stephan huller

de·lu·sion (d-lzhn)
n.
1.
a. The act or process of deluding.
b. The state of being deluded.
2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness:

Transient

Is this the best you can do - quote a dictionary?
Trying to infer that those who oppose your ideas are mentally ill - maybe you had better take a better look at those definitions

mountainman

Dear stephan,


Here is another word:

il·lu·sion (-lzhn)
n.
1.
a. An erroneous perception of reality.
b. An erroneous concept or belief.
2. The condition of being deceived by a false perception or belief.
3. Something, such as a fantastic plan or desire, that causes an erroneous belief or perception.
4. Illusionism in art.
5. A fine transparent cloth, used for dresses or trimmings

Facing the Delusion/Illusion of Mani






Perhaps there is more than one interpretation in the evidence concerning the historical figure of Mani. We have obviously been taught and educated to view Mani as some sort of a "Young Figure", one who had flown far too close to the solar flames of heresy, and who in a rash and impetuous moment had dared to equate himself with the "Young Jesus" - as his paraclete no less.

However somewhere in the background recesses of our best available evidence their lurks the possibility of an unfamiliar and much "Older Figure", and one who dared to equate himself as a follower of the "Older Buddha".

The "Young Christian Mani"

We should be sensitive to issues which effect our conditioned assessments of evidence. The analogy here is that we have been trained by centuries of scholarship to see a "Young Version" of Mani as described by the orthodox Christian heresiologists (those who study heresies). We have been conditioned to accept and know and believe that Mani was a Christian of some type, code, sect, scism, heresy, etc, etc, etc, etc. He was! He was! Sing the authoritarian painters of the "Young Picture". Mani is the paraclete who comes after three hundred years.

And can also see that the post Nicaean Manichaeans themselves witness in the preservation of their texts, in extraordinary technologicial feats of codex manufacturing, these same claims associating Mani with Jesus. These post Nicaean Manichaeans use a saturation of the Chrestos flavour of "Christos" in their texts. Were they influenced by Roman politics?

Until very recently (mid 20th century?), our received history of Mani has been via the orthodox. We have been UNLEARNING it. These orthodox Christian heresiologists of the 4th and 5th centuries are not to be trusted as historians! We are perceiving that we have been deluded by these "Orthodox Christian histories of Mani". (The "Young Histories). Yet we still cling to the "Young Picture". We cling to the young picture because we have been trained to see it in the evidence. The evidence until very recently has been on display as part of the great pageant of "Christian Heresy". This is not as sure any more. The orthodox sources are utterly unreliable to anyone interested in history. Sure the extant Manichaean sources show "The Young Mani" - as a confessed Christian and very well aware of the power of the word "Jesus". But the sources are post Nicaean.

What will the "ante pacem" sources disclose?
This IMO is the real question stephan.

The Old Buddhist Mani

The "Old Picture" is not pretty. Mani was simply a Buddhist - a follower of the Dhamma of Buddha, not an unusual occupation ever since the Indian King Ashoka converted bigtime to become a follower of Buddha. The Buddhist Mani authored a great many works in Syriac and Persian, using his own invented script, and prepared a "Canon of Scriptures", augmented by letters and epistles he wrote to his Apostles during his 30 year span in the sun under the rule of Shapur I. Yet in the end, when Shapur died, Mani is crucified and his (Buddhist) apostles persecuted, they fled and gathered together the "Canon of Mani" in the Roman Empire, in Egypt and Rome, where Manichaean monasteries had already been established.

Diocletian persecutes and burns the eastern Manichaeans along with their "Canons of Mani". I have not ruled out the possibility that Constantine may have been in the persecution service of Diocletian in the east at that specific time. No mention is made of the Roman monastery which perhaps survives until at least 312 CE. When Constantine becomes "Pontifex Maximus", the Manichaeans may have petitioned him with a lavish series of magnificent high technology codices, perhaps Greek copies of the works of their beloved master and Buddhist sage and author, Mani.


Was Constantine a Christian in 312 CE?

I dont know. But I think he was impressed by the new technology books and, incidentally, on the power he had to burn them. Has anyone really appreciated the technological excellence of that miniature matchbox size Cologne Mani-Codex. (also here) It's from the late 4th or early 5th century, but it is possible that this impressive codex technology may have been available to the early 4th century Roman Manichaeans.

mountainman

The 'Teachers' of Mani in the "Acta Archelai" and Simon Magus - Eszter Spät
Vigiliae Christianae
Vol. 58, No. 1 (Feb., 2004), pp. 1-23
(article consists of 23 pages)
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1584535

ABSTRACT

mountainman

Hey Von Bek,

Coins issued by Shapur's brother Peroz in Persia in the mid 3rd century show an image of Buddha. The Manichaean settlements inside and outside of the Roman empire are refered to as monasteries. Mani trecked to India sometime before 242 CE.

Until recently Mani has been presumed to have been defined by the orthodox christian heresiologists of the 4th and 5th century. They paint him as a christian heretic - and not as a "Persian buddhist". However Manichaean sources have recently been discovered in Egypt, and all the way down the silk road to China which cast much doubt on these orthodox accounts. Although these are later, they are viewed as more authentic than the orthodox polemical dogma and fictions.

The question is however is whether the earliest (late 4th century) extant Manichaean accounts faithfully represent the original 3rd century writings of Mani. We await confirming evidence on this question. See also the article Manichaeism. The surviving texts of Mani appear to make reference to both Jesus and Buddha. So, as far as the Buddhist aspect of Mani, it has never perhaps been as actively pursued as the "christian" aspect of Mani. If I find some articles I will post them here.

stephan huller

But I posted an email from the guy who is heading this discovery in Egypt. He does not support your interpretation Pete. He knows that the evidence all points to Mani thinking he was Christian. Why do you keep engaging in this misrepresentation?

mountainman

When put on the spot for an off-the-cuff opinion, most of the leading Manichaean experts might say precisely the same thing. The prevailing orthodox hegemon has been, since the 4th century at least, that Mani was some kind of "Christian" as reported by Eusebius and Augustine and "Hegemonius" and "Aphrem Syria" for example. This is the safe bet.

While it is also true that the grass-roots Manichaean manuscripts of the late 4th century also present Jesus "Chrestos" as the "Good Saviour", they also declare that the orthodox accounts are suspect. The fact remains we do not yet know for sure what it was that Mani himself wrote in the 3rd century.

Iain Gardner is completely awar of this fact. Why aren't you. Given more time to state the entire case, the same author heavily qualifies his opinions in his published articles. He acknowledges and repeats the disclaimer that despite the recent advances in Manichaean studies, "contemporary scholarship does not have a clear knowledge of any part of the Manichaean canon .





Why do you continually ignore Iain Gardners repeated disclaimers?
Any of his conclusions are obviously thus provisional upon the evidence.
Dont you understand the logic of this?

Von Bek

It seems that there may not be enough evidence to know much about Mani other than what his critics said about him, which means we have to be careful about what we know. I still don't see anything that reveals Mani to be Buddhist other than others saying he was. What did he actually teach? What (little) I do know about him doesn't sound Buddhist at all. I am interested in the subject though. Ashoka's missionaries undoubtedly had contact with the Greek world, so some seeds could have been planted in Europe. Some speculate that a few of Ashoka's missionaries even made it to Egypt. I am not aware of any hard evidence proving that though.

mountainman

Here is one article:
Manichaean Views of Buddhism
David A. Scott
History of Religions
Vol. 25, No. 2 (Nov., 1985), pp. 99-115
(article consists of 17 pages)


Here is a second:

MANICHEISM iii. BUDDHIST ELEMENTS IN

stephan huller

Typical Pete, someone asks you for evidence to demonstrate that Mani was a Buddhist and you direct them to an article about later Manichaeanism. Why do you do that?