A Study of Religious and Scientific Perspectives on Buddhist Cosmology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research was qualitative, it was to investigate Buddhist cosmology as found in Buddhist scriptures and compare cosmological perspectives between 5 Buddhist scholars and 5 scientists. In Thai Buddhist cosmology, the principles of Paṭiccasamuppāda and Tilakkhaṇa share some similar ideas with the causality principle of science. Scientists regard them as a fundamental universal principle that underpins the laws of nature, which is unsurprising. Another similarity is Saṃsāra, the cycle of rebirth, which may be compared to the birth and extinction of stars but is not comparable to the physical Universe as a whole. Thai Buddhist scholars have accepted that Buddhist and scientific cosmologies are compatible. I argue that when it comes to the physical matter of the universe, its definition, evolution, shape, space, and time, the perspectives of Buddhist scholars and scientists are radically different and cannot be compared. Furthermore, Buddhist and scientific approaches to understanding natural laws are diametrically opposed; Buddhism concentrates on the mind, whilst science concentrates on the physical universe; thus, they cannot be naturally compared.
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 | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".