How Fast Is “Sudden”? Time, Body, and the Theory of “Sudden Awakening Sudden Cultivation” from Zongmi to Daeji

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Overall Evaluation

This manuscript addresses an important topic in Chan/Zen Buddhist studies, namely the doctrinal formulation of “Sudden Awakening Sudden Cultivation” (頓悟頓修). By focusing on Zongmi, Yanshou, and Unbong Daeji, the author attempts to trace developments within what is described as the “East Asian Chan tradition,” and further proposes an interpretive framework centered on the categories of time and body.

The paper is clearly structured, and the author demonstrates familiarity with relevant primary sources. The attempt to introduce “body” as an analytical category is also potentially suggestive.

However, in its current form, the manuscript raises a number of significant concerns regarding the selection of comparative figures, the methodological basis of comparison, the representativeness of the materials used, and the depth of theoretical analysis. These issues collectively limit the strength of the central argument and the scope of the conclusions. For these reasons, in its current form, the manuscript does not yet meet the standard required for publication.

 

2. Major Comments

(1) Selection of Figures and the Scope of “East Asian Chan”

The manuscript frames its inquiry in terms of the “East Asian Chan tradition,” yet the selection of Zongmi, Yanshou, and Daeji as the primary figures is not sufficiently justified.

It remains unclear why these three figures are chosen as representative of developments across East Asia. The current selection appears somewhat contingent upon the availability of existing secondary studies, rather than grounded in a clearly articulated methodological rationale.

Moreover, given the stated scope, the absence of major Japanese Zen thinkers—such as Eisai, Dōgen, or Hakuin—raises questions about the representativeness of the study. Without incorporating, or at least explicitly delimiting the exclusion of, such figures, the claim to address “East Asian Chan” appears insufficiently supported.

 

(2) Methodological Issues in Comparative Analysis

The manuscript adopts a comparative approach, but the methodological basis for this comparison requires further clarification.

The discussion draws connections among Zongmi, Yanshou, and Daeji through selected passages on sudden/gradual and awakening/cultivation. However, it is not clearly established:

• On what grounds these figures can be meaningfully compared,
• Whether they are addressing the same doctrinal issues at the same level of analysis,
• And whether the similarities identified are historically grounded or analytically constructed.

For example, statements such as “Daeji largely inherits Zongmi’s framework” (lines 291–298), or the characterization of Yanshou’s position in relation to Zongmi (lines 347–354), may suggest historical or textual continuity. However, the manuscript does not clearly demonstrate whether such relationships are based on explicit textual engagement, lineage transmission, or are instead inferred on the basis of conceptual resemblance.

Given that sudden/gradual and awakening/cultivation are central topics in Chan discourse, it is important to distinguish more carefully between historically attested connections and analytical comparison. Without such clarification, the comparative framework remains insufficiently grounded.

 

(3) Representativeness of the Selected Materials

Closely related to the above, the manuscript relies on selected discussions of sudden/gradual and awakening/cultivation without adequately explaining their representativeness within each thinker’s broader corpus.

It would be helpful for the author to clarify:

• Why these particular passages are selected,
• And whether they can be taken as representative of each thinker’s overall soteriological framework.

Otherwise, the conclusions drawn from these comparisons risk appearing overly generalized.

 

(4) Theoretical Framework: “Body”

The introduction of “body” (spiritual, physical, karmic) as an analytical category is one of the more original aspects of the paper. However, its current formulation requires further refinement.

In particular, the identification of “practical action” primarily with the “physical body” appears somewhat reductive. For example, even in paradigmatic cases such as the Northern School associated with Shenxiu, practice involves both mental (spiritual) and bodily dimensions. A more nuanced account of how these dimensions interact would strengthen the argument.

More broadly, the proposed framework does not yet clearly demonstrate its analytical advantage, nor does it substantially alter the interpretation of the materials under discussion.

 

(5) Substance–Function (體用) and Philosophical Depth

The manuscript correctly observes that Zongmi employs the conceptual pair of substance (ti) and function (yong) in addressing the relationship between awakening and cultivation. This is an important point.

However, the discussion remains largely descriptive. Given the central role of ti–yong in East Asian philosophical discourse, the paper would benefit from a more sustained philosophical analysis of how this conceptual pair operates in resolving or reframing the tension between awakening and cultivation.

 

(6) Engagement with Secondary Scholarship

The engagement with secondary scholarship is limited in scope.

In particular:

• The bibliography relies mainly on Chinese and English sources, with little sustained engagement with Japanese and Korean scholarship, despite the paper’s East Asian framing.
• Given this scope, a broader engagement with relevant research traditions in Japan and Korea would be necessary in order to situate the argument more firmly within the existing academic discourse.
• Without such engagement, it becomes difficult to assess whether the arguments presented are sufficiently grounded in, or differentiated from, existing scholarship.

In addition, while Araki Kengo’s work is an important reference, it should be used with caution, especially in historical and philological contexts. If the argument relies on translated editions (such as Chinese translations), it would be preferable to consult the original Japanese text wherever possible, as some translations contain inaccuracies or interpretive deviations that may affect the precision of the analysis.

 

3. Minor Comments

• Some translations (e.g., lines 129–132; 277–281) appear to diverge from the original text and should be carefully rechecked.
• Terms such as “jackal” (野干) should be explained upon first occurrence.
• The translation of “門” as “gate” may need reconsideration depending on context.
• In line 120, the use of the term “evolution” may imply a teleological or hierarchical perspective and could be replaced with a more neutral formulation.

 

Author Response

Thank you so much for your careful reading of my paper and for all the detailed revision suggestions. I learned a lot from your suggestions and have tried to adjust my paper accordingly. Please check the following point‑by‑point reply.

Major Comments:

Comments 1:

(1) Selection of Figures and the Scope of “East Asian Chan”

The manuscript frames its inquiry in terms of the “East Asian Chan tradition,” yet the selection of Zongmi, Yanshou, and Daeji as the primary figures is not sufficiently justified.

It remains unclear why these three figures are chosen as representative of developments across East Asia. The current selection appears somewhat contingent upon the availability of existing secondary studies, rather than grounded in a clearly articulated methodological rationale.

Moreover, given the stated scope, the absence of major Japanese Zen thinkers—such as Eisai, Dōgen, or Hakuin—raises questions about the representativeness of the study. Without incorporating, or at least explicitly delimiting the exclusion of, such figures, the claim to address “East Asian Chan” appears insufficiently supported.

Response 1:

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.

I have removed the East Asian Chan framing and now explicitly delimit the scope to the Chinese-Korean Chan tradition. The selection proceeds from Daeji as the point of departure: Daeji explicitly engages with both Zongmi and Yanshou in his Simseongnon, justifying a backward tracing of the conceptual lineage. I acknowledge that Japanese Zen figures, whose inclusion would require a study of significantly different scope, fall outside the present inquiry.

Title, Page 1-2 line 38-48, Page 2 line 65-76, Page 3 line 92-102.

 

Comments 2:

(2) Methodological Issues in Comparative Analysis

The manuscript adopts a comparative approach, but the methodological basis for this comparison requires further clarification.

The discussion draws connections among Zongmi, Yanshou, and Daeji through selected passages on sudden/gradual and awakening/cultivation. However, it is not clearly established:

• On what grounds these figures can be meaningfully compared,

• Whether they are addressing the same doctrinal issues at the same level of analysis,

• And whether the similarities identified are historically grounded or analytically constructed.

For example, statements such as “Daeji largely inherits Zongmi’s framework” (lines 291–298), or the characterization of Yanshou’s position in relation to Zongmi (lines 347–354), may suggest historical or textual continuity. However, the manuscript does not clearly demonstrate whether such relationships are based on explicit textual engagement, lineage transmission, or are instead inferred on the basis of conceptual resemblance.

Given that sudden/gradual and awakening/cultivation are central topics in Chan discourse, it is important to distinguish more carefully between historically attested connections and analytical comparison. Without such clarification, the comparative framework remains insufficiently grounded.

 

Response 2:

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.

I have clarified the comparative basis in the Introduction. The three masters share a common set of questions concerning sudden awakening sudden cultivation, employ overlapping terminology (e.g., 頓悟頓修, 解悟/證悟, 根機), and — critically — Daeji explicitly cites both Zongmi and Yanshou in his Simseongnon. The comparison is thus grounded in both textual-genetic connection and shared doctrinal problematic, not merely conceptual resemblance.

Page 2 line 65-76.

 

Comments 3:

(3) Representativeness of the Selected Materials

Closely related to the above, the manuscript relies on selected discussions of sudden/gradual and awakening/cultivation without adequately explaining their representativeness within each thinker’s broader corpus.

It would be helpful for the author to clarify:

• Why these particular passages are selected,

• And whether they can be taken as representative of each thinker’s overall soteriological framework.

Otherwise, the conclusions drawn from these comparisons risk appearing overly generalized.

 

Response 3:

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.

I have added a statement in the Introduction clarifying the textual selection criteria: each work is the respective master's most representative treatment of soteriological theory — Daeji's Simseongnon, Zongmi's Chanyuan Zhuquanji Duxu and Yuanjue jing dashu shiyi chao, and Yanshou's Zongjing lu. The selected passages are those directly addressing sudden awakening sudden cultivation. I also acknowledge that my conclusions are limited to how these masters conceptualize this specific soteriological path, and do not claim to exhaust their broader thought.

Page 3 line 103-111.

 

Comment 4:

(4) Theoretical Framework: “Body”

The introduction of “body” (spiritual, physical, karmic) as an analytical category is one of the more original aspects of the paper. However, its current formulation requires further refinement.

In particular, the identification of “practical action” primarily with the “physical body” appears somewhat reductive. For example, even in paradigmatic cases such as the Northern School associated with Shenxiu, practice involves both mental (spiritual) and bodily dimensions. A more nuanced account of how these dimensions interact would strengthen the argument.

More broadly, the proposed framework does not yet clearly demonstrate its analytical advantage, nor does it substantially alter the interpretation of the materials under discussion.

 

Response 4:

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.

After reading the text about the Northern School, I reject the division between body and mind as the subject of cultivation and awakening. Instead, I treat consciousness and mind-nature as two aspects of the spiritual body that carry out sudden cultivation and sudden awakening. This entire framework is based on Zongmi’s distinction between sudden awakening and sudden cultivation, especially the analogy I examined earlier.

In this version, I use the body as the primary structure to organize my study, and I construct the relationship between body and soteriology in each section—particularly in Section 2 "Spiritual Body: The subject of awakening and cultivation" and Section 6, “Soteriology Under the View of Body: A Structural Reinterpretation.”

Page 4 line 151-185, Page 13-14 line 596-619.

 

Comment 5:

(5) Substance–Function (體用) and Philosophical Depth

The manuscript correctly observes that Zongmi employs the conceptual pair of substance (ti) and function (yong) in addressing the relationship between awakening and cultivation. This is an important point.

However, the discussion remains largely descriptive. Given the central role of ti–yong in East Asian philosophical discourse, the paper would benefit from a more sustained philosophical analysis of how this conceptual pair operates in resolving or reframing the tension between awakening and cultivation.

 

Response 5:

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.

I have expanded the discussion of ti-yong to include Yanshou's distinctive use of this conceptual pair in relation to sudden awakening and sudden cultivation. This strengthens the philosophical analysis of how ti-yong operates across the lineage to resolve the tension between awakening and cultivation. In this way, consciousness and mind-nature are set in a ti-yong relationship, allowing them to be treated together as the spiritual body—without division yet still containing difference.

 

Page 6-7, Line 277-326.

 

Comment 6:

(6) Engagement with Secondary Scholarship

The engagement with secondary scholarship is limited in scope.

In particular:

• The bibliography relies mainly on Chinese and English sources, with little sustained engagement with Japanese and Korean scholarship, despite the paper’s East Asian framing.

• Given this scope, a broader engagement with relevant research traditions in Japan and Korea would be necessary in order to situate the argument more firmly within the existing academic discourse.

• Without such engagement, it becomes difficult to assess whether the arguments presented are sufficiently grounded in, or differentiated from, existing scholarship.

In addition, while Araki Kengo’s work is an important reference, it should be used with caution, especially in historical and philological contexts. If the argument relies on translated editions (such as Chinese translations), it would be preferable to consult the original Japanese text wherever possible, as some translations contain inaccuracies or interpretive deviations that may affect the precision of the analysis.

 

Response 6:

I have revised my references to Araki Kengo to the Japanese edition. I have also incorporated additional Korean-language scholarship on Daeji, including studies that engage with his Simseongnon and its place in late Joseon Chan thought.

P1 Line 26-36, P3 Line 126-135, Line 118.

 

 

Minor Comments

Comment 7: Some translations (e.g., lines 129–132; 277–281) appear to diverge from the original text and should be carefully rechecked.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. I have revised it at Page 4 Line 189-196.

Comment 8: Terms such as “jackal” (野干) should be explained upon first occurrence.

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. I have revised it at Page 9 Line 418-420.

Comment 9: The translation of “門” as “gate” may need reconsideration depending on context.

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. I preferred "Gate" because gate can infer the pathway that follows it—this is adequate for describing soteriological methods.

Comment 10: In line 120, the use of the term “evolution” may imply a teleological or hierarchical perspective and could be replaced with a more neutral formulation.

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. I have deleted all the "evolution". and tried other phrases, like "divergent manifestations" in P15 line 706.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. 

The paper presents an ambitious central question, reinterpreting time and embodiment through the evolving meanings of “Sudden Awakening, Sudden Cultivation” (頓悟頓修) across Zongmi, Yanshou, and Yunbong Daeji. This is a valuable and potentially significant contribution.​ However, a gap exists between the question's scope and the supporting evidence. Chapters 2–4 offer substantive insights into practice typologies, sudden/gradual relations, jie (解) vs. zheng (證) awakening, and capacity (genji 根機)/karmic differences. Yet the conclusion's claim of a “paradigm shift in the concept of the body” lacks sufficient textual preparation in preceding chapters, appearing more asserted than demonstrated.​ To strengthen the paper, the author might either integrate body-centered evidence explicitly throughout the analytical chapters or recalibrate the conclusion to focus on soteriological reorderings, aligning it more closely with the textual analysis achieved. These revisions would enhance coherence and persuasiveness.

2. 

The interpretive framework that drives this article rests on a dual correspondence: “sudden/gradual” is mapped onto the category of temporality, and "awakening/cultivation" onto body. This is an intellectually arresting proposition, and if successfully demonstrated, it would constitute a meaningful contribution to scholarship on East Asian Buddhist soteriology. The difficulty, however, is that the correspondence, as currently argued, remains more asserted than proven. The first pairing — sudden and gradual as expressions of temporal structure — is relatively well supported and will not seem especially counterintuitive to most readers. The second pairing requires considerably firmer grounding. When the author claims that the awakening/cultivation distinction maps onto a conception of “body,” it is not sufficiently clear what textual passages, in which sources, support this claim nor by what philological or hermeneutical procedure the body-centered reading has been derived. This difficulty becomes especially apparent in Chapter 5, where the article introduces the tripartite schema of “spiritual body / physical body / karmic body.” Rather than emerging organically from the textual analysis in Chapters 2-4, this taxonomy appears to function as a theoretical framework imposed to organize the later interpretive claims. The resulting structure is somewhat asymmetrical: the framework does not clearly arise from evidence, but the evidence is instead arranged retrospectively in its terms.

To be clear, reading the awakening/cultivation dynamic through the lens of body is hermeneutically defensible and potentially fruitful. The problem is that the article presents this not simply as an interpretive lens, but as a demonstrated finding. The author should therefore either provide more precise primary textual evidence — supported by close philological analysis — at each stage of of the argument, or else reframe the body-based schema more modestly as a methodological proposal rather than a conclusion already secured by the evidence.

3. 

A comparative study of this kind stands or falls on the consistency of its tertium comparationis — the shared axis along which the three figures are measured. The article proposes to read Zongmi, Yanshou, and Vunbong Daeji through a common framework centered on the problem of “Sudden Awakening, Sudden Cultivation”, and the overarching trajectory it constructs — from Zongmi's “hidden ideal” to Yanshou's “optional scheme” to Daeji's “mandatory path” — is genuinely illuminating as a heuristic. The difficulty is that the three figures are not, in practice, analyzed along fully commensurable axes, and this inconsistency undermines the comparative architecture of the argument.

The treatment of Zongmi is organized around his eightfold typology of practice combinations, his three cases of 頓悟頓修, and a multi-life gradualism grounded in karmic capacity (根機) and past-life cultivation. The discussion of Yanshou, by contrast, pivots the possibility of realization within a single lifetime for practitioners of the highest capacity, supported by the lion and bamboo analogies and a sustained emphasis on "this lifetime" as the operative temporal horizon. The analysis of Daeji is structured differently again: it proceeds through close reading of a Śūraṅgama-sūtra passage, the distinction between xìngjù mén (性具門) and gōngxíng mén (功行門), the exemplary case of Sudhana (善財童子), and a reconstitution of the sequence understanding-awakening → sudden cultivation → gradual cultivation → realization-awakening.

These are substantively different kinds of textual and argumentative moves. Zongmi is analyzed primarily through typological classification; Yanshou through analogical reasoning and temporal emphasis; Daeji through scriptural exegesis and structural sequence. The article tends to flatten these differences by subsuming all three under a single comparative schema, when in fact the methodological grain of each case resists such direct commensuration. The result is that the macro-level narrative — the developmental arc from hidden ideal to mandatory path — is more persuasive as a broad sketch than as a rigorously demonstrated comparative argument.

The author should address this in one of two ways: either by explicitly theorizing the basis on which heterogeneous sources and argumentative modes are being compared, thereby justifying the commensuration rather than assuming it, or by acknowledging and thematizing the asymmetries between the three figures as a substantive finding in itself — one that reveals the historically contingent and contested nature of 頓悟頓修 as a category across these three thinkers.

4. 

A further concern involves the article's characterization of Zongmi's position on 頓悟頓修. As the argument develops, Zongmi's model is progressively configured as: an atemporal ideal detached from the practical exigencies of cultivation; a formal category effectively subordinated to multi-life gradual training (多生漸熏); and a path whose point of entry is, in practice, indeterminate. This reading is not without textual warrant, and it serves the article's developmental narrative effectively. The difficulty is that it does not do sufficient justice to the internal complexity of Zongmi's soteriological project. Zongmi is not simply a thinker who posited an unattainable ideal. He is, more precisely, a systematizer who organized the entire architecture of Buddhist soteriology through the carefully articulated sequence of understanding-awakening (解悟), gradual cultivation (漸修), and realization-awakening (證悟). The sophistication of this arrangement — its capacity to account for different capacities, karmic trajectories, and soteriological outcomes within a single integrated framework — is precisely what subsequent thinkers, including Yanshou and Daeji, were inheriting and reworking. To position Zongmi primarily as a "closed" or negatively valenced point of departure risks misrepresenting the tradition that the article's two later figures are in dialogue with. The structural pressure behind this reading is understandable: the article needs Zongmi to occupy a particular position to make the developmental arc toward Yanshou's and Daeji's recovery of "this-lifetime" realizability legible and compelling. But when the contrast is drawn too sharply — Zongmi as "trapped within multi-life temporality," Yanshou and Daeji as restoring "single-lifetime" possibility — the schematization begins to distort rather than illuminate. The author should revisit the Zongmi chapters with a view to preserving the positive systematizing force of his soteriology, even while maintaining the legitimate analytical contrast with his successors. A more nuanced account of Zongmi would, paradoxically, strengthen rather than weaken the article's comparative argument.

5.

The article treats Yanshou and Daeji as broadly aligned in their shared emphasis on “this life” and “this body,” and while this alignment is not without basis, it obscures a distinction that deserves closer attention. Yanshou's position is characterized by a strong insistence on the immediacy of realization for practitioners of the highest capacity — an emphasis on rapidity within the present lifetime. Daeji's position, by contrast, moves in a different direction: through his reading of the Śūraṅgama-sūtra and the exemplary case of Sudhana, he reintegrates a graduated process within the frame of suddenness, effectively reabsorbing intra-lifetime sequentiality into the sudden paradigm rather than simply affirming immediate realization. Both figures invoke the present lifetime as the operative soteriological horizon, but they do so in structurally different ways — Yanshou stressing intra-lifetime swiftness, Daeji stressing intra-lifetime processuality. By subsuming both under the rubric of “physical body”-centered soteriology, the article levels a distinction that is analytically significant and that bears directly on the article's central claims about the meaning of suddenness and embodiment. The author should differentiate the two positions more carefully and consider what this differentiation implies for the body-centered framework proposed in Chapter 5.

6.

The article makes extensive use of diagrams, and the attempt to render complex soteriological relationships in visual form is to be welcomed. However, in their current state, the figures at several points generate conceptual difficulties rather than resolving them. Figure 1 conflates different levels of classification within a single schema. Figure 2 oversimplifies the positions of both Zongmi and Yanshou in ways that compromise the comparative argument. Most seriously, Figure 3 is internally inconsistent with note 23: where Figure 3 presents Daeji's sequence as beginning with “Understanding (Sudden Awakening)”" note 23 reformulates the starting point as “Realization (Sudden Awakening)” — a terminological discrepancy that is structurally destabilizing.

This is not merely a presentational issue. Diagrams function as the author's final summation of the argument, and when that summation is inconsistent, the persuasiveness of the argument is weakened accordingly. The author should revise all three figures in close coordination with the relevant passages of the main text and notes, ensuring that the conceptual distinctions between initial awakening, cultivation, and final realization are rendered consistently throughout.

7. 

Note 23 engages critically with Jeong Yeong-sik's interpretation and proposes a structural reordering of Daeji's soteriological sequence. However, the final sentence of the note — which formulates the sequence as "Realization (Sudden Awakening) → Sudden Cultivation → Gradual Cultivation → Realization" — introduces a terminological inconsistency that undermines both the note itself and its relationship to the main text. The main text on page 10 maintains a clear distinction between 理則頓悟 as understanding-awakening (解悟) and 盡 as realization-awakening (證悟). Note 23, however, equates Sudden Awakening with Realization at the opening of the sequence, effectively collapsing the very distinction the main text establishes. This brings note 23 into direct conflict with Figure 3, where Sudden Awakening is correctly glossed as “Understanding.” The author should revise note 23 so that the conceptual distinction between understanding-awakening and realization-awakening is preserved consistently across the main text, the note, and the figure.

8. 

The conclusion is the strongest part of the article in terms of its philosophical register. Formulations such as “finite physical form,” “infinite awakening,” and “high mind-body integration’ demonstrate genuine interpretive ambition and conceptual sophistication. The difficulty, however, is that these formulations read as hermeneutically elevated conclusions rather than findings directly recovered from the textual analysis conducted in the preceding chapters. The conclusion arrives at a level of philosophical generalization that the body of the article has not yet fully earned. The author should ensure that each of the conclusion's central claims can be traced back to specific textual evidence and analytical steps in the main argument; without that grounding, the conclusion risks appearing detached from the analysis it purports to synthesize.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your careful reading of my paper and for all the detailed revision suggestions. I have incorporated your advice in many aspects, refining the argumentation approach and the structure of the article, which has effectively enhanced the effectiveness and logical flow of the discussion. Please check the following point‑by‑point reply.

 

Comment 1: The paper presents an ambitious central question, reinterpreting time and embodiment through the evolving meanings of “Sudden Awakening, Sudden Cultivation” (頓悟頓修) across Zongmi, Yanshou, and Yunbong Daeji. This is a valuable and potentially significant contribution. However, a gap exists between the question's scope and the supporting evidence. Chapters 2–4 offer substantive insights into practice typologies, sudden/gradual relations, *jie* (解) vs. *zheng* (證) awakening, and capacity (*genji* 根機)/karmic differences. Yet the conclusion's claim of a “paradigm shift in the concept of the body” lacks sufficient textual preparation in preceding chapters, appearing more asserted than demonstrated. To strengthen the paper, the author might either integrate body-centered evidence explicitly throughout the analytical chapters or recalibrate the conclusion to focus on soteriological reorderings, aligning it more closely with the textual analysis achieved. These revisions would enhance coherence and persuasiveness.

Response 1: 

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. 

In this version, I use the body as the primary structure to organize my study, and I construct the relationship between body and soteriology in each section—particularly in Section 2 "Spiritual Body: The subject of awakening and cultivation" and Section 6, “Soteriology Under the View of Body: A Structural Reinterpretation.” 

 

Comment 2:

The interpretive framework that drives this article rests on a dual correspondence: “sudden/gradual” is mapped onto the category of *temporality*, and "awakening/cultivation" onto *body*. This is an intellectually arresting proposition, and if successfully demonstrated, it would constitute a meaningful contribution to scholarship on East Asian Buddhist soteriology. The difficulty, however, is that the correspondence, as currently argued, remains more asserted than proven. The first pairing — sudden and gradual as expressions of temporal structure — is relatively well supported and will not seem especially counterintuitive to most readers. The second pairing requires considerably firmer grounding. When the author claims that the awakening/cultivation distinction maps onto a conception of “body,” it is not sufficiently clear what textual passages, in which sources, support this claim nor by what philological or hermeneutical procedure the body-centered reading has been derived. This difficulty becomes especially apparent in Chapter 5, where the article introduces the tripartite schema of “spiritual body / physical body / karmic body.” Rather than emerging organically from the textual analysis in Chapters 2-4, this taxonomy appears to function as a theoretical framework imposed to organize the later interpretive claims. The resulting structure is somewhat asymmetrical: the framework does not clearly arise from evidence, but the evidence is instead arranged retrospectively in its terms.

To be clear, reading the awakening/cultivation dynamic *through* the lens of body is hermeneutically defensible and potentially fruitful. The problem is that the article presents this not simply as an interpretive lens, but as a demonstrated finding. The author should therefore either provide more precise primary textual evidence — supported by close philological analysis — at each stage of of the argument, or else reframe the body-based schema more modestly as a methodological proposal rather than a conclusion already secured by the evidence.

 

Response 2: 

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. 

After reading the text about the Northern School, I reject the division between body and mind as the subject of cultivation and awakening. Instead, I treat consciousness and mind-nature as two aspects of the spiritual body that carry out sudden cultivation and sudden awakening. This entire framework is based on Zongmi’s distinction between sudden awakening and sudden cultivation, especially the analogy I examined earlier.

I have revealed the different levels of the body section by section through reading and analyzing the relevant textual evidence. In this way, I aim to ground my paper's view of the body in the Buddhist texts themselves.

 

Comment 3:

A comparative study of this kind stands or falls on the consistency of its tertium comparationis — the shared axis along which the three figures are measured. The article proposes to read Zongmi, Yanshou, and Vunbong Daeji through a common framework centered on the problem of “Sudden Awakening, Sudden Cultivation”, and the overarching trajectory it constructs — from Zongmi's “hidden ideal” to Yanshou's “optional scheme” to Daeji's “mandatory path” — is genuinely illuminating as a heuristic. The difficulty is that the three figures are not, in practice, analyzed along fully commensurable axes, and this inconsistency undermines the comparative architecture of the argument.

The treatment of Zongmi is organized around his eightfold typology of practice combinations, his three cases of 頓悟頓修, and a multi-life gradualism grounded in karmic capacity (根機) and past-life cultivation. The discussion of Yanshou, by contrast, pivots the possibility of realization within a single lifetime for practitioners of the highest capacity, supported by the lion and bamboo analogies and a sustained emphasis on "this lifetime" as the operative temporal horizon. The analysis of Daeji is structured differently again: it proceeds through close reading of a Śūraṅgama-sūtra passage, the distinction between xìngjù mén (性具門) and gōngxíng mén (功行門), the exemplary case of Sudhana (善財童子), and a reconstitution of the sequence understanding-awakening → sudden cultivation → gradual cultivation → realization-awakening.

These are substantively different kinds of textual and argumentative moves. Zongmi is analyzed primarily through typological classification; Yanshou through analogical reasoning and temporal emphasis; Daeji through scriptural exegesis and structural sequence. The article tends to flatten these differences by subsuming all three under a single comparative schema, when in fact the methodological grain of each case resists such direct commensuration. The result is that the macro-level narrative — the developmental arc from hidden ideal to mandatory path — is more persuasive as a broad sketch than as a rigorously demonstrated comparative argument.

The author should address this in one of two ways: either by explicitly theorizing the basis on which heterogeneous sources and argumentative modes are being compared, thereby justifying the commensuration rather than assuming it, or by acknowledging and thematizing the asymmetries between the three figures as a substantive finding in itself — one that reveals the historically contingent and contested nature of 頓悟頓修 as a category across these three thinkers.

Response 3: 

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. 

Thanks to your clarification, I now understand much more clearly how they differ in their discourse on sudden awakening and sudden cultivation. Accordingly, in this version I have added a statement in the introduction that implies this asymmetry, and I then accept it as a possible condition for a multi‑layered explanation of sudden awakening and sudden cultivation.

Page 3 line 97-102.

 

Comment 4:

A further concern involves the article's characterization of Zongmi's position on 頓悟頓修. As the argument develops, Zongmi's model is progressively configured as: an atemporal ideal detached from the practical exigencies of cultivation; a formal category effectively subordinated to multi-life gradual training (多生漸熏); and a path whose point of entry is, in practice, indeterminate. This reading is not without textual warrant, and it serves the article's developmental narrative effectively. The difficulty is that it does not do sufficient justice to the internal complexity of Zongmi's soteriological project. Zongmi is not simply a thinker who posited an unattainable ideal. He is, more precisely, a systematizer who organized the entire architecture of Buddhist soteriology through the carefully articulated sequence of understanding-awakening (解悟), gradual cultivation (漸修), and realization-awakening (證悟). The sophistication of this arrangement — its capacity to account for different capacities, karmic trajectories, and soteriological outcomes within a single integrated framework — is precisely what subsequent thinkers, including Yanshou and Daeji, were inheriting and reworking. To position Zongmi primarily as a "closed" or negatively valenced point of departure risks misrepresenting the tradition that the article's two later figures are in dialogue with. The structural pressure behind this reading is understandable: the article needs Zongmi to occupy a particular position to make the developmental arc toward Yanshou's and Daeji's recovery of "this-lifetime" realizability legible and compelling. But when the contrast is drawn too sharply — Zongmi as "trapped within multi-life temporality," Yanshou and Daeji as restoring "single-lifetime" possibility — the schematization begins to distort rather than illuminate. The author should revisit the Zongmi chapters with a view to preserving the positive systematizing force of his soteriology, even while maintaining the legitimate analytical contrast with his successors. A more nuanced account of Zongmi would, paradoxically, strengthen rather than weaken the article's comparative argument.

Response 4:

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. 

In this revision, I have taken two approaches to this problem. First, instead of positing an "evolution" of soteriology, I try to reveal the subtle differences between these masters, thereby allowing their similarities and lineage to remain acceptable—it is fine to recognize that much of Zongmi's thought was accepted by Yanshou and Daeji. Second, in Section 6 I add a more positive explanation of Zongmi's concept of multi‑life temporality, so that readers will see how the multi‑life perspective can offer constructive methods for all practitioners.

Page 14 line 628-639.

 

Comment 5:

The article treats Yanshou and Daeji as broadly aligned in their shared emphasis on “this life” and “this body,” and while this alignment is not without basis, it obscures a distinction that deserves closer attention. Yanshou's position is characterized by a strong insistence on the immediacy of realization for practitioners of the highest capacity — an emphasis on rapidity within the present lifetime. Daeji's position, by contrast, moves in a different direction: through his reading of the Śūraṅgama-sūtra and the exemplary case of Sudhana, he reintegrates a graduated process within the frame of suddenness, effectively reabsorbing intra-lifetime sequentiality into the sudden paradigm rather than simply affirming immediate realization. Both figures invoke the present lifetime as the operative soteriological horizon, but they do so in structurally different ways — Yanshou stressing intra-lifetime *swiftness*, Daeji stressing intra-lifetime *processuality*. By subsuming both under the rubric of “physical body”-centered soteriology, the article levels a distinction that is analytically significant and that bears directly on the article's central claims about the meaning of suddenness and embodiment. The author should differentiate the two positions more carefully and consider what this differentiation implies for the body-centered framework proposed in Chapter 5.

 

Response 5:

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. 

In this revision, I provide a more detailed clarification of Yanshou and Daeji, showing their different attitudes toward the "Physical Body." Namely, Yanshou emphasizes the Physical Body as the opportunity for attaining Buddhahood in the present life, whereas Daeji implies the gradual process contained within this Physical Body. Regarding Daeji in particular, I treat him as the one who attempts to bring the Physical Body and the Karmic Body together.

Page 15, line 667-675.

 

Comment 6:

The article makes extensive use of diagrams, and the attempt to render complex soteriological relationships in visual form is to be welcomed. However, in their current state, the figures at several points generate conceptual difficulties rather than resolving them. Figure 1 conflates different levels of classification within a single schema. Figure 2 oversimplifies the positions of both Zongmi and Yanshou in ways that compromise the comparative argument. Most seriously, Figure 3 is internally inconsistent with note 23: where Figure 3 presents Daeji's sequence as beginning with “Understanding (Sudden Awakening)”" note 23 reformulates the starting point as “Realization (Sudden Awakening)” — a terminological discrepancy that is structurally destabilizing.

This is not merely a presentational issue. Diagrams function as the author's final summation of the argument, and when that summation is inconsistent, the persuasiveness of the argument is weakened accordingly. The author should revise all three figures in close coordination with the relevant passages of the main text and notes, ensuring that the conceptual distinctions between initial awakening, cultivation, and final realization are rendered consistently throughout.

Response 6:

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. 

I fully understand the confusion caused by the disorganized tables and figures. In this revision, I have deleted the original Figure 1 and Table 1, kept the original Figures 2 and 3 as Figure 1 and 2, and on that basis built a new Table 1and Figure 3. In addition, the statement in my original Note 23 was a typo; I have now corrected it and integrated it into the main paragraph.

Page 11 line 510, line 528, page 13 line 593, line 596. 

 

Comment 7:

Note 23 engages critically with Jeong Yeong-sik's interpretation and proposes a structural reordering of Daeji's soteriological sequence. However, the final sentence of the note — which formulates the sequence as "Realization (Sudden Awakening) → Sudden Cultivation → Gradual Cultivation → Realization" — introduces a terminological inconsistency that undermines both the note itself and its relationship to the main text. The main text on page 10 maintains a clear distinction between 理則頓悟 as understanding-awakening (解悟) and 盡 as realization-awakening (證悟). Note 23, however, equates Sudden Awakening with Realization at the opening of the sequence, effectively collapsing the very distinction the main text establishes. This brings note 23 into direct conflict with Figure 3, where Sudden Awakening is correctly glossed as “Understanding.” The author should revise note 23 so that the conceptual distinction between understanding-awakening and realization-awakening is preserved consistently across the main text, the note, and the figure.

 

Response 7:

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. 

I sincerely apologized for my bad input about the statement in my original Note 23.  "Realization (Sudden Awakening) → Sudden Cultivation → Gradual Cultivation → Realization" should be "Understanding(Sudden Awakening) → Sudden Cultivation → Gradual Cultivation → Realization"  as the originall Figure 3 displayed.  I have now corrected it and integrated it into the main paragraph.

Page 11 line 528

 

Comment 8:

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. 

The conclusion is the strongest part of the article in terms of its philosophical register. Formulations such as “finite physical form,” “infinite awakening,” and “high mind-body integration’ demonstrate genuine interpretive ambition and conceptual sophistication. The difficulty, however, is that these formulations read as hermeneutically elevated conclusions rather than findings directly recovered from the textual analysis conducted in the preceding chapters. The conclusion arrives at a level of philosophical generalization that the body of the article has not yet fully earned. The author should ensure that each of the conclusion's central claims can be traced back to specific textual evidence and analytical steps in the main argument; without that grounding, the conclusion risks appearing detached from the analysis it purports to synthesize.

Response 8:

In this revision, I have removed the speculative philosophical discussions and attempted to draw a conclusion based on the main context. And having abandoned the notion of the "evolution" of Chan's soteriology, I now aim to highlight the differences and to bring out the distinctive significance of each master.

Page 15-16 line 712-745.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have read this paper with meticulous attention. Starting from the contradictions inherent in the debate over sudden (頓) and gradual (漸) enlightenment in Chan Buddhism, the author conducts an analysis of the evolution of Chan soteriology from the framework of Sudden Awakening and Gradual Cultivation (頓悟漸修) to Sudden Awakening and Sudden Cultivation (頓悟頓修) by examining the doctrinal discourses of the great Chinese Chan masters Zongmi and Yanshou, as well as Unbong Daeji, the preeminent Korean Chan master. This study reveals the polysemy of the concept of 頓 (sudden), alongside the transformative shifts in Chan Buddhist perspectives on the body, time, and the agentic subjectivity of practitioners. 

In terms of its comparative analysis of the philosophical ideas of key figures in Chinese and Korean Chan Buddhism, this paper undoubtedly offers an academically innovative perspective. Furthermore, the author argues that the essence of the evolution of the theory of Sudden Awakening and Sudden Cultivation in East Asian Chan Buddhism, as manifested through the comparative study of these three masters, is not a mere sectarian polemic. Instead, it represents a paradigm shift in Chan’s conception of the body and a profound spiritual experiment within Chan Buddhism exploring how to actualize infinite awakening within the confines of a finite physical form. These arguments possess innovative value. For the aforementioned merits in its theoretical propositions and the innovative academic value of its research topic, I recommend this paper for publication. 

Regarding the content of the paper, the author posits the distinction between the Southern School of Sudden Enlightenment and the Northern School of Gradual Cultivation in the context of the sudden-gradual debate, which constitutes a prominent interpretive thesis in the historiography of Chinese Chan Buddhism and a broadly shared consensus in contemporary academic research. That said, several renowned scholars specializing in the study of the Northern Chan School have highlighted the school’s own articulations of sudden enlightenment, as evidenced in texts such as Biography of Faru法如行狀, Treatise on Contemplating the Mind觀心論, The Mahāyāna Method of Non-Arising大乘無生方便門, and Compendium of the Essential Meanings of All Sūtras通一切經要義集. These works put forth doctrines such as “unveiling the profound intent of the Buddha and entering the One Vehicle in an instant開佛密意，頓入一乘” and “a single thought of pure mind leaps directly to the Buddhahood一念淨心，頓超佛地.” Such research findings present certain tensions with the theoretical underpinnings of this paper, and the author ought to provide appropriate explanations and clarifications of these divergences. Accordingly, I recommend two scholarly works on the theory of sudden enlightenment in the Northern Chan School and one monograph on the history of Chan Buddhism concerning Zongmi and Yanshou for the author’s reference: 

1. Han, Chuanqiang韓傳強. A Study of the Northern Chan School禪宗北宗研究. Beijing: Religious Culture Press, 2013. ISBN: 9787802547551.
2. McRae, John R. The Northern School and the Formation of Early Ch’an Buddhism. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1986. ISBN: 0824810562.
3. Yang, Zengwen楊曾文. A History of Chan Buddhism in the Tang and Five Dynasties唐五代禪宗史. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press, 1999. ISBN: 9787500424376.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Beyond the above content-related suggestions, I have also identified several minor issues in the paper’s translation and writing that require revision. The following recommendations are provided for the author to verify and address as appropriate: 

1. The font of Chinese characters becomes inconsistent around line 104; a uniform font style should be maintained throughout the entire manuscript.
2. To distinguish Pinyin transliterations from English text, it is recommended to italicize pànjiào in line 87, and apply the same italicization rule to all Pinyin terms in the paper. Similarly, the Romanized Sanskrit transliterations in lines 190, 191, and all other relevant sections should be italicized for differentiation.
3. The translation format of “understanding (解)” (line 132) and “realization (證)” (line 133)—i.e., English paraphrase followed by a Chinese character in parentheses—are inconsistent with the format adopted in line 31: “gradual cultivation (jiànxiū; 漸修)”. A consistent translation format for such terms should be applied across the entire paper.
4. It is unclear whether “Exegesis Notes” in line 136 refers to Exegesis Notes on the Commentary of the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment mentioned in line 126. If so, a parenthetical citation should be added upon its first appearance (e.g., “Exegesis Notes on the Commentary of the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment (hereafter Exegesis Notes)”) to avoid ambiguity.
5. Unjustified bold formatting appears in the main text from lines 182 to 196 and lines 291 to 297, as well as in multiple other sections of the paper. The rationale for this bold formatting requires clarification or elimination if unnecessary.
6. In line 250, “the ignorance (avidya)” uses Romanized Sanskrit without consistent adherence to the IAST system applied elsewhere in the paper. This should be revised to “the ignorance (avidyā)” for consistency.
7. In line 325 and line 402, the translation of the Sanskrit term Sūtra is inconsistent (appearing as both Sūtra and Sutra). A single standardized spelling should be used throughout the manuscript.
8. Punctuation marks for Chinese text in the footnotes are inconsistently formatted: some are properly edited, while others (e.g., the terminal periods in Footnote 5 and Footnote 14) retain non-English punctuation and require uniform adjustment.
9. The title “Liuzu dashi fabao tan jing” in the reference list should be italicized, in accordance with the formatting convention applied to all other primary and secondary source titles in the list.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your careful reading of my paper and for all the detailed revision suggestions. I have incorporated your advice in many aspects, refining the argumentation approach and the structure of the article, which has effectively enhanced the effectiveness and logical flow of the discussion. Please check the following point‑by‑point reply.

 

Comment 1:

Regarding the content of the paper, the author posits the distinction between the Southern School of Sudden Enlightenment and the Northern School of Gradual Cultivation in the context of the sudden-gradual debate, which constitutes a prominent interpretive thesis in the historiography of Chinese Chan Buddhism and a broadly shared consensus in contemporary academic research. That said, several renowned scholars specializing in the study of the Northern Chan School have highlighted the school’s own articulations of sudden enlightenment, as evidenced in texts such as Biography of Faru法如行狀, Treatise on Contemplating the Mind觀心論, The Mahāyāna Method of Non-Arising大乘無生方便門, and Compendium of the Essential Meanings of All Sūtras通一切經要義集. These works put forth doctrines such as “unveiling the profound intent of the Buddha and entering the One Vehicle in an instant開佛密意，頓入一乘” and “a single thought of pure mind leaps directly to the Buddhahood一念淨心，頓超佛地.” Such research findings present certain tensions with the theoretical underpinnings of this paper, and the author ought to provide appropriate explanations and clarifications of these divergences. Accordingly, I recommend two scholarly works on the theory of sudden enlightenment in the Northern Chan School and one monograph on the history of Chan Buddhism concerning Zongmi and Yanshou for the author’s reference:

1. Han, Chuanqiang韓傳強. A Study of the Northern Chan School禪宗北宗研究. Beijing: Religious Culture Press, 2013. ISBN: 9787802547551.

2. McRae, John R. The Northern School and the Formation of Early Ch’an Buddhism. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1986. ISBN: 0824810562.

3. Yang, Zengwen楊曾文. A History of Chan Buddhism in the Tang and Five Dynasties唐五代禪宗史. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press, 1999. ISBN: 9787500424376.

Response 1:

Thank you very much for the materials you provided. They have greatly enhanced my understanding of the Northern School and made me realize that the claims in my previous version were too rigid and lacked engagement with current research. Therefore, after carefully reading the materials, I originally planned to introduce the topic through the Northern School, but I found that this would shift the focus from the Korean master to the Northern‑Southern School controversy. Instead, I will begin with the issue of "sudden cultivation" as discussed by the Korean master Daeji, and then trace it back to Zongmi and Yanshou. However, in the process, I will also cite in the introduction several books mentioned by the reviewer, in order to present the philosophical issues that go beyond the stereotypical view of the Northern‑Southern School controversy.

 

Comment 2:

The font of Chinese characters becomes inconsistent around line 104; a uniform font style should be maintained throughout the entire manuscript.

Response 2:

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.

I have fixed all the font problem in this revision.

 

Comment 3:

The translation format of “understanding (解)” (line 132) and “realization (證)” (line 133)—i.e., English paraphrase followed by a Chinese character in parentheses—are inconsistent with the format adopted in line 31: “gradual cultivation (jiànxiū; 漸修)”. A consistent translation format for such terms should be applied across the entire paper.

Response 3:

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.

In this revision, I deleted all the pinyin except for the original text's title.

 

Comment 4:

It is unclear whether “Exegesis Notes” in line 136 refers to Exegesis Notes on the Commentary of the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment mentioned in line 126. If so, a parenthetical citation should be added upon its first appearance (e.g., “Exegesis Notes on the Commentary of the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment (hereafter Exegesis Notes)”) to avoid ambiguity.

Response 4:

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.

Page 3 line 105.

 

Comment 5:

Unjustified bold formatting appears in the main text from lines 182 to 196 and lines 291 to 297, as well as in multiple other sections of the paper. The rationale for this bold formatting requires clarification or elimination if unnecessary.

Response 5:

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. All the bold formatting have been removed.

 

Comment 6:

In line 250, “the ignorance (avidya)” uses Romanized Sanskrit without consistent adherence to the IAST system applied elsewhere in the paper. This should be revised to “the ignorance (avidyā)” for consistency.

Response 6:

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. But the related paragraph has been removed in this version.

 

Comment 7:

In line 325 and line 402, the translation of the Sanskrit term Sūtra is inconsistent (appearing as both Sūtra and Sutra). A single standardized spelling should be used throughout the manuscript.

Response 7:

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. I have revised them and only used Sutra now.

 

Comment 8:

Punctuation marks for Chinese text in the footnotes are inconsistently formatted: some are properly edited, while others (e.g., the terminal periods in Footnote 5 and Footnote 14) retain non-English punctuation and require uniform adjustment.

Response 8:

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.

 

Comment 9:

The title “Liuzu dashi fabao tan jing” in the reference list should be italicized, in accordance with the formatting convention applied to all other primary and secondary source titles in the list.

Response 9:

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. But in this version, I will only remain secondary source here.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the author’s careful revision. The manuscript has been substantially improved, especially in its clarification of scope, the rationale for selecting Zongmi, Yanshou, and Daeji, and the methodological status of the proposed “Tripartite View of the Body.” The revised title, with its focus on the trajectory “from Zongmi to Daeji,” also makes the scope much clearer than before.

I no longer regard the major concerns raised in my previous report as obstacles to publication. Nevertheless, I think a few points still need further clarification before the manuscript can be accepted.

First, although the article has now narrowed its scope, the broader problem of the relation between awakening and cultivation is also highly important in Japanese Zen. I do not think the author needs to add a detailed analysis of Dōgen, Hakuin, or other Japanese Zen figures, since that would require another article. However, the introduction would benefit from a brief acknowledgment of relevant Japanese Zen discussions and scholarship. This would help situate the problem within a broader Chinese–Japanese–Korean context, while still allowing the main analysis to focus on the Chinese Chan–Korean Seon trajectory from Zongmi and Yanshou to Daeji.

Second, the “Tripartite View of the Body” is clearer than in the previous version, especially now that the author presents it as a hermeneutic tool rather than as an explicit doctrine of the three masters. Still, the use of the term “body” requires a little more justification. This is particularly true of the “Physical Body,” which often seems to refer less to corporeality itself than to the horizon of present-life practice. The author should clarify whether “Physical Body” means the practitioner’s corporeal existence, the present lifetime, the existential situation of practice, or a combination of these.

Third, the author should be more cautious with terms such as “inherit,” “follow,” and “transform.” For example, when the manuscript says that Daeji “largely inherits” Zongmi’s framework, it should be made clear whether this refers to direct textual dependence, doctrinal influence, or structural similarity. Distinguishing historical transmission from analytical comparison would make the argument more precise.

Finally, the figures and table should be revised for clarity, especially Table 1. Some terminology and English expressions also need polishing, such as “existing scholarships,” “view on body,” and “achieving the Buddhahood.”

Overall, the revised manuscript has responded seriously to the previous review and is now close to publishable.

Author Response

Thank you for the valuable feedback. All of your suggestions have been very helpful, and I have incorporated them into the following revisions.

 

Comments 1: First, although the article has now narrowed its scope, the broader problem of the relation between awakening and cultivation is also highly important in Japanese Zen. I do not think the author needs to add a detailed analysis of Dōgen, Hakuin, or other Japanese Zen figures, since that would require another article. However, the introduction would benefit from a brief acknowledgment of relevant Japanese Zen discussions and scholarship. This would help situate the problem within a broader Chinese–Japanese–Korean context, while still allowing the main analysis to focus on the Chinese Chan–Korean Seon trajectory from Zongmi and Yanshou to Daeji.

Response 1: Thank you for the remind. I agree with this comment. I have checked the relevant source on Dōgen, and his concept of “shushoitto” is indeed related to this study. Therefore, I have added a brief sentence to introduce it at Line 129-132.

 

Comments 2: Second, the “Tripartite View of the Body” is clearer than in the previous version, especially now that the author presents it as a hermeneutic tool rather than as an explicit doctrine of the three masters. Still, the use of the term “body” requires a little more justification. This is particularly true of the “Physical Body,” which often seems to refer less to corporeality itself than to the horizon of present-life practice. The author should clarify whether “Physical Body” means the practitioner’s corporeal existence, the present lifetime, the existential situation of practice, or a combination of these.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. I added a a clarification on the "body" i used in this study from Line 108-126, especially about "physical body" from Line 488-489.

 

Comments 3: Third, the author should be more cautious with terms such as “inherit,” “follow,” and “transform.” For example, when the manuscript says that Daeji “largely inherits” Zongmi’s framework, it should be made clear whether this refers to direct textual dependence, doctrinal influence, or structural similarity. Distinguishing historical transmission from analytical comparison would make the argument more precise.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. While Daeji does quote extensively from Zongmi, my intention is not to trace textual dependencies between them, but rather to discern the similarities and differences in their thought. For this reason, I have replaced terms such as “inherit” or “follow” with “resemble” at Line 457, 507. Also, I have replace "transformational" with "subsumptive" at Line 687.

 

Comments 4: Finally, the figures and table should be revised for clarity, especially Table 1. Some terminology and English expressions also need polishing, such as “existing scholarships,” “view on body,” and “achieving the Buddhahood.”

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. In Table 1, I have merged “Sudden Cultivation” at the “Spiritual Body” level into a single entry, while still reflecting the distinction between Understanding and Realization through their sequencing with Sudden Awakening. This adjustment appears in Line 599. About terminology and expressions, I replaced “existing scholarships” with "previous studies" at Line 67, “view on body” with "view of the body" at Line 111, and “achieving the Buddhahood” with "attaining Buddhahood" at Line 102, 620, 641, 642.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The body-based framework still lacks adequate philological and hermeneutical grounding; This was the most fundamental concern raised in the first round, and it remains the most fundamental concern in this round. The manuscript proposes that the distinction between awakening and cultivation corresponds to a distinction among dimensions of the body — specifically, that awakening is in consciousness, cultivation in mind-nature, and these two together constitute the “Spiritual Body.” This is an intellectually interesting proposal. The difficulty is that the manuscript still presents it as a finding rather than demonstrating it as a derivation.

The procedure by which this correspondence is established from primary sources is never made explicit. The reader is told that “the subject of Sudden Awakening is precisely consciousness” and that “the subject of Sudden Cultivation is the practitioner's internal mind-nature” (p. 4, lines 177–183), but these identifications are asserted on the basis of brief paraphrase rather than demonstrated through close philological analysis of the relevant Zongmi passages. More critically, the step from “consciousness and mind-nature as subjects of awakening and cultivation” to “consciousness and mind-nature as constituting a body” is never argued. Why should these cognitive and ontological categories be subsumed under the category of body? What textual warrant exists for this subsumption in the primary sources? And by what hermeneutical procedure has the author moved from Yang Rubin's Confucian body-taxonomy to a Buddhist soteriological framework without systematically addressing the conceptual disanalogies between the two?

The manuscript does correctly clarify that the “Tripartite View of the Body” is not an explicit doctrine formulated by Zongmi, Yanshou, or Daeji themselves, but rather a “text-based philosophical construction and a hermeneutic tool.” This clarification is important and appropriate. However, the issue is not whether the framework is acknowledged as heuristic, but whether the manuscript sufficiently demonstrates how this heuristic is derived from, and sustained by, the primary textual evidence. (p. 2, lines 86–91). This is the right methodological positioning. But if the framework is avowedly a hermeneutic tool rather than a finding recovered from the texts, then the argument for its appropriateness must be made explicitly and sustained throughout the analysis. The manuscript does not yet do this. The framework appears at the opening of the study and again in Section 6, but the intervening sections do not consistently demonstrate how the textual evidence supports the body-centered reading rather than simply being reorganized within it.

A minimum requirement for the next revision would be the following: a methodological paragraph, either in the introduction or at the opening of Section 2, that (a) defines the sense in which “body” is used in this study — not as the anatomical body alone but as the operative locus of the practicing subject across its cognitive, karmic, and phenomenal dimensions; (b) explains why Yang Rubin's taxonomy, developed for Confucian contexts, requires adaptation for Buddhist soteriological analysis, and specifies what form that adaptation takes; and (c) identifies the specific textual passages in Zongmi that ground the identification of awakening with consciousness, cultivation with mind-nature, and both together with what the study calls the Spiritual Body. Without this grounding, the framework risks appearing as an organizing scheme imposed on the material rather than derived from it.

2. Note 23 remains internally inconsistent and conflicts with Figure 3 and the main text; This issue was identified in the first round of review and was stated in the author's response to have been corrected. It has not been corrected in the revised manuscript.

Note 23 currently reads, in its final sentence: “Consequently, the cultivation logic of Daeji should be structured as: Realization (Sudden Awakening) followed by Sudden Cultivation, then Gradual Cultivation, and Realization.” This formulation uses “Realization (Sudden Awakening)” as the opening term of the sequence, which directly contradicts the distinction between Understanding-Awakening (解悟, jiewu) and Realization-Awakening (證悟, zhengwu) that the main text establishes and consistently maintains. In the main text (pp. 12–13), 理則頓悟 is identified with Understanding, and 盡 is identified with Realization as the culminating stage. Figure 3 correctly glosses the opening stage of Daeji's sequence as “SA (Understanding).” Note 23, by contrast, opens with “Realization (Sudden Awakening),” collapsing precisely the distinction that the study's analysis of Daeji depends upon.

This is not a minor terminological inconsistency. The distinction between Understanding-Awakening and Realization-Awakening is crucial to the manuscript's argument about Daeji's soteriological structure. A note that undermines this distinction — and does so in the context of an explicit critical engagement with prior scholarship — introduces conceptual instability at the precise point where precision is most required.

The correction is straightforward. The final sentence of Note 23 should read: “Consequently, Daeji's cultivation logic should be understood as a sequence beginning with Understanding-Awakening (解悟), proceeding through Sudden Cultivation and Gradual Cultivation, and culminating in Realization-Awakening (證悟).” This formulation is consistent with the main text and with Figure 3, and it preserves the distinction on which the analysis of Daeji's soteriology rests. The fact that this correction was described as completed in the author's response but is not present in the revised manuscript must be addressed directly in the next response letter.

3. The methodological asymmetry among the three figures is acknowledged but not analytically developed. The revised manuscript notes, in the introduction, that “the modes of argumentation employed by these three thinkers differ: Zongmi proceeds via a typological classification and analogical reasoning, Yanshou employs merely analogical reasoning, and Daeji utilizes scriptural exegesis” (p. 3, lines 97–100), and concludes from this that “Sudden Awakening Sudden Cultivation is not a stable category with a fixed meaning, but rather a contested concept.” This is a welcome addition, and the observation itself is analytically significant.

The difficulty is that the observation is not subsequently developed as part of the comparative method. The three figures are analyzed in successive chapters, and the asymmetries in their argumentative modes do not register in the comparative framework of Section 6. The Tripartite View of the Body is applied to all three figures in the same manner, as though the differences in how they construct their arguments were incidental to the content of those arguments. But argumentative mode and conceptual content are not independent: Zongmi's typological classification produces a different kind of claim about Sudden Awakening Sudden Cultivation than Yanshou's analogical insistence or Daeji's exegetical reconstruction, and these differences are relevant to what the body-centered framework can and cannot illuminate in each case.

The manuscript should either explain how the body-based comparison remains valid across these different argumentative modes — that is, justify the commensuration — or acknowledge and thematize the asymmetries as a substantive finding. The current formulation does neither: it raises the asymmetry in the introduction and then proceeds as though it had been resolved. A paragraph in Section 6 explicitly addressing this would substantially strengthen the comparative architecture of the argument.

4. The conclusion still contains philosophical generalizations that exceed what the textual analysis has established. The conclusion makes a series of claims at a level of philosophical ambition that the preceding analysis does not fully support. The characterization of Sudden Awakening Sudden Cultivation as “a profound experiment on how human beings can live out infinite awakening within a finite physical form” and the appeal to “a practical ethic of high mind-body integration” that remains “a timeless inspiration for understanding the mind-body anxiety and existential transformation of contemporary humanity” introduce an evaluative and universalizing register that the historical and philological analysis of three textual corpora in this study does not warrant. These formulations read as rhetorically elevated conclusions rather than findings recovered from the textual evidence.

The conclusion should be recalibrated to remain at the level of what the analysis has demonstrated. The study has shown that three Chan masters operating in different historical contexts interpreted the category of Sudden Awakening Sudden Cultivation in ways that reflect different operative assumptions about the practicing subject — assumptions that the Tripartite View of the Body can be used to distinguish and clarify. This is a genuine contribution to the intellectual history of East Asian Chan soteriology, and it is sufficient. Claims about paradigm shifts in the Chan concept of the body writ large, or about the contemporary existential relevance of these soteriological debates, require a much larger evidential base than this study provides. They should be removed or substantially qualified.

5. The phrase “idealized, marginal position” (p. 14, line 637), used to characterize the place of Sudden Awakening Sudden Cultivation within Zongmi's system, risks understating the systematizing force of Zongmi's soteriology. Zongmi does not simply marginalize this category: he embeds it within a carefully articulated typological architecture in which it occupies the highest position while remaining practically inaccessible to most practitioners. A formulation that preserves both the elevation and the inaccessibility — for example, “acknowledged as the highest soteriological possibility, yet pedagogically embedded within a broader karmic architecture” — would be more accurate and would also better support the comparison with Yanshou and Daeji.

The manuscript would benefit from a more explicit statement of how the claim that Daeji represents the structural connection point between the Physical and Karmic Bodies follows from the textual analysis in Section 5. This claim appears in Section 6 as a conclusion, but its derivation from the Gate of Inherent Nature / Gate of Meritorious Practice distinction in Daeji's Śūraṃgama interpretation is not made explicit in Section 5. A single connective sentence — linking the 性具門 to the Physical Body and the 功行門 to the Karmic Body — would significantly strengthen this part of the argument.

 

Author Response

Comments 1: The body-based framework still lacks adequate philological and hermeneutical grounding; This was the most fundamental concern raised in the first round, and it remains the most fundamental concern in this round. The manuscript proposes that the distinction between awakening and cultivation corresponds to a distinction among dimensions of the body — specifically, that awakening is in consciousness, cultivation in mind-nature, and these two together constitute the “Spiritual Body.” This is an intellectually interesting proposal. The difficulty is that the manuscript still presents it as a finding rather than demonstrating it as a derivation.

The procedure by which this correspondence is established from primary sources is never made explicit. The reader is told that “the subject of Sudden Awakening is precisely consciousness” and that “the subject of Sudden Cultivation is the practitioner's internal mind-nature” (p. 4, lines 177–183), but these identifications are asserted on the basis of brief paraphrase rather than demonstrated through close philological analysis of the relevant Zongmi passages. More critically, the step from “consciousness and mind-nature as subjects of awakening and cultivation” to “consciousness and mind-nature as constituting a body” is never argued. Why should these cognitive and ontological categories be subsumed under the category of body? What textual warrant exists for this subsumption in the primary sources? And by what hermeneutical procedure has the author moved from Yang Rubin's Confucian body-taxonomy to a Buddhist soteriological framework without systematically addressing the conceptual disanalogies between the two?

The manuscript does correctly clarify that the “Tripartite View of the Body” is not an explicit doctrine formulated by Zongmi, Yanshou, or Daeji themselves, but rather a “text-based philosophical construction and a hermeneutic tool.” This clarification is important and appropriate. However, the issue is not whether the framework is acknowledged as heuristic, but whether the manuscript sufficiently demonstrates how this heuristic is derived from, and sustained by, the primary textual evidence. (p. 2, lines 86–91). This is the right methodological positioning. But if the framework is avowedly a hermeneutic tool rather than a finding recovered from the texts, then the argument for its appropriateness must be made explicitly and sustained throughout the analysis. The manuscript does not yet do this. The framework appears at the opening of the study and again in Section 6, but the intervening sections do not consistently demonstrate how the textual evidence supports the body-centered reading rather than simply being reorganized within it.

A minimum requirement for the next revision would be the following: a methodological paragraph, either in the introduction or at the opening of Section 2, that (a) defines the sense in which “body” is used in this study — not as the anatomical body alone but as the operative locus of the practicing subject across its cognitive, karmic, and phenomenal dimensions; (b) explains why Yang Rubin's taxonomy, developed for Confucian contexts, requires adaptation for Buddhist soteriological analysis, and specifies what form that adaptation takes; and (c) identifies the specific textual passages in Zongmi that ground the identification of awakening with consciousness, cultivation with mind-nature, and both together with what the study calls the Spiritual Body. Without this grounding, the framework risks appearing as an organizing scheme imposed on the material rather than derived from it.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. My intent is to clarify that the three-part structure of the body used in this study is not a direct assertion of the three masters, but is instead inspired by Yang Rubin’s fourfold view of the body and has been adapted into a framework for Buddhist soteriology. I acknowledge that this aim was not conveyed clearly in earlier drafts.

To address this, I have taken the following steps to make the structure and logic of the argument clearer in this revision:

1.1 I have added a clarification regarding the concept of the "body" as used in this study (lines 108–126 in Section 1, Introduction), with specific attention to the notion of the "physical body" (lines 485-489 in Section 4).

1.2 I have explained why Yang Rubin’s fourfold view of the body is modified into a tripartite structure in the context of this study (lines 108–120).

1.3 I have provided textual support for framing the "Spiritual Body" in two steps: (1) By proposing that the Spiritual Body includes both consciousness and mind-nature as its components, and indicating the relevant sections (lines 120–123 in Section 1, Introduction). (2) By introducing these two dimensions of the Spiritual Body in lines 263–270, Section 2, following an analysis of Zongmi’s writings. This demonstrates that the Spiritual Body is not an independent structure imposed on Zongmi’s text, but is grounded in his philosophical framework.

 

 

Comments 2: Note 23 remains internally inconsistent and conflicts with Figure 3 and the main text; This issue was identified in the first round of review and was stated in the author's response to have been corrected. It has not been corrected in the revised manuscript.

Note 23 currently reads, in its final sentence: “Consequently, the cultivation logic of Daeji should be structured as: Realization (Sudden Awakening) followed by Sudden Cultivation, then Gradual Cultivation, and Realization.” This formulation uses “Realization (Sudden Awakening)” as the opening term of the sequence, which directly contradicts the distinction between Understanding-Awakening (解悟, jiewu) and Realization-Awakening (證悟, zhengwu) that the main text establishes and consistently maintains. In the main text (pp. 12–13), 理則頓悟 is identified with Understanding, and 盡 is identified with Realization as the culminating stage. Figure 3 correctly glosses the opening stage of Daeji's sequence as “SA (Understanding).” Note 23, by contrast, opens with “Realization (Sudden Awakening),” collapsing precisely the distinction that the study's analysis of Daeji depends upon.

This is not a minor terminological inconsistency. The distinction between Understanding-Awakening and Realization-Awakening is crucial to the manuscript's argument about Daeji's soteriological structure. A note that undermines this distinction — and does so in the context of an explicit critical engagement with prior scholarship — introduces conceptual instability at the precise point where precision is most required.

The correction is straightforward. The final sentence of Note 23 should read: “Consequently, Daeji's cultivation logic should be understood as a sequence beginning with Understanding-Awakening (解悟), proceeding through Sudden Cultivation and Gradual Cultivation, and culminating in Realization-Awakening (證悟).” This formulation is consistent with the main text and with Figure 3, and it preserves the distinction on which the analysis of Daeji's soteriology rests. The fact that this correction was described as completed in the author's response but is not present in the revised manuscript must be addressed directly in the next response letter.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with the issue you raised and fully understand that it was not a minor mistake. Therefore, I have already corrected it in the last revision. In my previous response, I explained that it was a typo: I deleted the incorrect expression and changed the wording at the beginning from "realization" to "understanding." Additionally, because the academic editor requested that footnotes not be used, I removed all footnotes and integrated everything into the main text.

I suspect you might have encountered this problem due to a display issue in the Word file. As you can see, even though all the note have been deleted, it is only marked with a "strikethrough" in word file, and has not completely disappeared. I imagine this is why you kept seeing this note in my article.

In any case, thank you for your careful reminder on this matter. It was my fault for mistakenly writing it that way in the very first version.

 

 

Comments 3: The methodological asymmetry among the three figures is acknowledged but not analytically developed. The revised manuscript notes, in the introduction, that “the modes of argumentation employed by these three thinkers differ: Zongmi proceeds via a typological classification and analogical reasoning, Yanshou employs merely analogical reasoning, and Daeji utilizes scriptural exegesis” (p. 3, lines 97–100), and concludes from this that “Sudden Awakening Sudden Cultivation is not a stable category with a fixed meaning, but rather a contested concept.” This is a welcome addition, and the observation itself is analytically significant.

The difficulty is that the observation is not subsequently developed as part of the comparative method. The three figures are analyzed in successive chapters, and the asymmetries in their argumentative modes do not register in the comparative framework of Section 6. The Tripartite View of the Body is applied to all three figures in the same manner, as though the differences in how they construct their arguments were incidental to the content of those arguments. But argumentative mode and conceptual content are not independent: Zongmi's typological classification produces a different kind of claim about Sudden Awakening Sudden Cultivation than Yanshou's analogical insistence or Daeji's exegetical reconstruction, and these differences are relevant to what the body-centered framework can and cannot illuminate in each case.

The manuscript should either explain how the body-based comparison remains valid across these different argumentative modes — that is, justify the commensuration — or acknowledge and thematize the asymmetries as a substantive finding. The current formulation does neither: it raises the asymmetry in the introduction and then proceeds as though it had been resolved. A paragraph in Section 6 explicitly addressing this would substantially strengthen the comparative architecture of the argument.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. I added a paragraph on the impact of this asymmetry on the three masters' thought (Line 691-697).

 

 

Comments 4: The conclusion still contains philosophical generalizations that exceed what the textual analysis has established. The conclusion makes a series of claims at a level of philosophical ambition that the preceding analysis does not fully support. The characterization of Sudden Awakening Sudden Cultivation as “a profound experiment on how human beings can live out infinite awakening within a finite physical form” and the appeal to “a practical ethic of high mind-body integration” that remains “a timeless inspiration for understanding the mind-body anxiety and existential transformation of contemporary humanity” introduce an evaluative and universalizing register that the historical and philological analysis of three textual corpora in this study does not warrant. These formulations read as rhetorically elevated conclusions rather than findings recovered from the textual evidence.
The conclusion should be recalibrated to remain at the level of what the analysis has demonstrated. The study has shown that three Chan masters operating in different historical contexts interpreted the category of Sudden Awakening Sudden Cultivation in ways that reflect different operative assumptions about the practicing subject — assumptions that the Tripartite View of the Body can be used to distinguish and clarify. This is a genuine contribution to the intellectual history of East Asian Chan soteriology, and it is sufficient. Claims about paradigm shifts in the Chan concept of the body writ large, or about the contemporary existential relevance of these soteriological debates, require a much larger evidential base than this study provides. They should be removed or substantially qualified.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. I have removed all unnecessary and exaggerated sentences from the Conclusion and other sections, and focused the Conclusion more on solidly substantiating my research. (line 700-724).

 

 

Comment 5: The phrase “idealized, marginal position” (p. 14, line 637), used to characterize the place of Sudden Awakening Sudden Cultivation within Zongmi's system, risks understating the systematizing force of Zongmi's soteriology. Zongmi does not simply marginalize this category: he embeds it within a carefully articulated typological architecture in which it occupies the highest position while remaining practically inaccessible to most practitioners. A formulation that preserves both the elevation and the inaccessibility — for example, “acknowledged as the highest soteriological possibility, yet pedagogically embedded within a broader karmic architecture” — would be more accurate and would also better support the comparison with Yanshou and Daeji.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. I deleted the phrase "idealized, marginal position", and rewrote the passage following your advice. (line 635-637)

 

 

Comment 6: The manuscript would benefit from a more explicit statement of how the claim that Daeji represents the structural connection point between the Physical and Karmic Bodies follows from the textual analysis in Section 5. This claim appears in Section 6 as a conclusion, but its derivation from the Gate of Inherent Nature / Gate of Meritorious Practice distinction in Daeji's Śūraṃgama interpretation is not made explicit in Section 5. A single connective sentence — linking the 性具門 to the Physical Body and the 功行門 to the Karmic Body — would significantly strengthen this part of the argument.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. I added a paragraph about the 性具門 and 功行門 at the end of Section 5 (Line 589-596).

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has improved substantially across three rounds of review and now has clear publishable potential. The comparative account of Zongmi, Yanshou, and Daeji is well-structured, and the revised treatments of Daeji's soteriological synthesis and the connection between the 性具門/功行門 distinction and the body framework are especially valuable. The remaining requirement is focused: the author should add a brief methodological demonstration in Section 2 showing how the ti-yong relationship between samādhi and prajñā in Zongmi's 修悟一時 passage provides the textual warrant for identifying consciousness and mind-nature as jointly constituting the Spiritual Body. Once this derivation is made explicit, the central framework of the study will be adequately grounded in the primary sources, and the article will make a genuine contribution to the study of East Asian Chan/Seon soteriology.

Author Response

Comment 1:  the author should add a brief methodological demonstration in Section 2 showing how the ti-yong relationship between samādhi and prajñā in Zongmi's 修悟一時 passage provides the textual warrant for identifying consciousness and mind-nature as jointly constituting the Spiritual Body. 

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. I added one sentence "From this essence-function structure, it can be deduced that consciousness is the function and mind-nature is the essence. Since they are non-dual, they constitute a single unified subject — which this study terms the Spiritual Body." at Line 292- 294 (in the file without mark).