MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386766667 · doi:10.26443/arc.v46i.331

What if the Author of the Moksopaya Were a Woman?

2018· article· en· W4386766667 on OpenAlexaff
Tamara Cohen

Bibliographic record

VenueArc The Journal of the School of Religious Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAnthropological Studies and Insights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

T he Mokṣopāya (MU) is an anonymous text from tenth century Kashmir deemed to have been composed by a single author who has, until now, been assumed by scholars who work on the text to be male. 1 This assumption is made known by the exclusive use of male pronouns when discussing MU authorship.The MU is a unique text for its period, both stylistically and philosophically.Formally, the text is neither exclusively kāvya nor śāstra; it has passages of poetic verse (kāvya), prose (gadya), story (kathā), and didactic instruction (śāstra).While the MU refers to itself as the sarvasiddhāntasiddhānta (the definitive philosophical position of all final positions), and the narratives themselves are meant to be dṛṣṭāntastrue examples of the philosophy expressed in the text that will guide the hearer to experience its teachings first-hand -the philosophy of the MU does not align with any known tradition.The MU has Buddhist elements, but no overt Buddhist content.Likewise, there are tantric traces and some tantric content, but the text has none of the formal qualities of a tantra.The MU is intertextual, like the epics and purāṇas, but it is not an epic, nor is it a purāṇa.Like the Mahābhārata, the MU consists of a central narrative with sub-tales woven throughout, but, unlike that epic, the MU has a consistency that provides convincing evidence of single authorship. 2 of the text.For example, the Līlā story -initially told in the Utpattiprakaraṇa (Book 3) -is retold in the Nirvāṇaprakaraṇa from the perspective of Līlā's husband, King Sindhu.Many ākhyānas rely on philosophical sections for meaning, which indicates that both ākhyāna and śāstra are part of a planned and interrelated structure.Characters in Daśaratha's sabhā are also in the stories, which shows a connectedness between the discourse, story and frame of the text.It is also possible to interpret the entire MU as a representation of Rāma's gradual enlightenment.Early on, Vasiṣṭha tells Rāma that he is not yet ready to receive the answers to some of the questions that he has asked, because he is still aprabuddha; later, Rāma is told that he is now prabuddha, and the deferred questions are acknowledged and answered.Hanneder also suggests, as does Christopher Key Chapple, that we can read the prakaraṇas as stages of Rāma's gradual enlightenment: Rāma first experiences dispassion in the Vairagyaprakaraṇa; he desires liberation in Mumukṣuprakaraṇa; he begins the path in Utpattiprakaraṇa; he is established in Sthitiprakaraṇa; he experiences release or tranquility in Upaśāmaprakaraṇa; and finally, he attains mokṣa in Nirvāṇaprakaraṇa.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArc The Journal of the School of Religious StudiesSame topicAnthropological Studies and InsightsFrench-language works237,207