Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first point that emerges into view from the perspective of Hinduism in the context of the events of September 11, 2001, has to do with Hindu axiology The point, however, cannot be presented straightaway; one must build one’ s way toward it by analyzing the Hindu doctrine of purusārthas or the goals of human existence. After some struggle, the doctrine crystallized in classical Hinduism in the form of the four goals of life, which are usually enumerated in the following order: (1) dharma, (2) artha, (3) kāma, and (4) moksa. Dharma, which is the first to be mentioned, denotes righteousness or virtue and implies that there is an innate human tendency to wish to do the right thing. The pursuit of this goal—that is, the pursuit of virtue—is one valid goal of human life. It is, however, not the only valid goal of human life. The quest for wealth and power is also a valid goal of human life, which is designated by the word artha. Similarly, the pursuit of the pleasure of the senses, from its most earthly form as sex to its most refined form as aesthetic pleasure, are also valid goals of life, in achieving which artha may come in handy. These too are valid goals no less than the pursuit of virtue but these two should be pursued subject to moral norms. This is why, it has been proposed, that dharma comes first in the order of enumeration, to suggest its regulative role in the pursuit of the two succeeding goals, those of artha and kāma. These three categories of goals of human life are rounded off with a fourth, which is designated moksa or liberation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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; 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".