Jōjin on the spot: some remarkable evidence of eleventh-century Chinese Buddhism from the<i>San Tendai Godaisan ki</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jōjin (1011–1081), an eleventh-century Japanese pilgrim who chronicled his travels in Northern Song (960–1127) China, provides a significantly different perspective on Chinese Buddhist religion, rituals and politics than any continental account of the period. His diary, San Tendai Godaisan ki, provides not only invaluable information concerning significant differences between Chinese and Japanese Buddhist ritual practices but also evidence of a rare retranslation of one of the most important East Asian Buddhist spells – or dhāraṇī – which comes from an eighth-century Chinese apocryphon: the Hero’s March Spell (*Śūraṃgama-dhāraṇī, Lengyan zhou, Ryōgonshu). Jōjin’s diary is even more remarkable because it covers a period in China when textbooks, university courses on religion, and most scholars and practitioners today see the Chan ‘school’ (Zen) as ascendant. While Jōjin’s diary certainly mentions Chan teachings, masters, and texts, it is his attention to rituals and spells that deserves special consideration. Continental Buddhism beyond the narrow lens of the rise of the Chan tradition, with special attention to continued translation efforts at court in Kaifeng, makes the San Tendai Godaisan ki an invaluable resource for renewed study of continental East Asian Buddhism.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".