Non-Dual Belonging:Conversion, Sanskritization and the Dissolution of the Multiple in Advaita Missionary Movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IN a series of articles from 1957 until his death in 1979, the influential Indologist Paul Hacker advanced the claim that those Indian traditions generally classified as open and tolerant should in fact be labeled “inclusivist.”1 Rather than engaging religious or philosophical opponents in their integrity, he suggested, such traditions subordinated such others and assumed them into their own doctrinal systems. This term was deployed polemically by Hacker against a number of Hindu traditions, above all the modern forms of Advaita Vedānta advanced by the likes of Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902) and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888-1975). This broad thesis has been widely criticized, not least by Hacker’s translator and editor Wilhelm Halbfass.2 Particularly suspect is Hacker’s sweeping contrast between inclusivism and tolerance, and the correlations from these positions to Indian and European thought, respectively. As Halbfass has demonstrated, both styles of argument, among others, can be adduced in Hindu, Christian and Muslim traditions; the harder and more important task is, in his telling, to attend to the distinctive strategies of engagement with religious others in any particular text or tradition.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".