Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript offers a comprehensive analysis of the Tripitaka as a political and cultural instrument in East Asian multilateral interactions from the 10th to the 13th centuries. By examining the circulation, compilation, and diplomatic use of Buddhist canons among regimes such as the Song, Liao, Western Xia, Koryo, and Vietnam, the study effectively reveals how religious texts transcended their spiritual roles to become symbols of sovereignty and power. The research is grounded in rich primary sources, including dynastic histories, Buddhist chronicles, and archaeological findings, and demonstrates a strong command of both historical context and scholarly debates. However, certain sections would benefit from tighter theoretical integration, clearer differentiation of causal relationships, and more precise handling of terminology to enhance coherence and impact.

Specific Suggestions
Abstract (Lines 6–37)
The abstract succinctly outlines the study’s scope but underemphasizes the mechanisms through which the Tripitaka functioned as a "political expression." For instance, the rivalry between the Song and Liao is mentioned, but the core of this competition—namely, asserting suzerainty through canonical dissemination—requires clearer articulation.
Suggestion: Explicitly link key events (e.g., the Kaibao Canon’s monopoly, the Khitan Canon’s compilation) to their political objectives (e.g., consolidating tributary relations, challenging cultural hegemony).

Section on "Koryo’s Adoption and Adaptation" (Lines 282–343)
The analysis of Koryo’s shifting allegiance between the Song and Liao, as reflected in its reception of the Tripitaka, is insightful but lacks depth on how ritual differences (e.g., royal vs. princely reception) mirrored diplomatic calculus.
Suggestion: Incorporate comparative evidence from Goryeo-sa (History of Koryo) regarding the symbolic weight of 迎接 (royal welcoming ceremonies) to strengthen the link between ritual and political strategy.

Discussion of Liao-Song Canonical Competition (Lines 817–851)
The distinction between the Khitan Canon’s adherence to Tang manuscript traditions and the Kaibao Canon’s innovations (e.g., pagination) is noted, but their ideological motivations—such as the Liao’s claim to Tang legitimacy—are underdeveloped.
Suggestion: Draw on Miao Runbo’s (2024) research on Liao’s historiographical reforms to explain how canonical choices served dynastic legitimation.

Western Xia’s Independent Canon (Lines 1378–1428)
The argument that Western Xia’s Tangut Tripitaka "broke from Sinitic cultural competition" is compelling, but the political rationale for its unique 千字文 (thousand-character) system remains vague.
Suggestion: Reference Sun Bojun’s (2020) work on Tangut script reforms to clarify how linguistic autonomy reinforced territorial sovereignty.

Conclusion (Lines 1467–1539)
The claim that Buddhism "detached from political expression after the 13th century" lacks sufficient support. The Zhaocheng Jin Canon and 民间 (popular) compilations, for example, continued to reflect power dynamics.
Suggestion: Qualify the conclusion by acknowledging regional variations, such as the Jin’s use of canons to legitimize rule over northern China.

Terminology and Citations
Inconsistencies in translating key terms (e.g., "Tripitaka" vs. "大藏经") and sporadic referencing of recent scholarship (e.g., Jiang et al. 2025) hinder readability.
Suggestion: Standardize terminology with glosses (e.g., Kaibao Canon [开宝藏]) and integrate recent studies on "canon diplomacy" to situate the research within current debates.

Empirical Support for "Cultural Hegemony"
The assertion that the Song used the Tripitaka to "assert cultural dominance" would benefit from specific examples, such as its refusal to grant canons to non-tributary states like Japan after the 11th century.
Suggestion: Cite Li Yiwen’s (2023) analysis of Song-Japanese relations to illustrate how canonical denial reinforced diplomatic hierarchies.

Author Response

Thank you to the two anonymous reviewers for their very professional and meticulous opinions, as well as their affirmation of my paper.

For the specific suggestions of the first reviewer, I have made the following modifications to this manuscript.

• In the abstract, the reviewer suggests me to explicitly link key events (e.g., the Kaibao Canon’s monopoly, the Khitan Canon’s compilation) to their political objectives. In response to this issue, I add two parts in the abstract. The first part is in the Line 18, to highlight the monopoly of the printed Tripitaka during this period was an important way to establish the world order dominated by the Song. The second part is in the Lines 25-27. “As one of the dual core patterns, the Liao attempted to challenge the monopoly position of the Song’s Kaibao Canon and the cultural hegemony behind it.”
• For the suggestion in the section on "Goryeo’s Adoption and Adaptation", I have added clearer explanations in the Lines 1077-78. It is “based on the principle that the king personally welcomes the Tripitaka, it means recognition of the identity of the suzerain state that bestows it”.
• On the discussion of Liao-Song Canonical Competition, I accepted the suggestion of the first reviewer, referring to the research of Liu Pujiang and Miao Runbo. The additional part is as follow: “For the Liao court, whether it continued the orthodoxy of the Shi-Jin Dynasty (936-947) in the early period or continued directly to the Tang Empire after the revision of historical records in 1044 (Liu 2004, pp. 191-92; Miao 2024, pp. 220-30), it was impossible to recognize the orthodoxy of the Song Dynasty that coexisted with it. Based on this po-litical consideration….”
• On the discussion of the Western Xia’s Independent Canon, I accepted the suggestion of the first reviewer, referring to the research of Sun Bojun. The additional part is as follow: “According to the analysis conducted by Sun Bojun based on the research of previous scholars, the Tangut script ‘Thousand Characters’ also starts from the creation of the world, which is very similar to the content of the Chinese script ‘Thousand Characters’. However, its exposition of the origin and development of the universe and the nation, as well as the praise of ancestors for expanding territories and making achievements, also has obvious characteristics of its own, reflecting considerable cultural autonomy. (Sun 2020, p. 78)”
• On the conclusion, the reviewer points out that the claim that Buddhism "detached from political expression after the 13th century" lacks sufficient support. Without affecting the overall conclusion of this paper, I choose to delete this paragraph. “It should be clarified that the engraving of the Tripitaka, as a national or official action, mainly occurred before the 12th century. The establishments of various Tripitaka col-lections in the late Northern Song and the Zhaocheng Jin Canon were more of private actions, and basically did not participate in the political interactions and expressions among East Asian regimes. There are various factors to interpret this change. However, one of the most important points is the general trend of divergence between Buddhism and political culture and expression after the 13th century.”
• On the terminology and citations, firstly, I checked the whole manuscript and I have standardized the use of key terms in the text. For instance, to the term of 大藏经，I choose to use the term “Tripitaka” when referring to the Tripitaka as a whole, while using the term “Canon” when it comes to specific versions such as "Kaibao," "Khitan," and "Goryeo”. Secondly, at the time of writing this article, the paper by Jiang Jing and others had not yet been published, so I was unable to read it in the first time. After carefully examining this paper, I believe that although some of the historical materials mentioned in this article have also been discussed in my paper. However, the space scope and number of political regimes covered in my paper are broader than those of Song, Liao, Korea, and Japan mentioned in Jiang's paper, and I have noticed the differences in three stages. There are also many unique viewpoints in the specific discourse. Due to the complex and flexible relationships between the various political regimes mentioned in the paper and the Song and Liao dynasties, the modern term “diplomacy” seems insufficient to cover all situations. Therefore, the basic viewpoint and discussion focus of this paper are significantly different from Jiang's paper. I have already explained the contributions and limitations of Jiang's paper in the first part of the paper (Lines 134-141). Thirdly, on the empirical support for "Cultural Hegemony", I have already cited Li Yiwen’s works in the Lines 711-714.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very interesting and generally well-written research paper. While I found no significant problems with the article, there were a number of minor issues that should be considered during the revision process. They are the following:

Line 7

At first use, you might consider glossing “Tripitika” with tripiṭaka, to show the correct representation with diacritics.

 

Line 25

Here you use the term “Koryo,” but elsewhere in the paper you use “Goryeo.” I believe the latter is the correct spelling, and recommend that you replace the former with it throughout the paper.

 

Line 35

Consider replacing the term “Tripitika” here with “canon;” in the Tibetan context at least, an equivalent term to “Tripitika” is not commonly used to refer to their canonical collections.

 

Line 48

Replace “Koryo Kingdom” with “the Koryo Kingdom”

 

Line 56

Please add the Chinese text following “all sutras”

 

Line 63

Instead of “create,” you might say “construct” or “assemble.” The idea, I think, is that the work of the various translators was aiming toward translating the “Tripiṭaka” into Chinese. So these individuals in the 5^th-6^th centuries were attempting to assemble the various translations to construct the Tripiṭaka in Chinese.

 

Line 71

I’d recommend replacing “intervened in” with “regulated”

 

Line 85

Replace “The later completed” with “Later,”

 

Line 87

Replace “especially the monarchs” with “overseen by their monarchs”

 

Line 91

Replace “actually the same thing” with “different perspectives on the same transaction”

 

Line 94

I’d recommend that you add a note here explaining the significance of the Huichang Persecution of Buddhism. Readers not familiar with Chinese religious history may not understand what you mean by “Huichang”

 

Line 104

Replace “like the Tang Empire” to “as the Tang Empire provided”

 

Line 106

Change “The previous researches on the Tripitaka are” to Change “Prior research on the Tripitaka is”

 

Line 116

Change “For the introductions and reports of” to “For an introduction to the topic and reports on”

 

Lines 116-118

I’d recommend that you place the last sentence of this paragraph in an endnote.

 

Line 124

I’d recommend you change “limits its” to “limits its investigation of”

 

Line 137

Change “is precisely to make the study of the Tripitaka go” to “in this study of the Tripiṭaka is to go”

 

Line 138

Change “into the” to “in the”

 

Line 172

Change “single” to “sole”

 

Line 174

The word “although” seems unnecessary here.

 

Line 190

Change “inputted” to “imported”

 

Line 206

Change “input” to “transmission”

 

Line 210

Change “book” to “textual collection” or “canon”

 

Line 242

Correct “Guangchangs’s” to “Guangchang’s”

 

Line 247

Change “the first creation of” to “an innovation of”

Line 279

Change “evidences” to “evidence”

 

Line 282

Change “input” to “transmission”

 

Line 344

Change “he encountered a shipwreck, causing the ship to capsize and the tribute to” to “his ship capsized and the tribute”

 

Line 345

Change “be lost” to “was lost”

 

Line 355

Since this is a Korean temple, perhaps you should give the transliteration of the Korean pronunciation of 大慈恩玄化寺, rather than the Chinese.

 

Line 361

Change “its” to “of its”

 

Line 386

Change “was” to “were”

 

Line 567

Delete word “Although”

 

Line 752

Delete word “in”

 

Line 779

Change “almost cost price” to “a discount”

 

Line 789

Change “Koryo’s” to “due to Koryo’s”

 

Line1274

Change “Kai Bao” to “Kaibao” (for consistency)

 

Line 1343

Change “are many reesearches” to “has been much research published”

 

Line 1344

After “here.”, I’d recommend that you add an endnote and relate a few examples of the research conducted on this topic.

 

Line 1472

Is “All Scriptures” a translation of Tripiṭaka? If so, that is not a literally correct translation; tripiṭaka is usually translated as “three baskets,” referring to the traditional classification of three categories of Buddhist scripture.

 

Line 1515

Correct “creat” to “create”

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Generally the English is fine, but it needs additional editing as there are a number of grammatical problems and misspellings.

Author Response

For the suggestions of the second reviewer, I have already checked the whole manuscript and accepted the reviewer’s revision of wording. The more important adjustments are as follows:

• In the use of the term of 大藏经，I choose to use the term “Tripitaka” when referring to the Tripitaka as a whole, while using the term “Canon” when it comes to specific versions such as "Kaibao," "Khitan," and "Goryeo”. To follow this principle, the Tangut Tripitaka is not an accurate expression, I replace the term to “the Tangut Canon”.
• I replace the “Huichang” with “the Huichang Persecution of Buddhism (840-846)” in the Line 99. I think it is clear enough and it is not necessary to add additional endnotes.
• I use the Korean pronunciation of 大慈恩玄化寺, Dae Ja Eun Hyeon Hwa Sa in the Line 367.
• In the Line 1375 (after the word “here”), I add an endnote. “On the researches before 2003, see Nozawa 1993, pp. 35-40; Nozawa 1997, p. 70 and Nozawa 2004, pp. 28-29. Re-garding recent researches, see Yu 2008, pp. 409-42; Fang and Zhang 2013, pp. 9-15; Cui and Li 2013, pp. 99-102; Baba 2016 and Zhen 2022, pp. 28-45.” At the same time, I also listed the complete information of these monographs and papers in the corresponding positions of the references.

Nozawa, Yoshimi 野沢佳美 eds. 1993. Daizōkyō kankei kenkyū bunken mokuroku 大藏經関係研究文献目錄 [Catalog of Researches Related to the Tripitaka], Tōkyō: Risshō Daigaku Tōyōshi Kenkyūshitsu.

Nozawa, Yoshimi 野沢佳美 eds. 1997. “Daizōkyō kankei kenkyū bunken mokuroku Hoi·tsuika大藏經関係研究文献目錄 補遺·追加 [Catalog of Researches Related to the Tripitaka, Supplements and additions]”, Risshō Daigaku Tōyōshi ronshū 立正大學東洋史論集 [The journal of oriental studies] 10：65-72.

Nozawa, Yoshimi 野沢佳美 eds. 2004. “Daizōkyō kankei kenkyū bunken mokuroku Hoi·tsuika II 大藏經関係研究文献目錄 補遺·追加 II [Catalog of Researches Related to the Tripitaka, Supplements and additions II]”, Risshō Daigaku Tōyōshi ronshū 立正大學東洋史論集 [The journal of oriental studies] 15：19-34.

Yu, Pu-hyŏn 柳富鉉. 2008. “Lun gaoli zaidiao zang zhong suojian de qidan zang 論《高麗再雕藏》中所見的《契丹藏》 [On the Khitan Canon in the Re-carving Canon of Goryeo]”. In Fang Guangchang 方廣錩 eds. Zangwai fojiao wenxian 藏外佛教文獻 [Buddhist Texts beyond the Tripitaka]. Beijing: Renmin University of China Press, pp. 409-42.

Fang，Guangchang 方廣錩 and Zhang，Xianming 張賢明. 2013. “Zhongguo keben zangjing dui gaolizang de yingxiang 中國刻本藏經對《高麗藏》的影響 [The Influence of Printed Canons in China to the Goryeo Canon]”, Shijie zongjiao yanjiu 世界宗教研究 [Research on World Religions] 2: 9-15.

Cui, Guangbi 崔光弼 and Li, Chun 李春. 2013. “Gaoli dazangjing yu dongya diqu wenhua jiaoliu 《高麗大藏經》與東亞地區文化交流 [The Goryeo Canon and Cultural Exchanges in East Asia]”, Tushuguan lilun yu shijian 圖書館理論與實踐 [Library Theory and Practice] 9: 99-102.

Baba, Hisayuki 馬場久幸. 2016. Nikkan kōryū to Kōrai-ban Daizōkyō 日韓交流と高麗版大蔵経 [Exchange between Japan and Korea and the Goryeo Canon], Kyōto: Hōzōkan.

Zhen, Dacheng 真大成. 2022. “Gaoli dazangjing chudiaoben yu zaidiaoben yongzi chayi de chubu diaocha 《高麗大藏經》初雕本與再雕本用字差異的初步調查 [A Preliminary Survey of the Different Use of Characters between the Original and Peprinted Versions of Gaolidazangjing], Cishu yanjiu 辭書研究 [Lexicographical Studies] 6: 28-45.

• In the Line 1512, I change “all scriptures” to “all sutras”. In Chinese, it is so-called 一切經. This word was considerably popular in early expressions in Medieval China.

In addition, I also rechecked the entire text, standardized the expression of some professional terms (such as the Treaty of Chanyuan), corrected the representation of numbers, and corrected some spelling errors.