The Mahāyāna Path of the Bodhisattva in the <i>Ornament for Clear Realization</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Buddhists have articulated the central notion of the ‘path’ in a variety of different ways and in a great number of texts throughout the history of their traditions. Among texts related to the path, the Ornament for Clear Realization, a commentary on the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras , has had a significant impact on Mahāyāna Buddhist notions of the path and became the dominant Indian text for the study of the path in Tibetan traditions. This article focuses on two general descriptions of the bodhisattva path found in the Ornament for Clear Realization . The first description centers upon eight ‘clear realizations’ ( abhisamaya ) that constitute the knowledges and practices of Prajñāpāramitā textual systems. The second description elucidates a system of five paths, shaped by Indian Abhidharma and Yogācāra texts, that is commonly used by Tibetan commentators. The article demonstrates how the eight clear realizations and five paths are interrelated, yet distinct, modes of envisioning the bodhisattva path in the Ornament . While these path structures do not provide details of actual meditation experience, they do provide Tibetan Buddhists who follow the Ornament a structured worldview where a narrative of spiritual progress is possible and where the altruistic goal of Buddhahood can be attained.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".