Continuation of the Silent Legacy
IBNA Religion and Thought Service – Reza Dastjerdi: The second edition of “From Manichaeism to Sufism” by Nasrullah Pourjavadi, recently published by Farhang Moaser Publications, is a collection of articles resulting from the author’s research over the past seven to eight years on wisdom and mysticism in pre-Islamic Iran, especially Manichaeism and its influence on Iranian mysticism and Sufism in the Islamic period. Pourjavadi, a philosopher, researcher, and mysticism scholar, has tried in this book — where the concept of human life and ascension to “زندگانی” (spiritual life) is the main topic of most articles — to discuss some aspects of Manichaeism, “this living religion,” and in fact, as he puts it, “to pursue a path in his research that Seyyed Hassan Taqizadeh alluded to in his discourse.”
At the beginning of his work, in the preface to the second edition of his book, Pourjavadi emphasizes that Mani’s religion has not had such a continuous and profound influence in any land as it has in Iran. Mani, an Iranian prophet and master of two languages, Parthian and Syriac, created a universal religion by combining Christian, Zoroastrian, and Gnostic elements. However, what matters from the author’s perspective is not merely Mani’s religion itself, but its cultural and spiritual continuity in Iranian mysticism. The author, using a historical and comparative approach, shows how Manichaean beliefs continued after the second century AH, despite severe suppression by the Abbasid Caliphate, in a new guise, namely Islamic Sufism. In his view, many Sufi “masters” (Piran) and “dervishes” were originally adherents of Manichaeism who lived disguised as Muslims to preserve their lives and beliefs. Even figures like Baba Taher Oryan, according to the author, were probably remnants or transformations of that Manichaean tradition. This historical continuity, in Pourjavadi’s view, is not accidental but cultural and linguistic; because fundamental concepts such as “living heart” (Zendehdeli), “life” (Zendegi), “living light” (Nur-e Zendeh), and “assemblage” (Jam’) are present in both traditions and in both, they acquire a meaning beyond natural life and philosophical reason.
Furthermore, the author refers to Seyyed Hassan Taqizadeh as the first Iranian to scientifically address Manichaeism. He continued the path Taqizadeh had begun and has endeavored to reinterpret the relationship between Manichaeism and Sufism not from a political or historical perspective, but from an epistemological and cultural linguistic viewpoint. In this context, the role of researchers such as Ahmad Afshar Yazdi and Iraj Afshar is also highlighted, as they collected and published Taqizadeh’s works, paving the way for Manichaean studies in Iran.
The first article of the book, dedicated to examining the meaning of “life” in Iranian mysticism, is one of Pourjavadi’s most important intellectual axes. By referring to Christian and Manichaean mysticism, he shows that the concept of “being alive” in these traditions does not mean physical life, but spiritual life and inner awakening. In Mani’s religion, “being alive” is a characteristic of the prophet and his disciples; a living being connected with “knowledge” and “light” who also invites others to “living-heartedness” (zendehdeli). Pourjavadi views Iranian mysticism from this perspective and argues that “زندگانی” (spiritual life) and “زندهدلی” (living-heartedness) are concepts that entered Sufi literature from this very Manichaean tradition.
In the second article, the author meticulously examines the word “inhelāl” (dissolution) in Ibn al-Nadim’s “Al-Fihrist” from a linguistic perspective. He shows that this term, despite its Arabic appearance, has Iranian roots and is derived from the verb “behl kardan” or “behli khāstan” — meaning liberation and forgiveness. Thus, “inhelāl” in its Manichaean sense is not the collapse of the body, but the liberation of the soul from the bonds of matter. Through this analysis, Pourjavadi demonstrates how concepts of salvation, repentance, and liberation entered Islamic Sufism from the semantic world of Manichaeism and continued in the form of concepts such as “tawba” (repentance), “fanā” (annihilation), and “baqā billāh” (subsistence in God). This etymological approach is one of the prominent features of Pourjavadi’s research style; he shows that the history of language is the history of thought itself.
In the third article, the author explores the etymology of the word “zandiq,” which was commonly used in Islamic texts for heretics and infidels. Contrary to the common view that it is derived from “Zand” (the interpretation of the Avesta), Pourjavadi believes that “zandiq” is derived from “zendehgar” (life-giver) — an epithet given to Mani, as he called himself “Mani the Living.” This interpretation not only restores the semantic load of the word from accusation to life but also shows how “life” in Iranian mysticism transformed from a religious concept into an ethical and existential one.
The fourth article of the book, “Wisdom and Knowledge from the Perspective of Mani the Sage,” discusses the relationship between reason and revelation. According to Pourjavadi, Mani claimed to have received his knowledge directly from his heavenly twin — Narjamig. This narrative is reminiscent of the story of Moses and Khidr in the Quran, where “ladunnī” knowledge is introduced as knowledge beyond human reason. In this article, Pourjavadi speaks of the continuity of two types of wisdom: divine wisdom and human wisdom. This distinction later resonated in Suhrawardi’s Illuminationist philosophy and even in Ibn Arabi’s mysticism. From this perspective, Iranian Sufism is the natural continuation of the Iranianate luminous wisdom (Hikmat-e Nuri), in which light is alive, aware, and knowing.
In the fifth article, the author undertakes a conceptual comparison between “soul purification knowledge” (dānesh-e ravān-chini) in Manichaeism and “assemblage” (jam’) in Sufism. Manichaeans believed that humans must eliminate inner dispersion through soul purification and attain unity and concentration. This very idea appears in Sufism in the form of concepts such as “jam’,” “jam’ al-jam’,” and “yekhemmati” (single-mindedness). Pourjavadi considers this connection not merely historical, but epistemological; because in both schools, the path to salvation passes through concentration on a single truth.
The sixth article, titled “Mani’s ‘I am the Sun’,” discusses one of Mani’s famous claims: “identifying himself with the sun.” Pourjavadi interprets this belief as a continuation of the Avestan tradition of worshipping light and the sun. In his view, Mani’s idea of “living light” inspired Suhrawardi in formulating his Illuminationist philosophy. Suhrawardi, like Mani, considered light a living and conscious being. Thus, his luminous philosophy was not merely a Platonic recreation but a revival of an ancient Iranian tradition.
In the seventh article, Pourjavadi analyzes the “dervish’s garment” or “kherqeh” (cloak) and reveals its Manichaean and Zoroastrian roots. In Mani’s religion, the garment was not merely an outer covering but a symbol of purification and spiritual journey. This meaning continued in Sufism in the form of “kherqeh,” “muraqqa'” (patched cloak), and “jameh-ye faqr” (garment of poverty). According to the author, the symbolism in wearing the cloak signifies the continuation of an idea that established a symbolic link between body and soul, outer and inner, and covering and truth.
The eighth article of the book examines the trajectory of Illuminationist wisdom from ancient Iran to Suhrawardi. Pourjavadi believes that Illuminationist philosophy, at its core, is indebted to the wisdom of the Magi and Manichaeans. Both emphasized the two principles of light and darkness and considered light to be a conscious and living entity. This perspective later developed into a coherent philosophical system in Suhrawardi’s works, presenting nature as a living and conscious being.
The last article of the collection narrates Mani’s childhood and shows how his life was recounted in the form of sacred and allegorical stories. Pourjavadi, by analyzing these narratives, points to their similarities with Christian and Sufi “Lives of Saints” (walinamehha) and “hagiographies.” He concludes that such stories, more than historical accounts, convey religious and educational messages and serve as a model for the continuation of sacredness in Iranian culture.
“From Manichaeism to Sufism” is an intellectual project that endeavors to show the link between two stages of Iran’s spiritual history: pre-Islamic and post-Islamic. In this book, the boundary between philosophy, religion, and mysticism breaks down; Mani sits alongside Suhrawardi, and concepts like “light,” “living-heartedness,” and “assemblage” are connected like links in a single chain. From a methodological perspective, the book is a brilliant example of comparative research between religious traditions. Pourjavadi, with his mastery of Pahlavi, Syriac, and Arabic sources, as well as a deep familiarity with Sufi texts, presents a coherent picture of the evolution of spiritual concepts. His prose is simple yet philosophical; he avoids hasty judgments and constantly seeks to connect the “language” and “spirit” of Iranian culture.
Pourjavadi emphasizes that his goal in writing the book is not to claim a direct continuation of Manichaeism in Sufism, but to clarify the intellectual and linguistic connections between the two. In other words, he shows how the Iranian spirit, from the form of Mani’s ancient religion to the mystical language of Islam, has been in search of a common meaning; a living light that shines in the human heart and leads one from mere aliveness to spiritual life.
The second edition of “From Manichaeism to Sufism” has been published in 378 pages by Farhang Moaser Publications.
