Domesticating the Dharma: Buddhist Cults and the Hwaom Synthesis in Silla Korea. By Richard McBride
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Do not be fooled by the fact that this first book by the young scholar Richard McBride is less than 230 pages long. Do not put Domesticating the Dharma: Buddhist Cults and the Hwaŏm Synthesis in Silla Korea aside because of a misperception that McBride cannot possibly have much to contribute to our understanding of early Korean Buddhism when, after subtracting the index, the bibliography, the Sinitic glossary, a couple of appendixes, and endnotes, he leaves himself only 145 pages to make his argument. There is much more substance in this volume than its brevity would suggest. McBride provides both new information and original insights that challenge the way we have thought about Buddhism on the Korean peninsula 1,000 to 1,500 years ago. The standard depiction of Korean Buddhism highlights the contributions of a few philosophically talented monks, such as Wŏnhyo (617–686), in an effort to identify separate and distinct schools in Korean Buddhist thought. A typical example of such an approach, available in English, is Buddhist Thought in Korea (Seoul: Dongguk University Press, 1994), produced by the Korean Buddhist Research Institute at Dongguk University, Korea's leading Buddhist university. That survey of the history of Buddhism in Korea is divided into eight chapters, each one of which, aside from the introduction, is dedicated to a discussion of one particular school of Korean Buddhism and the monks who articulated its doctrines. Anyone who relied on that work for an overview of Buddhism in Korea would come away with the impression that Korean Buddhism was divided into separate denominations, one for meditative Buddhism, one for Hwaŏm [Flower Garland] philosophy, one for Ch'ŏnt'ae [Heavenly Terrace] philosophy, one for Pure Land Buddhism, one for esoteric Buddhism, one dedicated to Maitreya, and finally one dedicated to Avalokitesvara.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".