On the Boundary between "Yogakkhema" in the "Suttapiṭaka" and "Yogakṣema" in the "Upaniṣads" and "Bhagavadgītā"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The combination of the stems yoga- and khema-/kṣema- occurs in phrases or compounds in both ancient and in middle Indo-Aryan sources but what is intriguing is that such a combination is generally interpreted as coordinating in the former occurrences and as subordinating in the latter ones. In particular, yogakkhema- within the Buddhist Theravāda Canon and its commentarial literature is regularly analysed as a tatpuruṣa and often translated as ‘freedom from bondage or safety’.We recently presented a part of the Vedic and Pali documentation collected in the context of more broadly shared research on this subject during the 18th Conference of the International Association of Buddhist Studies (Section: “Buddhism and Its relation to other religions”) held at the University of Toronto on August 20th–25th, 2017, now published as Pontillo and Neri 2019. The case of yogakṣema/yogakkhema in Vedic and Suttapiṭaka sources. In response to Norman. In: Journal of Indian Philosophy 47(3): 527–563. Here, we shall take a further step in the above-mentioned comparison by concentrating on the occurrences of the compound yogakṣema/yogakkhema as found in the upaniṣads and in the Bhagavadgītā and in some comparable Suttapiṭaka passages with the aim of understanding what might have been the boundary that this word historically crossed in the framework of an assumed dialogue between different traditions.
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 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".