Szilágyi András (szerk.): Ars Decorativa 23. (Budapest, 2004)

Gábor KÓSA: Extatic Flight and the Realm of Light. Changes in the Estimation of Chinese Manichaeism as mirrored in its relationship with Shamanism

above. It is obvious that we cannot judge extracts that survived in an official historical work (#1), in a collection of fictitious stories (#2), in the Taoist Canon (#3) or in legislative records (#4, #5) equally. However, when attempting to give a direct clarification of the relationship between Manichaeism and shamanism, we are in the possession of these sources exclusively; therefore, we have to use them as a starting-point. Regardless the heterogeneous quality of the sources, it is surprising to see how exactly the five extracts (presented in chronological order) reflect the historical concept about Manichaeism and shamanism we can arrive at on the basis of other sources. Not only that the above quotations do not contradict the notions already known, but actually support them: the popularity of Manichaeism in the Tang era (#1), the magic power of the religion that arrived to China from Persia (#2), the criticism by the official Taoist priesthood, which took place in the Song era for the first time (#3) and, finally, the definite prohibition in the Ming era (#4, #5) are logical consequences drawn on the basis of quotations from various other sources as well. As for the post-Ming era, we practically have no knowledge on Manichaeism, which probably implies that (in conformity with the opinion of the Imperial court) it may actually have fused with contemporary folk religion. To sum up, we can state that the sources overviewed in the present article provide clear evidence that the general estimation of Chinese Manichaeism is well traceable, provided that we trace the changes of paradigms that occurred in the relationship between Chinese Manichaeism and shamanism form era to era. (Translated by Zsuzsanna Tóth)