The study and edition of Alā’ al-Dawla Simnānī's Risāla-yi Dhikr-i Khafī
Bibliographic record
Abstract
‘Alā’ al-Dawla Simnānī has a treatise entitled Bayān dhikr al-khafī al-mustajlib li-l-ajr al-wafī, in which, in addition to thoroughly delineating the superiority of inaudible recollection over audible dhikr as the primary topic, he has also briefly discussed certain other issues related to some other Sufi practices. Both on account of the centrality of the concept of dhikr in the mystical thought of ‘Alā’ al-Dawla as well as the Kubrawīyya as a whole, and from the standpoint of the significant differences between the Kubrawīyya and some other Central Asian orders of Simnānī's time in terms of the manner of performing Sufi dhikr,this treatise is worthy of serious attention and adequate investigation. At least five manuscripts of Simnānī's Dhikr-i khafīhave so far been identified in various MS depositories around the world. Additionally, there is also a mention of another witness of this work in the catalogue of the University of Tehran's Library which, based on our research, has nothing to do with Simnānī's Dhikr-i khafī,but is in fact a copy of Sayyid Muḥammad Nūrbakhsh’s Risāla-yi nūrīyya. In the present article, after outlining some brief points concerning the contents and the attribution of this treatise, we have offered an edition of the text established based on the oldest extant manuscript and two other witnesses of the work.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".