Engaged Buddhism in Italy: Space, Practice, and Social Transformation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I very much enjoyed reading your essay. It was very clearly written and well structured. You blend nicely your theoretical concerns with your ethnographic descriptions. You brought me into the world you were describing. 

Having been requested to provide further details as to why I favor publication of manuscript religions-3931687, Engaged Buddhism in Italy: Space, Practice, and Social Transformation, my reply is as follows: First, the essay is, unlike no small amount of essays I have read for Religions, in excellent shape in terms of English, grammar, and syntax. It is also thoughtfully organized and exhibits  a compelling argument grounded in an intriguing interdisciplinary approach that synthesizes in an engaging way descriptive ethnography with neuroscience religious studies. The author is not presumptive in their conclusions and succeeds in writing an essay that is at once scholastically sound and also accessible to a general audience. She cites sufficient, relevant sources and provides a perspective on a contemporary European spiritual community that demonstrates both etic and emic insights. To me, the essay reads like a polished piece written by an intelligent scholar sympathetic to the community in which she lived and did her research. As I have noted, I strongly recommend publishing it.

Author Response

I would like to sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and generous feedback on my manuscript “Engaged Buddhism in Italy: Space, Practice, and Social Transformation.” I am deeply grateful for your careful reading and for your encouraging evaluation of my work’s clarity, structure, and interdisciplinary approach. Your appreciation of the balance between theoretical reflection and ethnographic description is particularly meaningful to me, as achieving that integration was a central aim of my research. I am also very pleased that you found the essay accessible while remaining academically rigorous, and that its portrayal of the community conveyed both scholarly depth and lived understanding. Your recognition of these qualities, as well as your kind recommendation for publication, is truly rewarding and motivates me to continue developing this line of inquiry.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript offers an original and contribution to the study of contemporary Buddhism by focusing on the Italian context and by attempting to bridge ethnographic observation with neuroscientific and philosophical perspectives. The interdisciplinary ambition is commendable and in line with Religions’ scope, and the reflections on sacred space, embodiment, and spirituality are particularly insightful.

However, the paper currently reads more as a reflective essay than as a structured research article. To meet the standards of the Journal, it would benefit from clearer methodological articulation, a more precise theoretical framing, and a sharper focus on how empirical evidence supports the author’s arguments.

Below are some more detailed comments and suggestions.

a) Introduction and theoretical framework

• The introduction anticipates many of the results but does not clearly define the theoretical framework or cite the key literature that informs the study. Since some of these references appear in the abstract, they should be integrated early on to establish a clear analytical orientation.
• The general objective (“to explore the intersections between spirituality, culture, and science”, line 56) is rather broad: the author should specify which aspects of these three domains are examined and how they relate to the Italian Buddhist context.
• In footnote 1, the statement “The interaction between culture, spirituality, and science highlights the importance of interdisciplinary approaches in the study of religion” seems too central to be relegated to a note. It may be incorporated into the main text and expanded to explain how interdisciplinarity is conceived and operationalized in this study.
• The author could better situate this work within the existing literature on engaged spirituality and on Buddhism, clarifying what the present study adds to or challenges in that scholarly landscape.

b) Methodology

• A dedicated methodological section is missing. The text refers to a twelve-day ethnographic stay and participant observation, but more detail would be needed about research design, data collection (e.g., number of participants, types of interactions, criteria for selection), and analytical procedures. A more systematic account would strengthen the study’s credibility.

c) Level of specificity

• The passage describing the complementarity of ethnographic and neuroscientific approaches (lines 45–48) could be expanded. How can each method concretely inform the other? What kind of data or interpretive synergy is envisioned? Offering one or two examples would make the argument more persuasive.

d) Conceptual precision

• Since the paper deals with Buddhism, it would be useful to clarify what is meant by “transcendence” or “transcendent dimension,” as these notions can vary significantly depending on the doctrinal or cultural frame adopted.

e) Language

• There are occasional shifts between past and present tense, particularly in the ethnographic descriptions, which can confuse the temporal framing. Consistency in verb tense would improve readability.

f) Structure and focus

• The text contains many valuable reflections, but at times it reads more like an essay than an analytical article. A clearer distinction between theoretical framework, data and methods, results, and discussion would make the argument more coherent.

Author Response

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your careful reading of my manuscript “Engaged Buddhism in Italy: Space, Practice, and Social Transformation”, and for your constructive and insightful comments. I deeply appreciate the time and thought you devoted to providing such detailed feedback. I am pleased that you found the manuscript’s interdisciplinary ambition and reflections on sacred space, embodiment, and spirituality to be valuable contributions to the study of contemporary Buddhism. At the same time, I acknowledge and greatly appreciate your observations regarding areas that require further clarification and development.

In the revised version, I addressed each of your suggestions as follows:

• Theoretical Framework: I strengthened the introduction by clearly outlining the theoretical framework and situating the study within the relevant literature on Engaged Buddhism and contemporary spirituality. The key references mentioned in the abstract were integrated early in the text to better orient the reader. I also refined the general objective by specifying which aspects of spirituality, culture, and science were examined and how they relate to the Italian Buddhist context.

• Interdisciplinary Approach: I incorporated the note on the interaction between culture, spirituality, and science into the main body and expanded it to clarify how interdisciplinarity is both conceived and operationalized in the research design.

• Methodology: I added a dedicated methodological section detailing the ethnographic research process, including information on the duration of fieldwork, number and type of participants.

• Empirical–Theoretical Integration: The discussion of the complementarity between ethnographic and neuroscientific approaches have been expanded in the Introduction with concrete examples to illustrate how the two perspectives inform and enrich one another.

• Conceptual Clarification: I have provided a more precise definition of “transcendence” (line 192) situating them within the appropriate Buddhist doctrinal and cultural contexts.

Once again, I am very grateful for your valuable feedback, which will significantly contribute to strengthening the rigor, clarity, and overall quality of the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Engaged Buddhism is often recalled in the bibliography and in the abstract but not in the text. As well as interviews are indicated as part of the fieldwork but the informants, circumstances, excerpts  of the interviews are absent. 

The article should include references to:

-The process of negotiation of fieldwork,

-reflexivity (is the author a student? a practitioner? at a point one realizes that he/she is a tutor...the issue should be addressed clearly at the beginning of the article) ,

-the cluster of informants/intervewees and criteria of selection (how many and what kind of  people in the temple? monks? students? who is the target of the inquiry? what about the hierarchy? how is it displayed? events recalled regard the temple routine or only the summer school?),

-a detailed description of temple areas, activities, events, routines and rites (real human interactions)  which are only evoked and not detailed.

- With regard to the UBI , a note reference on its history is necessary. Furthermore a reference to the specificity of Tibetan Buddhism (which actually is not exactly Mahayana) should be included.

- Reference to Eastern as opposite to Western is not appropriate, and the formula Asian religion/cultur etc. is preferable to Eastern religion/culture/systems etc (see Said's Orientalism)

Author Response

Thank you very much for your attentive and detailed comments on my manuscript “Engaged Buddhism in Italy: Space, Practice, and Social Transformation”. I truly appreciate the depth and precision of your feedback, which highlights essential aspects that can substantially enhance the ethnographic and analytical quality of the article. 

In the revised version, I proceed as follows:

• Engaged Buddhism in the Text: I ensured that the notion of Engaged Buddhism is not only cited in the abstract and bibliography but meaningfully discussed within the body of the paper. Specifically, I clarified how the Italian case aligns with, and differs from, broader currents of socially engaged Buddhist practice, drawing from relevant literature in the Introduction.

• Fieldwork Negotiation and Reflexivity: I added a note (3) to clarify my positionality as a researcher. Following your suggestion, I will explicitly describe my role and relationship to the community.

• Informants and Selection Criteria: I included in the Methodology and Data section a description of the participant sample, specifying the number and types of informants. This section also clarify whether the observations refer to the temple’s regular routine or to specific events.

• UBI and Buddhist Contextualization: I will add a note outlining the history and organizational background of the UBI, and the classification of Tibetan Buddhism.

• Terminology (“Eastern” vs. “Asian”): I appreciate your observation regarding terminology. I revised the text to replace “Eastern” with “Asian”.

I am sincerely grateful for your insightful comments, which will allow me to make the paper more rigorous, empirically grounded, and culturally sensitive. Thank you again for your careful engagement and valuable guidance.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript shows clear improvement and engages thoughtfully with a wide range of interdisciplinary perspectives. The article is promising and close to publication; however, a few points still require clarification or refinement to strengthen the coherence and analytical precision of the work. My detailed comments follow below:

• The manuscript is rich and intellectually stimulating, but it still brings together several theoretical strands (ranging from ritual space and Foucauldian perspectives to neuroscience, mindfulness, and contemporary spirituality) which are not always clearly connected to a single argumentative line. Given the breadth of theoretical perspectives mobilized, I encourage the author to articulate more clearly how these frameworks integrate with the empirical material. Strengthening this linkage would improve the cohesion and readability of the paper.
• The application of the concept of “Engaged Buddhism” to the ILTK remains somewhat ambiguous. It is not entirely clear whether this label emerges from the discourse of practitioners within the Institute or whether it is primarily an analytical category used by the author. Clarifying this distinction would help avoid interpretive uncertainty and situate the case study more precisely within the broader literature on Engaged Buddhism in Western contexts.
• The connections drawn between contemplative practices, neuroscientific findings, and aspects of quantum physics are intriguing, yet in a few passages they risk appearing more metaphorical than analytically grounded. It may be helpful to specify that such parallels are intended as conceptual analogies, or alternatively to streamline this section, to ensure that the interdisciplinary discussion remains rigorous and well anchored in the relevant scientific debates.
• The conclusion is comparatively brief given the breadth and richness of the manuscript. Expanding this section would allow the author to articulate more clearly the original contribution of the study, to summarize how the ILTK case illuminates the intersections between space, community, and contemplative practice, and to indicate more explicitly what avenues for future interdisciplinary research might emerge from this work.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive feedback.

I have followed your advice and made improvements both in the methodology section (335), clarifying the connection between the different theoretical approaches and the empirical material, and in the conclusions, where I have strengthened the integration of the various theoretical strands with the study’s findings.

Then I have addressed your suggestion in the introduction (126) by clarifying the use of the term "Engaged Buddhism”. I have also elaborated on this point in the conclusions, presenting Engaged Buddhism as a framework to analyze the experiences that emerged in the field at the Institute, thereby highlighting its practical and social relevance within the studied context.

Regarding the connections drawn between contemplative practices, neuroscientific findings, and aspects of quantum physics I have broadened the discussion in Chapter 4 (569). I have attempted to broaden the analytical discussion to highlight the key points I want readers to take from my contribution. This revision helps ensure that the interdisciplinary discussion remains rigorous and meaningful in the context of the study.

I have expanded the conclusions to better articulate the original contribution of the study, summarize how the ILTK case illuminates the intersections between space, community, and contemplative practice, and indicate potential avenues for future interdisciplinary research. These revisions aim to provide a clearer and more comprehensive synthesis of the manuscript’s insights.

Thank you again for your time and for the useful advice for improving my manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

/

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. I have revised my contribution as requested and included as many references as possible to better clarify my research and studies on the subject. There are no further comments here from this review, so thank you very much for your previous comments. I hope that my article is now even clearer and more readable.