Expérience contemplative : exploration et comparaison multidimensionnelles du bouddhisme, du christianisme et de l'hindouisme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Against a backdrop of religious recomposition and advanced secularization in Quebec, this research seeks to compare how contemporary adherents of Sōtō Zen Buddhism, Cistercian Christianity, and Vedāntin Hinduism (Sivananda) understand the foundations of their respective contemplative practices. The central research question examines the dynamic between the lived reception of these traditions and the teachings conveyed by their emblematic texts. Adopting a qualitative approach, this study is based on a multiple case study methodology that combines ethnographic immersion within three communities of practice with a series of semi-structured interviews conducted with fifteen of their members. Data analysis was structured by a theoretical framework inspired by Ninian Smart's multidimensional model of religion, focusing on the doctrinal, narrative, practical, and experiential dimensions. The findings reveal that while understandings of the Absolute (Vacuity, personal God, Brahman) and the privileged paths to realization remain distinct to each tradition, a cross-cutting quest for inner peace, ethical discipline, and direct experience emerges significantly. A major observed trend is the frequent reinterpretation of traditional soteriological goals (Enlightenment, Salvation, Liberation) in terms of psycho-spiritual well-being and existential balance, reflecting an adaptation of these heritages to contemporary aspirations. Far from being a matter of simple doctrinal adherence or purely functional practice, this study concludes that contemplative engagement constitutes, for many adherents, a fundamental mode of being-in-the-world that structures their identity and quest for meaning. This illustrates a living and pragmatic appropriation of traditions in late modernity.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".