Asiatische Studien最新文献

The Tattvasaṅgraha (TS) has been considered a comprehensive encyclopedia of both Buddhist and non-Buddhist philosophical subjects. According to Kamalaśīla's Vajracchedikāṭīkā, however, the refutations of objections (*codyaparihāra) by other systems of thought is merely a means to indirectly make the reader understand the topic (*abhidheya) and ultimately achieve the purpose (*prayojana) of the work. The topic of TS is "the true states [of things]" (tattva), which is interpreted by Kamalaśīla as "the various qualifiers of the entities that have arisen having depended on causes and conditions" (pratītyasamutpāda=pratītyasamutpanna) enumerated in TS 1-6ab. It is well-known that the first ten qualifiers of the pratītyasamutpāda in TS 1-4ab correspond to the topics of the first twenty-three chapters of TS, while the remaining elements in TS 4cd-6abc were known to be difficult to allocate to specific chapters. This paper sheds light on the possibility of analyzing the latter elements as well, suggesting that they form the qualifiers of the pratītyasamutpāda. Consequently, the eleventh and twelfth qualifiers of the pratītyasamutpāda, "which is free from all conceptual proliferation" and "which is not understood by others" in TS 4cd, qualify the pratītyasamutpāda as the object of the Buddha's cognition characterized by the negation of conceptual cognition and heathen cognition. They summarize the first twenty-three chapters and all twenty-six chapters, respectively. Furthermore, the qualifications of the Buddha who teaches the pratītyasamutpāda in TS 5-6abc are convertible to the thirteenth and fourteen qualifications of the pratītyasamutpāda, "which is taught by [the direct seer] who does not depend on an autonomous Veda" and "which is taught by the Omniscient One for whom the great compassion became natural." These paired qualities, wisdom (prajñā) and compassion (dayā), form the essential qualities of a qualified teacher of the pratītyasamutpāda and are described in Chs. 24-25 and Ch. 26, respectively.

At the end of their life, after transferring the kingdom to their grown-up sons, several kings of the Sūryavaṃśa chose to retire from the world and devoted their last years to asceticism and meditation. The verses of the Raghuvaṃśa describing these kings show considerable variation mainly along the lines of which āśrama (stage of life) the king enters at the end of his life. In many cases the commentators discuss these variants and argue pro and contra the availability of saṃnyāsa for people of royal status, thus participating in a larger mediaeval debate observable in texts on dharmaśāstra. This paper takes into consideration former studies on the subject by Tsuchida, Olivelle and Goodall, and most importantly discusses both published and unpublished commentaries on the Raghuvaṃśa, examining what authorities they quote to give support to their views on this dharmaśāstric issue, as well as the efforts they make to present the Raghuvaṃśa as being both internally consistent and in harmony with the teachings on dharma they consider valid.

The Qur'ān commentary of Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144), his Kashshāf, gained wide acclaim shortly after being written, and was widely used in research and teaching throughout the Islamic world. This favourable reception was largely due to its new rhetorical insights on how ideas are articulated in the Qur'ān through specific linguistic constructions. The work was also critiqued for its Mu'tazilī content, the work viewed with suspicion for championing - surreptitiously at that - the heterodox interpretations of that theological school. Appraisal and critique formed much of the basis for scholarly engagement with this work in the form of teaching and commentary writing, especially the form of supercommentary writing (ḥawāshī) the Kashshāf initiated. That Mamluk scholarly culture had an overly negative response to the Kashshāf for theological reasons has been vastly overstated in recent scholarship, possibly due to a tendency to view theology as a sufficient impetus driving past intellectual activity. This general portrayal derives from specific Mamluk scholars being depicted as warning against the book, forbidding its study, calling for it to be banned, and undermining or disparaging others for supporting it. This negative reception has also served to justify the transition in the Islamic world to the tafsīr of Bayḍāwī, a work which largely excised the Mu'tazilism of the Kashshāf. This article reconsiders the evidence for an overall negative Mamluk era reception of the Kashshāf, with specific reference to the activities of those scholars whose depiction contributes to an inaccurate portrayal of a crucial moment in tafsīr history, both for the activities of Mamluk era scholars themselves, as well as the subsequent shift to the use of Bayḍāwī.