I Prostrate to the Goddess Foe Destroyer-Tibetan Buddhism and the (Mis)naming of Venusian Features
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OM I prostrate to the goddess foe destroyer, liberating lady Tara, Homage to TARE, saviouress, heroine, With TUTTARE dispelling all fears, Granting all benefits with TURE, To her with sound SVAHA, I bow--Praises to the Twenty-one Taras (abbreviated version) Introduction In 1781, amateur astronomer William Herschel stumbled across a new planet, the first discovery of its kind. A native German and musician, he had immigrated to England and was able to follow his passion for astronomy through the generous support of his patron, King George III. To the distress of astronomers outside of England, Herschel proposed the name Georgium Sidus as the name for his new discovery. Others suggested naming the planet after its discoverer, another break with the long-standing tradition of planetary names in Western culture. After much discussion, the mythological name Uranus (father of Saturn) was finally settled upon. Similar international disagreement and confusion occurred throughout the nineteenth century concerning the naming of features on Mars and the moon. In response, at its 1907 general assembly in Vienna, the Council of the International Association of Academies created a committee to regularize the nomenclature of bodies in the solar system. This committee formally organized in 1919 in Brussels as the International Astronomical Union (IAU). Since that time, the IAU has been the sole arbiter of all nomenclature for astronomical bodies (U.S. Geological Survey, 2004b). The IAU has established various working groups and divisions to tackle specific problems in nomenclature and classification. In 1973 the Working Group for Planetary System Nomenclature (WGPSN) was formed, with Canadian Peter Millman as its president. Individual subgroups were created for each of the four inner planets, and a group for the outer solar system. The thirteen current members of the WGPSN hail from the U.S., U.K., Russia, Norway, Germany, the Netherlands, and the Vatican, while its Task Group for Venus Nomenclature consists of three members, two from Russia and one from the U.S. (USGS, 2004c). Their task was originally to suggest naming themes for each planet, and then to propose and screen names for all individual features discovered by the increasing number of space probes and large telescopes (USGS, 2004b). For example, it was established that all features on the planet Venus were to be named for women. Specifically, and volcanic calderas (paterae) are named for of history; craters less than 20 km in diameter are given female first names from various world cultures. Other types of features are named for mythological women with rules created for each subclass of features (USGS, 2003). Names are suggested to the IAU from various sources, and are scrutinized for adherence to their published criteria before being officially accepted. Among the rules are the following: 1. Nomenclature is a tool and the first consideration should be to make it simple, clear, and unambiguous.... 7. Solar system nomenclature should be international in its choice of names.... The WGPSN strongly supports equitable selection of names from ethnic groups/countries on each map; however, a higher percentage of names from the country planning a landing is allowed on landing site maps. 8. No names having political, military or religious significance may be used, except for names of political figures prior to the 19th century. (USGS, 2005a) Despite the multicultural intent of the IAU's charge, the serious lack of Eastern representation in the membership of this supposedly international organization has serious repercussions for the naming of Venusian surface features. As this paper will demonstrate, the criteria used in naming eight Venusian features after Buddhist goddesses is inconsistent and ambiguous at best, and clearly erroneous at worst. The attempt to pigeonhole Tibetan Buddhist iconographic representations of the feminine principle into a Western model fails because of what is posited to be a serious lack of understanding by the WGPSN of Tibetan Buddhist culture and beliefs. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».