Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This is a valuable work in that it sheds a flash of light on the transmission of the NS from its Tibetan translations to Chinese Tripiṭaka. In general, the conclusion drawn by the author is acceptable, and the paper is qualified for publication.

 

The author should take into consideration of the commentarial literature of the NS. To trace the variant readings and different interpretations in the commentaries, even briefly, is helpful, as shown below:

 

Line 334

 

The text may read either “bījam” or “’bījam” because the sandhi allows both: either sūkṣmaḥ + bījam = sūkṣmo bījam, or sūkṣmaḥ + abījam = sūkṣmo ’bījam, in the latter case, the application of the avagraha ’ is optional, and it is very often dropped in manuscripts.

 

The author reads ... sūkṣmo bījam ... and translates ... “a seed without impurities” ... The translation is incorrect, anāsravaḥ cannot quality bījam. It may be argued that such a grammatical irregularity may occur in tantric texts, the Amṛtakaṇikā, a commentary on the NM, however, clearly shows that bījam and anāsravaḥ do not qualify each other:

 

... anābhogena sarvasukhajananād bījaṃ dharmadhātujñānam | pratyātmavedyatvād anāsravaḥ ||

 

The Tibetan and the Chinese translations obviously read ... sūkṣmo ’bījam ...

 

For the Amṛtakaṇikā, the author could consult:

 

Lal, Banarsi 1994

Āryamañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti with Amṛtakaṇikā-Ṭippaṇī by Bhikṣu Raviśrījñāna and Amṛtakaṇikodyota-Nibandha of Vibhūticandra. Sarnath & Varanasi: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies.

 

Tribe, A.H.F. 1994

The Names of Wisdom A Critical Edition and Annotated Translation of Chapters 1-5 of Vilāsavajra's Commentary on the Nāmasaṃgīti, with Introduction and Textual Notes. (Unpublished Thesis, University of Oxford)

 

Wayman 1985 is also helpful:

 

Wayman, Alex 1985

Chanting the Names of Mañjuśrī The Mañjuśri Nāma-saṃgīti Sanskrit & Tibetan Texts. Boston & London, Shambhala.

 

〰〰〰〰〰〰〰

 

Line 367

 

The translation “He has the tilaka mark of the triple world” is incorrect. According to the Amṛtakaṇikā, it means “the triple world in the form of a tilaka”:

 

... trailokyaṃ kāyavākcittaikatvaṃ tasya mahāsukhālaṃkṛtatvena tilakarūpatvāt trailokyatilakaḥ |

 

Alternatively, one may take tilaka figuratively and interpret it as “the best among its own group,” as the Tibetan translation does.

 

〰〰〰〰〰〰〰

 

Line 387

 

The translation “He is the fragrance of the flowers of the limbs of enlightenment” is questionable. According to the Amṛtakaṇikā, the compound in question is a bahuvrīhi:

 

... saptabindubodhyaṅgakusumānām āmodo mahāsukhollāso yasya sa tathā ...

 

〰〰〰〰〰〰〰

 

Line 408

 

The text reads “daṃṣṭrākarālakaṅkālo”. The Amṛtakaṇikā transmits a different reading “daṃṣṭrākarālaḥ kaṅkālo” and it interprets:

 

... daṃṣṭrā caṇḍālī tasyā gurūpadeśāj jvalitāyāḥ śikharabhūtatvād daṃṣṭrākarālaḥ | kaṃ sukhaṃ kalayatīti kaṅkālaḥ ...

 

〰〰〰〰〰〰〰

 

Line 728

 

guhyendrer → guhyendrair

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your careful reading of our manuscript, for your detailed philological corrections, and especially for kindly sharing important references on the Amṛtakaṇikā. Your comments have been extremely valuable in improving both the accuracy of the Sanskrit interpretation and the quality of the English translation.

First, following your suggestion, we have clarified in Lines 329–330 that, in interpreting the Nāmasaṃgīti, this study explicitly draws on the Nāmasaṃgītiṭippanī Amṛtakaṇikā. The three references you recommended—Lal (1994), Tribe (1994), and Wayman (1985)—have now been added to the reference list (Lines 1114-1115 and 1149–1152).

Second, in Lines 339–341 (corresponding to Line 334 in the original version), we have emended the Sanskrit text in accordance with your comment and revised the English translation accordingly.

Third, in Lines 371–373 (original Line 367), the English translation has been revised on the basis of the interpretation provided in the Amṛtakaṇikā, correcting the previous understanding of the expression.

Fourth, in Lines 391–393 (original Line 387), the English translation has been modified so as to properly reflect the bahuvrīhi nature of the compound, in line with your explanation.

Fifth, in Lines 413–414 (original Line 408), the variant reading transmitted by the Amṛtakaṇikā has been listed in a footnote. As this variant does not lead to a different meaning in English, no separate translation has been provided.

Finally, in Line 737 (original Line 728), we corrected an oversight in which the correct reading in Davidson (1981) was not accurately reproduced. The correct form has now been restored in the main text, while the erroneous reading found in the Multilingual editions has been moved to a note.

The revisions described above were made following your valuable comments and guidance.

Once again, we sincerely thank you for your generous sharing of sources and for your meticulous corrections of the Sanskrit text. Should you have any further comments or suggestions, we would be very grateful to receive them and will be happy to continue revising the manuscript accordingly.

With kind regards,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has revised the manuscript and addressed the issues raised in my initial review in this newly submitted version. I recommend proceeding with publication based on this revised version.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your positive assessment of the revised manuscript and for recommending it for publication. We sincerely appreciate the time and care you devoted to reviewing our work, as well as your constructive and insightful comments, which have been invaluable in improving the manuscript.

We are grateful for your support and encouragement.

With kind regards,

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your essay was already very well-structured, and I had already highly appreciated its value in terms of contribution to the field in my first review. I apologize for the delay in reviewing the second version; I wanted to devote the appropriate time to it, but unfortunately, I was busy with a demanding teaching term until yesterday. I particularly regret having kept you waiting, as it took me very little time to realize that your rewriting of parts of the article, along with the general improvement and deeper focus on philological issues, make it an even stronger piece of research. I believe this research thread is very important and hope you will produce further studies on the text. For your future work, I suggest focusing on the history of the text and its practice. Congratulations on this achievement.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and encouraging comments on our manuscript. We completely understand how busy your teaching term must have been, and we truly appreciate the time and effort you devoted to reviewing the second version despite your demanding schedule.

We are grateful for your constructive suggestions and will certainly take your advice to further explore the history of the text and its practice in our future research. Your insightful feedback has been invaluable, and we deeply appreciate your careful reading and guidance.

Thank you once again for your hard work and support.

With kind regards,

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study analyzes two extant multilingual manuscripts and the Chinese canonical editions of the Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti. The comparison is presented in a highly organized and convincing manner. It demonstrates general consistency (while highlighting errors) in the main body of the texts, whereas the mantra sections display the greatest degree of discrepancies among the various versions.

The first significant outcome of this study is the new evidence it provides, indicating that the extant versions were translated from Tibetan.

The reviewer is particularly pleased to see the first analysis and study of the trilingual edition from the National Library of Beijing, recently published by Peking University Press, which had not previously been examined in detail. (This text was displayed at the exhibition “Treasures from the World’s Great Libraries,” held at the National Library of Australia, Canberra, December 2001–February 2002, and was in need of thorough scholarly study.)

A second and remarkable outcome of this research concerns the identity of Shizhi, the author of the most frequently cited Chinese canonical version. Through a thorough and careful multilingual collation, the author convincingly demonstrates that Shizhi had only limited knowledge of the Tibetan language and therefore could not have been of Tibetan upbringing. This provides new evidence in support of Zhang’s earlier hypothesis that Shizhi may have been of Tangut origin, rather than Tibetan, as is commonly stated by primary canonical sources and many scholars.

The state-of-the-art review is thorough and up to date, drawing the reader’s attention to all recent studies on the various versions. The following suggestions may not be necessary, but the author might also consider these additional studies, which provide overviews of the text’s versions in Chinese (Bianchi, Lin), Mongolian (Sárközi), and Tibetan (Orofino):

• Ester Bianchi, “Chinese Chantings of the Names of Mañjuśrī: The Zhenshi ming jing 真實名經 in Late Imperial and Modern China,” in V. Durand-Dastès (ed.), Empreintes du Tantrisme en Chine et en Asie Orientale. Imaginaires, rituals, influences, Leuven-Paris-Bristol (Ma), Peeters, 2016, pp. 117–138.
• Lin Chong’an 林崇安, Sheng miao Jixiang zhenshi ming jing guangshi 聖妙吉祥真實名經廣釋, Gaoxiong, Diting wenhua shiye, 2001.
• Giacomella Orofino, “From Archaeological Discovery to Text Analysis. The Khor chags Monastery Findings and the Manjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti fragment,” in Discoveries in Western Tibet and Western Himalaya. Essays on History, Literature, Archaeology and Art. Proceedings of the X Seminar of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, vol. 10/8, Leiden, Brill, 2007, pp. 85–128.
• Alice Sárközi, “A 17th Century Mongol Manjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti with Commentary,” in Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungarica, 36, 1–3, 1982, pp. 449–468.

The author may also find the following reference useful: Lü Cheng 呂澂, Han Zang Fojiao guanxi shiliao ji 漢藏佛教關係史料集, Chengdu, Huaxi xiehe daxue, 1942.

The article is generally well written in English. A few typographical errors should be corrected at the beginning:

• Line 15: Xinxvgaosengzhuan (misspelling)
• Line 22: Nāmasaṃgīti (N should be in bold)

 

Author Response

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted using the “Track Changes” function in the re-submitted files. These changes are intended to make all revisions easily identifiable. I sincerely appreciate your careful reading and helpful suggestions.

2. Point-by-point Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1:
A few typographical errors should be corrected at the beginning:
Line 15: Xinxvgaosengzhuan (misspelling)
Line 22: Nāmasaṃgīti (N should be in bold)

Response 1:
Thank you for pointing this out. I have corrected the misspelling “Xinxvgaosengzhuan” to “Xinxugaosengzhuan” in Line 15. Regarding Line 22, I have removed the bold formatting from the “N” in Nāmasaṃgīti. These are subtle errors that are easy to overlook, so I truly appreciate your careful attention to detail.

Comment 2:
The author should consider citing the following relevant sources:

Ester Bianchi, “Chinese Chantings of the Names of Mañjuśrī: The Zhenshi ming jing 真實名經 in Late Imperial and Modern China,” in V. Durand-Dastès (ed.), Empreintes du Tantrisme en Chine et en Asie Orientale. Imaginaires, rituals, influences, Leuven-Paris-Bristol (Ma), Peeters, 2016, pp. 117–138.

Lin Chong’an 林崇安, Sheng miao Jixiang zhenshi ming jing guangshi 聖妙吉祥真實名經廣釋, Gaoxiong, Diting wenhua shiye, 2001.

Giacomella Orofino, “From Archaeological Discovery to Text Analysis. The Khor chags Monastery Findings and the Manjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti fragment,” in Discoveries in Western Tibet and Western Himalaya. Essays on History, Literature, Archaeology and Art. Proceedings of the X Seminar of the International Association of Tibetan Studies, vol. 10/8, Leiden, Brill, 2007, pp. 85–128.

Alice Sárközi, “A 17th Century Mongol Manjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti with Commentary,” in Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungarica, 36, 1–3, 1982, pp. 449–468.

Lü Cheng 呂澂, Han Zang Fojiao guanxi shiliao ji 漢藏佛教關係史料集, Chengdu, Huaxi xiehe daxue, 1942.

Response 2:
Thank you very much for suggesting these references. I found them highly beneficial, particularly the three English-language works, which I had not encountered prior to your recommendation.

After careful consideration, I decided to narrow the scope of the Research Overview section to focus specifically on philological studies of NS, NST, and NSC, as well as historical research related to Shizhi, the translator of NSC (see revised manuscript, lines 32–34). This decision reflects the thematic focus of my article, which prioritizes manuscript-based textual comparison and the translator’s biography. While there are many valuable studies related to the Nāmasaṃgīti, I have limited my review to those most directly relevant to the article’s main argument.

Following this criterion, I have included:

• Orofino (2007) for its significant philological and historical value related to the Tibetan version of the text (see revised manuscript, lines 49–52);

• Lü (1942) for its historical contribution regarding the translator Shizhi (see revised manuscript, lines  66–68).

As for the three other references:

• Ester Bianchi (2016):
  This is an excellent study that highlights the four Chinese translations of Nāmasaṃgīti and examines their significance in Late Imperial and Modern China. The author’s attention to the text’s continued reception is valuable, and the reference editions she mentions will certainly aid my future research. However, since the article is not a philological study in the strict sense, I decided not to include it in the Research Overview section.

• Lin Chong’an (2001):
  This book provides a Chinese translation of Nāmasaṃgīti with Chandragomin’s commentary, and its preface gives a general overview of the text’s Chinese versions and the commentary tradition. However, it does not offer critical textual analysis or philological study. For this reason, I have not included it in the Research Overview.

• Alice Sárközi (1982):
  This is a well-crafted philological study that introduces a 17th-century Mongolian manuscript with commentary. However, because my article does not directly analyze Mongolian versions (except for a brief mention of the Vira edition), I chose not to include it in the Research Overview.

Additionally, I have made several other revisions to the manuscript based on suggestions from the other reviewers. If you believe further revision is necessary or would like to discuss any of the changes in more detail, please do not hesitate to contact me. Once again, I sincerely appreciate your review and thoughtful suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an excellent article on the linguistic and bibliographical analysis of Buddhist texts. The article very carefully compares the multilingual versions of Zhenshimingjing and solves the problem of harmonizing the sources of the versions. It has very important research significance. The only place that needs further optimization is the Ethnic Affiliation of Shizhi as a subtitle, in the main text, there is no more strong evidence that he is not Tibetan, except based on his poor level of Tibetan. So perhaps this is more appropriate as a minor finding of the article rather than as a subtitle highlighting the importance of the issue.

Author Response

1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed response below and the corresponding revision highlighted using the “Track Changes” function in the re-submitted file. I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful feedback and supportive evaluation of the article’s contribution.

2. Point-by-point Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comment:
This is an excellent article on the linguistic and bibliographical analysis of Buddhist texts. The article very carefully compares the multilingual versions of Zhenshimingjing and solves the problem of harmonizing the sources of the versions. It has very important research significance. The only place that needs further optimization is the Ethnic Affiliation of Shizhi as a subtitle. In the main text, there is no more strong evidence that he is not Tibetan, except based on his poor level of Tibetan. So perhaps this is more appropriate as a minor finding of the article rather than as a subtitle highlighting the importance of the issue.

Response:
Thank you very much for your positive comments and constructive suggestion. I agree with your observation that the subtitle Ethnic Affiliation of Shizhi may overemphasize the importance of this issue, especially considering the limited supporting evidence. In response, I have removed this subtitle from the revised manuscript. Additionally, I have made several other revisions throughout the article based on suggestions from the other reviewers. If you believe that any further improvements are needed, please do not hesitate to let me know. I sincerely appreciate your careful reading and valuable input.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review evaluates the article, “A Multilingual Comparative Study of the Zhenshimingjing—With a Discussion on the Ethnic Affiliation of Shizhi”, a textual-critical study of the Chinese Buddhist scripture Zhenshimingjing (真實名經). The article compares two multilingual manuscripts (the “Peking” and “Vira” editions) with five editions from the Chinese Buddhist Canon. The author argues that all extant Chinese versions (NSC) derive from the Tibetan original (NST) and that the multilingual manuscripts represent a textual tradition closer to the Tibetan source than the canonized editions. Furthermore, the article challenges the traditional identification of the translator, Shizhi (釋智), as ethnically Tibetan. By analyzing specific mistranslations from the Tibetan, the author contends that Shizhi’s limited proficiency in the language makes a native Tibetan identity highly unlikely, offering new insights into the linguistic landscape of Buddhist translation in the Xi Xia period. This review will assess the article’s strengths and weaknesses and offer recommendations for improvement.

 

(Note: Line numbers referenced in this review are based on the digital version of the article provided for peer review.)

 

1. Scholarly Accuracy and Argumentation

 

Strengths: The paper’s strength lies in its use of this textual criticism to address a biographical question: the ethnic identity of the translator, Shizhi. The analysis of mistranslations provides evidence of the translator’s non-native, and limited, command of Tibetan. This connection between philological detail and historical inquiry is a contribution.

 

Weaknesses: While the argument against Shizhi’s Tibetan ethnicity is strong, the conclusion that he was “certainly not the Tibetan translator Blo gros brtan pa” (lines 676-677) rests on the evidence of his limited proficiency. While persuasive, the argument could be strengthened by acknowledging any counter-arguments or alternative explanations for the translation errors, if any exist in the scholarship. Furthermore, the paper’s conclusion states that the multilingual textual system is “more faithful to the Tibetan text” (lines 670-672), but the implications of the entirely distinct mantra systems (“Mantra System 1” and “Mantra System 2”) could be explored further. Why would such a fundamental part of the text be so completely different, while the main body remains cognate? The paper notes the difference but does not deeply speculate on the reason for this major divergence.

 

Recommendations: To enhance the argument, the author could elaborate on the significance of the distinct mantra systems. For instance, could this suggest that the mantras were transmitted through a separate lineage, perhaps an oral one, or that the Tripiṭaka editions underwent a later scribal “correction” or substitution based on a different tradition? A few sentences of reasoned speculation would add depth. In addition, when refuting Shizhi’s identity as Blo gros brtan pa, the author might add a clause acknowledging that this conclusion is based on the textual evidence of linguistic competence, making the identification improbable, which further solidifies the argument’s careful and evidence-based nature.

 

2. Methodology

 

Strengths: The systematic categorization of 41 textual variants into six distinct groups (lines 133-159) provides a clear and logical framework for the analysis. This structured approach allows the reader to follow the complex evidence trail and understand the relationships between the different manuscript traditions. Furthermore, the inclusion of appendices with comprehensive lists of variants and a summary of findings is good, allowing for transparency and verification of the author’s claims.

 

Weaknesses: The methodology is executed with precision, but it is not explicitly framed for the reader. While specialists in textual criticism will immediately recognize the approach, a broader audience might benefit from a concise statement of the methodological framework. The paper moves directly from the research overview into the analysis without pausing to outline the “how” of the investigation.

 

Recommendations: The author may consider adding a short paragraph at the end of the “Research Overview” (Section 1) or the beginning of the “Comparative Analysis” (Section 2) to state the methodology. For example: “This study adopts a multilingual, textual-critical methodology. By systematically collating two multilingual manuscripts with five editions from the Chinese Buddhist Canon, this paper categorizes textual variants to reconstruct their textual lineage. This analysis is supplemented by phonological and syntactic comparisons with the source Sanskrit (NS) and Tibetan (NST) texts to identify translation errors, which are then used as evidence to re-evaluate the linguistic profile and ethnic identity of the translator, Shizhi.” This would make the article’s sophisticated approach more accessible.

 

3. Engagement with Existing Scholarship

 

Strengths: The author demonstrates a comprehensive command of the relevant secondary literature in Chinese, English, and Japanese, as evidenced by the thorough “Research Overview”. The paper positions its contribution by engaging with and building upon the work of scholars such as Zhang Yongfu, Shen Weirong, Nie Hongyin, and Ronald M. Davidson. It identifies a critical gap in existing research: the lack of a systematic study of the NSC as it appears in the multilingual manuscripts, with most prior work focusing on the Taishō Tripiṭaka edition (lines 95-97). The article uses the findings of previous scholarship (e.g., Zhang’s work on Shizhi’s biography) as a foundation before advancing a new, evidence-based refinement regarding his linguistic abilities and ethnicity.

 

Weaknesses: A minor point is that while the paper uses previous scholarship as a launching point, it could be slightly more assertive in highlighting the novelty of its own contribution in relation to that scholarship. For instance, it confirms the scholarly consensus that NSC derives from NST, but its most original contribution is how it uses that confirmation to deconstruct the translator’s identity.

 

Recommendations: To underscore the paper’s unique contribution, the author could add a concluding sentence to the “Research Overview” that more synthesizes its intervention. For example: “Therefore, while building on the consensus that the NSC derives from the NST, this paper offers a novel contribution by using a detailed collation of under-examined multilingual manuscripts to not only confirm this lineage but also to quantitatively assess the fidelity of different textual traditions and, crucially, to challenge long-held assumptions about the linguistic competency and ethnic identity of the translator, Shizhi.”

 

4. Clarity and Academic Writing Style

 

Strengths: The article is written in a clear, precise, and scholarly style appropriate for its subject matter. The structure is logical, guiding the reader from a broad overview of the field to a highly detailed textual analysis and finally to its broader conclusions.

 

Weaknesses: The primary challenge for the reader is the large number of abbreviations for the various canonical editions (e.g., QSZ, YNZ, YBZ, JSZ, QLZ). While a list is provided, keeping track of them in the main body of the text can be difficult.

 

Recommendations: To address the difficulty of tracking the numerous manuscript abbreviations, the author may consider adding a small table at the beginning of Section 2 (Comparative Analysis). This table could summarize the key textual witnesses, listing their abbreviation (e.g., QSZ), full name (Qisha Tripiṭaka 磧砂大藏經), and the textual system they belong to (e.g., “Tripiṭaka editions”). This would serve as a quick visual reference for the reader, enhancing comprehension without cluttering the main prose.

 

Moreover, to enhance reader comprehension, the author may consider adding a stemma diagram. Such a diagram would visually summarize the article’s core argument about the textual transmission, illustrating the relationships between the Sanskrit (NS), Tibetan (NST), the multilingual manuscript system, and the divergent Tripiṭaka edition system. This would be an invaluable aid for readers navigating the paper’s complex findings.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please refer to my comments in Section 4.

Author Response

1. Summary
Thank you very much for your detailed and insightful review of my manuscript. I sincerely appreciate the time and effort you devoted to evaluating the paper and offering constructive feedback. Your comments were helpful across every section of the article, and more importantly, you offered concrete and actionable suggestions for improvement. These suggestions have significantly helped me refine the structure, argument, and clarity of the paper.

2. Point-by-point Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comment 1 – Scholarly Accuracy and Argumentation:
While the argument against Shizhi’s Tibetan ethnicity is strong, the conclusion that he was “certainly not the Tibetan translator Blo gros brtan pa” (lines 676–677) may overstate the case. The author could acknowledge alternative explanations for the translation errors. Additionally, the implications of the divergent mantra systems (Mantra System 1 and 2) deserve further elaboration.

Response 1:
Thank you very much for this valuable comment. I fully agree with your suggestion. I have added a speculative explanation for the divergence between Mantra System 1 and Mantra System 2 from the perspective of historical Chinese phonology (see revised manuscript, lines 619–650). In addition, I have revised the phrasing regarding Shizhi’s identity to adopt a more open and cautious tone (see revised manuscript, lines 711–718).

Comment 2 – Methodology:
The paper’s method is rigorous but not explicitly stated. The reviewer suggests adding a concise paragraph explaining the methodological framework at the end of Section 1 or beginning of Section 2.

Response 2:
As you rightly pointed out, I have added a concise methodological statement at the beginning of Section 2 (see revised manuscript, lines 150–155).

Comment 3 – Engagement with Existing Scholarship:
The reviewer suggests more assertively stating the originality of the contribution, particularly in relation to previous scholarship on NSC’s derivation from NST.

Response 3:
Following your suggestion, I have added a concluding sentence to the Research Overview section that explicitly highlights the original contribution of this article (see revised manuscript, lines 137–146).

Comment 4 – Clarity and Writing Style (Abbreviations):
Due to the large number of abbreviations, the reviewer recommends adding a table of abbreviations at the start of Section 2 to help the reader navigate the text.

Response 4:
As you suggested, I have included a table at the beginning of Section 2 summarizing the abbreviations, their full names, and associated textual systems (see revised manuscript, lines 161–164).

Comment 5 – Clarity and Writing Style (Stemma):
The reviewer recommends including a stemma diagram to visually summarize the relationships among NS, NST, the multilingual manuscript system, and the Tripiṭaka edition system.

Response 5:
Thank you for this excellent suggestion. I have added Appendix D at the end of the article, which presents a stemma diagram illustrating the textual transmission relationships (see revised manuscript, lines 816–819).

Once again, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your thoughtful and constructive review. Each of your suggestions has contributed to making this article stronger and more accessible. Additionally, I have made several other revisions to the manuscript based on comments from the other reviewers. If you believe that further revision is necessary or would like to discuss any aspect of the revised manuscript in more detail, please do not hesitate to contact me.