Jigan and Jizhao: The Convergence of Yi Learning of Song Dynasty and Sinicized Buddhism
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript offers a thoughtful and valuable comparative study of jigan 寂感 and jizhao 寂照, two concepts that illuminate the relationship between quiescence, responsiveness, illumination, cultivation, and religious practice in Chinese intellectual traditions. The paper is well suited to the scope of the journal, since it does not treat Confucianism and Buddhism merely as abstract philosophical systems, but examines how their respective ontological structures are embodied in concrete forms of religious discipline, ritual practice, and social integration.
The article’s main contribution lies in its comparative framing. The author argues that jigan, rooted in the Book of Changes and developed in Song Neo-Confucian thought, and jizhao, formed within Sinicized Buddhist discourse, share a non-dual substance-function structure. Both begin from a state of quiescence or stillness, yet this quiescence is not inert or empty in a merely negative sense. Rather, it becomes the ground for resonance, illumination, cognition, ethical cultivation, or spiritual realization. This shared structure allows the author to construct a meaningful comparison between Confucian and Buddhist mind-nature theories.
At the same time, the article avoids reducing the two concepts to simple equivalence. It clearly shows that jigan and jizhao lead toward different religious and philosophical aspirations. Confucian jigan is oriented toward the realization of cosmic-ethical order, ritual embodiment, reverence, social harmony, and the ideal of sagehood. Buddhist jizhao, by contrast, is directed toward the realization of true suchness, the dissolution of attachments, prajñā wisdom, precept-based discipline, meditation, and the sacred community of liberation. This comparative balance between convergence and divergence is one of the paper’s strongest features.
The manuscript is also valuable because it connects metaphysical discourse with practice. The discussion of Confucian jigan as ritual technology is especially productive. By linking ji, gan, reverence, ritual, music, bodily comportment, sincerity, sacrifice, and the construction of ethical order, the author shows that Confucian cultivation is not merely inward contemplation but a ritualized and embodied practice. Similarly, the discussion of Buddhist jizhao situates quiescent illumination within meditation, precepts, communal discipline, and the institutional formation of Buddhist practice. This allows the paper to move beyond purely textual or doctrinal comparison and to demonstrate how philosophical concepts become lived religious forms.
The manuscript also engages a broad range of materials, including the Yijing, Han Kangbo, Cheng-Zhu thought, Zhang Zai, Wang Yangming, Seng Zhao, Hui Si, Tiantai cultivation, Chan Buddhist precept discourse, and modern scholarship on ritual theory. The inclusion of Catherine Bell, Bourdieu, and Michael Puett provides a helpful theoretical vocabulary for analyzing the bodily and institutional dimensions of ritual practice. This interdisciplinary range strengthens the article and gives it relevance beyond specialists in Chinese philosophy alone.
Only minor revisions are necessary before publication. The author should polish the English throughout, since some sentences remain awkward or overly literal. There are also occasional grammatical problems, inconsistent capitalization, and minor terminological issues. For example, technical terms such as substance, function, quiescence, illumination, resonance, ritual technology, and mind-nature should be used consistently. The author may also wish to clarify the chronological relationship between the emergence of Buddhist jizhao and the Song Neo-Confucian development of jigan, since the introduction states that jigan is essentially a Confucian ontological reconstruction of Buddhist jizhao. This is an important claim and could be phrased somewhat more carefully to avoid implying a one-directional borrowing too strongly.
In addition, the article would benefit from a slightly sharper conclusion. The current conclusion is effective, but the author could more explicitly restate the article’s central comparative result: jigan and jizhao share a non-dual structure of quiescence and function, yet they produce different forms of sacredness—Confucian sacredness of ethical order and Buddhist sacredness of liberating realization. This would help readers retain the article’s main contribution more clearly.
Overall, this is a strong and publishable article. It makes a meaningful contribution to the comparative study of Confucianism and Buddhism, Chinese theories of cultivation, and the relationship between metaphysics and ritual practice. I therefore recommend acceptance after minor revisions.
Author Response
Comment 1:
Only minor revisions are necessary before publication. The author should polish the English throughout, since some sentences remain awkward or overly literal. There are also occasional grammatical problems, inconsistent capitalization, and minor terminological issues. For example, technical terms such as substance, function, quiescence, illumination, resonance, ritual technology, and mind-nature should be used consistently. The author may also wish to clarify the chronological relationship between the emergence of Buddhist jizhao and the Song Neo-Confucian development of jigan, since the introduction states that jigan is essentially a Confucian ontological reconstruction of Buddhist jizhao. This is an important claim and could be phrased somewhat more carefully to avoid implying a one-directional borrowing too strongly.
Reply 1:
Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment and have made changes in the text. Please see the introduction on the first page, where the sentence "jigan is essentially a Confucian ontological reconstruction of Buddhist jizhao" has been deleted.
Comment 2:
In addition, the article would benefit from a slightly sharper conclusion. The current conclusion is effective, but the author could more explicitly restate the article’s central comparative result: jigan and jizhao share a non-dual structure of quiescence and function, yet they produce different forms of sacredness—Confucian sacredness of ethical order and Buddhist sacredness of liberating realization. This would help readers retain the article’s main contribution more clearly.
Reply 2:
Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment and have made changes in the text. Please see the conclusion in section six.
Jigan and jizhao share a non-dual structure of quiescence and function, yet they produce different forms of sacredness—Confucian sacredness of ethical order and Buddhist sacredness of liberating realization. Hong Xiuping 洪修平 (2013) once argued that Buddhist meditative cultivation can be traced back to ancient Indian yoga, and its emergence originated from humanity's self-awareness of the existential predicament of its own finitude. Confucianism and Buddhism, facing the same existential problem, share certain similarities in their cultivation methods. For example, Confucianism pursues the unity of Heaven and humanity (tianren heyi 天人合一), while Buddhism equally advocates that self-nature is prajñā (zixing ji bore 自性即般若). Both, through their respective systematic ritual practices, actualize ultimate concern as institutionalized and operable ceremonial procedures. In this sense, the convergence of jigan and jizhao lies crucially in their shared structure of quiescent contemplation—radiant manifestation (jingguan-langxian 静觀-朗現), and the rich ritual practices unfolded therefrom.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript addresses an interesting and potentially valuable topic: the conceptual convergence and divergence between the Confucian notion of jigan and the Buddhist notion of jizhao. By bringing together the Yijing tradition, Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism, Sinicized Buddhism, and ritual practice, the manuscript offers a broad comparative perspective on mind-nature cultivation in Chinese religious thought. One clear strength of the study lies in its attempt to move beyond a purely conceptual comparison and to connect ontology with ritual, discipline, communal practice, and forms of sacredness.
At the same time, the manuscript’s central contribution is weakened by insufficient precision in its main argument. The article appears to advance three related but distinct theses: (1) Song Confucian jigan represents an ontological reconstruction of Buddhist jizhao; (2) jigan and jizhao are structurally comparable without necessarily implying historical influence; and (3) both concepts generate analogous institutionalized systems of religious practice. These claims are not equivalent, and each requires a different method and body of evidence. Unless their relationship is clarified, the manuscript risks blurring historical influence, conceptual analogy, and structural convergence.
This problem is especially evident in the Introduction, where the author states that “the Song Dynasty concept jigan is essentially a Confucian ontological reconstruction of the Buddhist concept of jizhao from the Wei-Jin, Sui, and Tang periods.” This is a strong claim, but the manuscript does not yet provide sufficient textual, historical, or scholarly evidence to support it. If the author wishes to argue for historical reconstruction or doctrinal response, the manuscript needs to demonstrate more concretely how Buddhist jizhao entered the intellectual horizon of Song Confucian thinkers and how it was transformed within the Confucian framework. If the author’s purpose is primarily comparative, the claim should be revised in more cautious terms and framed as structural affinity or conceptual convergence rather than direct reconstruction.
The Introduction also needs to justify more clearly the necessity of comparing jigan and jizhao. The manuscript notes that “there are relatively few specialized studies on jizhao, and comparative research on jigan and jizhao is lacking.” However, identifying a research gap alone does not explain why these two concepts should be brought into comparison. The author should clarify the deeper scholarly rationale for this comparison, whether in terms of their shared substance-function structure, their relevance to mind-nature cultivation, or their significance for understanding Confucian-Buddhist interaction and religious practice.
A related difficulty concerns the comparative framework of the manuscript. The article is organized into four main body sections, moving from the conceptual structures of jigan and jizhao to their respective forms of Confucian ritual practice and Buddhist cultivation. These sections contain rich materials, but the comparison between jigan and jizhao is not sufficiently foregrounded. The two traditions are largely treated in parallel rather than placed in sustained dialogue. As a result, it is not always clear how the two concepts are related, where they converge, and where their fundamental differences lie.
I would therefore encourage the author to strengthen the comparative logic throughout the main analysis rather than leaving the comparison largely to the conclusion. The conclusion itself also needs further revision. Since the manuscript sets out to examine the convergence and divergence between jigan and jizhao, the concluding section should synthesize the specific findings generated from this focused comparison and offer a deeper analytical account of their conceptual relationship, structural convergence, and doctrinal divergence. At present, however, the conclusion tends to shift toward a broad comparison between Confucianism and Buddhism in general. This weakens the analytical force of the manuscript, because the distinctive contribution of comparing jigan and jizhao becomes somewhat diluted.
Finally, the manuscript would benefit from careful language and style revision. Some sentences are overly long or conceptually dense, and several key terms require more precise definition. Concepts such as “immanent transcendence,” “ritual technology,” “sacredness of order,” and “sacredness of substance” are theoretically suggestive, but their analytical scope and relation to the primary materials should be explained more clearly.
Overall, the manuscript has a worthwhile topic and a solid textual basis, but its central claim, comparative architecture, conceptual precision, and language presentation require significant improvement. I therefore recommend major revision.
Author Response
Comment 1:
This problem is especially evident in the Introduction, where the author states that “the Song Dynasty concept jigan is essentially a Confucian ontological reconstruction of the Buddhist concept of jizhao from the Wei-Jin, Sui, and Tang periods.” This is a strong claim, but the manuscript does not yet provide sufficient textual, historical, or scholarly evidence to support it. If the author wishes to argue for historical reconstruction or doctrinal response, the manuscript needs to demonstrate more concretely how Buddhist jizhao entered the intellectual horizon of Song Confucian thinkers and how it was transformed within the Confucian framework. If the author’s purpose is primarily comparative, the claim should be revised in more cautious terms and framed as structural affinity or conceptual convergence rather than direct reconstruction.
The Introduction also needs to justify more clearly the necessity of comparing jigan and jizhao. The manuscript notes that “there are relatively few specialized studies on jizhao, and comparative research on jigan and jizhao is lacking.” However, identifying a research gap alone does not explain why these two concepts should be brought into comparison. The author should clarify the deeper scholarly rationale for this comparison, whether in terms of their shared substance-function structure, their relevance to mind-nature cultivation, or their significance for understanding Confucian-Buddhist interaction and religious practice.
Reply 1:
Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment and have made changes in the text accordingly. Please refer to the introduction on page 1 for details.
The comparison of these two concepts is justified not merely by the lack of existing scholarship, but more importantly by the fact that they offer a unique lens through which to examine how Confucianism and Buddhism—sharing the same cultural and linguistic milieu—construct fundamentally different ontologies and practices from a remarkably similar conceptual grammar.
The possibility of dialogue between jigan and jizhao lies in their shared concerns：how is the relationship between substance and phenomena manifested and verified through subjective cultivation, and how does the absolutely quiescent ti give rise to dynamic cognition and practical yong? Therefore, this article aims to reveal how, when facing similar fundamental philosophical problems, Confucianism and Buddhism developed different responsive methods based on their different value presuppositions. The overall goal is to conduct a structural comparison of philosophical concepts, rather than a merely superficial investigation of historical sources and influences. Moreover, this paper also goes beyond textual comparison and examines how these two contemplative ontologies of mind-nature embedded in jigan and jizhao are manifested in concrete, everyday religious rituals. This comparative approach is justified not merely by the lack of existing scholarship on jizhao and its comparison with jigan, but more importantly by the fact that these two concepts offer a unique lens through which to examine how two major Chinese tradition address the same fundamental ontological and soteriological questions while arriving at distinctly different answers.
Comment 2:
I would therefore encourage the author to strengthen the comparative logic throughout the main analysis rather than leaving the comparison largely to the conclusion. The conclusion itself also needs further revision. Since the manuscript sets out to examine the convergence and divergence between jigan and jizhao, the concluding section should synthesize the specific findings generated from this focused comparison and offer a deeper analytical account of their conceptual relationship, structural convergence, and doctrinal divergence. At present, however, the conclusion tends to shift toward a broad comparison between Confucianism and Buddhism in general. This weakens the analytical force of the manuscript, because the distinctive contribution of comparing jigan and jizhao becomes somewhat diluted.
Reply 2:
Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment and have made changes in the text accordingly. Please refer to the end of Part III, where I have added a comparative passage as follows:
Based on the simultaneous character of prajñā's ji and zhao, communication between the sage and ordinary beings becomes possible. The sage neither falls into empty quiescence nor stagnates in illumination, thus while according with the true meaning, can respond opportunistically, guide, and liberate sentient beings. In Confucianism, ji is a real, substantive tianli that possesses intrinsic normative content—it is inherently ethical, hierarchical, and creative of cosmic order. In Buddhism, however, ji is ontologically empty (śūnyatā) of any fixed nature; its quiescence is precisely the absence of any intrinsic essence. Correspondingly, the gan of Confucianism is a real, effective resonance that establishes and maintains ethical relationships and cosmic harmony, while the zhao of Buddhism is a cognitive event that sees through the illusion of all relationships and harmonies.
In conclusion, through the above exposition—beginning with the ontological meaning of True Suchness as absolutely transcendent and the non-duality of substance and function, proceeding to analyze the mind-nature structure wherein ji gives rise to zhao, then clarifying the cognitive mechanism of "zhao without knowing", and finally demonstrating how expedient means and various names all point to the same jizhao substance. This structure profoundly influenced the Chinese Buddhist schools of Tiantai, Huayan, and Chan-Buddhism, and provided essential intellectual resources for the Neo-Confucian concept of jigan in the Song and Ming dynasties, to which the following sections will turn.
At the end of Part V, I have also added another comparative passage:
Beyond individual cultivation and precept observance, the jizhao system also operates through institutionalized monastic structures. Monastic discipline provides the communal framework. Monastic rules governing daily routines are all designed to maintain the conditions for quiescent contemplation. The practice of jizhao is not merely an individual achievement but a shared endeavor, supported by collective rituals such as the uposatha and intensive meditation retreats. Thus, jizhao cultivation is embedded in a comprehensive institutional matrix: the precepts regulate the body and speech, the monastic rules structure communal life, the meditation manuals provide step-by-step guidance, and the lineage system guarantees authenticity and continuity. This institutional dimension is essential for understanding how jizhao, as a contemplative ideal, generates social authority and religious integration, paralleling the role of ritual in Confucianism.
This section set out to demonstrate that Buddhist jizhao cultivation constitutes a complete, practical, and transmissible system rather than a mere personal realization technique. The jizhao system encompasses individual mind-nature cultivation, ethical discipline, communal adaptation, and doctrinal integration—forming a coherent whole in which theory, practice, and systemic arrangements mutually support one another. Ultimately, this system aims at transcending worldly discrimination and realizing True Suchness, pointing toward a nirvāṇa realm that, while transcending worldly ethics, is nevertheless actualized through a structured, shared, and operational path of quiescent illumination.
Comment 3:
Finally, the manuscript would benefit from careful language and style revision. Some sentences are overly long or conceptually dense, and several key terms require more precise definition. Concepts such as “immanent transcendence,” “ritual technology,” “sacredness of order,” and “sacredness of substance” are theoretically suggestive, but their analytical scope and relation to the primary materials should be explained more clearly.
Reply 3:
Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment and have made changes in the text accordingly. Please refer to the concluding paragraph of Part I, where I have added an explanation of "immanent transcendence."
In the Confucian context, immanent transcendence means that the tianli (天理, heavenly principles) is both inherent in human nature and the transcendent source of cosmic order. In the Buddhist context, it means that true suchness (zhenru 真如) is both the fundamental nature of all sentient beings and utterly beyond all conceptual grasping.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article deals with a topic that is suitable for this Special Issue, but the argument is not yet sufficiently clear or stable for publication.
My main concern is the way the central claim is framed. On p. 1, lines 33–47, the manuscript states that Song-dynasty jigan is “essentially a Confucian ontological reconstruction” of Buddhist jizhao. This sounds like a claim about historical influence or conceptual dependence. Yet the same paragraph later says that the paper is primarily concerned with structural comparison rather than historical sources and influences. These two positions are not fully compatible as currently stated. The author needs to decide whether the paper is making a historical claim about Buddhist influence on Song Confucianism, or a comparative claim about similar conceptual structures. If the former, more textual and historical evidence is needed. If the latter, the phrase “ontological reconstruction” should be softened.
The section on Confucian ritual practice is also not yet fully convincing. On p. 7, lines 271–299, the manuscript describes jigan as a form of ritualized bodily practice, but the transition from the metaphysical structure of 寂 and 感 to actual ritual practice remains too quick. The paper discusses reverence, ritual, music, sacrifice, and social order, but it still needs to show more precisely how 寂 becomes embodied discipline and how 感 becomes ritual or social resonance. Without this step, the section reads partly as a discussion of Confucian ritual in general rather than a focused argument about jigan.
Relatedly, the terminology around 敬, 靜, and 淨 needs careful handling. On p. 7, lines 277–285, Zhou Dunyi’s emphasis on quiescence and the Cheng brothers’ emphasis on reverence are discussed in close proximity, but the terms are not clearly distinguished. The author should check the terminology and make sure that 敬, 靜, and 淨 are not being conflated.
The Buddhist side of the comparison needs more development in relation to institutions and community. Section 5 discusses meditation, precepts, and mind-nature cultivation, but it says relatively little about how jizhao becomes embedded in communal practice, monastic discipline, religious authority, or institutional transmission. Since the paper compares Confucian and Buddhist forms of sacredness and social integration, this imbalance should be addressed.
Finally, the conclusion should be more cautious. On p. 13, lines 572–575, the statement that Buddhism advocates the oneness of Brahman and ātman is likely to cause confusion. If the author means to refer to a particular Mahāyāna discourse, such as tathāgatagarbha or the notion of “true self,” this needs to be stated explicitly and supported. Otherwise, the Buddhist goal should be described in terms closer to the materials actually discussed in the paper, such as emptiness, True Suchness, prajñā, nirvāṇa, or liberation from attachment. The broader contrast between Confucian “sacredness of order” and Buddhist “sacredness of substance” is interesting, but it needs to be grounded more firmly in the body of the article.
In its present form, the manuscript has a viable topic but needs major revision. The most important tasks are to clarify the central claim, tighten the connection between jigan and ritual practice, and develop the Buddhist institutional side of the comparison.
Author Response
Comment 1:
My main concern is the way the central claim is framed. On p. 1, lines 33–47, the manuscript states that Song-dynasty jigan is “essentially a Confucian ontological reconstruction” of Buddhist jizhao. This sounds like a claim about historical influence or conceptual dependence. Yet the same paragraph later says that the paper is primarily concerned with structural comparison rather than historical sources and influences. These two positions are not fully compatible as currently stated. The author needs to decide whether the paper is making a historical claim about Buddhist influence on Song Confucianism, or a comparative claim about similar conceptual structures. If the former, more textual and historical evidence is needed. If the latter, the phrase “ontological reconstruction” should be softened.
Reply 1:
Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment and have made changes in the text accordingly. Please refer to the introduction on page 1, where I have removed the term "ontological reconstruction."
Comment 2:
The section on Confucian ritual practice is also not yet fully convincing. On p. 7, lines 271–299, the manuscript describes jigan as a form of ritualized bodily practice, but the transition from the metaphysical structure of ji and gan to actual ritual practice remains too quick. The paper discusses reverence, ritual, music, sacrifice, and social order, but it still needs to show more precisely how 寂 becomes embodied discipline and how 感 becomes ritual or social resonance. Without this step, the section reads partly as a discussion of Confucian ritual in general rather than a focused argument about jigan.
Reply 2:
Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment and have made changes in the text accordingly. Please refer to line 353 on page 8, where I have added the following:
For instance, the prescribed gestures of sacrificial offerings are not arbitrary conventions. They are precisely calibrated to induce a state of bodily stillness and mental focus, while simultaneously creating an atmosphere of solemnity that invites the presence of spirits and ancestors, thereby enabling mutual responsiveness. Similarly, the musical accompaniment in sacrifices, with its slow tempo and pentatonic modes, is designed to evoke a collective mood of reverence and harmony, further amplifying the resonance between the human participants and the cosmic order.
Comment 3:
Relatedly, the terminology around 敬, 靜, and 淨 needs careful handling. On p. 7, lines 277–285, Zhou Dunyi’s emphasis on quiescence and the Cheng brothers’ emphasis on reverence are discussed in close proximity, but the terms are not clearly distinguished. The author should check the terminology and make sure that 敬, 靜, and 淨 are not being conflated.
Reply 3:
Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. On page 7, line 315, I have already pointed out that the Cheng brothers emphasize jing（敬） because jing（静） can easily be confused with Buddhist thought.
Comment 4:
The Buddhist side of the comparison needs more development in relation to institutions and community. Section 5 discusses meditation, precepts, and mind-nature cultivation, but it says relatively little about how jizhao becomes embedded in communal practice, monastic discipline, religious authority, or institutional transmission. Since the paper compares Confucian and Buddhist forms of sacredness and social integration, this imbalance should be addressed.
Reply 4:
Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment and have made changes in the text accordingly. Please refer to the penultimate paragraph of Part V, where I have added the following:
Beyond individual cultivation and precept observance, the jizhao system also operates through institutionalized monastic structures. Monastic discipline provides the communal framework. Monastic rules governing daily routines are all designed to maintain the conditions for quiescent contemplation. The practice of jizhao is not merely an individual achievement but a shared endeavor, supported by collective rituals such as the uposatha and intensive meditation retreats. Thus, jizhao cultivation is embedded in a comprehensive institutional matrix: the precepts regulate the body and speech, the monastic rules structure communal life, the meditation manuals provide step-by-step guidance, and the lineage system guarantees authenticity and continuity. This institutional dimension is essential for understanding how jizhao, as a contemplative ideal, generates social authority and religious integration, paralleling the role of ritual in Confucianism.
Comment 5:
Finally, the conclusion should be more cautious. On p. 13, lines 572–575, the statement that Buddhism advocates the oneness of Brahman and ātman is likely to cause confusion. If the author means to refer to a particular Mahāyāna discourse, such as tathāgatagarbha or the notion of “true self,” this needs to be stated explicitly and supported. Otherwise, the Buddhist goal should be described in terms closer to the materials actually discussed in the paper, such as emptiness, True Suchness, prajñā, nirvāṇa, or liberation from attachment. The broader contrast between Confucian “sacredness of order” and Buddhist “sacredness of substance” is interesting, but it needs to be grounded more firmly in the body of the article.
Reply 5:
Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment and have made changes in the text accordingly. Please refer to the first paragraph of the conclusion, where I have changed "Buddhism advocates the oneness of Brahman and ātman"（梵我合一） to "self-nature is prajñā."（自性即般若）
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a sophisticated and well-researched comparative study that makes a genuine contribution to our understanding of Song Dynasty Confucian-Buddhist intellectual exchanges. The author skillfully demonstrates how two conceptually parallel frameworks the Confucian jigan (寂感) and the Buddhist jizhao (寂照) interact.
The paper moves from philosophical ontology to ritual practice and social integration, and the author clearly demonstrates the link between fundamental ontological theory and everyday ritual norms, providing us with a non-dualistic perspective often missing from Western rationalist frameworks.
The argument is coherent, the primary sources are well chosen, and the conclusion offers a clear typology of “sacredness of order” versus “sacredness of substance.” We recommend publication after addressing the following points.
Points for Revision
- The author needs to clarify and provide a more precise philosophical definition of the term “immanent transcendence”. From the point of view of comparative philosophy this is a particularly difficult term in East-West Discourse. It’s meaning shifts for different frameworks: Western, Eastern, Continental philosophy, Phenomenology, Confucianism and Buddhism. And the senses of the term in different frameworks are not identical. We recommend that the author add a clear definition that directly distinguishing the Confucian and Buddhist senses.
- The author presents jizhao as a unified concept of “Sinicized Buddhism” (so called 汉传佛教). However, this concept was not united. Sinicized Buddhism has different schools with different approaches to quiescence and illumination, so jizhao was not monolithic. We advise the author to clarify complexity and variance of the term jizhao within Buddhism, doing so will also help to clarify its difference from the Confucian jigan.
Minor Technical Comments
- In the article the author uses Chinese characters to clarify terms, but traditional and simplified forms are mixed throughout the text with no apparent system. While traditional characters are primarily used, simplified characters occasionally appear. F.e. line 43 发用, line 154 灭累 and 谢灵运, line 209 本体, line 275 寂体, line 285 张昭炜, line 358 费孝通 etc. The author should standardize the script, adopting either traditional or simplified characters.
- Line 340 needs to correct name Zhang Zai.
- Page 4 lines 154-181. There are to quotations from Xie Lingyun. English parts are different, but the Chinese texts are the same.
The article is a good research in the field of Chinese intellectual history and comparative philosophy. The focus of the paper on ontological structures and ritual implementation is innovative, and its conclusions for differentiating on this basis two models of sacredness are insightful. Our suggestions are organizational and clarificatory; they do not challenge the core thesis.
Author Response
Comment 1:
The author needs to clarify and provide a more precise philosophical definition of the term “immanent transcendence”. From the point of view of comparative philosophy this is a particularly difficult term in East-West Discourse. It’s meaning shifts for different frameworks: Western, Eastern, Continental philosophy, Phenomenology, Confucianism and Buddhism. And the senses of the term in different frameworks are not identical. We recommend that the author add a clear definition that directly distinguishing the Confucian and Buddhist senses.
Reply 1:
Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment and have made changes in the text accordingly. Please refer to the concluding paragraph of Part I, where I have added an explanation of "immanent transcendence."
immanent transcendence means that the tianli (天理, heavenly principles) is both inherent in human nature and the transcendent source of cosmic order.
Comment 2:
The author presents jizhao as a unified concept of “Sinicized Buddhism” (so called 汉传佛教). However, this concept was not united. Sinicized Buddhism has different schools with different approaches to quiescence and illumination, so jizhao was not monolithic. We advise the author to clarify complexity and variance of the term jizhao within Buddhism, doing so will also help to clarify its difference from the Confucian jigan.
Minor Technical Comments
Reply 2:
Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.In Part III, the article provides a detailed analysis of the understanding of jizhao among different schools such as Huayan and Tiantai.
Comment 3:
In the article the author uses Chinese characters to clarify terms, but traditional and simplified forms are mixed throughout the text with no apparent system. While traditional characters are primarily used, simplified characters occasionally appear. F.e. line 43 发用, line 154 灭累 and 谢灵运, line 209 本体, line 275 寂体, line 285 张昭炜, line 358 费孝通 etc. The author should standardize the script, adopting either traditional or simplified characters.
Reply 3:
Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. I have converted all Simplified Chinese characters in the article to Traditional Chinese.
Comment 4:
Line 340 needs to correct name Zhang Zai.
Reply 4:
Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment and have made changes in the text accordingly.
Comment 5:
Page 4 lines 154-181. There are to quotations from Xie Lingyun. English parts are different, but the Chinese texts are the same.
Reply 5:
Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment and have made changes in the text accordingly.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised manuscript has satisfactorily addressed the concerns raised in the previous comments. The revisions have substantially strengthened the quality and clarity of the paper, and the manuscript is ready for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the revision. All remaining comments have been addressed.
