Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is of high quality and provides a precise, well-structured, and in-depth analysis of the late-Ming thinker Fang Yizhi's thought on the yuányī (圓伊), which the author calls the "Perfect Yi/∴." The author argues that Fang's concept was, in many ways, a break with previous uses of the symbol, grounded mainly on the Book of Changes. The main strength of the article lies in its thorough treatment of the historical background of the character, particularly its use in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra and its adaptation by the Tiantai and Huayan schools. The article has proper citations and is an excellent product of thorough research. I can recommend this article for publication after minor changes and edits to improve the English language quality.

Suggestions:

1. Better use diacritics for Nirvāṇa, Sūtra, and Mahāyāna, just as you do with Prajñāpāramitā.
2. Plural buddhas is usually not capitalised.
3. On page 2, you write, "Daban niepan jing translated mainly by Huiyan." As you probably know, this is understood to be more of a revision of Dharmakṣema's version than a new translation. Perhaps rather than "translated," you could write "compilation" or something similar?
4. In the quote on page 3, "Bhikkhus" should be "Bhikṣus." As a general convention, Sanskrit forms are preferred when translating from Mahāyāna texts, even if the source text was in a Prakrit or Central Asian language.
5. On page 3, "In later commentaries"—the names of these commentaries should be given. I found this interesting and would like to follow up, but if you don't provide the names of the commentaries you have in mind, readers won't be able to do so.
6. I understand it is a convention to use Mandarin Pinyin for Romanising Chinese characters, but I think it sounds very strange to use the word "character Yi" in the translation from the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, since this is presumably the "letter (akṣara) i." Also, the Middle Chinese pronunciation of 伊 would have been closer to "i." I don't think you need to change all of these, but you should at least have a note stating that you are using Yi as a convention, but that readers should understand that the pronunciation would have been different from the modern Mandarin.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article needs to be copy-edited and proofread. The main issue is grammar.

Particular attention needs to be paid to the incorrect/unnecessary use of the word "the," or the lack of it. E.g., "the Prajñāpāramitā studies," "the wisdom holds a higher value," "of Yi-character."

Some other issues include, on page three, "attention in Buddhists" (attention by Buddhists?). "The Yi-character" sounds very strange, compared to "the character Yi." On page 7, "the perfectly interfusion relationship."

These are all the kinds of issues that a professional copyeditor should handle.

Author Response

Comments 1: Better use diacritics for Nirvāṇa, Sūtra, and Mahāyāna, just as you do with Prajñāpāramitā.

Response 1: Diacritics have been applied to the terms Nirvāṇa, Sūtra, Mahāyāna, and Hīnayāna throughout the text.  

 

Comments 2: Plural buddhas is usually not capitalised.

Response 2: On page 7, “Buddhas” has been changed to “buddhas.”  

 

Comments 3: On page 2, you write, "Daban niepan jing translated mainly by Huiyan." As you probably know, this is understood to be more of a revision of Dharmakṣema's version than a new translation. Perhaps rather than "translated," you could write "compilation" or something similar?

Response 3: On page 3, “translated” has been changed to “compiled.”  

 

Comments 4: In the quote on page 3, "Bhikkhus" should be "Bhikṣus." As a general convention, Sanskrit forms are preferred when translating from Mahāyāna texts, even if the source text was in a Prakrit or Central Asian language.

Response 4: On page 3, “Bhikkhus” has been changed to “Bhikṣus.”  

 

Comment 5: On page 3, "In later commentaries"—the names of these commentaries should be given. I found this interesting and would like to follow up, but if you don't provide the names of the commentaries you have in mind, readers won't be able to do so.

Response 5: On page 4, “In later commentaries” has been changed to “In the Nirvāṇa masters’ interpretation of this text.”  

 

Comment 6: I understand it is a convention to use Mandarin Pinyin for Romanising Chinese characters, but I think it sounds very strange to use the word "character Yi" in the translation from the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, since this is presumably the "letter (akṣara) i." Also, the Middle Chinese pronunciation of 伊 would have been closer to "i." I don't think you need to change all of these, but you should at least have a note stating that you are using Yi as a convention, but that readers should understand that the pronunciation would have been different from the modern Mandarin.

Response 6: A footnote has been added on page 2: “The Middle Chinese pronunciation of the characters 伊 / 依 / 以 would have been closer to the Sanskrit akṣara ‘i.’ For the sake of clarity and consistency in this paper, the term ‘伊字’ found in the cited texts is uniformly translated as ‘character Yi’ using Modern Mandarin Pinyin. However, it should be noted that the pronunciation of the character ‘伊’ in Middle Chinese may have differed from its pronunciation in Modern Chinese.”

 

Comment 7: The article needs to be copy-edited and proofread. The main issue is grammar.

Response 7: Regarding the English language: This paper has undergone English language editing by MDPI. The text has been checked for correct use of grammar and common technical terms, and edited to a level suitable for reporting research in a scholarly journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is systematically written to observe and identify the nature of the three dots, a character of Yi from various dimensions.  It cleverly identifies the sources from different traditions and relates to the symbol in Sanskrit with three dots originally.   Important point to refer to here is how the conceptual background is related to the symbol itself.  Relating to Nirvana, Siddham, the three eyes of Maheshwara etc., are the significant points to be observed.  Unless one analyses from different dimensions, all of the symbols as used in Buddhism and other religious doctrines would be very hard to synthesis.  This articles does a good job of focusing on the symbol of three dots and give a varied dimension of the interpretations.   I was particularly intrigued by noting the word Siddham as related to this symbol, becuase it is nothing but consciousness in Indian tradition as well as German traditions.  Many studies have been made to understand the concept of human consciousness and not quite sure if it is related to the three symbols and more research would be needed.  But as for this article, relating Nirvana, emptiness, superior state of mind etc., to the three dots do make sense and the author of this article has gone in great detail to discuss this.  I strongly recommend to publish this article for the reason that this sort of metaphysical concepts need to be studied from a practical point of view of how religion is related to human's aesthetics.  This article does this in a very meticulous manner by providing a detailed account of the three dots and explanations therein.

Author Response

Comments 1: Regarding the Multi-Dimensional and Cross-Traditional Research Approach

Response 1: I am grateful that you recognized the value of examining the “three dots” symbol from various dimensions. I will continue to employ and refine this cross-textual and cross-traditional comparative method in my future research to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of complex religious symbols.

 

Comments 2: Regarding the Exploration of Siddhaṃ and its Link to Consciousness

Response 2: I was particularly intrigued by your comment, and noting the need for further research on the relationship between the “three dots” symbol and human consciousness. This points towards a valuable and fascinating direction for future study, sitting at the intersection of semiotics, philosophy, and religious studies. 

 

Comments 3: Regarding the Practical Study of Metaphysical Concepts and Religious Aesthetics

Response 3: I fully agree with your suggestion to study such metaphysical concepts from the practical viewpoint of how religion relates to human aesthetics. Moving forward, I will more consciously adopt this perspective, exploring not only the philosophical connotations of symbols but also their concrete manifestations in religious practice, artistic expression, and perceptual experience, thereby adding greater depth and vitality to the research.