Home
>
Blog
>
Augustine and Manichaeism

Augustine and Manichaeism

by

Mieke Mosmuller

11-01-2017 7 comments Print!

Manichaeism was well known throughout the ages, by the descriptions of its opponents. One important source dealing with the struggle of the Catholic Church against the heretics, is the book 'Confessions' of St. Augustine. He was a member of the community of the Manicheans for ten years, but we don't have a picture of how he must have experienced that community in a positive way over that decade. We only get a picture of Manichaeism, as he came to see it after he had left the community and had become its opponent. In this negative picture we see the phenomenon of the change of assessment, from an ardent proponent to a vigorous fighter against it.


Book III,6
'Thus I fell among men, delirious in their pride, carnal and voluble, whose mouths were the snares of the devil - a trap made out of a mixture of the syllables of thy name and the names of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Paraclete. These names were never out of their mouths, but only as sound and the clatter of tongues, for their heart was empty of truth. Still they cried, “Truth, Truth,” and were forever speaking the word to me. But the thing itself was not in them. Indeed, they spoke falsely not only of thee - who truly art the Truth - but also about the basic elements of this world, thy creation. And, indeed, I should have passed by the philosophers themselves even when they were speaking truth concerning thy creatures, for the sake of thy love, O Highest Good, and my Father, O Beauty of all things beautiful. O Truth, Truth, how inwardly even then did the marrow of my soul sigh for thee when, frequently and in manifold ways, in numerous and vast books, [the Manicheans] sounded out thy name though it was only a sound! And in these dishes - while I starved for thee - they served up to me, in thy stead, the sun and moon thy beauteous works - but still only thy works and not thyself; indeed, not even thy first work. For thy spiritual works came before these material creations, celestial and shining though they are. But I was hungering and thirsting, not even after those first works of thine, but after thyself the Truth, “with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” Yet they still served me glowing fantasies in those dishes. And, truly, it would have been better to have loved this very sun - which at least is true to our sight - than those illusions of theirs which deceive the mind through the eye. And yet because I supposed the illusions to be from thee I fed on them - not with avidity, for thou didst not taste in my mouth as thou art, and thou wast not these empty fictions. Neither was I nourished by them, but was instead exhausted. Food in dreams appears like our food awake; yet the sleepers are not nourished by it, for they are asleep. But the fantasies of the Manicheans were not in any way like thee as thou hast spoken to me now. They were simply fantastic and false. In comparison to them the actual bodies which we see with our fleshly sight, both celestial and terrestrial, are far more certain. These true bodies even the beasts and birds perceive as well as we do and they are more certain than the images we form about them. And again, we do with more certainty form our conceptions about them than, from them, we go on by means of them to imagine of other greater and infinite bodies which have no existence. With such empty husks was I then fed, and yet was not fed. But thou, my Love, for whom I longed in order that I might be strong, neither art those bodies that we see in heaven nor art thou those which we do not see there, for thou hast created them all and yet thou reckonest them not among thy greatest works. How far, then, art thou from those fantasies of mine, fantasies of bodies which have no real being at all! The images of those bodies which actually exist are far more certain than these fantasies. The bodies themselves are more certain than the images, yet even these thou art not. Thou art not even the soul, which is the life of bodies; and, clearly, the life of the body is better than the body itself. But thou art the life of souls, life of lives, having life in thyself, and never changing, O Life of my soul.

Where, then, wast thou and how far from me? Far, indeed, was I wandering away from thee, being barred even from the husks of those swine whom I fed with husks.68 For how much better were the fables of the grammarians and poets than these snares [of the Manicheans]! For verses and poems and “the flying Medea” are still more profitable truly than these men’s “five elements,” with their various colors, answering to “the five caves of darkness” (none of which exist and yet in which they slay the one who believes in them). For verses and poems I can turn into food for the mind, for though I sang about “the flying Medea” I never believed it, but those other things [the fantasies of the Manicheans] I did believe. Woe, woe, by what steps I was dragged down to “the depths of hell” - toiling and fuming because of my lack of the truth, even when I was seeking after thee, my God! To thee I now confess it, for thou didst have mercy on me when I had not yet confessed it. I sought after thee, but not according to the understanding of the mind, by means of which thou hast willed that I should excel the beasts, but only after the guidance of my physical senses. Thou wast more inward to me than the most inward part of me; and higher than my highest reach. I came upon that brazen woman, devoid of prudence, who, in Solomon’s obscure parable, sits at the door of the house on a seat and says, “Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.” This woman seduced me, because she found my soul outside its own door, dwelling on the sensations of my flesh and ruminating on such food as I had swallowed through these physical senses.

Book III, VII
For I was ignorant of that other reality, true Being. And so it was that I was subtly persuaded to agree with these foolish deceivers when they put their questions to me: “Whence comes evil?” and, “Is God limited by a bodily shape, and has he hairs and nails?” and, “Are those patriarchs to be esteemed righteous who had many wives at one time, and who killed men and who sacrificed living creatures?” In my ignorance I was much disturbed over these things and, though I was retreating from the truth, I appeared to myself to be going toward it, because I did not yet know that evil was nothing but a privation of good (that, indeed, it has no being); and how should I have seen this when the sight of my eyes went no farther than physical objects, and the sight of my mind reached no farther than to fantasms? And I did not know that God is a spirit who has no parts extended in length and breadth, whose being has no mass--for every mass is less in a part than in a whole--and if it be an infinite mass it must be less in such parts as are limited by a certain space than in its infinity. It cannot therefore be wholly everywhere as Spirit is, as God is. And I was entirely ignorant as to what is that principle within us by which we are like God, and which is rightly said in Scripture to be made “after God’s image.”
(www.faculty.georgetown.edu)

Augustine and Manichaeism
Augustinus of Hippo, 354 - 430.Augustine and Manichaeism by Mieke Mosmuller

Give your comment please





Comments
  • From Kees @
    Doctor Angelicus, Thomas v. Aquino, heeft deze opvatting over het kwaad overgenomen, namelijk dat het kwaad geen zelfstandige wezenheid (substantia, ousia) betreft.:Marchius vestigde op naam van het Christendom en ketterij door er van uit te gaan, dat er twee aan elkaar tegengestelde beginselen zijn. De Cerdonianen volgeden hem daarin; later ook de Marchianisten en tenslotte de manicheërs, die deze dwaling het stekst verspreid hebben.( Manicheisme als Christendom van de vrijheid en liefde, Roalnd van Vliet)
    • From Mieke Mosmuller @
      Beste Kees, Kun je nog iets duidelijker zijn? Vind je het Manicheisme een dwaling of vind je de bestaande opvattingen over het Manicheisme een dwaling? Hartelijke groet!
      • From Kees W @
        Beste Mieke, Het kwaad is voor mij iets reëels,dus het is er echt, dus niet de afwezigheid van het goede.Net zo goed als de duisternis ook iets reëels is en niet de afwezigheid van licht. Een blinde zal immers een andere fysieke duisternis ervaren, doordat bij hem inderdaad alle licht verdwenen is, dan iemand die wel de nacht kan ervaren. Mijn reactie betrof de inhoud van deze blog waarin Augustinus het kwade ziet als afwezig zijn van het goede en niet als een bestaand wezenlijk iets.Ik denk dat Augustines dus dwaalt , eerbiedig gesproken, dat wel . Deze opvatting is steeds overgenomen in de geschiedenis. R. van Vliet heeft de stroming van het manicheïsme onderzocht in een prachtig boek. hartelijke groet! en alle goeds voor het nieuwe jaar!
        • From Mieke Mosmuller @
          Ja, dat is inderdaad een prachtig boek! Dank voor je verhelderende woorden.
  • From thomas @
    Mit Blick auf die Auseinandersetzungen zwischen den Manichäern und Augustinus frage ich mich, wie diese Gegenerschaft möglich ist. Denn einerseits sollte Mani nach Aussagen Rudolf Steiners ja „eine über das Rosenkreuzertum hinübergreifende Strömung des Geistes“ vorbereiten, die erst in der sechsten Wurzelrasse voll zur Blüte kommen solle: mit einem „eigenen Menschenbruder als Manu“ an der Spitze - während die „früheren Manus“ noch übermenschlich, „eine Art göttliche Wesen“ gewesen seien.“ Andererseits aber wird die Lehre Manis von Augustinus bekämpft, der nach Steiner den "Impuls des Ätherleibes des Jesus von Nazareth" besessen haben soll. Wie ist dies zu verstehen?
  • From Thomas @
    Impuls des Ätherleibes des Jesus von Nazareth,
    • From Mieke Mosmuller @
      Ja, das sind für unser Denken schwierige Dinge, man muss das Absolute verlassen können, weil die menschliche Erkenntnisfähigkeit in verschiedenen Wesensglieder verläuft. Das Ich als Erkenntnis-Wesensglied ist auch in unserer Zeit noch ganz neu, meistens verläuft das Erkennen in dem astralischen Leib. Die Gedanken aber leben im Ätherleib, und in unserer Zeit gibt es die Möglichkeit, sich so zu entwickeln, dass das Ich in den Ätherleib bewusst die Gedanken gestaltet. Das war bei Augustinus nicht so. Da lagern sich über den heiligen Ätherleib eine noch sich reinigende Seele und ein noch nicht denkendes Ich. Wenn man Augustinus liest, fühlt man schon die Heiligkeit der Gedanken, obwohl sie in ihrem Zusammenhang noch nicht immer in der vollen Wahrheit sein können. Es ist eine schöne Übung, um die Heiligkeit in den Gedanken zu versuchen zu spüren, obwohl der Zusammenhang oft gar nicht angenommen werden kann, und auch nicht angenehm ist. Die Heiligkeit bleibt für Augustinus unbewusst. Ich setze das Thema noch weiter fort...