Review Reports - The Flowing Pantheon: A Study on the Origins of the Wutong Deity and the Five Road Deities of Wealth, with a Discussion on the Pluralistic Harmony of Daoism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an important reassessment of the Wutong deity. It puts in place an excellent set of questions to inquire into these origins, and these are admirably answered through a variety of interdisciplinary approaches. The study is methodologically rigorous, deals fairly with previous claims, and makes a strong, compelling case for an alternative logic of the deity’s evolution, with an impressive number of contextual factors assessed in the process.

Individual suggested edits:

ll. 39-40: the syntax needs clarifying here.

l. 54 on: indent longer quotations?

l. 77: comma needed after the title.

l. 312: no capital for “the”.

ll. 397-401: syntax seems to go wrong here; it seems to need as “as”.

ll. 651-655: A source for this principle of substitution could be given.

l. 837: single quotation marks needed within double?

Author Response

Comment 1: ll. 39-40: the syntax needs clarifying here.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing out this grammatical error. I agree that the original sentence contained a comma splice, which made it unclear. I have revised the sentence to form a grammatically correct complex sentence, which improves clarity and flow.
The revision can be found on Line 38.

The revised sentence now reads:
Even today, various combinations of the Five Road Deities of Wealth persist in folk belief, a phenomenon that researchers often attribute to the arbitrary nature of folk religion, while the true underlying factors remain elusive.

Comment 2: l. 54 on: indent longer quotations?
Response 2: Thank you for this helpful suggestion regarding formatting for readability. In the process of revising the manuscript, particularly in response to another reviewer's suggestion to streamline the discussion of the Wuxian deity's imperial enfeoffment (previously beginning around line 777), the specific long quotation you pointed out (beginning on line 54) has now been synthesized and replaced with a more concise summary.

Therefore, the issue of indenting this particular block quotation has been resolved by its removal in favor of a more focused narrative. I have, however, reviewed the entire manuscript and ensured that any other remaining long quotations are formatted correctly according to the journal's guidelines.

Comment 3: l. 77: comma needed after the title.
Response 3: Thank you for spotting this punctuation error. I have added the required comma after the title as suggested.
The revision can be found on Page 2, Line 69.
The revised text now reads:
A poetic line by Shi Jianwu (style name Huayangzi) of the Song dynasty, "The Wutong was originally a servant of the Buddhist faith," first established the connection between the Wutong and Buddhism.

Comment 4: l. 312: no capital for “the”.
Response 4: Thank you for spotting this capitalization error. In the course of revising the manuscript for overall clarity and flow, the paragraph containing this sentence has been substantially rewritten. As a result, the original sentence with the capitalization mistake has been removed, and the issue is thereby resolved.

Comment 5: ll. 397-401: syntax seems to go wrong here; it seems to need as “as”.

Response 5: Thank you for identifying this syntactic ambiguity. I agree that the original sentence structure was awkward. I have revised the sentence by adding "as" to clarify the logical relationship, indicating that the entrenchment of the deity's function was concurrent with the spread of the belief.
The revision can be found on Page 11, Line 392.
The revised sentence now reads:
"It proves that during the Northern and Southern Dynasties, the belief in the 'Great Deity of the Five Paths' had spread from the Western Regions to the Guanzhong area and further to eastern North China, as his function as a psychopomp and gatekeeper of the underworld became deeply entrenched in popular belief."

Comment 6: ll. 651-655: A source for this principle of substitution could be given.

Response 6: This is an excellent suggestion. To strengthen the theoretical foundation of my argument, I have now provided authoritative sources for the linguistic principle of Folk Etymology. I have integrated citations from Trask's dictionary of linguistics and Campbell's introduction to historical linguistics to support my explanation.
The revision can be found on Lines 636-643.
The revised paragraph now includes the following citations:
...This linguistic process, known as Folk Etymology or analogical reformation, provides a compelling framework for understanding this change. As defined by linguists, Folk Etymology is an "arbitrary change in the form of a word of opaque formation which serves to make that word more transparent in form, if not necessarily in its semantics" (Trask 2000, p. 124). In essence, when encountering an unfamiliar or seemingly meaningless foreign word, people subconsciously reshape it based on a mistaken association with a phonetically similar and more concrete word in their native language, thus giving the new form a "rational" explanation (Campbell 1999, pp. 100-102).

Comment 7: l. 837: single quotation marks needed within double?

Response 7: Thank you for this important correction regarding quotation mark conventions. I agree that nested quotations in American English style require single quotation marks within double ones. I have revised the passage accordingly.
The revision can be found on Page 22, Line 822.
The revised quotation now reads:
...State officials attempted to eradicate the Wutong cult, which they proclaimed 'illicit' several times...

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article systematically reviews the origin of the Wutong deity

It gives a robust overview of various origin stories, based on a treasure of sources and data, so it reads as a comprehensive overview.

Furthremore, the conclusion, both about Buddhist-Taoist hybridity in its origins, as well as the dual linguistic misreading of the origin are very illuminating, with respect to the rhizomatic origin of Gods in the Chinese folk religion.

Author Response

I would like to sincerely thank you for your positive and insightful comments. I am very grateful for your appreciation of the systematic review, the robust overview of origin stories, and the comprehensive nature of the research.
I am especially encouraged that you found the conclusions regarding Buddhist-Taoist hybridity and the dual linguistic misreading to be "very illuminating." Highlighting the "rhizomatic origin" of deities in Chinese folk religion is a key theoretical goal of this paper, and I am delighted that this aspect of the argument was well-received.
I thank you again for your time and valuable feedback.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a fascinating and deeply compelling study. My only comments have to do form.

-Never Tao/ Taoism, only Dao/ Daoism

-no bold throughout

-the abstract is strange, take out parenthentical remarks

-no numbering for sections

-dozens and dozens of missing spaces between words and parenthesis: Wuxian(五显), fix this.

-convert ALL English transliterations of Chinese words to pinyin (except author names and titles); leave a note to this effect if you feel it necessary

-titles of all works are italicized for books, and in quote marks or chapters

-Esoteric Buddhism is not a word, it’s either Tantra or Zhenyan Buddhism

-line 486: name is backwards

-lines 311-323: form makes no sense, fix it

-the paper uses “quotation marks” throughout like a madman, and some terms that require them do not have them. Fix this throughout the entire paper. Example from lines 311-353: The foregoing deep dive into the two core godheads of the Wutong deity, "wealth-334 bestowing" and "licentious," aims to establish the inseparable homologous relationship 335 between its belief core and the Buddhist deity Pañcika. This seemingly contradictory com-336 bination of godheads, we argue, did not arise from nothing but is the unique product of 337 foreign religious elements undergoing a complex process of "selective inheritance" and 338 "subversive reconstruction" within the Chinese cultural sphere.

-often the language is over-the-top, revise the language where it gets out of your control by just using more simple words. Also, do not use “crucial” and other such over-the-top terms, it is a bad sign for reviewers and readers will not appreciate it.

- go over once again very closely your use of English conventions for Chinese text. Mostly you are correct, but there are literally dozens of mistakes of all kinds with the conventiosn.

-This is a very fine paper, and I am very impressed. Take pride in this work and do the little things mentioned above that will make the difference between mediocrity and excellence.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This is a fascinating and deeply compelling study. My only comments have to do form.

-Never Tao/ Taoism, only Dao/ Daoism

-no bold throughout

-the abstract is strange, take out parenthentical remarks

-no numbering for sections

-dozens and dozens of missing spaces between words and parenthesis: Wuxian(五显), fix this.

-convert ALL English transliterations of Chinese words to pinyin (except author names and titles); leave a note to this effect if you feel it necessary

-titles of all works are italicized for books, and in quote marks or chapters

-Esoteric Buddhism is not a word, it’s either Tantra or Zhenyan Buddhism

-line 486: name is backwards

-lines 311-323: form makes no sense, fix it

- go over once again very closely your use of English conventions for Chinese text. Mostly you are correct, but there are literally dozens of mistakes of all kinds with the conventiosn.

-This is a very fine paper, and I am very impressed. Take pride in this work and do the little things mentioned above that will make the difference between mediocrity and excellence.

-I trust the author and I don't need to the manuscript again.

Author Response

I am deeply grateful for your positive and encouraging feedback on my manuscript. I sincerely appreciate the time and care you have taken to provide detailed formal suggestions, which I believe have been invaluable in improving the paper's scholarly presentation.
I have carefully addressed all of your formal and stylistic suggestions point by point below.

Specific Comments:
Comment 1: -Never Tao/ Taoism, only Dao/ Daoism
Response 1: Thank you for this important note on Pinyin standardization. I agree completely. I have performed a global search and replace throughout the manuscript to ensure that all instances of "Tao/Taoism/Taoist" have been corrected to "Dao/Daoism/Daoist."

Comment 2: -no bold throughout
Response 2: Thank you. I have removed all bold formatting from the body of the manuscript to adhere to standard academic style.

Comment 3: -the abstract is strange, take out parenthentical remarks
Response 3: I appreciate this feedback on the abstract. I have completely removed the parenthetical remarks.

Comment 4: -no numbering for sections
Response 4: Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion regarding the removal of section numbering. I have carefully considered this point and its relationship to the journal's stylistic preference for a continuous narrative.
For this particular manuscript, the argument is structured in several distinct, multi-layered parts, each building upon the previous one. After careful consideration, I feel that retaining the numerical structure for both the main and sub-sections is crucial for the reader's ability to navigate the complex, multi-stage argument being presented. The numbers serve as a clear and essential roadmap, helping to signpost the transitions between the different phases of my analysis—from historiographical review, to godhead reconstruction, to linguistic analysis, and finally to socio-historical contextualization.
I believe that in this specific case, the benefit of enhanced structural clarity for the reader outweighs the adherence to a non-numbered format. It is my hope that this structure will make the paper's intricate argument more accessible and easier to follow.
However, I completely respect the journal's house style, and I am, of course, more than willing to remove the numbering should the editors deem it necessary during the final production stage.

Comment 5: -dozens and dozens of missing spaces between words and parenthesis: Wuxian(五显), fix this.
Response 5: Thank you for catching these persistent spacing errors. I have meticulously reviewed the entire manuscript and corrected all instances where a space was missing between an English word and a following parenthesis, such as the example you provided. The formatting should now be consistent.

Comment 6: -convert ALL English transliterations of Chinese words to pinyin (except author names and titles); leave a note to this effect if you feel it necessary
Response 6: This is an excellent point for ensuring consistency. I have reviewed the entire paper and standardized all transliterations of Chinese words to the Pinyin system. Older or non-standard romanizations have been updated to maintain a single, clear convention throughout the text.

Comment 7: -titles of all works are italicized for books, and in quote marks or chapters
Response 7: Thank you. I have performed a thorough check to ensure all titles are formatted correctly according to academic standards: book titles are consistently italicized, and article/chapter titles are formatted appropriately within the text and reference list.

Comment 8: -Esoteric Buddhism is not a word, it’s either Tantra or Zhenyan Buddhism
Response 8: Thank you for this crucial comment on terminology. I agree that "Esoteric Buddhism" is too broad. I have revised the manuscript to use the more precise scholarly term "Tangmi" (唐密) throughout the paper to refer specifically to the tradition in Tang China.

Comment 9: -line 486: name is backwards
Response 9: Thank you for spotting this embarrassing error. I sincerely apologize for reversing the author's name. I have now corrected "Dudbridge Glen" to "Glen Dudbridge" at the indicated line and have double-checked for any similar errors throughout the manuscript. I appreciate your close reading.
The revision can be found on Lines 475-476.
The revised sentence now reads:
"Glen Dudbridge (1996) points out: ..."

Comment 10: -lines 311-323: form makes no sense, fix it
Response 10: Thank you for pointing out that the structure of this section was confusing and unconventional. I agree that using heading-like phrases to introduce paragraphs was not appropriate for a formal academic paper and made the argument disjointed.
I have completely rewritten this section to integrate the key points into a single, cohesive paragraph with clear topic sentences. The heading-like phrases such as "From 'Sacred Fecundity' to 'Lasciviousness and Debauchery'" have been removed and their content has been reformulated into complete sentences that guide the reader through the two stages of the "degradation" process I am describing.
The revision can be found on Lines 302-315.
I believe this revised form presents the argument in a much more logical, fluent, and professional manner, and I thank you for guiding me to make this important improvement.

Comment 11: -the paper uses “quotation marks” throughout like a madman, and some terms that require them do not have them. Fix this throughout the entire paper.
Response 11: Thank you for this crucial critique of my writing style. I agree that my use of quotation marks was excessive and inconsistent. Following your advice, I have undertaken a thorough review of the entire manuscript to correct this issue. I have removed unnecessary quotation marks from descriptive terms, while using italics for key theoretical terms and ensuring all direct quotations are correctly formatted.
For example, the passage you cited has been revised as follows:
(The revision can be found in Section 2.1.2, last paragraph, lines 326-331.)
The revised passage now reads:
"The foregoing deep dive into the two core godheads of the Wutong deity, wealth-bestowing and licentious, aims to establish the inseparable homologous relationship between its belief core and the Buddhist deity Pañcika... undergoing a complex process of selective inheritance and subversive reconstruction within the Chinese cultural sphere."

Comment 12: -often the language is over-the-top, revise the language where it gets out of your control by just using more simple words. Also, do not use “crucial” and other such over-the-top terms, it is a bad sign for reviewers and readers will not appreciate it.
Response 12: Thank you for this very helpful advice on academic tone. I agree that my language was at times overly strong. I have conducted a thorough revision of the entire manuscript to replace such "over-the-top" terms (e.g., "crucial," "perfectly") with more neutral and modest phrasing, ensuring the argument is conveyed through the evidence itself.

Comment 13: - go over once again very closely your use of English conventions for Chinese text. Mostly you are correct, but there are literally dozens of mistakes of all kinds with the conventiosn.
Response 13: Following your advice, I have performed another full-manuscript review dedicated solely to standardizing all conventions for Chinese text, including Pinyin italicization, spacing, and consistent formatting of terms and names.

Finally, I am deeply grateful for your concluding words of encouragement. Your advice has been invaluable in elevating the manuscript's quality, and I appreciate the trust you have placed in my revisions. I am confident that the paper is now much stronger as a result of your thoughtful feedback.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper makes a novel and valuable contribution to the study of Chinese folk religion by systematically tracing the origin of the Wutong deity to the Buddhist Yakṣa General Pañcika (Wudao Dashen) and constructing a coherent "Flowing Pantheon" framework to explain its localization. The multi-disciplinary methodology—integrating cross-cultural linguistics, comparative mythology, and socio-historical analysis—effectively addresses longstanding ambiguities in existing scholarship (e.g., reconciling the Wutong’s wealth-bestowing and licentious attributes). The paper demonstrates rigorous engagement with both classical texts and modern scholarship, and its core argument (that the Wutong emerged from misreadings of Pañcika/Wudao Dashen amid Tang-Song religious and economic shifts) is compelling.

However, revisions are needed to enhance clarity, tighten coherence, and deepen contextual analysis. Specifically, streamlining redundant content, refining transitions between sections, and addressing gaps in discussions of Taoism and empirical limitations will strengthen the work. Given its originality and scholarly significance, the paper is recommended for acceptance after major revisions.

Specific Revision Suggestions (Linked to Paragraphs)

Streamline Redundant Citations in the Introduction (Paragraphs 44–72)

The literature review of the "Mountain Spirit/Demon Theory" includes repetitive references to Ursula-Angelika Cedzich (1995) and Richard von Glahn (2004) that dilute focus. For example, Cedzich’s admission of "lacking first-hand evidence" is mentioned twice (lines 122 and 57), and von Glahn’s link between Wutong and epidemic spirits is restated unnecessarily. Revise this section to synthesize these scholars’ arguments concisely (e.g., merge lines 54–68 and 69–72 into a single paragraph) and remove redundant citations. This will sharpen the contrast between existing theories and the paper’s new framework.

Clarify the Transition Between "Wudao→Wutong" Impetus and Pantheon Derivation (End of Paragraph 755 to Start of Paragraph 756)

The shift from section 2.2.3 (discussing Tang Esoteric decline and Song commercialization as catalysts for the Wutong’s emergence) to 2.3 (the Wutong’s derivation into Wuxian and Five Road Gods of Wealth) is abrupt. Insert a bridging sentence/paragraph to explicitly connect these two phases: "The linguistic and godhead transformations of the Wudao Dashen into the Wutong not only redefined its identity but also laid the groundwork for its subsequent genealogical fission—driven by state efforts to legitimize 'illicit cults' and folk demands for functional wealth deities." This will clarify how the earlier "rupture and reconstruction" enabled the later pantheon evolution.

Deepen the Discussion of Taoism’s Integrative Role (Paragraphs 867–908)

Section 2.3.2 argues that Taoism facilitated the Wutong’s integration into the "Flowing Pantheon" but relies heavily on Buddhist and folk sources, with minimal analysis of Taoist texts. Expand the discussion by engaging directly with Taishang Xuanci Zhuhua Zhang (cited in line 500) and Shangqing Lingbao Dafa (line 541): For example, explain how Du Guangting’s framing of the Wudao Dashen as a "Celestial Bureau" subordinate (line 498) actively reshaped the deity’s identity beyond passive assimilation. Add 1–2 sentences: "Du Guangting’s inclusion of the Wudao Dashen in Taoist fasting rituals (lines 498–500) did not merely 'adopt' a Buddhist deity but reframed it as a agent of Taoist cosmic order—linking its underworld authority to Taoist notions of karmic retribution." This will balance the Buddhist-centric narrative and strengthen the "pluralistic harmony" thesis.

Refine the Phonetic Misreading Analysis of "Banzhijia→One-Legged" (Paragraphs 657–679)

The deduction of the Wutong’s "one-legged" image from the phonetic confusion of "Banzhi" (半支) and "Ban-zhi" (半肢) is plausible but lacks explicit linguistic evidence for Middle Chinese pronunciation. Revise paragraphs 658–660 to cite a historical phonology source to verify that "Banzhi" and "Ban-zhi" were homophonous in Song-era speech. This will ground the phonetic misreading argument in empirical linguistics.

Explicitly Address Limitations of Transmitted Text Dependence (Paragraph 971)

The conclusion briefly mentions reliance on "transmitted texts" (line 971) but does not specify how this limits the argument. Expand this section to contextualize the gap: "This study relies primarily on literary and ritual texts (e.g., Yijian Zhi, Buddhist sūtras), which reflect elite or normative perspectives rather than unmediated folk belief. Archaeological evidence—such as Gandharan-style sculptures of Pañcika in Song-dynasty Jiangnan or excavated Wutong temple inscriptions—could further validate the proposed evolutionary chain but remains scarce in current datasets." This transparency will strengthen the paper’s scholarly integrity.

Tighten the Discussion of Wuxian Legitimization (Paragraphs 777–800)

The account of the Wuxian deity’s imperial enfeoffment (lines 777–800) includes excessive detail about title iterations (e.g., "two-character marquises" to "eight-character kings") that distract from the core point (state-led purification of the Wutong). Revise to synthesize the timeline concisely: "Imperial enfeoffment of the Wuxian accelerated between the Xuanhe (1119–1125) and Xiding (1208–1224) eras, progressing from marquises to eight-character kings, and formally renamed the 'Wutong' temple 'Lingshun' to signal orthodox status (lines 789–799)." This will focus attention on how state recognition drove the Wutong→Wuxian transformation.

Correct Awkward Phrasing in the Godhead Decoding Section (Paragraph 241)

Line 241 contains cumbersome phrasing: "then its controversial 'licentious' characteristic is the result of a more profound and complex process of cultural decoding and value reassessment." Revise for clarity: "its controversial 'licentious' trait stems from a deeper, more complex process of cultural decoding and value renegotiation." Similarly, line 273’s "this 'degradation' did not occur in isolation; it resonated perfectly with" can be tightened to "this 'degradation' was not isolated—it aligned with". These revisions will enhance readability without altering meaning.

Author Response

Comment 1: Streamline Redundant Citations in the Introduction (Paragraphs 44–72). The literature review of the "Mountain Spirit/Demon Theory" includes repetitive references to Ursula-Angelika Cedzich (1995) and Richard von Glahn (2004) that dilute focus... Revise this section to synthesize these scholars’ arguments concisely... and remove redundant citations.
Response 1: Thank you for this excellent suggestion to improve the structure and focus of the literature review. I agree that the original presentation was repetitive and that the redundant citations diluted the main points.
As you recommended, I have revised and streamlined the section on the "Mountain Spirit/Demon Theory" to synthesize the arguments of previous scholars more concisely. Specifically:
I have integrated the discussions of classical and modern scholars into a single, more cohesive paragraph.
Most importantly, I have removed the redundant citations you pointed out. For example, the statement by Ursula-Angelika Cedzich regarding her "lack of first-hand evidence" is now mentioned only once to support the critique of the theory.
These changes sharpen the contrast between existing theories and the new framework proposed in my paper, allowing the critique of prior scholarship to be more impactful. The revision can be found in Section 1 (Introduction), Paragraph 3, lines 52-65.

Comment 2: Clarify the Transition Between "Wudao→Wutong" Impetus and Pantheon Derivation... The shift... is abrupt. Insert a bridging sentence/paragraph to explicitly connect these two phases: "The linguistic and godhead transformations of the Wudao Dashen into the Wutong not only redefined its identity but also laid the groundwork for its subsequent genealogical fission—driven by state efforts to legitimize 'illicit cults' and folk demands for functional wealth deities."
Response 2: Thank you for this insightful suggestion and for providing the excellent bridging sentence. I agree that the transition was abrupt, and your proposed text perfectly connects the two phases of the deity's evolution.
Following your advice, I have inserted the exact sentence you provided between Section 2.2.3 and Section 2.3. This addition clarifies how the earlier "rupture and reconstruction" of the Wudao Dashen into the Wutong deity enabled the later pantheon evolution.
The revision can be found at the end of Section 2.2.3, lines 753-756. The newly added sentence reads:
The linguistic and godhead transformations of the Wudao Dashen into the Wutong not only redefined its identity but also laid the groundwork for its subsequent genealogical fission—driven by state efforts to legitimize 'illicit cults' and folk demands for functional wealth deities.

Comment 3: Deepen the Discussion of Taoism’s Integrative Role (Paragraphs 867–908). Section 2.3.2 argues that Taoism facilitated the Wutong’s integration... Expand the discussion by engaging directly with Taishang Xuanci Zhuhua Zhang... For example, explain how Du Guangting’s framing... actively reshaped the deity’s identity... Add 1–2 sentences: "Du Guangting’s inclusion of the Wudao Dashen... did not merely 'adopt' a Buddhist deity but reframed it as a agent of Taoist cosmic order—linking its underworld authority to Taoist notions of karmic retribution."
Response 3: Thank you for this excellent and highly constructive criticism. I completely agree that my original discussion of Taoism's role was too general and that a deeper analysis of specific Taoist texts was needed to substantiate the argument. Your suggestion to focus on how Taoism actively "reframed" the deity is crucial.
Following your advice, I have expanded the discussion in Section 2.3.2. I have directly incorporated the insightful sentence you provided to analyze how Du Guangting's work served to actively reshape the Wudao Dashen's identity within a Taoist framework, rather than passively assimilating it.
The revision can be found in Section 2.3.2, lines 890-893. The newly added sentence reads:
For example, Du Guangting’s framing of the Wudao Dashen as a 'Celestial Bureau' subordinate did not merely 'adopt' a Buddhist deity but reframed it as an agent of Taoist cosmic order—linking its underworld authority to Taoist notions of karmic retribution.

Comment 4: Refine the Phonetic Misreading Analysis of "Banzhijia→One-Legged"... The deduction... is plausible but lacks explicit linguistic evidence for Middle Chinese pronunciation. Revise... to cite a historical phonology source to verify that "Banzhi" and "Ban-zhi" were homophonous in Song-era speech.
Response 4: Thank you for this excellent and rigorous suggestion. I agree that my argument for phonetic misreading required empirical linguistic evidence to be fully convincing.
Following your advice, I have revised Section 2.2.2 to provide explicit evidence from historical phonology. I now cite the Guangyun rime dictionary and modern reconstructions of Middle Chinese to demonstrate that the characters "支" (zhī) and "肢" (zhī) were indeed precise homophones during the Tang and Song dynasties. I have also included figures in the appendix showing the identical phonological positions and reconstructed pronunciations for both characters from various scholarly systems.
The revision can be found in Section 2.2.2, lines 650-660. The newly added sentences read:
This homophony is not merely a modern speculation but is firmly grounded in historical phonology. According to the phonological system of the Guangyun (广韵), the authoritative rime dictionary of the Song dynasty which reflects late Middle Chinese pronunciation, both characters belong to the same phonological category: level tone (pingsheng), zhi rime (支韵), and the zhang initial group (章母) . Modern reconstructions of Middle Chinese pronunciation by various prominent linguists, including Bernhard Karlgren, Wang Li, and Li Fang-Kuei, consistently assign identical phonetic values to both characters (e.g., reconstructed as tśie or tɕie). This provides empirical linguistic evidence that "Banzhi" (半支) and "Ban-zhi" (半肢) were indistinguishable in the speech of the Tang and Song dynasties.

Comment 5: Explicitly Address Limitations of Transmitted Text Dependence (Paragraph 971). The conclusion briefly mentions reliance on "transmitted texts"... but does not specify how this limits the argument. Expand this section to contextualize the gap...
Response 5: Thank you for this excellent suggestion to improve the conclusion. I completely agree that a more explicit and contextualized discussion of the study's limitations is necessary to strengthen its scholarly integrity.
Following your advice, I have expanded the final paragraph of the Conclusion to specify the nature of my reliance on transmitted texts and to acknowledge the gap left by the scarcity of archaeological evidence. I have incorporated your insightful phrasing to clarify that the texts used primarily reflect elite or normative viewpoints and to propose what kind of material evidence could further validate my argument. I have also refined the temporal scope in this section to be more precise.
The revision can be found in the final paragraph of the Conclusion, lines 959-966. The revised paragraph now begins with:
Of course, this study relies primarily on literary and ritual texts (e.g., Yijian Zhi, Buddhist sūtras, and Taoist canons), which tend to reflect elite or normative perspectives rather than unmediated folk belief. The conclusions drawn are therefore based on the textual remnants of a complex, multi-layered historical process. Archaeological evidence—such as the discovery of Pañcika sculptures from the Tang and Song dynasties in the Jiangnan region, or excavated Wutong temple inscriptions that might reveal transitional forms of the belief—could further validate the proposed evolutionary chain but remains scarce in current datasets.

Comment 6: Tighten the Discussion of Wuxian Legitimization (Paragraphs 777–800). The account of the Wuxian deity’s imperial enfeoffment... includes excessive detail... that distract from the core point... Revise to synthesize the timeline concisely...
Response 6: I agree that the lengthy quotation detailing the imperial enfeoffments was cumbersome and distracted from the main argument about state-led purification.
As you recommended, I have revised Section 2.3.1 to synthesize this information concisely. I have replaced the long block quotation with a summary that highlights the key timeline (from the Xuanhe to the Jiading eras), the progression of titles, and the symbolic renaming of the temple.
The revision can be found in Section 2.3.1, lines 779-785. The revised passage now reads:
According to the Zudian Lingying Ji (祖殿靈應集), the process of imperial enfeoffment for the Wuxian deity accelerated dramatically between the Xuanhe (1119–1125) and Jiading (1208–1224) eras. During this period, the deity’s rank progressed from marquis to duke and ultimately to an eight-character king. Critically, the state formally renamed the original "Wutong" temple as "Lingshun" (灵顺, Numinous Compliance), a symbolic act that signaled the cult's official incorporation into state-sanctioned orthodoxy.

Comment 7: Correct Awkward Phrasing in the Godhead Decoding Section (Paragraph 241). Line 241 contains cumbersome phrasing... Revise for clarity... Similarly, line 273’s... can be tightened...
Response 7: Thank you for these excellent suggestions for improving the phrasing. I agree that the original sentences were cumbersome, and your proposed revisions are much clearer and more concise.
I have revised the manuscript exactly as you recommended to enhance readability.
The first sentence you pointed out has been revised. The revision can be found in Section 2.1.2, lines 232-235. It now reads:
"If the Wutong deity's wealth-bestowing attribute is a direct inheritance from its Buddhist prototype Pañcika's lineage as a wealth god, then its controversial 'licentious' trait stems from a deeper, more complex process of cultural decoding and value renegotiation."
The second sentence has also been revised. The revision can be found in Section 2.1.2, lines 266-267. It now reads:
"Crucially, this 'degradation' was not isolated—it aligned with the pre-existing image of the Yakṣa in China, creating a logical synergy."

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions effectively address the key issues raised in the previous review, significantly enhancing the manuscript’s clarity, focus, and scholarly rigor.

Minor Suggestions for Further Polishing
Consistency in Terminology: Ensure uniform use of transliterations (e.g., "Pañcika" vs. "Pāñcika") and Chinese deity names (e.g., "Wudao Dashen" vs. "Great Deity of the Five Paths") throughout the manuscript. For instance, in Section 2.2.2, confirm that "Banzhijia" is consistently spelled to avoid confusion with variant transliterations ("半支迦，" "般支迦").

Clarity in Chronological Markers: In Section 2.3.1, when referencing the Wuxian deity’s enfeoffment, consider adding brief dynasty labels for eras (e.g., "Xuanhe era of the Northern Song") to assist readers less familiar with Song dynasty chronology.

Appendix for Phonological Data: The revision to Comment 4 mentions "figures in the appendix" showing phonological positions of "支" and "肢，" but no appendix is referenced in the current text. If such figures are included, explicitly label the appendix in the manuscript; if not, remove the mention to avoid confusion.
Overall, the revisions have addressed all major concerns and elevated the manuscript’s quality. With these minor adjustments to terminology and contextual clarity, the paper will be ready for publication.

Author Response

Comment 1: Consistency in Terminology: Ensure uniform use of transliterations (e.g., "Pañcika" vs. "Pāñcika") and Chinese deity names (e.g., "Wudao Dashen" vs. "Great Deity of the Five Paths") throughout the manuscript. For instance, in Section 2.2.2, confirm that "Banzhijia" is consistently spelled to avoid confusion with variant transliterations ("半支迦," "般支迦").

Response 1: Thank you for this important reminder to ensure terminological consistency. I agree that uniform usage is crucial for clarity and academic rigor. I have now thoroughly reviewed and revised the entire manuscript to standardize all key terms.

Specifically, I have made the following changes:

Pañcika: I have standardized the spelling to "Pañcika" throughout the manuscript.
Wudao Dashen: I have replaced all instances of the English translation "Great Deity of the Five Paths" with the pinyin transliteration "Wudao Dashen" to maintain consistency.
Banzhijia: Regarding the variant transliterations for "Banzhijia," I have carefully checked each instance. To address the potential for confusion that you rightly pointed out, I have ensured that every pinyin transliteration is immediately followed by its corresponding Chinese characters in parentheses (e.g., Banzhijia (半支迦), Banzhijia (般支迦)). This method explicitly clarifies which specific transliteration is being referenced at any given point, thereby preventing ambiguity.

Comment 2: Clarity in Chronological Markers: In Section 2.3.1, when referencing the Wuxian deity’s enfeoffment, consider adding brief dynasty labels for eras (e.g., "Xuanhe era of the Northern Song") to assist readers less familiar with Song dynasty chronology.
Response 2: Thank you for this excellent suggestion to improve the clarity of the historical timeline. I agree that adding dynasty labels for the reign eras is very helpful for readers who may not be specialists in Chinese history.
I have revised the relevant sentence in Section 2.3.1 to include these chronological markers as you recommended.
The revision can be found in Section 2.3.1, Paragraph 2. The revised sentence now reads:
"According to the Zudian Lingying Ji (祖殿靈應集), the process of imperial enfeoffment for the Wuxian deity accelerated dramatically between the Xuanhe era of the Northern Song (宣和1119–1125) and the Jiading era of the Southern Song (1208–1224)."

Comment 3: Appendix for Phonological Data: The revision to Comment 4 mentions "figures in the appendix" showing phonological positions of "支" and "肢," but no appendix is referenced in the current text. If such figures are included, explicitly label the appendix in the manuscript; if not, remove the mention to avoid confusion.
Response 3: Thank you for spotting this inconsistency and for your careful reading. You are entirely correct.
I sincerely apologize for the confusion. My previous response letter inaccurately stated that I had included an appendix with phonological figures. In the final revision of the manuscript, I decided instead to present the linguistic evidence textually within the main body of Section 2.2.2 for better narrative flow. While I correctly removed all references to an appendix from the manuscript itself, I inadvertently failed to update my response letter to reflect this decision.
To be clear, the manuscript does not contain an appendix, and the text as submitted is correct. I apologize again for the lack of clarity in my previous communication and thank you for helping me to ensure all documentation is accurate.