Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract \n \nThere are three terms for ‘mind’ in the Buddhist Canon – Mano, Citta and Viññāṇa. But there does not seem to be much clarity on them in their Canonical usage. In translating the concepts, contemporary scholars, East and West, do not seem to be much clearer either. Exploring what we eventually come to call the ‘Triune mind’ – i.e., three-in-one mind, this limited research delineates the three minds functionally – Mano as R-Mind (Receiving Mind), Citta as J-Mind (Judging Mind) and Viññāṇa as E-Mind (Executive-Mind). Characterizing this view of mind as an M(ind)-Simplex, each of them, as well as all three taken together, however, come to be seen as an M(ind)-Complex, too, given their multifunctionality and interrelationality. By way of coming out of the confusion related the word trio, a general criterion is proposed to be used in seeking clarity – to consider the context. Is it localized or generic? The paper benefits from Western Science and Linguistics, as well as from some creative and unconventional thought on the part of the author. Along these lines are a few new terms and concepts introduced (see end of paper).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 teacher head, 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".