Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although their respective cosmologies have much in common, Hinduism and Indian Buddhism have, from an early period, developed fairly independent eschatological doctrines and prophecies that testify to widely diverging apocalyptic anxieties and hermeneutic strategies. Whereas Hinduism, from the second-third centuries CE onward, invariably resorted to a four-period degeneration scheme ending with the dreaded kaliyuga (often compared with Iron Age as described by Hesiod), sure signs of which the Brahmins saw in foreign rule over India and the increase in "heresies" (e.g., Jainism and Buddhism), the Buddhists were (and to some extent remain) obsessed with the gradual decline and final demise of Buddhism itself, a scenario which they predicted with numerous and regularly updated timetables. Quite unexpectedly though, the Buddhists increasingly resorted to the Brahmanical kaliyuga, using it in a surprisingly wide variety of doctrinal and historical contexts and often side by side with their own traditional eschatological repertoire (the so-called five degenerations or corruptions). The present paper aims at collecting the most significant instances of the Indian Buddhist appropriation of the kaliyuga, discussing them and attempting to disclose their internal logic. It ends with a detailed discussion of the question whether and under which circumstances buddhas appear in the End Times.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".