship.

Crucially, this historical lineage reveals two layers of connection to modern discussions: First, a genetic link: contemporary scholars’ emphasis on Sengzhao’s purported ties to Kṣaṇikavāda echoes the Tang-Ming interpretive tradition’s initial framing of this association, even if unconsciously. Second, a typological resonance: just as Ming debates pivoted on how to interpret Sengzhao’s evidentiary basis (e.g., whether his arguments relied on momentariness or śūnyatā), modern scholarship similarly grapples with competing readings of his relationship to Indian Madhyamaka—mirroring the same tension between textual evidence and doctrinal alignment.

Against this backdrop, this study argues that such associations have obscured the distinctiveness of Sengzhao’s thesis. Through a conceptual disentanglement of TDNS and Kṣaṇikavāda, it becomes clear that Sengzhao’s “not shifting” is by no means reducible to “not shifting based on Kṣaṇikavāda.” Adopting a dual framework integrating reception-historical analysis (tracing the Tang-Ming trajectory) and textual-rational inquiry (scrutinizing Sengzhao’s original arguments), this research clarifies that his thesis diverges fundamentally from the doctrine of momentary arising and ceasing.

Comments 3. (3) The clarity of language - the original passages from Buddhist texts quoted in this article are already quite dense and may be difficult to follow at times; it is therefore imperative that their paraphrases and the comments provided by the author are expressed in clear, precise and easy to understand language. Unfortunately, this is still not always the case.  In the attached file I have highlighted some passages where, in my opinion at least, readers may have difficulties understanding the author's intent right away. 

Response3: I am deeply grateful for your identification of over fifty issues regarding the expressions in my paper. I have referred to all your suggestions and made supplementary revisions accordingly, with particular attention to the problems related to expressions. The specific revisions are as follows, and I kindly request your further corrections and guidance.

 

 

Responses to Reviewer 2’s Comments in the Attachment

Comments 1. Line 48，Zhaolun?

Response1: The term has been revised to Zhaolun.

 

Comments 2. Line 50, This is the first occurence of this title in the main body of the text, so it should be given in full (the abstract does not count!)

Response2: I have followed your suggestions and reinserted the explanations in the main text.

 

Comments 3: Line 56. claimed?

Response3: The term has been revised to claimed.

 

Comments 4: Line 60. It is somewhat unusual to consider contemporary scholars as "supporters" of the thinkers  they study.

Response 4: I have revised the content as per your suggestions, which is as follows.：Scholars who align with Sengzhao’s perspectives and identify with Madhyamaka Buddhism emphasize his employment of a distinctively Chinese mode of thought, arguing that while this mode differs from Indian Madhyamaka philosophy

 

Comments 5: Line 69. which two?

Response 5:  Ihave revised the content as per your suggestions, which is as follows.：Luo (2001) further argued that these two, Sengzhao’s perspective and the Sarvāstivāda theory, bear striking similarities.

 

Comments 6: Line 71. This is the first occurrence of this term in this paper. Since kSanikAvada is a very important concept and a keyword of this paper, it should be very precisely defined from the outset.

Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion. It is indeed necessary to provide an explanation for the omission, and thus I have added a footnote to clarify this matter：The object of the Buddhist doctrine of momentariness is not the nature of time but existence within time. Rather than atomizing time into moments, it atomizes phenomena temporally by dissecting them into a succession of discrete momentary entities. Its fundamental proposition is that all phenomena — more precisely, all conditioned entities (saṃskṛta, saṃskāra), that is, everything but those special entities which have not been caused (hence their designation as asaṃskṛta, "unconditioned"), but which have always existed in the past and which always will exist in the future — pass out of existence as soon as they have originated and in this sense are momentary.

 

Comments 7: Line 74，“Is it really "early Madhyamaka"? If yes, then the sentence becomes self-contradictory, or at least very unclear.” Line 75-76，“Unclear: what does "this concept" refer to? "Sengzhao's view of momentariness"?”

Response 7:  Thank you for raising this question. I believe it arises from the lack of clarity in my expression, and thus I have revised this passage accordingly: However, this interpretation has faced criticism. For instance, Liao (2006, p. 108) explicitly argued that Li’s interpretation departs from Madhyamaka thought. Additionally, Liao questioned the idea that Sengzhao’s perspective on momentariness originates from Madhyamaka doctrines, highlighting inconsistencies between this concept and the core structural principles of Madhyamaka as presented in Sengzhao’s own works.

 

Comments 8: Line 91，"intertwined" suggests that these two are more or less at the same level - while "scholarly debates" are *about* doctrines of momentariness.

Response 8: I have followed your suggestion and revised "concerned" to "concerned".

 

Comments 9: Line 94。which issue? You have mentioned at least two issues in the previous sentence.

Response 9: It appears that my previous expression was unclear. I have thus made supplementary revisions：The scholarly debates outlined above are deeply concerned with the doctrine of momentariness, and the divergence between the Sarvāstivāda and Sautrāntika schools is inextricably linked to broader controversies regarding the doctrinal positioning of the Vasubandhu’s AKBh—two sets of issues both tied to the doctrine of momentariness.

 

Comments 10: Line 95，This important concept has not yet been properly introduced and explained at this point. Line 97，which doctrinal tension?

Response 10: I sincerely apologize for the multiple misunderstandings arising from this passage; I have now revised it accordingly：The scholarly debates outlined above are deeply concerned with the doctrine of momentariness, and the divergence between the Sarvāstivāda and Sautrāntika schools is inextricably linked to broader controversies regarding the doctrinal positioning of the Vasubandhu’s AKBh—two sets of issues both tied to the doctrine of momentariness. In order to address this issue, the meaning of “not shifting (buqian 不遷)” in the reception history of TDNS—particularly the interpretation of “not shifting based on Kṣaṇikavāda”—offers valuable insight into how the Chinese Buddhist tradition has understood and attempted to resolve this doctrinal tension about how to comprehend the connotation of “not shifting” in TDNS.

 

Comments 11: Line 98，you mean the "Hinayana" theory? this should be made very clear。第99行“This is a puzzling statement - do you mean to imply that contemporary scholars mentioned above have been influenced by Chengguan's or Yanshou's views? Can such a connection be established?”

Response 11: You are absolutely correct. That is precisely what I intend to convey. It is true that the original text was rather vague and not straightforward enough. For this reason, I have revised this passage to make its content more explicit：This paper contends that the widespread association of Sengzhao’s thesis with the Kṣaṇikavāda (doctrine of momentariness)— specifically the contemporary scholars’ interpretation of momentariness as propounded in “Hīnayāna” traditions such as Sarvāstivāda or Sautrāntika—was closely tied to developments within the Buddhist intellectual landscape of the Tang dynasty.

 

Comments 12: Line 112，fairly rigorously

Response 12: The content has been revised.

 

Comments 13: Line 113，Unclear sentence - please rewrite in a simple language

Response 13: I have followed your suggestion and rewritten the sentence in simpler, more straightforward language to improve clarity:  This means the two sides’ apparent opposition does not come from a fundamental conflict in their ideas. Instead, it depends on how one understands the evidence Sengzhao used to support his arguments.

 

Comments 14: Lin 118，This "genealogical" or "historical" perspective is not really apparent in your article. You do not write much about Sengzhao's potential involvement with kSanikavAda from an historical perspective. You only describe Tang and Ming scholiasts' historical views of Sengzhao - but this in itself does not say anything about the identity between TDNS and kSanikavAda, only recapitulates what others thought about it in the past.

Response 14: I have followed your suggestions by removing the inappropriate supplements and revising the expressions accordingly：This research adopts a conceptual-analytical approach to the issue, proposing a dual framework that integrates reception-historical and textual-rational analyses. Through this framework, it clarifies that Sengzhao’s thesis is not identical to the doctrine of momentary arising and ceasing.

 

Comments 15: Line unclear: do you mean "the view that TDNS represents kSanikavAda" or sth like this?

Response 15: I have adopted your formulation, incorporating “the view that TDNS represents Kṣaṇikavāda”.

 

Comments 16: Line 131，be careful with calling it "schools", these are viewpoints of individual authors

Response 16: I have followed your suggestion and removed schools

 

Comments 17: Line 139，if it is "evident", then "likely" is redundant

Response 17: I have followed your suggestion and removed "likely"

 

Comments 18: Line 141，Once again, there seems to be a confusion here. It is not clear how you can solve this "mystery" by merely recapitulating Tang and Ming dynasty scholiasts' views of Sengzhao. You would need to reach directly to Sengzhao's text and historical documents from his age to establish *his own* understanding of the doctrine of momentariness based on sources that were available to him.

Response 18: I apologize for the lack of clarity in my previous expression, which has led to such a misunderstanding. What I intend to convey is that it unravels the historical enigma regarding the claim that Sengzhao's viewpoints originated from Kṣaṇikavāda. I have revised the original text as follows：we can unravel the mystery surrounding the relationship between Sengzhao’s TDNS and the the view that TDNS represents Kṣaṇikavāda.

Regarding the comparative question you raised, I have included an analysis of the original text later in the paper. I fully endorse your suggestion that an analysis of the original text is indispensable.

 

Comments 19: Line 152，was also regarded?

Response 19:  Already modified.

 

Comments 20: Line 155，This title appears for the first time in your article, it should be given in full

Response 20:  Thank you for your suggestion, which I have taken into account. However, I have made a revision at line 97, as this marks the first occurrence of the relevant content in the main text.

 

Comments 21: Line 157 , Chengguan's commentary to the AKBh?

Response 21: I apologize for this mistake. What I intended to refer to is Chengguan’s Further Interpretation on the Basis of the Annotation of the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra, and I have made the necessary revision.

 

Comments 22: Line 159 ,Where? The context is lacking

Response 22: Already removed.

 

Comments 23: Line 189 , “some scholars think that”

Response 23: I have heeded your advice.

 

Comments 24: Line 192 , by whom?

Response 24: I apologize, but I have supplemented the information: “by later Chinese Buddhist exegetes”

 

Comments 25: Line 217 , which one?

Response 25: I have revised it to: Saṃmitīya.

 

Comments 26: Line 218 , undergoes?

Response 26: I have heeded your advice.

 

Comments 27: 第221 , does Chengguan really say that Sengzhao "derived" his notion of not shifting from the AKBh? Or does he merely refer to Sengzhao in his commentary on a passage from AKBh which discusses movement - suggesting that the views expressed in TDNS and AKBh are similar in some respect? there is a small but important difference between these two statements.

Response 27: I concur with your perspective. It is my contention that Chengguan regarded these two concepts as bearing a significant resemblance to each other; however, in my view, Chengguan fundamentally opposed the equating of these two concepts. My original text was not expressed clearly enough, and it has now been revised: Chengguan believed that the concept of “not shifting” in TDNS might be similar with the Exposition of Action in AKBh, which concludes that conditioned factors, arising and ceasing momentarily, cannot produce movement, thus leading to the doctrine of “not shifting.”

 

Comments 28: Line 265 , this clarification?

Response 28: I have heeded your advice.

 

Comments 29: Line 266 , what do you mean by "went further"?

Response 29: The revision has been made to "because Chengguan even took a more concrete step by employing TDNS to verify a verse from the Garland Scripture”

 

Comments 30: Line 274, Did Chengguan really "question whether Sengzhao's treatise was Hinayana"? Where exactly?

Response 30: I have heeded your suggestions, elaborated on the relevant points in detail, and revised this passage accordingly：However, this gave rise to significant controversy in later generations, most notably in the great debate over TDNS sparked by Zhencheng during the Ming dynasty. It should be clarified that Zhencheng’s argument in this debate was based on a selective extraction and misrepresentation of Chengguan’s ideas—Chengguan himself never explicitly questioned whether Sengzhao’s treatise belonged to “Hīnayāna.” Instead, what Chengguan actually noted was that the conceptual framework Sengzhao employed in his work bore a striking resemblance to the theory of Kṣaṇikavāda elaborated in the  AKBh, a core text of “Hīnayāna” thought, as he noted in his responses to Deqing 德清 and Daokai 道開:

 

Comments 31: Line 277 , What is the second possible explanation? The quote as it stands is unclear.

Response 31: I have followed your suggestion and included both explanations in the original text: There are only two possible interpretations: one is that conditioned factors perish in each moment and thus do not shift from one place to another; this is the correct Hīnayāna explanation. The second is that all things abide in their inherent nature, and what existed in the past does not undergo transformation. Because their nature remains fixed in the past, they do not shift; this is the eternalist view held by non-Buddhist schools (heretics) 然不出二義：一謂有為之法剎那滅，故不從此方遷至余方，此小乘正解也。二謂物各性住，昔物不化，性住於昔故不遷，此外道常見也。 (Zhencheng, T54, p.924b).

 

Comments 32: Line 281, same as above

Response 32:  Revisions have been made in accordance with your suggestions.

 

Comments 33: Line 289 , Not really, because Chengguan - as you have demonstrated - eventually provided an orthodox Mahayana reading of Sengzhao

Response 33: I have heeded your suggestions and revised this sentence to render its expression more straightforward and clear：Zhencheng, rather than fully adopting Chengguan’s overall perspective, selectively drew on Chengguan’s observation that Sengzhao’s viewpoints bore similarities to the theory of Kṣaṇikavāda。

However, as you mentioned, Zhencheng ultimately argues that this is not Kṣaṇikavāda but a non-Buddhist theory, and puts forward his own understanding that he deems consistent with Mahāyāna Buddhism. I have placed this content in the following paragraph and subsequent sections, with each paragraph providing a step-by-step argumentation.

 

Comments 34: Line 294 , Did Zhencheng really "affirm" kSanikavAda - if yes, it would mean that he agreed with this view?

Response 34:Yes, Zhencheng explicitly put forward that such an interpretation from Hīnayāna Buddhism is at least consistent with Buddhist doctrines. In my view, although he identified himself with Mahāyāna Buddhism, which implicitly carries a sense of superiority over Hīnayāna, his emphasis at this point lay more on whether  conforms to the orthodox consciousness of Buddhism. He rejected non-Buddhist understandings while accepting the insights of Hīnayāna Buddhism.

 

Comments 35: Line 297 , This point should be better explained. In the preceding paragraph you wrote that Zhencheng argued "that Sengzhao's TDNS could be explained through the doctrine of the momentary arising and perishing of factors". The reader may want to know how this is different from "believing that TDNS represents the kSanikavAda view"

Response 35: This was an error in my expression, which I have revised slightly. The previous sentence has been adjusted to 'that “not shifting” could be explained through the doctrine of the momentary arising and perishing of factors,' emphasizing that it is merely the concept of 'not shifting' that can be accounted for by Kṣaṇikavāda, rather than the 'not shifting' in Sengzhao’s TDNS. The current line, by contrast, highlights the theory of 'not shifting' within Sengzhao’s TDNS. Through this distinction, one is the concept of 'not shifting' as such, while the other is the concept of 'not shifting' specific to Sengzhao’s TDNS—a differentiation I hope will render the discussion more lucid.

 

Comments 36: Line 318 , which view? Wusi also mentions emptiness, so both these intepretations must have been current

Response 36: I have further elaborated on the interpretation of this passage to more clearly articulate my perspective：The existence of these five interpretations first attests to the fact that multiple understandings of “not shifting” were already prevalent in the intellectual context of the time. Among these competing interpretations, the first one—“momentary arising and perishing”—exemplifies the influence of the Kṣaṇikavāda  framework. This further demonstrates that the Kṣaṇikavāda-based interpretation of the TDNS had a far-reaching impact on how “not shifting” was conceptualized in this period. As noted, Wusi  also explicitly engaged with the “emptiness of nature” interpretation of “not shifting”—a detail that further confirms the coexistence of diverse, influential readings of this concept, with Kṣaṇikavāda being one of the prominent among them.

 

Comments 37: Line 392 , You suddenly jumped from Zhenjie to Huanyou in the previous paragraph

Response 37: Thank you for your reminder. I have now made some revisions to the content of the previous paragraph and added transitional elements: Sengzhao’s concept of “abide of inherent nature” was a countermeasure to the doctrine of emptiness, but both emptiness and abide are merely “skillful means” (upāyakauśalya, fangbianshanqiao 方便善巧). Emptiness holds nothing to be emptied, and abiding has nothing in which to abide. Hence, the so-called term “abide” in “abide of inherent nature” refers to “skillful means”, there is actually no real entity to abide in, as expounded in Huanyou regarding the nature of emptiness: “abiding for a lifetime is itself abiding in nonabiding” (Huanyou, L153, p.673a).

 

Comments 38: Line 402 , In what sense was Chengguan's passage a "critique" of Sengzhao?

Response 38: The issue you have raised is highly complex. I have now removed the final sentence to avoid introducing further complications in the explanation. From my personal understanding, Chenguan did not criticize Sengzhao; he merely stated that Sengzhao’s treatises bear similarities to the theory of momentary arising and perishing in the AKBh, while maintaining that the two perspectives are not identical. However, Huanyou argued that Chenguan equated these two viewpoints and criticized Chenguan for this, referring to it as “a point overlooked by Qingliang （清凉检点不到处）” (Huanyou, L153, p. 673b).

 

Comments 39: Line 421 , it becomes evident that the (...) controversy did not center on...

Response 39:  I have followed your suggestion and removed the phrase "core of the" in the middle.

 

Comments 40: Line 427 , “Which sides? Zhencheng and his critics?”

Response 40: I have followed your suggestion and removed the phrase "core of the" in the middle.

 

Comments 41: Line 432 , Please note that you are describing your own account as "compelling" - it may be better to leave it to the reader's judgement

Response 41: I have removed "compelling" and changed the preceding "a" to "an."

 

Comments 42: Line 455，Did Huanyou mention the term "kSanikavAda" at all?

Response 42: I have supplemented a passage from the original text to illustrate the response of Huanyou to Kṣaṇikavāda：Huanyou stated: “Since it has never been said that things are fixed and abide in one place, how can it be said that it is the excessive Hīnayāna view of momentary arising and ceasing, which does not allow transfer from here to other places, and that there is a dharma entity with arising and ceasing as a single dharma? 既未嘗言物偏死住於一處者，則何所謂是濫小乘此生此滅，無容從此轉至餘方，而有法體是生是滅為一法乎？ (L153, p.673b) ”

 

Comments 43: Line 483, disagreement?

Response 43: I have incorporated your revision suggestions.

 

Comments 44: Line 667, How do we know?

Response 44: The objection you have raised is indeed a matter of great significance. It pertains to the translation of Abhidharma texts during Sengzhao’s time, the Abhidharma theories mentioned in Nāgārjuna's works such as Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra and Mūlamadhyamakakārikā that Sengzhao would have read, and even other relevant texts that Sengzhao might have engaged with. This constitutes a substantial and highly intriguing research endeavor. While additional textual evidence would undoubtedly strengthen such an inquiry, I aim to explore this topic in dedicated papers in the future. However, addressing a question of such magnitude within the confines of the present paper is impractical. Therefore, in the following passages, I shall attempt to present Sengzhao's direct critique of the theory of momentary arising and perishing through his annotations in the Commentary on the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra, as I believe this approach will offer a more straightforward and vivid illustration.

 

Comments 45: Line 712, who are "both sides" here?

Response 45: This is my mistake, and I have made the revisions accordingly: both Zhencheng and his critics in the debate

 

Comments 46: Line 721，It is not clear to me if this discussion really belongs here. The interpretation of AKBh in light of early Indian Buddhist thought is an important issue, but is it really related to late-Ming discussions of Sengzhao? Chengguan and other monks discussed here do not seem to be aware of this problem

Response 46: As you have rightly pointed out, monks like Chengguan were not aware of this issue. However, allow me to elaborate on the significance of this problem within the context of this paper. Ancient Chinese monks approached the concept of “not shifting” in Sengzhao’s TDNS, which originates from the AKBh, with a general and ambiguous attitude. It is precisely this ambiguity that I aim to resolve.

After engaging with academic scholarship on the matter, I have arrived at the following conclusion: the perspective of “not shifting based on Kṣaṇikavāda” ought to be regarded as a more prevalent line of thought within early Indian Buddhism, rather than being categorized under either the Sarvāstivāda or Sautrāntika schools specifically. This framing, I believe, offers a more thorough account of the aforementioned general and ambiguous attitude.

 

Comments 47: Line 813，Why some names are given in full and some others abridged?

Response 47: Thank you for your suggestions. All the authors’ names have now been presented in their full forms.

 

Comments 48: Line 870-872，Same article?

Response 48: Duplicate references have been removed.

 

Comments 49: Line 889，already quoted above as Lv

Response 49: Duplicate references have been removed.

 

Comments 50: Line 903，Robinson is the surname

Response 50:  Already revised to: Robinson, Richard Hugh