Why does it never come up at all?
It seems like freaky new age cults have tried to revive everything from pagan micro-gods to full on Aztec religion, yet everyone ignores this extinct religion which once spanned Africa to Europe to China.
Why do we know so little about Manichaeism?
Was it truly gnostic?
Will it ever come back in some farcical hippie form?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.m.wikipedia.org
gnosis.org
twitter.com
It never comes up because the regions it was so popular in now hold religions that came after it: modern Christian Churches, Islam, and modern Buddhism. Living religions can come up with ways to break down old religions and make them sound silly.
We know so little because much of their texts were in libraries that got burned throughout the Middle Ages: Alexandria, Baghdad, and Antioch.
It was close to Gnosticism, but not entirely
It will never return. Baha'i made sure of that.
Manichean principles are insane when it comes to society. Everything is full of sin. Everything. The air, the water, the food you eat, the soil you walk on, etc. The Elect/Seekers spent their entire lives praying and atoning for all the evil in the world. This meant they had no time for work or farming. It was up to the lay population known as Hearers to feed and care for this large priest caste. Nowadays it would be easier to do this, but in a time where food was a year long effort by 90% or more of the populations I cannot believe Manichaeism was able to survive
Were the Manichean seekers the original NEETS? How did they convince everyone else to work for them...
It's more likely that Muslim expansion and persecutions from which the Christians may be spared from due to being people of the book is a greater possibility for its decline. They did last for a millennium.
It would probably be sketchy like any other reconstructed religion that doesn't have a surviving priestly lineage but the survival of its texts is greater than other religions.
My understanding is they could bless the lay people/auditors to help relieve sins and increase the odds of them incarnating in a better form next time. Possibly becoming Elect themselves in the next life.
The Cathars who came later weren't as stringent, allowing their lay people to live out full adult lives before converting to a Perfect/Elect later in life. Supposedly Catharism had Manichaean influence on their two-tier structure, but who really knows.
Good points. I'm not expecting a massive revival or anything, just more shocked that some weird new age cult has never tried anything.
It seems like an Elect class could live better than ever in a modern world detached from food production and labor, as you say.
I guess maybe it has something to do with so many works being lost. Hopefully Mani's books will show up in full one day, if only as a historical curiosity.
If it popped up, I'd read it. I agree user
Persecution is always a solid point, yes
I would say that, to a degree. It'd prolly be "NEFT" "Not in Education, Farming, or Training". They are busy saving the souls of people after all
>Why do we know so little about Manichaeism?
We know a fair bit, actually. Fragments of Cologne Mani Codex and Shabuhragan were preserved.
>Was it truly gnostic?
It was a mix of Gnosticism, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism.
>Will it ever come back in some farcical hippie form?
It is antithetical to hippie movement because Mani promoted antinatalism and viewed the flesh as being largely mixed with evil. Mazdakism is more hippie'ish though.
>Supposedly Catharism had Manichaean influence
They revered the memory of Manes, what they called Mani.
>I guess maybe it has something to do with so many works being lost
Fragments of Cologne Mani Codex and Shabuhragan were preserved. Other texts were preserved too.
It was actually due to the persecution of Bahram I under the advisement of magus Kartir Hangirpe that Manichees in Sassanian Empire were slaughtered.
There's a group of extant gnostics, I believe in the Levant, who revere John the Baptist and their beliefs of otherwise largely unknown because it's a secretive oral tradition. What am I thinking of?
>It was a mix of Gnosticism, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism.
It had far more Christianity than Buddhism. It recognized Christ as the son of God ffs. The parts of Buddhism you're talking about are already in the Bible like in Luke 17:21:
>Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
>Mani promoted antinatalism and viewed the flesh
I think you missed the point here. Each person is endowed with a portion of "light", so the fleshy meat sack is not sacred, but moved by the divine spirit. It would be a stretch to say it's antinatalist.
These guys:
en.m.wikipedia.org
Pretty interesting group since they reject Christ as a false prophet, unlike most of the other gnostic offshoots.
Kind of makes it extra baffling that Manichaeism is long gone, yet this micro-sect in Iraq lives on.
Mani abhorred the physical process of birth, and he was antinatalist. Everyone prior to physical birth is largely already within the Living Spirit, which is somewhat splintered but will become a whole again from the work of the Elect. He also believed the Great Architect was involved in remolding the world and transmigration of those already born.
But yes, Mani was antinatalist much like the Cathars. Like I said, he abhorred physical process of being born.
One of the things I recall hearing of it is that the class of dedicated holy priests, through the act of eating, would purify that which goes through them so that the light trapped within could escape. This sounds nice but it actually kinda meant they worshiped priest farts.
Yea that part is called Gnosticism
>being an unironic gnostic
Gnosticism is cool, but the whole "the material world is evil" thing is so problematic youre just setting yourself up for failure desu
Right, and it's important to note Mani was a kind of docetist. He never believed in a physical Jesus, but he believed Jesus was a disincarnate celestial spirit that guided men to gnosis, that is wisdom and awakening.
The main thing Mani is preaching is asceticism.
If you want a different approach, I recommend Mazdak the Younger, who was more of a hippie and approved of sensual lust. He was considered a proto-socialist that preached "Free Love" and crap like that, and he encouraged social activism over asceticism.
Calling the Mandaeans "Gnostic" is kinda a misnomer given how off the wall their underlying theological assumptions are compared to other more "familiar" "gnostics".
If you've never read the Ginza Rba, it's one hell of a ride:
gnosis.org
There's a shitload of good and helpful info on them in Kurt Rudolph's Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, which is in my library which should be linked in the Veeky Forums book thread, and is filed under "Gnostic Studies" (durrr).
Who is Lucifer here? I heard Gnostic religions think Lucifer isn't Satan.
Now there's a rabbit hole. I need to go to bed though. Nobody ever appreciates me dropping verses,citing the nag hammadis, or sourcing Latin poets as they all dance around central concepts. Good night losers.
Dammit I was so interested.
In what way is it "problematic"?
Lucifer is just a title meaning "light bearer". The thing is the whole mythos of Satan and conflation with various titles Lucifer even Beelzebub is all extrabiblical. In Revelation Jesus is called Lucifer but this isn't as scandalous as it sounds because its just a title. Its not as though saying Jesus is a man is provocative simply because there are evil men. Well its the same thing with "Lucifer", it just means one in possession of wisdom of spiritual light. As for the king in Isiah, the title Lucifer may be more of a self-appointed one. In the sense that the king believed himself to be the bearer of light he showed his pride since suh a title as "light bearer" is only befitting someone as holy and rightous as Jesus in the first place.