Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A key argument is that Chinese and Korean conceptions of communal labor as spiritual practice are identical to the historical Buddha’s conceptions of such. The article purports to “prove” that there is an “historical continuity of Buddhist views on labor — from their origins in the early Buddhist scriptures, through Chinese Chan, and into the contemporary Korean bhikkhuni Sangha” (2). There is, however, slippage throughout the article between “origins in the early Buddhist scriptures” — especially the vinaya that serve as a blueprint for Chinese and Korean monasticism — and the historical Buddha himself. It’s perfectly okay to discuss how the Buddha is represented in these “early Buddhist scriptures” as engaged in various forms of labor, but to make claims beyond that is deeply problematic. I say this because Theravada Buddhists have a very different approach to labor than do Chinese and Koreans. They are explicitly prohibited from engaging in the kind of communal labor so important to Chinese and Korean monasteries. Further, contemporary proponents to Theravada Buddhist women’s access to bhikkhuni ordination often cite the fact that, as bhikkhunis, they would not be able to perform any labor, including cooking. Many Theravada nuns — ordained in alternative orders such as Sri Lanka’s sil matas— say that they do not want to become bhikkhunis because then they would not be able to engage in the labor needed to take care of themselves. Cooking is a central part of communal labor in Chinese and Korean monasteries. Please reframe the article so that it’s clear you are speaking about a) vinaya pertinent to China and Korea and b) interpretations of vinaya in specific historical and cultural contexts. Theravada interpretations of vinaya are radically different. And, as mentioned, that has a huge impact on contemporary debates over Theravada Buddhist women’s access to bhikkhuni ordination. In an article that is focusing on bhikkhunis, that is a relevant point.

Scholars in recent decades have shied away from historically-suspect efforts to determine what the historical Buddha actually did or did not say or do. It is, of course, a matter of faith within monastic communities that their particular vinaya and their particular history of vinaya-interpretation corresponds to what the historical Buddha promulgated. It’s totally fine to speak about how Chinese and Korean monastics interpreted their vinaya in this way, but it is a different matter to make a bold claim that their conception of labor as spiritual practice holds ahistorically across all Buddhist traditions. I understand that you are making claims based on more than one vinaya (Sarvastivada as well as Mahasanghika), but please do not give the impression that all vinaya — and more importantly, all interpretations of vinaya — support claims made by East Asian (as well as Tibetan) monastics.

That’s my suggestion for revision. Now, some praise: First, I appreciate the attention to different conceptions of labor, especially how East Asian monasticism links labor to liberation. Second, I routinely show in class the documentary about Unmunsa, which was distributed to members of the Sakyadhita conference in South Korea in 2004. I do so in the context of teaching how radically different East Asian conceptions of monastic labor are from Sri Lankan and Southeast Asian conceptions. I would love to assign this article in my classes. It’s a great study of East Asian conceptions of monastic labor. The most valuable part of the article is actually the section on “Labor in the Korean Bhikkhuni Sangha.” This article has great merit and, once the problematic historical aspects are addressed, it will make an excellent contribution to our understandings of monastic labor and the work of Buddhist nuns.

Author Response

Please see the attached file. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This was a very interesting article and important to gender studies in Buddhological scholarship. It was well supported with Buddhist texts and other scholarship and presented in a coherent discussion. Thank you for the contribution.

I only have a few suggestions. Because of its originality and relevance, I think the title should contain a word relating to gender for the reader not as familiar with Sanskrit – perhaps “Communal Work as Female Buddhist Practice.”  In addition, I suggest that the abstract define the term Bhikkhuni.

I also suggest that the author include a source(s) for the content of the three paragraphs that begin on line 674, whether it be personal research or another scholar, etc.

Author Response

Please see the attached file. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Revisions are well done. I look forward to assigning the article to my students when it is published.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I looked at the revised version and it looks great to me.