Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tibetan Buddhist debates about funerary practices feature no shortage of hairsplitting. In their writings on funerary rituals in the tradition of the Sarvadurgatipariśodhana Tantra, the prolific Bo dong Paṇ chen Phyogs las rnam rgyal (1375/76–1451) and the Sa skya pa savant Go rams pa Bsod nams seng ge (1429–89) quarrel over what might appear to be very minor issues. This article looks at one such exchange, specifically, how these exegetes understand the details of “visual transmission” and how successive iterations of observation and imitation between master and disciple constitute an authoritative lineage. The article reveals that the specifics of each author’s position on visual transmission was the product of polemical pressures for each one to articulate the specifics of their viewpoint. Understanding a disagreement like this requires contextualization. When Go rams pa was writing his response to Bo dong Paṇ chen, he was receiving support from a local ruler who had been a disciple of the late Bo dong Paṇ chen. Looking to secure further patronage for himself and the Sa skya tradition more broadly, Go rams pa certainly had reason to defend the Sa skya patriarch Rje btsun Grags pa rgyal mtshan (1147–1216) against Bo dong Paṇ chen’s critiques. However, limiting this debate to issues of patronage would be reductive at best. Although this point of disagreement may seem minor, it reveals a sophisticated analysis on how textual and empirical evidence cohere in order to determine correct tantric practice. In this sense, elements of tantric Buddhist traditions are deeply indebted to empirical knowledge.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".