The “Tripitaka Diplomacy” in the East Asian World During the 10th–12th Centuries
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall this is a very good research paper that addresses an interesting topic that is not examined by others. The research goals are clear, the paper is well-structured, the narrative is interesting, and the evidence is meticulous and coherent. I particularly like how the author(s) cited sources from different language (Korean, Japanese and Chinese). This reviewer believes that with minor revision that paper can be published by Religions. Here are the minor revisions that I recommend.
- p. 1, line 16: "the Tripitaka (the Chinese Buddhist Canon)" is not exactly accurate. It should be "Chinese Tripitaka (the Chinese Buddhist Canon)"
- p. 1, line 30. After raising the research questions, the author should further discuss the gap that the current research fills and the importance of the research. For example, the authors can relate the Buddhist diplomacy during the 10-12th century East Asia to the annual Buddhist conference among China, Korea and Japan that was started in 1997, thus showing the historical continuity of such diplomacy.
- In p. 1, before the research questions, the authors should briefly explain the suzerain-vassal relationship that existed in East Asia at the time. Not all readers are familiar with the historical background.
- Not all readers are familiar with the geopolitics and international relations in East Asia during the 10-12th century. The authors may want to cite a map showing the locations of the kingdoms/dynasties, including Song, Liao, Goryeo and Japan.
- The authors may want to briefly explain why Jurchens and Mongols were not included in their study: Is it because such diplomacy did not exist or is it due to lack of resources?
Author Response
Please find the attached file for response to reviewer 1's comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for this well-researched and engaging contribution. The paper presents a compelling perspective on the intersection of religion and diplomacy in East Asia and offers valuable insights into the circulation of the Tripitaka as a form of soft power. In the spirit of constructive feedback, I would like to offer two suggestions for further strengthening the manuscript:
-
Clarify the conceptual scope of “Tripitaka Diplomacy”
The term “Tripitaka Diplomacy” is both evocative and promising. However, its analytical contours remain somewhat ambiguous. At present, it appears to function primarily as a descriptive label for the circulation of Buddhist scriptures within diplomatic contexts. To enhance the conceptual rigor of the paper, I encourage you to clarify whether you are proposing a new typology of religious diplomacy, a historically bounded practice, or a heuristic framework for interpreting premodern interstate relations. A more explicit definition would deepen the theoretical impact of your study. -
Temper the concluding claims
The conclusion states that the paper “has demonstrated” the polycentric and multilayered nature of the East Asian international order. While the empirical sections are rich and illuminating, the claim may come across as too strong, especially since the analysis is more illustrative than conclusive. I suggest rephrasing this claim with a more measured tone that highlights the paper’s contribution as opening new interpretive avenues rather than providing a definitive demonstration.
Author Response
Please find the attached file for response to reviewer 2's comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article overviews the exchanges and power dynamics between the Northern Song, Liao, Goryeo and Japan during the 10-12th centuries regarding the acquisition of the printed Tripitaka, suggesting that these activities provides a window to the changing political and cultural heirarchy in East Asia. The framework and writing are clear, and the argument is convincing in general. Here are a few suggestions for the author to consider.
First, "Japan" is a slightly different catagory compared to Song, Liao, Goryeo, etc, and although the political status in Japan might be complex, it might be better to use more time-specific terms to describe the Japanese regime or court and to briefly introduce the relationship between the coexisting powers in Japan.
Second, it seems that "tripitaka diplomacy" is a key term of the paper and this term had been used before this paper (lines 458-462). It is better to provide a more substantial literature review than the current version on Buddhist and tripitaka diplomacy (lines 22-24), and to point out the author's potential contribution to the existing scholarship, e.g. taking the four contemporary powers into consideration, especially Liao and Goryeo.
Third, the Japanese and Korean monks did more than requesting the copies of tripitaka in China, and what do the author think about the special meaning of this activity compared with others, such as visiting the sacred buddhist mountains and sites, making offerings (from their patrons) to Buddhist deities enshrined in Chinese monasteries, and acquiring Buddhist images?
Fourth, it seems that the author's major primary sources in Sections 3-4 are the History of Song and the History of Goryeo. Are they enough? Are there more types of primary literature? Especially, when the author discusses the purposes (e.g. lines 246-248,301-302, 367-368), evidence is needed.
Fifth, the term 道场 has some common translations, but "a platform of enlightenment" is not one that I have heard of. Maybe the author could consider use a more commonly used translation or point out the reason for they translation choice (line 270).
Author Response
Please find the attached file for response to reviewer 3's comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a very well written and researched article on a very fascinating topic. Thank you for your excellent work! I noticed a few very minor problems which you might consider revising, as follows:
Line 56
I’d recommend changing “Mangen ?” to “Mangen n.d.”
Line 64
I’d recommend that you change “(?–?)” to (dates unknown) or add a short footnote indicating this. You might consider the same with the subsequent uses of this.
Line 272
Correct “Wang kon” to “Wang Kon”
Author Response
Please find the attached file for response to reviewer 4's comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf