“Just Do It!” The Art of Teaching Enlightenment: A Study of a Korean Ganhwa Seon Master

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Overall the article is fine but the historical introduction of Ganhwa Seon could benefit from some revisions, see below:

lines 62; 504-505: add research by Robert Buswell, who has extensively published on Ganhwa Seon (also written Kanhwa Sŏn)

line 65-66: Bodhidharma is an invented historical figure, see research by John McRae; Alan Cole; Robert Sharf

line 78-79: Imje (NOT LIMJE)

line 544: what do you mean by "Asian Ganhwa Seon"? please clarify. Do you mean Korean Ganhwa Seon?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your feedback. We have sincerely accepted your feedback and conducted a revision based on your suggestions. We appreciate you.

Please see the attachment!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review

 

“Just do it!” The art of teaching enlightenment: A study of a Korean Ganhwa Seon master” 

 

In general

 

It was a pleasure to read the manuscript. The manuscript is well written, clear in structure and well-grounded in theory. The title covers the content and refers to the study material as is custom in qualitative research. The topic is interesting and suits the journal of religion. The introduction contains a clear explanation of Ganwha. The goal of the study is explicitly stated. The research questions are well formulated, although I would expect a question addressing the meaning of Seon teaching. The method (case study) is sound and well described. I enjoyed seeing the gounded theory applied to this case, but would encourage the authors to push this method somewhat further in order to gain full profit off their  results. In line with the qualitative research tradition, I miss the conceptualization of the findings. This is a weak point of the manuscript. Validation of the CRISPA framework by the case seems to be the main outcome. The conclusions are supported by the findings, with exception of a statement on the effect of the seven day retreat on participants that does not seem to be supported by the findings. The manuscript offers an empirical investigation by qualitative research in the meaning of a Seon practice which is relevant for science and contemporary society. Therefore, my advice is to publish the paper in its current form with some minor revisions.  

 

General question. What language is used by the master in his course? Korean or English? And if not English, how did the translation of the study material affected the description and conclusions? For example, are there expressions hard to translate? Also, is the seven day retreat international or only for Korean?

 

In relation to the word count, I wonder what language was used and if the word count is conducted on Korean or Chinese language?  

 

The word “practice” should be cleared up. It looks like the author uses the word in the Buddhist sense referring to an attitude/collective action and for exercises during the seven day retreat.  

 

The word “aesthetic” should be cleared up too. Do the authors really want to evaluate the beauty of Ganhwa Seon? The word looks redundant sometimes. Please state its meaning in the context of this research.

 

Most important in qualitative research is to conceptualize the findings (Glaser and Strauss). I think this could be more developed by the authors. What is the concept attached to every dimension of CRISPA in this case? And next, what concept covers these conceptualizations? This could improve the analysis. 

 

If compassion is the outcome of the final conceptualization, I think the connection with the findings/CRISPA framework should be made more explicitly in order to be in line with the grounded theory.

 

In specific

Line 19. Please explain compassion as example of a contemplative practice.

Line 91. “…breaking down the hwadu”. Please explain. As hwadu is the question “who am I?” what does it mean to break down the question? Or is there an answer to the question “who am I” that is broken down, i.e. an idea of the self?

 Line 145. Please explain: “…the aesthetic approach of the teaching method”. Aesthetic?

Line 221. Typo: analysed instead of anlysed.

Line 252. Typo. …achieved by…

Line 253. Typo. …by referencing to…

Line 272. Why should the master make connections between hwadu and physical materials?

Line 278. Again, I wonder how the author uses the word “aesthetics” here? Evaluation of beauty?

Line 280-281. This concluding remark is not in line with the research style and should be avoided.

Line 281. In line with the qualitative method: how would the author conceptualize the connection made by the Ganhwa master?

Line 296. I see the risk taking in the words of the master, but where is the doubt?

Line 307. What do the authors mean by “practice” here? Exercise?

Line 282-307. I do not see an example of doubt in this paragraph.

Line 341-342. Not Clear. How exactly is this (experience this sensation) done?

Line 345. What is connected to this?

Line 365. This looks like a contradictory instruction (as in Zen). Could the author explain what role they play in perceptivity?

Line 396. What is the object of doubt (here)?

Line 395-399. I think this paragraph should be moved to 5.1.2 where “doubt” is missing.

Line 457. This is a big jump. Along the lines of the grounded theory: could the author show  how the concept of compassion is connected with the CRISPA elements?

Line 453. I expect the master to work from a Buddhist perspective. Why are the western definition (line 448-452) quoted?

Line 503. Understanding or describing the process? I would opt for describing. For understanding conceptualization is needed. 

Line 506-507. Agree. But again, what is meant by “aesthetic”? Form?  Beauty?

Line 507. Typo. …embedded in…

Line 519. Practice? Do the authors mean exercise? 

Line 549. Typo. …reveal instead of revel.

Line 576: typo. In contrast instead of … in contract.

Line 607. How is this conclusion warranted by the findings? Not the practitioners, but the master is studied. 

Line 678: why is this reference underlined?

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your feedback. We have sincerely accepted your feedback and conducted a revision of this paper based on your suggestions, and it has significantly improved. We appreciate your input! 

Please see the attachment!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf