What is in a Name? The Possibility of Identifying the Monk Damo as the Mentor of the First Known Self-Claimed Reincarnation of Maitreya in Medieval China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On the basis of a memorial inscription dedicated to an obscure foreign monk known to us only by a rather ordinary word, Damo 達摩 (Dharma), which was obviously a part of his name, this study attempts to reconstruct some traces of his life, and several key aspects of his image as was perceived by his contemporaries. Partly due to his obscurities and popularities, starting from a certain point of time this Damo started to be conflated with the famous Bodhidharma. The research presented in this article shows that it is difficult to identify this Damo to be Bodhidharma. However, several major aspects of Damo’s image seems to have played a noticeable role in informing the image of Bodhidharma and the Chan ideologies related to him. This case study underscores the complexity of the process through which the life and image of a religious paragon in medieval China, like elsewhere in the world of any time, were made and remade.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".