Predestination

 

If this is a correct understanding of Manichaeism, I must say that I just got much less sympathy for it. Manichaeism is a dead religion, of course, but this small group on YouTube is trying to revive it. Complete with small group dogmatism and "everyone really agrees with us...in their hearts". 

(Apart from the clip, also read the comments.) 

Interestingly, the content-creator used to be a "Jansenist" Catholic and then a Calvinist. He came to Manichaeism by way of Augustine and a strong belief in predestination. I watched a few of his uploads, and he does try to be as consistent as possible when preaching strict dualism between Light and Dark, for instance by taking an anti-natalist position. His view of sin and grace is super-fatalist. 

Somehow, I get the feeling that it´s precisely this consistency which makes Manichaeism (and strongly world-denying Gnosticism more generally) suddenly sound so absurd... 

Manichaean sharia

 

No idea what this is, but it seems to be something as peculiar as Neo-Manichaeanism. Might look more at this channel in the near future. 

Manichaean Education Channel

The Silk Road religion

 

Two "scholarly" YouTube clips about Manichaeism, an extinct creed which used to be a world religion during Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. There were followers of the prophet Mani from the Roman Empire in the west to China in the east. Manichaeism was a "Persian" religion with Zoroastrian, Christian and Buddhist traits. It´s sometimes described as Gnostic. Mani himself was raised in a "heretical" Christian community in Mesopotamia.  

It´s possible that Manichaeism´s syncretistic character was the result of its world-wide spread, with believers in, say, Egypt being more "Christian", and those in Central Asia becoming more similar to Buddhism. The most well-known (ex)-Manichean is of course Augustine, who later became a famous Church Father.

The Manichean speculations sound both very exotic and strangely familiar at the same time...

Interesting contributions!    

Transforming Mani

Rudolf Steiner was an Austrian mystic who developed the spiritual path known as Anthroposophy, which could be seen as a synthesis of classical Western esotericism, Christianity and 19th century Theosophy. It's rather complex and unwieldy and can't be easily summarized. Mani was a 3rd century Iranian prophet and founder of a Gnostic religion known as Manichaeism. The best known convert to Manichaeism was Augustine, the later Church Father.

“Mani and Rudolf Steiner” is a somewhat confusing and disjointed book. It includes both a repetitive account of actual Manichaeism and reflections on Steiner's view of Mani, which was highly idiosyncratic and (presumably) based on his own clairvoyant research. Steiner's unorthodox interpretation of Manichaeism claims that Mani didn't see matter as evil, but rather as something good or partially good.

Steiner believed that both good and evil are necessary for creation, and that they work together to create a higher good. Evil is simply a good thing out of place, perhaps a thing too early (or too late) in the evolutionary process. During the present cultural epoch, evil will inevitably strengthen itself to the maximum degree and lead to a “War of All against All”. However, from this inevitable culmination of evil, absolute good will rise. Steiner believed that Mani will reincarnate on Earth during the late 20th century or the 21st century, and will have the power to enter into evil and transform it into something good through gentleness. Thus, evil isn't “vanquished” but rather metamorphosed into the good. In another book, we learn that Steiner believed that the evil demon Ahriman will incarnate on Earth during the same period. Will we see a standoff between Mani and Ahriman? If so, Anthroposophy will presumably be right in the thick of things, since Steiner says that the expansion of Waldorf schooling and the threefolded society (Steiner's proposed political system) will make it easier for Mani to reappear in the flesh.

The central point of the argument is Steiner's view of evil. A comparison with traditional Christianity might be instructive here. Christians could argue that God, while not actively wanting or willing evil, can nevertheless use evil to the advantage of a higher good after it has arisen. In that sense, evil “serves” the good. The story of Joseph in Egypt is the classical Biblical example. Another would be Judas' treachery. In the same way, humans can learn hard lessons from evil. In that sense, evil is “necessary” (at least this side of the fall). Presumably, Jacob became a better man after his contretemps with Laban.

However, Steiner doesn't seem to be saying this (or not *simply* this). I get the impression that he goes beyond these statements, making the very nature of evil itself purely relative. It's not just an inevitable part of creation, but a necessary part for further evolution. Without it, neither creation nor evolution would be possible. At one point, he likens it to “life” and “form”, which are both necessary for a living creature. This implies that evil might not even be energy out of place, but that it positively should be exactly where it is!

I can see all kinds of philosophical and even practical problems with such relativistic view of “evil”. Perhaps “Mani” can transform evil into good through some kind of spiritual alchemy, but most people can't and would go “straight to hell” (at least metaphorically!) if they ever tried. Steiner's view of evil is presumably tied to his pantheist-evolutionary view of the divine. If there's nothing outside the evolutionary process, then evil is simply an imperfection, and imperfections will always be with us. Those who want to evolve presumably have to learn how to use the imperfections to their own advantage. While Steiner doesn't strike me as particularly immoral, it's easy to see teachings like this go dangerously astray…

Ironically, Steiner's view of evil seems to have been the exact opposite of the Manichean view, where good and evil fight an actual battle against one another, a battle that the good can win only by saving the light particles trapped in darkness and then stop the evil forces from ever entering the realm of light again.

My main objection to “Mani and Rudolf Steiner”, however, is that this short book isn't particularly interesting to begin with, so I only give it two stars.