Bibliographic record
Abstract
The teachings of Eihei Dōgen Zenji (1200–1253) emphasize a non-instrumental orientation to zazen as “practice-realization”, which might be described as a single movement of purposeful action and actualization of aims. Yet the question remains, if zazen is not in some sense a set of clearly defined steps toward specific ends, exactly how are its benefits manifested, and why would Dōgen place such an elusive approach at the centre of practice? In the following, I will discuss how Dōgen’s conception of practice does not necessarily function as a prescriptive methodology leading to specified results, but might better be described as an orientation to everyday experience that facilitates a comprehensive integration of physical and perceptual interactions within shared environments. Any sense of the utility or benefit of zazen is inseparable from reference to these relations within specific contexts of practice. Exploring close parallels between Dōgen’s conception of universal self (jiko) and gestalt theory, particularly as it is referenced in ecophilosophy and sociomaterial practices literature, suggests ontological and ethical implications of “practice-realization” from contemporary secular perspectives.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".