Towards a Holistic Buddhist Eco-Ethics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a strong overview of the vast literature on the possibilities of Eco-Buddhism as a global approach to the ecological crisis. The authors account for both the objections to this approach as well as its defenders. In so doing, the essay is both informative and a good argument that Eco-Buddhism makes critical and invaluable contributions to our response to the global ecological emergency. 

The essay is quite well researched and has a strong command of the field and its current tensions and openings. 

Author Response

Comments 1: This is a strong overview of the vast literature on the possibilities of Eco-Buddhism as a global approach to the ecological crisis. The authors account for both the objections to this approach as well as its defenders. In so doing, the essay is both informative and a good argument that Eco-Buddhism makes critical and invaluable contributions to our response to the global ecological emergency. 

Response 1: Thank you for providing us with such a favorable assessment of the article. Your encouragement has motivated us to conduct a thorough review and further enhance its quality.

Comments 2: The essay is quite well researched and has a strong command of the field and its current tensions and openings. 

Response 2: Thank you very much again. Also,the content of the article was further enhanced during this period.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My overall recommendation is to not publish as I believe the manuscript requires significant work to meet the academic standards of this journal. I have provided extensive in-text comments on the PDF below, but I will also share my general thoughts on the manuscript here.
My primary critique of this submission is that the author attempts to do too much while at the same time omitting engagement with some of the works most pertinent to the argument at hand. The manuscript jumps from point to point without actually engaging the relevant scholarship to a sufficient depth. As a result, the author seems to just scratch the surface of a variety of discussions without adding anything novel themselves. There is a vagueness and lack of clarity to the overall argument that has this manuscript read as a collection of summaries of thinkers in the eco-Buddhist space rather than a coherent argument unto itself. It therefore does not offer an original argument that warrants publication - instead, it defends a number of a positions that are better defended elsewhere. Further, this manuscript misrepresents its sources and their arguments at several points (see PDF) which detracts from the paper's strength a great deal and reads as a fairly major error. In addition to these misrepresentations, there are key texts in eco-Buddhism by scholars like Daniel Capper, William Edelglass, Barbra Clayton, Colin Simonds, and Katie Javanaud that speak directly to some of the arguments in the paper but are omitted - engaging these in a future draft would greatly improve the relevance of this paper to the present state of the field. Finally, there is a certain incoherence to the overall argument which is evidenced in the author contradicting themselves at several points in the manuscript (see PDF). 
This paper would require more than a significant revision to meet the publishing standards of the field, and for these reasons my recommendation is to not publish this manuscipt.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are grammatical errors throughout the manuscript. At some points, these errors simply made the manuscript a little more difficult to read, but at other points they fundamentally change the meaning of certain claims and make the argument generally difficult to parse. Significant edits are needed.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding file(for your convenience).

1. Summary

Comments: My overall recommendation is to not publish as I believe the manuscript requires significant work to meet the academic standards of this journal. I have provided extensive in-text comments on the PDF below, but I will also share my general thoughts on the manuscript here. My primary critique of this submission is that the author attempts to do too much while at the same time omitting engagement with some of the works most pertinent to the argument at hand. The manuscript jumps from point to point without actually engaging the relevant scholarship to a sufficient depth. As a result, the author seems to just scratch the surface of a variety of discussions without adding anything novel themselves. There is a vagueness and lack of clarity to the overall argument that has this manuscript read as a collection of summaries of thinkers in the eco-Buddhist space rather than a coherent argument unto itself. It therefore does not offer an original argument that warrants publication - instead, it defends a number of a positions that are better defended elsewhere. Further, this manuscript misrepresents its sources and their arguments at several points (see PDF) which detracts from the paper's strength a great deal and reads as a fairly major error. In addition to these misrepresentations, there are key texts in eco-Buddhism by scholars like Daniel Capper, William Edelglass, Barbra Clayton, Colin Simonds, and Katie Javanaud that speak directly to some of the arguments in the paper but are omitted - engaging these in a future draft would greatly improve the relevance of this paper to the present state of the field. Finally, there is a certain incoherence to the overall argument which is evidenced in the author contradicting themselves at several points in the manuscript (see PDF).

 

Response: Thank you for giving your meticulous comments. We have made major revisions based on your PDF file and responded to your comments point by point here. For your convenience, we also uploaded another file where we marked the changes and responded to your comments. In general, We have adjusted some of the less cautious statements, revised the grammar, and rewritten some paragraphs in order to better express the method and purpose of this article. Firstly, we present Buddhist eco-ethics through a lens of macro perspectives. Each macro perspective explores different inquiries. To enhance the coherence and conciseness of our argument, we have refined the transitional paragraphs between each section and bolstered the articulation of our primary objective. Here, we would like to reiterate our framework as follows: Through the analysis of the debates on Buddhist eco-ethics, we have identified three overarching perspectives for its examination. Drawing upon these macro inquiries, we have scrutinized strategies to mitigate the dispute and aim to present a holistic(“pan-” in your words) conception of Buddhist eco-ethics that can facilitate its engagement in environmental conservation. Secondly, we agree that there were some vague and self-contradictory sentences in our previous manuscript, which leads to misunderstanding and a sense of incoherence. Therefore, we have revised all the unclear and controversial issues you pointed out in the PDF, and have reorganized and strengthened our logical argument to make the main line of our article clearer. Thirdly, our innovation is that we have systematically and macroscopically sorted out and analyzed the debates, venturing to come up with a concept of pan-Buddhist eco-ethics for relieving disputes and enhancing the effectiveness of Buddhism in environmental protection. To avoid making the article look like a literature review, we further added our own discussion and analysis, reiterating our main purpose when appropriate. Finally, our purpose is to somewhat alleviate the dispute, rather than defending one group against another (which could exacerbate the dispute). In order to present our stance more clearly, we have removed and modified some sentences that were too absolute and restated our point of view in many places. In addition, the references have been reviewed again and reinterpreted or revised. Additionally, the views of the scholars you mentioned have been incorporated into our article. Again, thank you very much for your detailed comments in the PDF, which have provided us with great inspiration.

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

1. Introduction

Comments 1: Chinese Chan and Japanese Zen, while sharing a history, are distinct traditions today, and the former is far smaller in terms of adherents in the West than the latter. Claims like this require more specificity lest they be incorrect. 

Response 1: We agree. We have, accordingly, removed Chinese Chan from this sentence.

 

Comments 2: This doesn't logically follow. But beyond this logical leap - are they? I don't see Western philosophers turning to engaged Buddhism as a source of philosophical thought. But perhaps this will be shown later.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing these out. Accordingly, we have adjusted the grammar and logic. There are such Western philosophers as David Loy and Damien Keown who pay attention to engaged Buddhism, and their works will be cited later.

 

Comments 3: Who is "they" in this sentence? Gaian earth religions have a very specific definition (see: Bron Taylor's Dark Green Religion) which the majority of eco-Buddhisms do not fall under. A claim like this requires proof which, again, may come later. 

Response 3: We agree that “they” in this sentence shows ambiguity. So, we have changed it into “these philosophers.” Taylor’s definition of Gaia earth religion suggests that the biosphere(universe or cosmos) to be alive or conscious, or at least by metaphor and analogy to resemble organisms with their many interdependent parts. Here, we use “Gaia earth religious foundation” to lay emphasis on the “Earth”, for we notice that in recent decades Buddhists have started formulating responses to the second wave of environmental crisis which is global in scale (ex. climate change, biodiversity erosion, and ozone thinning). They issued such declarations as “The Earth is My Witness,” and formed such organizations as One Earth Sangha. In addition to Taylor’s Gaia earth religions, there is an earth ethic (discussed by some Japanese scholars and J. B. Callicott), which also draws on Gaia theory. As a result, we think it may be more reasonable to mention Gaia earth when talking about Buddhist environmentalism at a time of global environmental crisis.

 

Comments 4: Again, who is "they"? Is "they" the Buddhist practitioners or the Western philosophers?

Response 4: we agree that “they” here is not properly used, so we have changed the beginning of this sentence into “it is claimed...”

 

Comments 5: This is good framing and a worthwhile, though not entirely novel, question. If the author approaches this question in a novel way this will make for an interesting paper.

Response 5: Thank you for your comments. We have restated this significant question here, aiming to demonstrate its complexity by involving scholars from different fields with diverse perspectives. This sets the stage for our subsequent discussion on the role of perspective in constructing a holistic concept of Buddhist eco-ethics. Actually, we take the approach of perspective (a kind of macro stance) as a supplement to various views concerning the dispute over Buddhist eco-ethics.

 

Comment 6: What current study are you referring to? And what do you mean by these ideas of "justified concept" and "individual views vs. broader perspectives"? This seems to be the point of this paper, but its unclear why the Buddhist eco-ethics posited by recent scholars like Capper, Javanaud, Simonds, and Edelglass (none of which are present in this paper) are "unjustified" when they certainly engage a plurality of both Buddhist and environmental views. Nor is it clear why a pluralistic approach is more 'justifiable' than one rooted in a single Buddhist tradition. I think this notion of "justification" needs to be clarified far more than it currently is, given how it is the crux of this paper and is left undefined.

Response 6: Your comments are very enlightening to us. Accordingly, we have readdressed this sentence. Using the word "justified" in our phrasing made it seem so absolute that readers may have thought we were opposing or criticizing other scholars' Buddhist eco-ethics. In fact, we uphold an approach to discuss multiple perspectives first when we deal with the concept of Buddhist eco-ethics. It is a framing approach based on the analysis and classification of different specific views. Then, we read the works of those scholars you mentioned in your comments carefully, and found their ideas can also fit into our framework of holistic Buddhist eco-ethics. Thus, we will include an analysis of their views later.  

 

Comments 7: This seems irrelevant. It seems as though the author claims below that a valid philosophical position necessitates a plurality of perspectives, and this seems like it's working towards this claim. However, this doesn't logically establish that claim as valid and just seems superfluous.

Response 7: We agree, so we have removed these sentences from our paper to show our opinion more clearer.

 

Comments 8: This reads as the thesis and core purpose of this paper: to articulate a holistic (i.e. pan-Buddhist) Buddhist environmental ethic which is inclusive of multiple possibly conflicting perspectives. I think that's a laudable goal and a worthwhile paper. However, building from the previous comment, this should be made more clear.

Response 8: This is exactly our main purpose. To achieving this, we delineate those different views into different perspectives and believe that such a holistic Buddhist eco-ethics is necessary in the face of the heated debate. It takes a macro view and is therefore more inclusive. Thanks to your previous constructive comments and suggestions, we have made revisions and made the logic thread and purpose clearer.

2. The Dispute over the Feasibility of Buddhist Eco-Ethics

Comments 9: Good.

Response 9: Thank you very much!

 

Comments 10: Why is this framework more useful than the ones already provided (and cited in this paper) by Swearer and Duc?

Response 10: Our intention is not to show that our framework is more useful than the ones provided by Swearer and Duc, but to sort out different specific views on a macro level and propose a more inclusive concept of Buddhist eco-ethics in response to the debate. In the following, we will adjust some absolute or vague wording based on your comments so as to reduce misunderstandings and clarify our theme.

 

Comments 11: Unclear.

Response 11: We have adjusted this sentence.

 

2.1. The Internal Perspective: Whether There Is an Eco-Ethics in Buddhism

Comments 12: I.e. eco-apoologetics and eco-constructivism in swearer's framework. Perhaps more directly referencing this would demonstrate a better mastery of the present discourse and hence and overall stronger argument.

Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out, and we have added a direct reference after this sentence.

 

Comments 13: This doesn't follow. Are you suggesting that cherry-picking is okay for conservation efforts but not for a deep ecological approach to environmental ethics? This seems arbitrary if so.

Response 13: The sentences have been adjusted by us to enhance their logical coherence and clarity of meaning. We mean that cherry-picking Buddhist scriptures violates the historical objectivity valued by those scholars we mentioned before.

 

Comments 14: Grammatical error.

Response 14: Thank you for pointing this out. We have modified this sentence.

 

Comments 15: How so? Either expand or don't say this.

Response 15: We have removed the sentence “Keown goes further to show Buddhist incongruity with the 123 principles of environmental ethics. ”

 

Comments 16: Grammatically erroneous sentence - unclear what the author is trying to say here.

Response 16: We have revised the sentence to make it clearer.

 

Comments 17: This logically doesn't follow and is actually a misrepresentation of the authors cited above who do not make this claim (outside of perhaps Harris). Instead, these authors show how environmental ethics did not exist in pre-modern Buddhist contexts. However, most of the above authors hold out the possibility of a novel kind of Buddhist environmental ethics despite the lack of historical precedence.

Response 17: We agree. Therefore, we have strengthened our discourse to avoid the misunderstanding that these scholars refuse to acknowledge innovation. In fact, we emphasize their recognition of Buddhism's innovative involvement in social affairs. For us, their “novel kind of Buddhist environmental ethics without historical precedence” can be seen as a kind of embodiment of engaged Buddhism. However, without careful rephrasing here, our views may appear contradictory.

 

Comments 18: There are two positions here that are conflated with one another uncritically. The first is that Buddhism has historically not held environmentalist positions. That's fair. But this does not  mean that Buddhist philosophy is incapable of supporting an ecological ethic. Some of the authors above make this clear, as does Simonds "The Trouble of Rocks and Waters" in Environmental Ethics.

Response 18: Thank you for your comments, we agree but our main purpose is somewhat different from that of Simonds. In his work "The Trouble of Rocks and Waters," Simonds investigates the tension between Buddhist philosophy and environmental ethics found in the land ethic and deep ecology. This problem is classified by us to the external macro perspective of whether Buddhism can mediate typical branches of environmental ethics like deep ecology. Here, we focus on the internal macro perspective, which is to historically examine whether there is an eco-ethics in Buddhism. This exactly aligns with Simonds' idea of “constructing an environmental ethic from the ground up. ” Furthermore, we will divide the view that "Buddhism has historically not held environmentalist positions" into two parts: firstly, early Buddhist scriptures may not advocate for an eco-ethics (as stated in this paragraph); secondly, there have been instances in history where Buddhists engaged in environmentally harmful activities (which will be discussed in section 2.3). This sentence shows that scholars like Schmithausen discredit Buddhist eco-ethics due to their limited findings of evidence in early Buddhist literature supporting an eco-ethics.

 

Comments 19: Strange wording.

Response 19: Thank you for pointing this out. This sentence has been modified.

 

Comments 20: These elements need to be made explicitly clear for this argument to hold weight in the present discussion. Holder makes these clear in his work. Likewise, Daniel Capper's Roaming Free Like a Deer contains a sustained discussion on the particular elements of an environmental ethic that he alleges are absent in Buddhist thought.

Response 20: We agree. Accordingly we have given examples of these elements. Besides, the next sentence has been adjusted to make it clearer. As for Capper’s idea, it will be cited later.

 

Comments 21: Who is arguing this? Who is "they" here? What are the differences between a "societal construct known as Green Buddhism" and an inherent Buddhist eco-ethic? There are too many undefined terms here to make any sense of how the author is positioning themselves in this discussion.

Response 21: We have adjusted our wording. In fact, we have an inclination towards engaged Buddhism in this paper. For us, socialized Buddhism, green Buddhism, and engaged Buddhism(which is defined before) are three synonyms that all focus on actively participating in ecological activism and advocacy as expressions of Buddhist practice. To avoid confusion, we will consistently use the term "engaged Buddhism" throughout the paper.

 

Comments 22: I am unfamiliar with this term - "socialized Buddhism" is not a common term in the field. Needs defining and/or contextualizing.

Response 22: It has been changed into “engaged Buddhism.”

 

Comments 23: Again, I think this is a misrepresentation of these thinkers. Schmithausen, Kaza, Keown, and Ives all propose modes of ecological ethics based squarely in Indian, South-east Asian, and Japanese Buddhist thought. They are critical of claims of eco-Buddhist apologia which assert that Buddhism has always been green, but they nonetheless articulate the very kinds of ecological thinking that the present author claims they overlook.

Response 23: We apologize for our obscure and absolute wording. We’re not inclined to refuse the “very kinds of ecological thinking” of Schmithausen, Kaza, Keown, and Ives. In fact, we tend to analyse their ideas through a lens of engaged Buddhism, from which we can know that their thinking harbor dual connotations:

①Historical examination of early texts→ the early texts cannot reason out a kind of eco-ethics→they are skeptic of Buddhist eco-ethics; ②Engaged Buddhism→Buddhist eco-ethics serves as an innovation that calls for the exploration of ecological resources in Buddhist philosophy→they articulate the very kinds of ecological thinking. And we also says just before this comment that “it is essential to recognize that historical objectivity and the socialized ‘engaged Buddhism’ need not be seen as adversarial.” In 2.3, we stress again that “we have to notice that Buddhism, like any living tradition, has evolved and adapted over time. While Buddhists may have neglected nature in the history, it does not mean that Buddhism cannot align with eco-ethical principles.”

 

Comments 24: Grammatically incorrect.

Response 24: Thank you, and we have made adjustments to this sentence.

 

Comments 25: Correct, and this refutes your earlier claim that they overlook these very things.

Response 25: In this paragraph, we directly cite from those critics to prove our discussion above. After the previous revision, our idea appears to be clearer.

 

Comments 26: Again, it's unclear what this means in this context.

Response 26: We have changed it into “the socialized inclination.”

 

Comments 27: Fair point.

Response 27: Thank you very much!

 

Comments 28: Very few, if any, of the authors cited in this piece are social scientists. The vast majority of them are humanists, working in the fields of philosophy, literature, religion, and history. I'm not sure this claim fits within the context of this paper.

Response 28: Thank you for pointing this out. We have made modification accordingly.

 

Comments 29: Tibetan Buddhism is usually not considered "Far East." That is usually reserved for CHina and Japan. But beyond this, I'm not entirely sure what this next section is going to do because of the ambiguous use of terms in this concluding sentence. What are the divergent perspectives? Thus far you've only surveyed eco-critical perspectives. And why would exploring Tibetan Buddhism harmoniously integrate these skeptics into a holistic Buddhist eco-ethic? Tibet, like any other nation in Buddhist Asia, has not been kind to the environment historically. It seems to me what Schmithausen is calling for in his quote in this paragraph is for creative reinterpretation (or eco-constructivism to use Swearer's typology) rather than simply pointing to historical constructs (or eco-apologism), and this reads as though you're simply going to do the latter, contradicting what you've set up thus far.

Response 29: We have revised the concluding statement to ensure its seamless integration with the subsequent section.

 

2.2. The External Perspective: Whether Buddhism Can Support Deep Ecology

Comments 30: I feel as though there needs to be some justification for why deep ecology is chosen to represent western environmentalism instead of, say, the land ethic.

Response 30: Thank you! We have provided a reason subsequently.

 

Comments 31: Grammatically incorrect. But also unclear what this means... Deep ecology is environmentalist, so how does it extend beyond it?

Response 31: After rethinking, we have deleted this sentence.

 

Comments 32: Unclear.

Response 32: We have modified our wording in order to clarify the intended meaning.  In this section, we take an external macro perspective, that is, to discuss the adaptation between Buddhism and other environmental branches instead of examining whether the early Buddhist documents can inherently generate an eco-ethics.

 

Comments 33: What does this have to do with deep ecology? This reads like an error in how the argument is being organized.

Response 33: We agree, so we have revised the sentence.

 

Comments 34: You just stated that these are congruent philosophies in the previous paragraph.

Response 34: Thank you. We have already revised our previous discussion and our wording here.

 

Comments 35: ?

Response 35: It is “homocentric.” 

 

Comments 36: “The holistic paradigm inherent in Buddhism” has not been established.

Response 36: Agree. We have already rephrased it.

 

Comments 37: To the reader, it's unclear the rhetorical moves that James makes to allow for intrinsic existence and the kinds of "holistic" (though James himself is against holism) in Buddhist ontology. The author of this present paper needs to actually articulate these moves themselves for their argument to work. It's not enough to just say that James uses Heidegger to do so.

Response 37: We agree. Therefore, we have elaborated on Jame's main idea.

Comments 38: Addressing this question would mandate a paper unto itself.

Response 38: We have removed some sentences that discuss the practical implications of Buddhist eco-ethics, which you believe require a paper.

 

Comments 39: Daniel Henning has written two books on Buddhism and Deep Ecology, and it seems like a mistake not to engage with them in this section. Without this engagement, it feels as though the reader is missing out on a key piece of the discourse.

Response 39: Thank you for this recommendation. We have added Henning to our list of references.

 

Comments 40: This is not true, and in fact Lin doesn't say this. Lin says that a number of scholars have written about this conjunction vis a vis a critique of political economy. But most of the scholars cited even in this article do not touch on questions of political economy whatsoever.

Response 40: We apologize for our mistake here. But we still hold that in the case study of Buddhism and deep ecology, political economy serves as an important perspective. Through a lens of political ecology, the idea of minimal consumption and procreation does not always align with the sustainable production and reproduction of a society, so its practical implication seems to be compromised. Some countries, such as China, emphasize the fundamental role of consumption-led economic growth and have encouraged population growth in recent years. Also, Kaza and Loy touch on the questions of political economy to a greater or lesser extent(ex. Kaza’s “Overcoming the grip of consumerism”; Loy’s Ecodharma).

 

Comments 41: Who is saying this? What of every other monastic tradition in other world religions, let alone contemporary secular movements like the "small is beautiful" movement or the minimalism movement? This seems incorrect.

Response 41: Thank you for your comments! The previous controversial remarks have been revised by us. Our intention here is to demonstrate that extremely simplified consumption and procreation are not always practically suitable when viewed from the perspective of political economy.

 

Comments 42: Again, Henning actually resolves them in his work. Whether or not you find his arguments agreeable is a separate question, but stating that they remain unresolved is ignoring a body of literature integral to the topic of this paper.

Response 42: Here, we have made a modification to our previous wording that was too absolute.

 

Comments 43: You seem to be dismissing their congruity using this Cavazza quote, but Cavazza herself does not dismiss their potential compatibility in her work.

Response 43: Thank you for pointing this out. Accordingly, we have adjusted the sentence to avoid ambiguity.

 

Comments 44: This has not been shown in this section.

Response 44: Thank you. We have rewritten the end of this section.

 

2.3. The Perspective of Disciples: Whether Buddhists Are Friendly to Nature

Comments 45: Grammatically incorrect, but also unclear as to how this differs from what has already been discussed.

Response 45: Thank you for your comments. The grammar has been modified by us. Then we have further added explanations. Additionally, engaged Buddhism promotes active participation in ecological activism and advocacy as a manifestation of Buddhist practice. Therefore, it is important to consider Buddhists when dealing with Buddhist eco-ethics.

 

Comments 46: Again, wasn't this already shown in 2.1? How is this different?

Response 46: Here, our discussion focuses more on Buddhists themselves and their activities, rather than the historical examination of early texts as we did in 2.1. Buddhists and their environmental activities can be affected not only by Buddhism, but also by the ecological environment and social policies, atmosphere.

 

Comments 47: It's Elverskog, not Elverslog.

Response 47: Thank you for pointing this out. It has been corrected.

 

Comments 48: While I suppose this might be the case, I feel as though there are better examples for this notion of adaptability for this eco-Buddhist context. The first that comes to mind is Susan Darlington's ethnographic work on how Thai monks have adapted the ordination ritual for trees to prevent deforestation.

Response 48: We agree. Accordingly we have added some examples to our discussion. Thank you very much.

 

Comments 49: Elverskog shows how this is clearly not the case. "Asserting" is therefore a wrong verb to describe what they're doing - "claiming" might be better.

Response 49: Thank you for pointing this out. We have changed “asserting” to “claiming” accordingly.

 

Comments 50: Can this connection be inherent if it is not borne out in the actual lives of historical Buddhists?

Response 50: We have modified our wording here.

 

Comments 51: This paragraph lacks sufficient specificity to be able to make a meaningful statement. It's still unclear what "singular perspectives" mean given how the majority of writers cited in this section engage with more than just a single frame of reference.

Response 51: Thank you for comments. We have modified our discussion and rewritten the ending paragraph.

 

3.The Dispute over the Classification of Buddhist Eco-Ethics

Comments 51: ? Is this meant to mean "engaged" Buddhism? Because socialized Buddhism is not a recognized term. Using engaged would make this more clear and would tie it into existing literature better. 

Response 51: Thank you for comments. We have used the term “engaged Buddhism” consistently throughout the text.

 

Comments 52: So they are not detractors then if they nonetheless hold that eco-Buddhism is a possibility.

Response 52: We agree. So in our revision, we modified our discussion. Actually, part 3 has been thoroughly adjusted based on all of your comments regarding this part. Please kindly review our modified text in the other file, where we have highlighted the revisions.

 

Comments 53: Swearer doesn't do this. He provides a typology, not a synthesis.

Response 53: We agree. In our modified text, we have deleted this kind of analysis. In addition, Swearer’s views have been rediscussed to make the paper more compact and logically consistent.

 

Comments 54: It's unclear why this section(3.1) is relevant to the current argument. A better tie-in concluding sentence is perhaps warranted.

Response 54: Thank you. When rewriting the part 3, we paid special attention to the concluding sentences, ensuring the logical connection between each section. 

 

Comments 55: This section header does not relate to the section contents.

Response 55: Sorry for this error. The header of 3.2 is “Classifications of Macro Perspectives.”

 

Comments 56: Again, Lin doesn't say this. Lin says that she is focusing on these two camps (borrowed from Swearer) in her analysis but acknowledges that others exist. She does not say that eco-Buddhist scholars are unanimously in these two camps.

Response 56: Thank you. We have revised our discussion on Lin. As for our previous discussion on the “two camps,” it has already been removed. In the revised part 3, we interpret Sahni’s typology as examining different views on whether there is an authentic eco-ethics in Buddhist literature, and consider Swearer’s classification as a way to categorize macro perspectives. Taking inspiration from Swearer’s approach, we present our framework from a macro perspective.

 

Comments 57: This kind of loaded language (“the great Western religion”) feels out of place in an academic piece.

Response 57: Thank you. The inappropriateness of the words in part 3 has been revised by us.

 

Comments 58: This section feels like a simple repetition of what has already been said in section 2.

Response 58: In order to better distinguish from part 2, we have rewritten this part 3. Again, please kindly read the third part of our revised text.

 

Comments 59: This is just the eco-constructivist methodology outlined by Swearer. Is this what you are defending? If so, engaging more clearly with the extant literature would do this paper well. Otherwise, it seems as though you are trying to pass off something as novel that has been said before.

Response 59: In part 3, our aim is not to defend one methodology against another. Instead, we explore different macro perspectives to address the concept of holistic Buddhist eco-ethics.

 

4.Mediating the Dispute over Buddhist Eco-Ethics

4.1. Regarding Buddhist Eco-Ethics as Virtue Ethic

Comments 60: How does this virtue ethics approach not come under the same critique leveled by eco-critics? Moreover, is the use of virtue ethics to articulate a Buddhist environmentalism not, again, simply what Swearer's eco-ethics position contends? What exactly is novel in this argument?

Response 60: Thank you for comments. We have added sentences to this paragraph to answer your first question. Our purpose is to somewhat alleviate the dispute, rather than defending one group against another (which could exacerbate the dispute). For this, we see the virtue method as an example of relieving dispute at the external macro level-- It involves the interaction between two fields: Buddhism and environmental virtue ethics, investigating the Buddhist eco-ethics from an external macro perspective. However, critics deal with Buddhist eco-ethics from an internal perspective (we have discussed this in part 3). So, the method of virtue and that of critics come from different macro perspectives and answer different questions, and they can exist in harmony with each other under the framework of holistic (“pan-” in your words) Buddhist eco-ethics. In this sense, the virtue method may mediate the dispute and help to prompt a holistic Buddhist eco-ethics. Also, we argue that the two different methods for mediating the dispute discussed in this article are derived from various macro perspectives, which makes them parallelly valuable and necessitates their harmonious coexistence to promote a holistic Buddhist eco-ethics. In a word, we tend to investigate these mediating methods through the lens of macro perspectives aforementioned.

 

4.1.1. Resorting to Virtue Ethics to Mediate the Dispute over Buddhist Eco-Ethics

Comments 61: How so?

Response 61: In the previous paragraph, we have added points to defend the virtue method based on your comment. Also, in our subsequent discussion, we will provide explanations.

 

Comments 62: This presentation of Sahni's position is exactly that which is critiqued by the eco-critics above: namely that early Buddhism can be understood as inherently environmentalist. I'm not sure that Sahni would content this is the case, but even if she does it is not clear how your presentation of her work resists the eco-critic positions.

Response 62: In the introduction page of Sahni’s book, it is stated as follows: “this book contains a logical and thorough examination of some metaphysical and ethical dimensions of early Buddhist literature to determine their environmental significance and demonstrates that early Buddhism can be recognized as an environmental virtue ethics”; this work “puts forward a distinctly Buddhist environmental ethics that is in harmony with traditional teachings...”Our main purpose is not to stand for eco-ethics and resist the eco-critic positions. Instead, we favour and believe their harmonious co-existence-- They are delineated into different macro perspectives, and they answer different questions(whether there exists an eco-ethics in Buddhism/ Is it possible to mediate Buddhism with other environmental ethical views). Here, Sahni mingles these two perspectives to address the dispute. Seen from the framework of different macro perspectives, virtue method and critiques can co-exist.

 

Comments 63: This has not been shown, just said.

Response 63: The explanation has been further provided.

 

Comments 64: Grammatical error.

Response 64: Thank you for pointing out this. We have already modified it.

 

Comments 65: How so? Why then has Buddhism been largely a negative force in terms of ecological wellbeing throughout history as the eco-critics claim? There needs to be a clearer line of argument in order to actually reconcile the eco-apologetic and eco-critic position as, for example, Lin does in her work.

Response 65: Because of the previous adjustment of the discussion, these sentences have been deleted by us.

 

Comments 66: ?

Response 66: We have omitted a sentence about the practicality of environmental ethics here because we thought it would take too long to clarify.

 

Comments 67: Grammatical error.

Response 67: Thank you for pointing this out for us. It has been modified.

 

4.1.2. Justifying the Holistic Buddhist Eco-Ethics from the External Perspective

Comments 68: This hasn't been shown. And perhaps working with the categories of eco-ethics and eco-constructivism and the methodologies therein would help the author navigate how scholars like Sahni navigate these critiques.

Response 68: We have modified our wording. In this part, we are not going to address those critiques, which has already been studied by a number of scholars. Instead, we hold that they can coexist with the virtue method in our framework of holistic Buddhist eco-ethics. By interacting two categories and influencing a number of scholars, the virtue method contributes to the holistic Buddhist eco-ethics.

 

Comments 69: Yu does not present "New Buddhism" as a developed concept as you suggest. And employing this term in this way distorts what Yu actually says in hsi article. He simply states that a new kind of Buddhism may emerge in modernity in response to environmental challenges. This hardly a new position - the notion of a "fourth turning of the wheel of dharma" has been around since the early 90s with respect to engaged Buddhism.

Response 69: Thank you for your comment. We have modified our wording. Here, we emphasize the virtue aspect in “new Buddhism”. The engaged Buddhist aspect of it will be discussed later in 4.2.

 

Comments 70: More defensible implies that non-virtue ethics positions (i.e. those of Simonds or Barbra Clayton) are less defensible which has not been shown.

Response 70: Thank you. We have modified this sentence.

 

Comments 71: This again hasn't been shown. The cosmological critique of Harris, for example, that Buddhism aims to escape from the natural world rather than ameliorate it which this present author gestured to earlier is left unaddressed by this presentation of virtue ethics. Likewise, the historical critique of Elverskog - that Buddhists destroyed t he environment wherever they went in historical Buddhist Asia - is left untouched. The particular critique emphasized here makes it seem like the author is just ignoring these critiques they brought up earlier for the sake of expediency and reads as a bit of a strawman.

Response 71: Thank you. Actually, we distribute the ideas of Harris to the first query and those of Elverskog to the third one. In this part, we have no intention of engaging in an argument. Instead, our aim is to demonstrate the valuable contribution of the virtue approach in moderating disputes and promoting a holistic concept of Buddhist eco-ethics.

 

Comments 72: Again, this has not been argued so you can't really make this statement, especially when scholars like Clark and Simonds have argued (quite well) otherwise.

Response 72: Thank you for comments. We have revised our wording in order to clarify our intention.

 

Comments 73: This is stated as though this is a prerequisite to real environmentalism, but the prior sentence makes it seem as though the author is saying that this is an impossibility. It's therefore unclear what is being argued here. Clarity is needed.

Response 73: Thank you for comments. Because we have adjusted the argument, these sentences have been deleted.

 

4.2. Regarding Buddhist Eco-Ethics as an Achievement of Engaged Buddhism

Comments 74: Again, it's unclear what socialized means. Socially active? Socially engaged? I.e. engaged buddhism?

Response 74: Thank you. Throughout the text, we consistently employ the term "engaged Buddhism" now.

 

Comments 75: How so? This will need to be explicitly proven, especially considering how the author quoted others earlier in the article stating that Buddhist environmentalism has no basis in tradition.

Response 75: Thank you. Accordingly, we have added further explanations. We observe that the uninterrupted progression of Buddhism is a point emphasized by some engaged Buddhist scholars like Loy. The discussion on this matter will be further addressed later. In fact, we see this uninterrupted point as a way to mediate the debate on Buddhist eco-ethics from an internal macro perspective-- The critiques on Buddhist environmentalism mainly arise from the dichotomy between scholars' historical emphasis and the socialized one (discussed in 2.1). By emphasizing Buddhist uninterrupted progression, it is possible to harmonize the historical and socialized emphases, thereby relieving the dispute.

 

4.2.1. Resorting to Engaged Buddhism to Mediate the Dispute over Buddhist Eco-Ethics

Comments 76: No it doesn't. Instead, it says that while Buddhist scriptures lack support for a Buddhist ethics historically, we can see innovation happening today. It doesn't challenge the critique directly as this sentence suggests, it just works around it.

Response 76: We agree. Accordingly we have modified our discussion.

 

Comments 77: What are these various perspectives? This wasn't stated.

Response 77: Thank you. Accordingly we have made a further statement.

 

4.2.2. Justifying the Holistic Buddhist Eco-Ethics from the Internal Perspective

Comments 78: This claim requires citations in its proof which are not provided.

Response 78: Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, we have included direct citations.

 

Comments 79: Grammatical issues.

Response 79: Thank you. We have already modified it.

 

Comments 80: Fine, but this isn't engaged Buddhism.

Response 80: We have removed some controversial sentences that may not be tightly connected to our discussion.

 

4.3. Different Perspectives for Mediating the Dispute over Buddhist Eco-ethics

 

5. Conclusions

Comments 81: I agree, but you said earlier that this is insufficient.

Response 81: For our previous discussion has been modified, so we have removed these sentences and made slight modifications to our wording in this conclusion part.

 

3. 3. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: There are grammatical errors throughout the manuscript. At some points, these errors simply made the manuscript a little more difficult to read, but at other points they fundamentally change the meaning of certain claims and make the argument generally difficult to parse. Significant edits are needed.

Response 1: Thank you for your comments. We have thoroughly checked the grammar of the entire text, especially making modifications to some ambiguous pronouns. In addition, we have adjusted our wording to address the grammatical errors you pointed out in the PDF.

 

4. Additional clarifications

The article has undergone significant revisions, some of which are challenging to articulate here; therefore, it is essential to review our responses in the other file. Following the revision, our primary argument and purpose have become more explicit, and there have been certain modifications in the analysis process compared to its previous state. However, as our article takes a macro perspective on Buddhist eco-ethics, we are unable to analyze every specific issue (such as whether the view of dependent origination can support environmentalism), which may result in some conflicting points in the article. While revising according to your comments, we strive to avoid making absolutist contradictory statements. Finally, thank you very much for your suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

In this study the author presents on the whole a well-structured and comprehensive exploration of Buddhist eco-ethics within the context of contemporary environmental challenges. 

 

The study makes several valuable contributions to the discourse, effectively integrating multiple perspectives on Buddhist eco-ethics, including historical, social, and philosophical viewpoints. This holistic approach appears to be significant for developing a nuanced understanding of the subject, as the author argues. The author also satisfactorily engages with current scholarship, referencing key figures such as Lambert Schmithausen, Ian Harris, and David R. Loy. (ex. lines 74–92) This demonstrates a thorough understanding of the academic discourse and situates the article within ongoing debates. If the author considers to include the following important works, all of which deal the ecology and Buddhism in detail, his or her main argument can be strengthened.

 

Sørensen, Henrik H. "Of eco-Buddhas and dharma-roots: Views from the East Asian Buddhist tradition." Nature, Environment and Culture in East Asia. Brill, 2013. 83-105.

 

Ives, Christopher. "Buddhism: a mixed dharmic bag: debates about Buddhism and ecology." Routledge handbook of religion and ecology. Routledge, 2016. 43-51.

 

Cooper, David E., and Simon P. James. Buddhism, virtue and environment. Routledge, 2017.

 

 

Still there are some aspects in which it could be further improved, as follows: 

 

 (1) In this study, the author places a significant emphasis on the intersection of Buddhist eco-ethics with Western environmental ethics. (ex. lines 185-202, and also lines 529-574) Such focus might overshadow indigenous interpretations and practices within Asian Buddhist communities, which could provide additional insights and a more balanced perspective.

 

(2) The manuscripts mainly discusses theoretical frameworks and historical evolution, it provides limited guidance on practical implementation. More detailed recommendations on how Buddhist principles can be operationalized in environmental policy and community actions could enhance the article's practical relevance.

 

(3) The authors mentions various activities while discussing “engaged Buddhism,” (lines 607-615) but no specific examples or detailed case studies provided in this study. Providing concrete examples of engaged Buddhist initiatives would make the argument more compelling. 

 

By addressing such aspects, the manuscript could be improve, providing a more balanced, nuanced, and most of all, practically relevant discussion of Buddhist eco-ethics.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the English used in this manuscript seems clear and well-structured. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This version of the manuscript is much improved over the original. There are still some issues with phrasing throughout that should be edited for clarity and conciseness prior to publication, but the author(s) did a good job of searching out and engaging with the established literature where I suggested they needed to in their manuscript and I am satisfied with these revisions. At times, this still reads as more off a literature review than a novel, original argument, but I think the author(s) justify their framing and organization to a satisfactory degree. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are still phrasing issues throughout including words repeated in a sentence, vagueness in some claims that could be clarified, and some language that could be made more concise. These are mostly stylistic, but would greatly improve the final draft. My original review stated that there was issues with the quality of language that impacted the meaning of particular claims, and these have been satisfactorily revised.

Author Response

Comments: This version of the manuscript is much improved over the original. There are still some issues with phrasing throughout that should be edited for clarity and conciseness prior to publication, but the author(s) did a good job of searching out and engaging with the established literature where I suggested they needed to in their manuscript and I am satisfied with these revisions. At times, this still reads as more off a literature review than a novel, original argument, but I think the author(s) justify their framing and organization to a satisfactory degree.  There are still phrasing issues throughout including words repeated in a sentence, vagueness in some claims that could be clarified, and some language that could be made more concise. These are mostly stylistic, but would greatly improve the final draft. My original review stated that there was issues with the quality of language that impacted the meaning of particular claims, and these have been satisfactorily revised.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. We have checked the full text again and made changes where it was not clear enough or ambiguous. The pronouns in the text were given special attention, with further exclusion of cases where reference was unclear. Furthermore, to enhance clarity, some extremely lengthy sentences have been deconstructed and certain repeated sentences have been removed. For your convenience, we have marked our changes in the newly uploaded version.