Review Reports - Reconstruction and Re-Designation of the Dunhuang <i>Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra</i> Manuscripts: The Role of Variant Text Collation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submission focuses on incomplete fragments of the Mahā-prajñāpāramitā-śāstra, and successfully joins many of them together into larger pieces. This is first-rate scholarship that pushes the field forward and helps other researchers. The arguments and reasoning given in the article are convincing in that they provide philological and codicological justification for piecing the fragments together. My only problem with the paper is that its English in its current form is not good enough for publication, it would need a thorough round of editing by a competent English-speaking person.

I would also suggest to cite Prof. Zhang Yongquan's new work 拼接丝路文明----敦煌残卷缀合研究.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English of the submission needs to be improved, which can be easily done by a competent editor who also understands the subject matter. I cannot go through all the problems here, so I will only mention a few important ones. To start with, the term "patching-up" does not work here, it should be something like "joining". So instead of “patching-up them together”, it should be “joining them together”. The same for all other cases of “patching-up”.

Similarly, the word "denomination" is not the right term either. The author needs to find a term that works, perhaps by consulting works on a similar subject but involving Western manuscripts.

"Tail title" should be "end title".

We cannot use the term “font” for manuscripts. It is “script”, “hand” or “handwriting”, depending on which aspect of the writing is being discussed. Font typically refers to printed or digital texts.

It is puzzling what “Treasury” refers to.

We cannot use the term “font” for manuscripts. It should be “script”, “hand” or “handwriting”, depending on which aspect is being discussed. Font typically refers to printed or digital texts.

There is also the matter of bringing the article more in line with the conventions of English-language scholarship. For example, Chinese characters should be used in traditional (i.e. not simplified) form.

When transcribing Chinese titles in the References, the pinyin should be joined into complete words. So “Dun Huang Han Wen Xie Ben” should rather be “Dunhuang Hanwen xieben”. This is for all the other items too.

When comparing the text of the sutra with that of the sastra, it would be useful to translate the phrases into English, rather than let the reader follow the pinyin only. Ideally, it would be best to Chinese characters, pinyin and the English translation.

Author Response

Dear Editor-in-chief and reviewers:

We sincerely appreciate your very insightful comments on our manuscript, which help us a lot in improving the quality of our study. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to you for your very careful review. Thanks so much for your huge input and precious time.

According to your suggestions, we have tried our best to revise our manuscript carefully. All changes have been highlighted in green color in the revised manuscript. In addition, we provided an itemized, point-by-point response to reviewers, including their original comments in this response letter. We hope you will be satisfied with our endeavor in improving the quality of our manuscript according to your valuable suggestions.

Best Regards

Point-by-point response to Reviewer

Comments1：[My only problem with the paper is that its English in its current form is not good enough for publication, it would need a thorough round of editing by a competent English-speaking person.]

Response1：[We appreciate the reviewer's comment regarding the English language. In response, we have engaged the services of both a native English-speaking subject-matter expert and a professional editing company to ensure the manuscript has been thoroughly polished for clarity and fluency.]

Comments2：[I would also suggest to cite Prof. Zhang Yongquan's new work 拼接丝路文明----敦煌残卷缀合研究.]

Response2：We sincerely thank the reviewer for this suggestion. The recommended reference has now been added to the bibliography.

Regarding the comment on the Dunhuang manuscript reconstruction work, I would like to clarify that I personally participated in Professor Zhang Yongquan's reconstruction project, where I was responsible for the reconstruction and documentation of all extant manuscripts of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra and partial manuscripts of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa (Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom). This work constituted a significant part of both my Master's and Ph.D. research, and it indeed served as the direct inspiration for the current article.

The reason this reference was not initially included is that the publication was not yet available when this manuscript was finalized. We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading and valuable input.

Comments3：[The English of the submission needs to be improved, which can be easily done by a competent editor who also understands the subject matter. I cannot go through all the problems here, so I will only mention a few important ones. To start with, the term "patching-up" does not work here, it should be something like "joining". So instead of “patching-up them together”, it should be “joining them together”. The same for all other cases of “patching-up”.

Similarly, the word "denomination" is not the right term either. The author needs to find a term that works, perhaps by consulting works on a similar subject but involving Western manuscripts.

"Tail title" should be "end title".

It is puzzling what “Treasury” refers to.

Response3：[We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable and meticulous comments.

(1) Regarding the term "patching-up," we have replaced it throughout the manuscript. After carefully considering the distinction between "joining" and "rejoining," we believe that "rejoining" is more appropriate for describing the reconstruction of fragments torn from the same original manuscript. The modifications have been highlighted in green. We would appreciate your opinion on whether this choice is suitable.

(2) Concerning the term "denomination," we consulted relevant literature and experts in the field and have revised it to "designation." All changes have been marked in green.

(3) "Tail title" has been corrected to "end title" as suggested, and the revisions are indicated in green.

(4) We have replaced the term “font” with “script,” “hand,” or “handwriting” depending on the specific context of the discussion, as recommended. The modifications have been highlighted in green.

(5) The term “Treasury” (referring to the publication Dunhuang Baozang［《敦煌宝藏》］) has been changed to “Baozang,” with the revisions marked in green.

(6) Chinese characters have been converted to traditional form throughout the text, as advised. The changes are indicated in green.

(7) In the References section, Chinese titles have been transcribed with pinyin presented in complete words rather than separate syllables. The revisions have been marked in green.

(8) When comparing the text of the sutra with that of the sastra, it would be useful to translate the phrases into English, rather than let the reader follow the pinyin only. Ideally, it would be best to Chinese characters, pinyin and the English translation.The suggested changes have been incorporated, and all modifications have been highlighted in green.

All other similar issues have been addressed accordingly. Once again, we deeply appreciate the time and effort the reviewer has devoted to providing such detailed and constructive suggestions.]

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article has collated seven groups of fragmentary Dunhuang manuscripts, and the author has made considerable efforts in collating several small fragments with other manuscripts.However, it must be acknowledged that, in general, the author's innovation is quite limited. Although the author has newly discovered several scrolls that can be further collated based on the work of Guo Xiaoyan, Zhang Yongquan and others, there is no innovation in either research methodology or research conclusions. For example, the four points listed in Section 4 "The Basic Value of Textual Comparison" have all been mentioned in previous articles. In addition, S.9215 and S.4960 are clearly not collatable, and the reviewer has marked the evidence with a green line in the screenshot.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor-in-chief and reviewers:

Best Regards

Point-by-point response

Comments1：[In addition, S.9215 and S.4960 are clearly not collatable, and the reviewer has marked the evidence with a green line in the screenshot.]

Response1：[We sincerely thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue，and Please allow us to address the final suggestion first, as it is relevant to the responses to the previous comments.We acknowledge that the proposed reconstruction requires further consideration. We have tentatively replaced this specific reconstruction with a conjectural join between BD 12288 and Yu 1, and all modifications have been marked in green for your convenience. ]

Comments2：[This article has collated seven groups of fragmentary Dunhuang manuscripts, and the author has made considerable efforts in collating several small fragments with other manuscripts.However, it must be acknowledged that, in general, the author's innovation is quite limited. Although the author has newly discovered several scrolls that can be further collated based on the work of Guo Xiaoyan, Zhang Yongquan and others, there is no innovation in either research methodology or research conclusions.]

Response2：[We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable feedback. We would like to address the question regarding the innovation of our methodology and conclusions.

Concerning the methodology of manuscript reconstruction, previous approaches primarily relied on criteria such as textual continuity, physical alignment of fragment edges, consistency in layout and format, and similarity in handwriting. However, when Fragment A and Fragment B contain non-adjacent sections of text and cannot be physically joined, even shared layout and handwriting characteristics are insufficient to confirm whether they originated from the same manuscript. This uncertainty arises particularly because many fragments may have been prepared by Daozhen for repairing damaged manuscripts rather than constituting parts of the same original scroll.

To address this challenge, we introduced an approach based on the uniqueness and variability of scribal practices: establishing relationships between fragments through shared idiosyncratic textual variants (異文). Through collating and analyzing numerous manuscripts, we observed that even within a single scroll copied by the same scribe, individual characters could be written in variant forms, and specific terms could be expressed differently. Therefore, when two fragments exhibit a series of identical unusual textual variants—forms not commonly seen in other manuscripts—this provides strong evidence for their common origin.

Regarding the method of using textual variants for manuscript identification, we acknowledge that Professors Guo Zaiyi and Zhang Yongquan indeed discussed this approach as early as 1989. Building upon their foundation, our innovation lies in combining textual variant analysis with physical reconstruction to identify manuscripts, thereby generating a richer corpus of meaningful variants for study.

We agree that our discussion of the functional implications may align closely with earlier scholars’ summaries regarding the value of reconstruction. As rightly noted, determining which fragments can be joined and how to accurately identify manuscripts remains a substantial undertaking. We believe that our contribution lies in systematically reconstructing these manuscripts and assigning correct titles—an essential step for future in-depth research. Furthermore, from these examples of reconstruction and identification, we have formulated the "Principle of Consistent Textual Variants" (異文一致性原理), which we consider another key innovation of our work.

We once again express our gratitude for the reviewer’s insightful comments.]

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of this article is timely and fascinating, and it represents research in a sub-field of Buddhist studies research that has gained a lot of attention in recent years. But, this article is partial, at very best. It engages none of the relevant secondary research on this exact topic. ALL of the relevant research on this text and its relationship to other 般若經 literature is entirely in Japanese, first, and not at all in Chinese. None is cited here. If the author does not read Japanese, then this book must be cited and engaged:

Zacchetti, Stefano. The Da Zhidu Lun 大智度論 (*Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa) and the History of the Larger Prajñāpāramitā: Patterns of Textual Variation in Mahāyāna Sūtra Literature. Hamburg Buddhist Studies 14. Bochum/Freiburg: www.projektverlag.de, 2021.

Zacchetti's untimely passing (death) made this an unfinished book. Radich and Silk finished it on behalf of Stefano, and it is excellent. It also excellent references to what the author of this article should have read before undertaking this much more focused research.

This reviewer is uncertain what the point of this article actually is: what is this about? Most specialists know that there is a special textual relationship between the 大智度論 and the 大般若經 (in one form or another, definitely NOT the one translated by Xuanzang 玄奘), and other authors, including myself, have written a lot about various "Prajñāpāramitā" sūtras. Of course one finds many copies of the Da zhidu lun in manuscript form from Dunhuang, with fascinating variant readings 俗字文/異體字. This IS interesting and well worth research. And Zhang Yongquan 張涌泉 is arguably the expert in this sub-field in China and has been for decades.

The problem here, however, is that the 大智度論 is understood to have likely been written in China, and is not, therefore, a commentary from an Indic / Indian / Sanskrit source. What text it is a commentary to is the subject of a great deal of studies across decades; see above for an excellent summary. The author of this paper engages with none of this research. None. The author does not show that they know it is not an Indic text. Nor does the reader learn which text or texts from the "Taishō Tripitaka" (!!!!!) are cited or discussed. Why anyone would cite this 20th century collection in this way and without any reference to specific texts / scriptures / sūtras is entitely confusing to this reader. On top of that, what on earth is the 宝藏 on line 82? I can think of many things that could / should be. Simplified Chinese is unacceptable for this type of research, especially if one is looking at variant characters.

At the very least, the author must tell us what the author knows about why this research is important, what the relationship of these fragments from Dunhuang to an original (底本) of the 大智度論 should look like, and the author MUST address the Japanese editions from the Shōgozō 聖語蔵 and / or Kongōji 金剛寺 or Nanatsudera 七寺. I suspect the author has no idea that those three collections are, in which case this research is piecemeal and keyed--connected--to the wrong texts from Dunhuang looking at variants and textual history that is mostly already completed elsewhere in languages other than Chinese.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is fine, but titles of books need to be underlined, and it has not been edited at all.

Author Response

Dear Editor-in-chief and reviewer:

Best Regards

Point-by-point response

Comments1：[ALL of the relevant research on this text and its relationship to other 般若經 literature is entirely in Japanese, first, and not at all in Chinese. None is cited here. If the author does not read Japanese, then this book must be cited and engaged:Zacchetti, Stefano. The Da Zhidu Lun 大智度論 (*Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa) and the History of the Larger Prajñāpāramitā: Patterns of Textual Variation in Mahāyāna Sūtra Literature. Hamburg Buddhist Studies 14. Bochum/Freiburg: www.projektverlag.de, 2021.]

Response1：We sincerely thank the reviewer for their guidance and valuable suggestions.

During the preparation of my doctoral dissertation, I had the privilege of studying Professor Zacchetti’s work, which I truly consider a milestone in the field. The main reason for not directly citing or building upon it lies in the difference in our research focus and direction. Our study concentrates specifically on the Dunhuang manuscripts of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa (《大智度論》). As you are well aware, these manuscripts include numerous fragments, and our primary task is to reconstruct those that can be rejoined, determine their correct titles, identify their copying dates, and thereby lay the foundation for further research.

Although we also examine textual variants (異文), they serve here primarily as a medium—a tool to determine whether fragments can be reassembled and to assign correct titles to previously unidentified or misidentified manuscripts.

Comments2：[This reviewer is uncertain what the point of this article actually is: what is this about?At the very least, the author must tell us what the author knows about why this research is important]

Response2：We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion.

We would like to clarify that our work is based on a comprehensive survey of all relevant manuscripts, through which we identified and collated those related to the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa (《大智度論》). Although significant efforts have been made by previous scholars, there remain 574 Dunhuang manuscript fragments whose attribution is ambiguous—whether they belong to the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa or the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra (《摩訶般若經》). As these fragments lack original titles and contain only sutra text, we cannot simply classify them as part of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra solely based on the absence of commentary, given that the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa itself extensively quotes from the sūtra.

To address this, we compiled and compared all clearly identified manuscripts and printed editions of both texts, including versions from the Goryeo Tripitaka, Fangshan Stone Sutras, Qisha Tripitaka, Zhaocheng Jin Tripitaka, the collection of the Japanese Imperial Household Agency, and the Taishō Tripiṭaka, among others. This comparison revealed over 9,000 instances of textual variants. Shared distinctive variants allowed us to confidently attribute the disputed fragments and reconstruct more complete manuscript sequences. Furthermore, characteristic popular or non-standard forms (俗字) found in these variants provide clues for estimating the copying dates of the manuscripts, thereby facilitating further research by us and other scholars.

In this paper, we demonstrate the critical role of textual variants in reconstructing and identifying Dunhuang manuscripts through selected examples of rejoining and attribution. It is important to note that our current aim is not a full-scale analysis of all versions or their genealogical relationships—such work, in our view, must be grounded in a clear understanding of the nature of the Dunhuang manuscripts, which represent the oldest surviving paper books in China.

We have summarized this approach as the “Principle of Consistent Textual Variants” (異文一致性). As a methodological innovation, it can also be applied to organizing other types of excavated texts, which we believe underscores the significance of our study.

Comments3：[The problem here, however, is that the 大智度論 is understood to have likely been written in China, and is not, therefore, a commentary from an Indic / Indian / Sanskrit source. What text it is a commentary to is the subject of a great deal of studies across decades; see above for an excellent summary. The author of this paper engages with none of this research. None. The author does not show that they know it is not an Indic text.]

Response3：We sincerely thank the reviewer for their comments. We have been well aware of this long-standing academic debate concerning the authorship of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa (《大智度論》), which can broadly be categorized into three perspectives:

Firstly, scholars such as Kato Junshō（加藤純章） and Étienne Lamotte argued that the text was not composed by Nāgārjuna Bodhisattva. Kato proposed that it was a collaborative work between Kumārajīva and a scholar who had travelled to the Western Regions, while Lamotte suggested it was written by a scholar from Northwest India.

Secondly, Akira Hirakawa（平川彰） and Ryūshō Hikata（干潟龍祥） maintained that the text was originally authored by Nāgārjuna（龍樹菩薩） but later substantially edited or adapted by Kumārajīva（鳩摩羅什）.Meanwhile, Wang Rutong accepted partial Nāgārjuna authorship while acknowledging that certain sections remain questionable.

Thirdly, Venerable Yinshun（印順法師） firmly defended the traditional attribution to Nāgārjuna and systematically refuted the arguments of the aforementioned four scholars.

Through our comparative analysis of textual variants between the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa and the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra (《摩訶般若經》), particularly in the use of old and new translation terminology, we lean toward the possibility that the text was composed by Kumārajīva during his translation of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra. This could also explain the absence of a surviving Sanskrit original for the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa (a point also discussed in my doctoral dissertation).

While the authorship of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa is undoubtedly a question of great scholarly importance, we did not explicitly state our position in the paper as it falls outside the direct scope of our current discussion.

Comments4：[Nor does the reader learn which text or texts from the "Taishō Tripitaka" (!!!!!) are cited or discussed. Why anyone would cite this 20th century collection in this way and without any reference to specific texts / scriptures / sūtras is entitely confusing to this reader.]

Response4：

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable feedback. We confirm that the Taishō Tripiṭaka was indeed referenced in our study, along with its critical annotations. It is possible that our original wording did not make this sufficiently clear. We have now engaged professional editing services to improve the clarity and precision of our presentation.

Furthermore, we have carefully recompared and discussed the texts of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra and the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa as included in the Taishō Tripiṭaka, as well as the textual variants noted in its critical apparatus.

Comments5：[what on earth is the 宝藏 on line 82?.]

Response5：We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable comment. The term “Baozang” (寶藏) refers to the abbreviated title of Dunhuang Baozang (《敦煌寶藏》), published by Wenhua Publishing Company in Taipei from 1981 to 1986.

Comments6：[what the relationship of these fragments from Dunhuang to an original (底本) of the 大智度論 should look like.]

Response6：We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s valuable feedback. The Dunhuang fragments discussed in this study are copies produced after Kumārajīva’s finalized translation. Through comparative analysis of textual variants, we have identified several manuscripts preserved in Japanese collections that exhibit closer affinity to their source text. However, as this falls beyond the scope of the current article, it has been designated as a key objective for our subsequent research.

Comments6：[the author MUST address the Japanese editions from the Shōgozō 聖語蔵 and / or Kongōji 金剛寺 or Nanatsudera 七寺.]

Response6：

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable comment. We would like to clarify the reason for not addressing the Japanese editions from the Shōgozō (聖語蔵), Kongōji (金剛寺), or Nanatsudera (七寺) in the current study. These materials are exceptionally rare and unfortunately not available in facsimile or digital form, making them difficult to access. More importantly, the textual variants we have already gathered sufficiently support the scope and conclusions of our present research.

Naturally, to enhance the accuracy, comprehensiveness, and systematic rigor of our work, we fully intend to examine and incorporate these important editions in our future in-depth studies. However, the primary focus of this paper is to demonstrate the significant role that textual variants—analyzed from a linguistic perspective—play in the reconstruction and study of Dunhuang manuscripts.

Comments6：[Simplified Chinese is unacceptable for this type of research, especially if one is looking at variant characters. but titles of books need to be underlined, and it has not been edited at all.]

Response6：We sincerely thank the reviewer for this reminder. We have converted all simplified Chinese characters to traditional form as requested, with all modifications highlighted in green. Additionally, the language has been professionally polished by native English-speaking experts and editing services. Following their suggestions, we have also applied italicization to the relevant terms, with these changes similarly marked in green.

Once again, we deeply appreciate your valuable and meticulous comments and suggestions.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewer’s objection is not directed at the author’s specific argumentation but at the article’s overall scholarly value. Among the Dunhuang fragments, no fewer than twenty thousand pieces remain to be rejoined. Are all such reconstructions worthy of publication in academic journals—especially those indexed in A&HCI? In the reviewer’s judgment, only two categories of joins merit dissemination: (1) those whose textual content is intrinsically significant, and (2) those that introduce substantial methodological innovations or breakthroughs. At present, the literature already teems with reconstructions whose methods and conclusions are virtually identical. What, then, does such work contribute to the advancement of scholarship? If the author merely wishes to correct previous attributions, a concise catalogue would suffice; the full demonstrative apparatus is unnecessary. In short, the revised manuscript has yet to persuade the reviewer that any attempt has been made to transcend the prevailing research paradigm.

Author Response

Dear Editor-in-chief and reviewer:

According to your suggestions, we have tried our best to revise our manuscript carefully. All changes have been highlighted in blue color in the revised manuscript. In addition, we provided an itemized, point-by-point response to reviewers, including their original comments in this response letter. We hope you will be satisfied with our endeavor in improving the quality of our manuscript according to your valuable suggestions.

Best Regards

Point-by-point response

Comments1：The reviewer’s objection is not directed at the author’s specific argumentation but at the article’s overall scholarly value. Among the Dunhuang fragments, no fewer than twenty thousand pieces remain to be rejoined. Are all such reconstructions worthy of publication in academic journals—especially those indexed in A&HCI? In the reviewer’s judgment, only two categories of joins merit dissemination: (1) those whose textual content is intrinsically significant, and (2) those that introduce substantial methodological innovations or breakthroughs. At present, the literature already teems with reconstructions whose methods and conclusions are virtually identical. What, then, does such work contribute to the advancement of scholarship? If the author merely wishes to correct previous attributions, a concise catalogue would suffice; the full demonstrative apparatus is unnecessary. In short, the revised manuscript has yet to persuade the reviewer that any attempt has been made to transcend the prevailing research paradigm.

Response1：We sincerely thank the reviewer for raising this fundamental question regarding the scholarly value of our study. We acknowledge the concerns about the proliferation of routine reconstructions and fully agree that only work offering substantive contributions merits publication.

In this revision, we have made the following supplementations and enhancements:

First, we have clarified the significance of our research subject. The Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra (Dà zhìdù lùn) has long been regarded as the "king of treatises" and a "Buddhist encyclopedia," attracting extensive scholarly attention. Furthermore, the ongoing debate regarding its authorship—specifically whether it was truly composed by Nāgārjuna—remains unresolved. Since the text lacks extant Sanskrit versions or Tibetan translations, Dunhuang manuscripts provide the only viable source for addressing these questions. These manuscripts preserve not only the earliest known copies of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra but also contain ancient variant editions. Therefore, the accurate identification and reconstruction (rejoining) of these Dunhuang fragments are essential foundational tasks. Only by completing this fundamental research can we proceed to further linguistic and philosophical discussions.(Line 5,Line22-29，Page 1)

Second, we have emphasized the urgency of our research. As the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra serves as a commentary on the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra, significant textual overlaps exist between these two works. This makes it particularly crucial to determine whether a given manuscript fragment belongs to the Sūtra or the Śāstra. Accurate identification can only be achieved through fundamental research tasks—namely, proper textual attribution and fragment reconstruction (rejoining).(Line 9-15,Line30-51，Page 1-2)

Third, we have supplemented existing methodologies and conclusions. As early as 1989, Professor Guo Zaiyi proposed the method of using textual variants for attribution. While implementing this approach, we have enhanced its precision by adopting the "benchmark artifacts" methodology from bronze inscription studies—using manuscripts with explicit titles and dated manuscripts as "reference manuscripts" for comparison. This integrated approach supports our work in textual attribution, determination of scribal relationships, and investigation of textual lineage.

Furthermore, we have expanded the methodology of fragment reconstruction. Current academic practices primarily apply to fragments that can be perfectly physically joined. By incorporating the element of "shared textual variants," this methodology can be extended to the conjectural joining of non-adjacent fragments, thereby maximizing the reconstruction of scattered manuscripts.(Line 306-317,Line343-352，Page 9-10;Line684-704，Page17-18,)

All the above revisions have been highlighted in blue for reference.

We are confident that with these revisions, the innovative character and scholarly significance of our work will be fully apparent.

And we are grateful for the opportunity to clarify these points and believe the revised manuscript will convincingly demonstrate how it advances the field beyond current paradigms.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This revised draft of the article is improved. But it still severely lacks appropriate citation(s) to relevant secondary studies in English or Japanese, let alone in Chinese. Given the use of the term "rejoining now and throughout (e.g., lines 2-32, and after), the author must cite relevant scholarship to explain that this approach / methodology is not new, especially with Chinese (and Tibetan, let alone Khotanese or Tangut manuscripts or fragments). See:

Galambos, Imre. "Composite Manuscripts in Medieval China: The Case of Scroll P.3720 from Dunhuang." In One-Volume Libraries: Composite and Multiple-Text Manuscripts, edited by Michael Friedrich and Cosima Schwarke, 355–78. Berlin and Boston, Mass.: De Gruyter, 2016.

If the author wishes to provide modern Chinese pronunciations for Dunhuang texts with tone marks (this is anachronistic and a problem), then, throughout, all Pinyin must be in italics, and Pinyin should precede (come first) the characters 字. See, for example, lines 177-178, 181-182, and throughout. This must be edited throughout. Middle Chinese pronunciations might be helpful instead, but that decision is the author or authors' to make.

Lines 218 and 223 shows Chinese citation style, and not English. Italics must be used for foreign words in English and book titles, e.g., *Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra. Dazhidu lun 大智度論 is the appropriate way to cite this book when writing in English.

On p. 7, footnote no. 12 says "Simplified" characters are used in the manuscript. This is incorrect. In Chinese, we call these 俗字文; in Japanese we call them 異体字. Neither are simplifications at all and have nothing to do with 20th century Chinese script history.

Line 189 uses the word "script" to mean 字; that word means character or logograph in English.

Because the author or authors still fails to look at or cite

Zacchetti, Stefano. The Da Zhidu Lun 大智度論 (*Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa) and the History of the Larger Prajñāpāramitā: Patterns of Textual Variation in Mahāyāna Sūtra Literature (Hamburg Buddhist Studies 14. Bochum/Freiburg: www.projektverlag.de, 2021), much of the discussion and particularly which Prajñāpāramitā texts must be used to "rejoin" Dunhuang manuscripts and fragments, this is an incomplete article. Zacchetti covers some of the conclusions presented in this article as the authors or authors' work. This borders on plagiarism.

This article requires considerable revisions and editing.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing is marginally passable. The editing is terrible and must be fixed, as outlined above.

Author Response

Dear Editor-in-chief and reviewer:

According to your suggestions, we have tried our best to revise our manuscript carefully. All changes have been highlighted in yellow color in the revised manuscript. In addition, we provided an itemized, point-by-point response to reviewers, including their original comments in this response letter. We hope you will be satisfied with our endeavor in improving the quality of our manuscript according to your valuable suggestions.

Best Regards

Point-by-point response

Comments1：This revised draft of the article is improved. But it still severely lacks appropriate citation(s) to relevant secondary studies in English or Japanese, let alone in Chinese. Given the use of the term "rejoining now and throughout (e.g., lines 2-32, and after), the author must cite relevant scholarship to explain that this approach / methodology is not new, especially with Chinese (and Tibetan, let alone Khotanese or Tangut manuscripts or fragments). See:

Response1：We sincerely thank the reviewer for their guidance and valuable suggestions.

We have supplemented the relevant literature in accordance with the expert's suggestions and have provided an explanation of the "rejoining" method in Annotation 2. The revised sections have been highlighted in yellow for reference.

For your earliest convenience, you could also read it as follows:

“Rejoining is a crucial technique for the reconstruction of ancient texts, primarily applied in the fields of unearthed documents and archaeology, such as with oracle bones, bamboo and wooden slips, and Dunhuang manuscripts. Monk Dao Zhen can be considered an early representative of those who practiced the rejoining of manuscript scrolls. Nowadays, scholars such as Fang Guangchang, Matsumoto Eiji, Imre Galambos, Ikeda On, and Zhang Yongquan, have all conducted in-depth research on this subject.”

Comments2：If the author wishes to provide modern Chinese pronunciations for Dunhuang texts with tone marks (this is anachronistic and a problem), then, throughout, all Pinyin must be in italics, and Pinyin should precede (come first) the characters 字. See, for example, lines 177-178, 181-182, and throughout. This must be edited throughout. Middle Chinese pronunciations might be helpful instead, but that decision is the author or authors' to make.

Response2：We are deeply grateful to the reviewer for their expert guidance and insightful comments. We have revised all instances of Pinyin(without tone) throughout the manuscript by formatting them in italics and placing them before the corresponding Chinese characters, with these changes highlighted in yellow for reference.

Comments3：Lines 218 and 223 shows Chinese citation style, and not English. Italics must be used for foreign words in English and book titles, e.g., *Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra. Dazhidu lun 大智度論 is the appropriate way to cite this book when writing in English.

Response3：We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We have reformatted all book titles and foreign terms in italics throughout the manuscript, with these changes highlighted in yellow for reference.

Comments4：On p. 7, footnote no. 12 says "Simplified" characters are used in the manuscript. This is incorrect. In Chinese, we call these 俗字文; in Japanese we call them 異体字. Neither are simplifications at all and have nothing to do with 20th century Chinese script history.

Response4：We are deeply grateful to the reviewer for their insightful and constructive feedback.We recognize that referring to 俗字 as "simplified characters" was inappropriate and have revised the term to "vulgar variants" throughout the text, with changes highlighted in yellow for reference.( footnote no. 14, Page 8)

Comments5：Line 189 uses the word "" to mean 字; that word means character or logograph in English.

Response5：We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable feedback. We have amended the term "script" to "character" throughout the text, with changes highlighted in yellow for easy reference..( Line216, Page 6)

Comments6：Zacchetti, Stefano. The Da Zhidu Lun 大智度論 (*Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa) and the History of the Larger Prajñāpāramitā: Patterns of Textual Variation in Mahāyāna Sūtra Literature (Hamburg Buddhist Studies 14. Bochum/Freiburg: www.projektverlag.de, 2021), much of the discussion and particularly which Prajñāpāramitā texts must be used to "rejoin" Dunhuang manuscripts and fragments, this is an incomplete article. Zacchetti covers some of the conclusions presented in this article as the authors or authors' work. This borders on plagiarism.

Response6：We are sincerely grateful for the valuable comments provided by the reviewers. We have incorporated the work of Professor Stefano Zacchetti into the bibliography and have also consulted and drawn insights from the scholarly works of Kato Junsho and Master Yin Shun, among others.

For your earliest convenience, you could also read it as follows:

“ Guo Zaiyi 郭在貽, Zhang Yongquan 張涌泉, and Huang Zheng 黃征.(1989). <Dunhuang Bianwen Ji> diben xuanze budang zhi yi li : fu liangzhong <WeimojieJing JiangJingwen> jiào yì 《敦煌變文集》底本選擇不當之一例——附兩種《維摩詰經講經文》校議[An Example of Improper Selection of Base Texts in the Dunhuang Bianwen Ji: With Collation Notes on Two Vimalakīrti Sutra Transformation Texts].Guji Zhengli Chuban Qingkuang Jianbao古籍整理出版情況簡報[Bulletin on the Collation and Publishing of Ancient Books].no:208.

Kato, Jyunsho. (1988). The world of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa (Dazhidu lun). (Hong Yin, Trans.). Observations on Truth, (52).

Yamamoto Tatsuro (山本達郎), Ikeda On (池田温), Okano Makoto (岡野誠), eds. 1978-1987. Tonkō Torufan shakai keizaishi shiryō (敦煌吐魯番社會經濟史史料) [Tun-huang and Turfan Documents concerning Social and Economic History]. Tokyo: Tōyō Bunko (Tōyō Bunko Tonkō Bunken Kenkyūkai).

Yinshun 印順.ed. (2004). Da Zhidu Lun Biji《大智度論》筆記[Notes on the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa].( Hsinchu: Fu Yan Buddhist Institute 福嚴佛學院).”

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I still think this would benefit from appropriate Japanese sources, but it appears the author cannot read Japanese. So it's much better than it was.