The Toronto Blessing and the Kundalini Experience : a comparative perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hedendaags word die korrekte benadering jeens ander godsdienste gepropageer as die van verdraagsaamheid. Daarmee word gepoog om aan elke godsdiens bestaansreg te verleen. Verder word gepoog om elke godsdiens in eie reg te verstaan, dus sonder vooroordele. Die benadering het egter 'n ander moontlik onverwagte aspek na die voorgrond gebring, naamlik dat daar ook ooreenkomste tussen verskillende godsdienste bestaan. Wat die saak meer interessant maak is dat van hierdie ooreenkomste sake is wat vroeer as eksklusief behorende tot die Christendom beskou is. Een so 'n interessante ooreenkoms word aangetref wanneer die sogenaamde geestelike ervarings wat gepaard gaan met die 'Toronto Blessing' in die Charismatiese beweging vergelyk word met die gepaardgaande ervarings van die 'Kundalini Awakening' in Hinduisme. Hierdie ooreenkoms bring onvermydelik 'n skaduwee oor die aanspraak van sommige van die Charismate dat die ervarings van die 'Toronto Blessing' verklaar kan word as uitsluitlik die werk van die Heilige Gees binne 'n Christelike konteks. In hierdie studie word dit ondersoek of hierdie ervaringe wat deel vorm van die Toronto Blessing, beskou kan word as eksklusief behorende tot die Christendom, of is dit ervarings wat aangebring word deur die toepassing van sekere menslike tegnieke. Die konklusie waartoe in hierdie artikel gekom word, is dat die ervaringe van die Toronto Blessing nie eenvoudig allesinsluitend toegeskryf kan word aan die werk van die Heilige Gees nie.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".