Lezen (of juist niet) 18!


Deze pagina bevat een lijst van sinds 2005 gelezen teksten met commentaar.

Retour naar overzichtspagina gelezen teksten

Gelezen - sinds 2005 - c

Read - since 2005c




[Actual links referring to this page or parts of it:


Gertjan van Dijk, Het geloof der vaderen: De denkwereld van de bevindelijk gereformeerden, Nijmegen (Sun) 1996, [met lijst van geraadpleegde literatuur]263pp.

In het voorwoord van zijn boek vertelt de auteur dat hem aanvankelijk een journalistieke impressie voorstond van de wereld waarin hij opgroeide, die van de bevindelijke gereformeerden. Bevindelijk staat voor de hoge waardering die deze hebben voor wat zij beschouwen als tekenen van de innerlijke verandering die God aan sommigen van hen 'genadig' schenkt, namelijk de ervaring dat zij niet alleen zondig en verdoemd waren maar dat zij door Hem aangenomen zijn en niet in de hel maar in de hemel zullen komen.
In plaats van die journalistieke impressie van de culturele eigenaardigheden van dat betrekkelijke kleine Nederlandse volksdeel (zo'n 2 % als je kijkt naar de stemmen die de Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij bij verkiezingen verzamelt; en verwant aan enkele eveneens kleine groepen in landen als Schotland, Noord-Amerika en Zuid-Afrika) merkte de auteur dat zijn vraagstelling al interviewende en schrijvende toch sterk bepaald werd door zijn persoonlijke betrokkenheid. Hij is immers in die wereld opgegroeid en hoewel geen gelovige meer, werd het boek toch meer een antwoord op de vraag: Wie is die God van de oude waarheid, waarom heeft Hij de mensen gemaakt, wat wil Hij van ons? Want hij bemerkte dat daar de wortels liggen van de beknelling die hij meende kwijt geraakt te zijn maar die opnieuw bij hem opspeelde: de zware last van het bestaan die samen met de donkere visie er op die wereld bepaalt en die ook inhoudt dat je er zo moeilijk aan ontsnapt. Het lukte hem met andere woorden minder om afstand te nemen dan hij had gedacht. Hij had graag sociologische en culturele verschijnselen willen koppelen aan bepaalde ideeën en opvattingen en zo hun onderlinge samenhang duidelijker willen maken of zelfs verklaren. Daar is hij nu niet helemaal aan toe gekomen.
Wat zijn boek wel is geworden is een weergaloos verslag op basis van interviews en literatuuronderzoek (ook veel tijdschriften, kranten en boeken) van de belevingswereld van de bevindelijke gereformeerden en hun opvattingen over het leven in onze wereld en maatschappij, met alle dilemma's die daarin aanwezig zijn. Zijn zegslieden hebben hem zonder reserves hun opvattingen meegedeeld en die zijn soms bizar voor wie niet tot deze groepering behoren. Zij laten vooral ook zien dat er binnen deze groepen wel allerlei nuances zijn over van alles en nog wat maar dat de grens tussen wat zich binnen en wat zich buiten de groep afspeelt zo belangrijk is dat het de leiders van deze groep mogelijk is om met een beroep op hun gezag in zaken van de leer alle andere aspecten van het leven van de groepsleden te overheersen en wel zo dat die dat meestal blijven accepteren. (Een vergelijkbaar en aanvullend beeld - hoewel in heel andere vorm - schetst de inmiddels verschenen weergaloze roman Knielen op een bed violen van Jan Siebelink.)
Daar moet direct aan toegevoegd worden dat deze rigiditeit en rigoureuze afwending en afscherming van de wereld gecompenseerd worden door levenswijzen en aanpassingen die het leven toch aangenaam kunnen maken, ook al worden die door de in leer en leven strengere gelovigen afgewezen. Hierbij moet opgemerkt worden dat binnen de eigen groep een zo eigen taal is ontwikkeld dat daardoor zowel veel verhuld als subtiel uitgedrukt kan worden. Het problematische van deze afgescheiden leefwereld is hoe dan ook een van de grootste problemen ook voor de mensen in de groep zelf. Want als je nooit meer naar buiten kijkt, waarom ben je dan ooit apart komen te staan of gaan staan? En gelden die keuzes voor eeuwig? Aan een analyse van de cultuurfilosofische vooronderstellingen van het denken van deze groep is de auteur dus niet meer toegekomen, zeker niet in een breder sociologisch en sociaalpsychologisch kader.

Een aanzet om te begrijpen hoe de binding aan de groep en de opvattingen van de groep bij individuen plaats vindt - het gaat om individuele of persoonlijke psychologie en therapie, niet om sociologie - is bijvoorbeeld te vinden in Hulpeloos maar schuldig van Aleid Schilder, dat weliswaar over vrijgemaakt en synodaal gereformeerden gaat (d.w.z. over een grotere groep van niet bevindelijke gereformeerden) maar zeker ook op de bevindelijke gereformeerden van toepassing is.
En een ander gedeeltelijk antwoord op deze vragen ligt ook in de verwantschap van vergelijkbare situaties en probleemstellingen bij andere godsdienstige formaties, protestantse en christelijke en zelfs joodse, islamitische en nog andere. Daar kunnen verwante structuren van godsdienstige opvattingen en culturele vooronderstellingen gesignaleerd worden die sommige structuren binnen deze groepering helpen verduidelijken. Bijvoorbeeld over de evolutie, of over man en vrouw en seksualiteit, in combinatie met bepaalde bijbelopvattingen, en nog breder met bepaalde sociale en psychologische en filosofische (vaak onbewust geworden) conditioneringen enzovoort. Dat is allemaal in dit boek nog niet te vinden. Al is de manier waarop binnen de groep de rangorde wordt bepaald en gehandhaafd met behulp van religieuze en niet-religieuze criteria wel heel opmerkelijk. Hoe bijzonder - zo'n cultuur van elkaar de maat nemen! Overigens te vergelijken met alle groepen (en personen) die ik ken en die op een of andere wijze de mate van spirituele groei als criterium hanteren met bedoelde of onbedoelde gevolgen ook op niet-spirituele gebieden.

Hoe dan ook vinden we in dit boek een ook voor niet tot deze groep behorende lezers zeer herkenbaar en inleefbaar beeld ervan. Ik heb al het woord bizar genoemd om sommige eigenaardigheden aan te geven. Daar wil ik echter naast zetten dat ik komend uit een jeugdomgeving waarin deze groep een relatief grote plaats in het religieuze palet innam (Walcheren na de Tweede Wereldoorlog) niet alleen veel herken van zaken die in die groep zelf voorkomen maar ook omdat ze een sterke verwantschap vertonen aan denkpatronen die ik bij mijzelf aantref, en die ik misschien via mijn ouders of via hun en mijn toenmalige kerk heb leren kennen. Mijn moeder behoorde in haar jeugd tot de groep van de bevindelijken. De uiteindelijke kerk van mijn ouders en de meeste familieleden was de synodaal gereformeerde (in een enkel geval de Nederlands Hervormde), die kortgeleden is opgegaan in de Protestantse Kerk Nederland. Vooral het idee dat de kerk en de christenen toch vooral niet mee moeten doen aan de wereld (dit heette de antithese tot de wereld) was ook in mijn jeugd heel sterk, waarbij de wereld dan stond voor het gevaar van opgaan in vermaak, en verlies van het eigen geloof c.q. verlies van het deelnemen aan de kerkgemeenschap.
Kortom, over de verstrengeling van praktische en religieuze zaken in deze en andere religieuze groepen en personen is nog wel meer te zeggen dan in dit boek. Dan kan misschien duidelijker aangewezen worden waar de voordelen van de concentratie op de eigen waarden en gedragspatronen en spiritualiteit opwegen tegen de gevaren van het isolement en de bekrompenheid (en waar niet). Maar het is in zijn directe blik in de keuken van een bijzondere wereld onthullend en daar zal iedere lezeres en lezer haar of zijn eigen emotionele reactie op hebben. Zij die zich nog deels of geheel herkennen in de beknelling die hier geschetst wordt, wens ik volledige bevrijding toe.
Het boek bevat een uitgebreide literatuurlijst die misschien niet helemaal volledig is, bijvoorbeeld een op pagina 209 genoemde 'schets' van het niet helemaal zuivere oorlogsverleden van een der voormannen ontbreekt daarin. Ook zijn wellicht sinds 1996 al weer meer boeken verschenen over hetzelfde onderwerp. Maar dit boek is zeer informatief, leest prettig en gebruikt duidelijk respectabele bronnen op een respectabele wijze. Dat vind ik knap en van blijvende waarde.

Ik eindig met de vragen waarop wellicht in de toekomst duidelijker en wellicht meer toegespitste antwoorden gegeven kunnen worden dan in dit boek te vinden zijn. Van de ene kant: als deze wereld zo gekenmerkt wordt door beknelling en benauwenis, wat is dan de reden dat mensen er toch voor blijven kiezen? Is dat onmacht? Zijn het de bedreigingen of de onderdrukking die daarmee samenhangt, de macht die door de leiders wordt uitgeoefend en de mensen in hun greep houdt? Of zijn er ook aangenamere redenen om in deze groep, in deze wereld te blijven? Heeft deze cultuur voor de dragers ervan haar eigen sterke punten? Het zal niet de historische fundering van de leer zijn want die is uitermate zwak. Weliswaar zijn er elementen van het Godsbeeld te herleiden tot elementen van het Godsbeeld van het voorchristelijke Jodendom maar men kan moeilijk zeggen dat de 'tale Kanaäns' die in deze groep gebezigd wordt ook maar enigszins lijkt op echt bestaan hebbende oude culturele tradities. Evenmin is het zich baseren op één vertaling van de bijbel, namelijk de Statenvertaling, historisch of wetenschappelijk te funderen. Het is uiteraard andersom: de eigen groepscultuur en leer wordt gelegitimeerd met een keuze voor die ene vertaling. Samengevat niettemin: waarom blijven mensen voor deze traditie kiezen, uit dwang of om bepaalde - al dan niet openlijk erkende - voordelen?
Een tweede vragencomplex hangt samen met het ontstaan van deze traditie. Wat zijn de historische culturele, sociale en psychologische factoren geweest die aan het ontstaan en het voortbestaan van deze groep hebben bijgedragen? Wat is daarbij van doorslaggevend belang geweest bij het vormen van de eigen identiteit? Zijn er verwante ontwikkelingen aan te wijzen bij andere religieuze groepen? Waarom hebben dié niét tot dit resultaat geleid en wát is dan wél de belangrijkste factor in dit resultaat? Natuurlijk kunnen wetenschappelijke en historische analyses nooit de actuele ontwikkelingen vervangen maar zij kunnen wel meer zicht geven, en meer (zelf-)verstaan. En ook dat zijn onderdelen die voor de actualiteit en voor de toekomst van belang kunnen zijn, zowel voor de groep en de individuele leden ervan, als voor hen die er geen deel van uitmaken maar zeker verwant zijn of zich in sommige opzichten verwant voelen. Vaak worden verschijnselen die andere mensen betreffen vanzelf interessant voor degene die zich er met aandacht in verdiept. Als het om mensen gaat, is wetenschap zelden zonder betrokkenheid. In dat opzicht zijn de bevindelijke gereformeerden - als 'object' en/of 'subject' van dit onderzoek - geen uitzondering, vind ik. Ik neem aan dat bijvoorbeeld analyses te maken zijn van standpunten en stemgedrag van de SGP ten opzichte van die van andere politieke partijen en dat daar het nodige uit te leren valt over deze zaken. Wat zijn de voordelen van dit conservatisme voor de kiezers? Wanneer gaan conservatieven overstag in samenlevingsveranderingen zoals gelijke rechten van vrouwen? Staan de factoren die deze groep begunstigd hebben onder druk zodat zij voor hun toekomst moeten vrezen? Of zijn er voldoende aanpassingen - of het vermijden ervan - mogelijk om gedurende langere tijd een eigen identiteit vol te houden? Die ongetwijfeld interessante geschiedenis is in dit boek ook nog niet geschreven. Maar naar dit alles worden we door dit boek wel nieuwsgieriger, en de toenemende intellectuele ontwikkeldheid binnen de groep lijkt daar een niet onbelangrijke factor in.

Wanneer ik bedenk dat bij het beschrijven van deze groeperingen vroeger vooral werd stil gestaan bij het lezen van de 'oude schrijvers' van de zogeheten 'Nadere Reformatie' (waarin de bevindelijkheid in de Reformatorische stromingen nadruk kreeg), zoals Jodocus van Lodensten, Theodorus en Wilhelmus à Brakel, Bernardus Smytegelt, valt me op dat daar in dit boek nauwelijks aandacht aan wordt besteed (iets meer in de inmiddels verschenen en zeer aan te bevelen roman Knielen op een bed violen van Jan Siebelink). Niet in de interviews in ieder geval. Zijn daar ook overzichtswerken over of is dat uit de tijd geraakt? Bij bijvoorbeeld uitgeverij Den Hertog in Houten worden ze nog uitgegeven; ik heb ze overigens niet zelf gelezen en vrees ook dat dat nogal wat kennis veronderstelt van de taal en de voorstellingen uit die oude tijden. Of heeft de auteur hier een kans gemist op een analyse van wat de mensen bezig houdt - die teksten zijn er immers? Ook speelt hier misschien een rol dat de auteur er nergens melding van maakt dit aspect in zijn jeugd in een bevindelijk gereformeerd gezin te hebben leren kennen of waarderen. Is deze interesse verdwenen of is het bijvoorbeeld een verklaring voor wat de mensen nog aan deze groep bindt? Zou wat deze oude schrijvers over het bevindelijke leven te zeggen hadden nu nog betekenis hebben of zelfs in de toekomst - misschien in aangepaste vorm! - kunnen hebben? Vergelijkbaar bijvoorbeeld met wat aan innerlijke beleving in andere christelijke stromingen aan de orde is, of zelfs veel breder in de onderstromen van onze moderne maatschappij? Ik zou daar wel iets meer over hebben willen horen. Al is de informatie in dit boek onvervangbaar als schets van de moderne ontwikkelingen in de beschreven groep.

Ten slotte nog een herhaling van wat ik het meest bizar vind aan de beschreven wereld. Alles in het leven van deze groeperingen lijkt gericht op het handhaven van de afscheiding tot de wereld. Dat roept de vraag op wat er toch voor aantrekkelijks is voor veel personen binnen de groeperingen om niet weg te lopen. En vooral de vraag hoe voorkomen kan worden dat de grote macht die zo in handen van weinige leiders (de bekeerden, en vooral de predikanten) is komen te liggen, misbruikt wordt op een manier waarvan gezegd moet worden dat het doel deze middelen niet zou mogen heiligen. Want er kan zeker sprake zijn van een benauwend, beknellend juk dat op mensen gelegd wordt, althans in situaties waarin zij niet begrijpen waarom bepaalde moeilijkheden hen overkomen en bepaalde kennis of instrumenten om die te verhelpen hun onthouden worden die in onze maatschappij normaal zijn. Zelfs misschien van gewetensdwang of andere - bijvoorbeeld economische of andere sociale - dwang om in het bestaande groepsgareel te blijven.
Een heel ander punt is dat ik toch niet goed begrijp hoe de auteur zo open heeft kunnen spreken met zijn geïnterviewden. Want zij zullen dan wel niet kunnen zeggen dat hij hen niet juist geciteerd heeft - neem ik aan - maar of zij zich herkennen in het portret dat hier van hen geschetst is vraag ik mij af. Ik sluit het niet uit maar dan zullen er toch ook anderen zijn die vinden dat de auteur en de lezers van dit boek als buitenstaanders toch niet een echt zuiver beeld van een en ander kunnen krijgen. Dat is immers per definitie voorbehouden aan de weinige bekeerden en leiders in deze groeperingen. Of moet je stellen dat de soep in deze groepen meestal niet zo heet gegeten wordt als dat zij wordt opgediend? Dat zou een merkwaardig licht werpen op een verschil tussen leer en leven in deze groepen. Al zouden zij niet de enigen zijn waar dat verschil een belangrijke rol speelt. Opnieuw iets waar verder onderzoek naar gedaan kan worden.
Kortom, een uniek en waardevol boek dat tot verdere vragen aanleiding geeft. Wat gebeurt er bijvoorbeeld wanneer vloeken in het openbaar bij wet verboden wordt, zoals vandaag uit de gemeente Staphorst bericht wordt. Zou in Staphorst veel risico zijn dat deze wet overtreden wordt? En zou een juridische regel de wortel van het vloeken werkelijk raken en bestrijden? Hoe vaak zal een proces-verbaal geschreven worden van een overtreding van deze regel? Wat is dan de (symbolische) betekenis van dit verbod voor inwoners en voor bezoekers van buiten?!
1 juni 2005

Marc-Alain Ouaknin, Tsimtsoum: Introduction à la méditation hébraïque, Paris (Albin Michel) 1992, [met uitgebreide literatuurlijst, ]252pp.

Achter de titel van deze Franse pocket verbergt zich mogelijk een waardevolle inleiding van een deskundige rabbijn over de meditatie in de joodse Traditie (Kabbala). Het woord hebreeuwse woord tsimtsoum (Frans)of Zimzum (Duits) staat voor de 'beweging naar binnen' (inkeer tot zichzelf), in de eerste plaats van God en vervolgens ook van de mens. Dit idee heeft in de geschiedenis een invloedrijke rol gespeeld, onder andere bij de filosofen Schelling - als 'Contraction Gottes' - en Marx als basis voor hun dialectische idealisme respectievelijk materialisme. De auteur presenteert zich als kenner van de moderne filosofie van Levinas en vele andere moderne (meest Franse) filosofen, maar niet minder van de geschiedenis van de joodse Traditie: de Kabbala, het chassidisme en vele andere werken van vermaarde rabbijnen, waaronder de Talmoed. Hij legt de traditie uit in woorden en denkbeelden van deze moderne filosofen (Levinas is degene die het denken van Heidegger gebruikte om een nieuwe uitleg aan de joodse traditie te geven). Het is voorzover ik heb kunnen zien, zeer helder en overzichtelijk maar ik heb het niet doorgeworsteld. Ik geef het alleen door als hint. Het bevat een indrukwekkende literatuurlijst.
1 juni 2005

Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism, edited by Wouter J. Hanegraaff in collaboration with Antoine Faivre, Roelof van den Broek, Jean-Pierre Brach: Volume I / II., [with - in vol. I - Introduction, List of Contributors, List of Entries, - and in vol. II - Index of Groups and Organizations, Index of Persons, ]Leiden / Boston (Brill) 2005, vol. I (A-H) pp. xxix, 1-586 pp., vol. II (I-Z) pp. 587-1228

This insightful new dictionary is absolutely indispensable for academic research as well as for the spiritual seeker who wants to know more about the ideas - and sometimes also practices - of the traditions of Gnosis & Western Esotericism in general, that is of the history and correlation of those ideas. How it is possible in such a work of many writers, I don't know, but every article is a pleasure to read by style and structure. So before you know you are looking to other entries for more. I went so fast that I stopped in the midst of the P and of the article about Paracelsus, to save at least some for later! Before commenting on some separate articles and topics I would like to make some more general remarks about backgrounds, scope and methodology - rather dull stuff perhaps for some but to me not unimportant. But in general let me say already this: I experience this publication as a great gift, and a welcome tool for study and finding information. I am really feeling glad to have better access now to some fellow humans of the past (sometimes even large groups of them) which I experience as my relatives - if not in all ideas or practices than surely as fellow humans - and with which I sometimes even feel congenial to a certain extent. But never without lessons; this seems human too. (For Dutch readers: a very informative and interesting interview with the main editor appeared in the newspaper NRC Handelsblad 5-6/3/2005 p. 45, also to be found on the website of the newspaper. The interview is especially focused on the neutrality of the descriptions in this dictionary, compared with the derogation which mostly accompanies descriptions or even just mentioning these subjects. Hanegraaff explains at length the advantages and pitfalls accompanying the making of the dictionary in this way.)

Some general remarks.

Let me first note that this work seems to be very well organized and edited. Only one very concrete and practical omission (no index on subjects) I will mention below. It seems to present the fruit of the new studies (after World War II) of these 'alternative' strains of Western discourse - in comparison to the mainstreams of science, philosophy and theology. Thanks to new historical (re)discoveries and thanks particularly to the hard work of the new pioneers in these fields, these studies gained impressive insight in and oversight in these traditions, of course not without using the materials provided by earlier publications from some forerunners in the centuries before.
What has become visible now, is a vast field of academic knowledge - about topics despised of in the mainstream Western religions as heretic and dangerous as well as until recently more often than not neglected by the academic world. Which knowledge now also figures within the boundaries of many generally accepted paradigms or discussions shared by a large number of academic researchers, among which the writers of the articles in this dictionary. It might be noted that the work of Roelof van den Broek - pupil and colleague of the Utrecht church historian Gilles Quispel who pioneered in promoting the importance and the knowledge of Gnosticism as well as of Jewish Christianity in a time when this was not accepted as important - for the pre-Middle Age parts and of Antoine Faivre for the Renaissance and Modern Era stands out here.
I will not go into a discussion of the difference as well as the relation between the contents of this dictionary with the content of the oversight works of the more accepted religious or if you want spiritual history of the West. Most often one will find in this dictionary a good feel for methodology within religious and related studies in which the main editor Wouter J. Hanegraaff - also having excellent knowledge of the esotericism of the last two centuries - is well versed. But I feel that more is at hand than merely the happy circumstance (but a very happy circumstance it really is!) that the four editors - Jean-Pierre Brach, the fourth, is specialized in magic and numerology - had so much complementary knowledge and contacts within their respective fields of study. Indeed it is again possible now to ask questions about the relation between mainstream and alternative discourse in Western religion and / or spirituality, as well as between more or less accepted paradigms in studying them. The first note however might be that this publication indisputably proves the validity of the academic studies of these subjects as well as the value of these subjects within society in general (unless one would restrict the academy to the natural sciences, and see as important for society only the dominant or 'proven' religions or spiritualities). Let me close this part of my comments with the remark that I believe that it is possible to have good methodology in these fields of study without being absolutistic in regard to fundamentals. To me this dictionary shows that in full although the discussions about the mentioned questions still have to be held - to me preferably with an open eye for different points of view, or better regarding one's own biases as well.
But indeed: now that these parts of Western religious (and philosophical and scientific and cultural) history have been presented again as very important and relevant, one theme cannot be negated any more, namely the difference between the paradigms within these fields compared with the paradigms in the other traditions which until yet were the only ones who also pretended to be the true ones, i.e. the only ones with serious validity. For you can discern not only different parts of history (some even speak of gnosis and esotericism as the third tradition in Western history next to faith and reason; a judgement which still has to be vindicated) but also of different paradigms in these different traditions, and you will immediately understand that a huge field of research now unfolds itself. Lots of questions and themes could be put forward here which indeed implicitly are of great importance: how much attention is or should be given to cultural and sociological settings and political roles and influences (in fact in this dictionary rather little attention is given to these topics), to the relation with philosophy and science (in this dictionary a lot, in any case as regards Platonism and Aristotelism, although there could be more oversight regarding the relation to science), to the relation with the official or dominant religions in the West - Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism in several denominations or variants; Judaism; Islam - and their dominant theologies (here and there in this dictionary you will find some remark or even some article about one separate subject, but no continued attention). Of course all these topics bring with them their own problems in relation to the paradigms which are used in this dictionary or in the field of its studies, even in relation to what counts as their objects and borders: do the studies of Gnosis & Western Esotericism have to accept themselves labelled as 'alternative' to the mainstream traditions as one does usually? I do not think so. Although all traditions including the mainstream ones are alternatives to each other from the viewpoint of a client who could choose between them, phenomenologically one could defend that they all have the same value, that is: can and have to be observed neutrally before making those choices. Which conclusion then leads to new questions about the viewpoints from which to study them - a problem well known within the history and 'sciences' of religion but not to be answered with a labelling of choices for viewpoints that differ from one's own as less valid or as only 'alternative' in comparison with your own (absolutely) 'true' or mainstream viewpoint. On the contrary, I would like to emphasize that from the abundance of well organized material in this dictionary it seems possible to ask many questions about mainstream paradigms in the history of religions, of churches, of paradigms in theology and philosophy, and so on to politics, society and culture in their breadth. The then following discussions in the field of academic studies could be very fruitful, in my opinion. Particularly if you know that mainstream Western religions and philosophy have founded many of their ideas and positions on the basis of or in confrontation with the traditions spoken of in this dictionary. But the writers in this dictionary do not spend any attention to these important questions (for example: the origination of Catholic Christianity as well as Rabbinic Judaism in confrontation with and from a background of several Hellenistic religious and esoteric traditions and mystery schools and philosophical schools - which in fact not should have been neglected in a dictionary like this) apart from very implicitly. They restrict themselves to an elucidating and inspiring presentation of the results of their studies, and to some historical questions which still stand open, but they do not speak about the questions I put forward here nor about their historical backgrounds and correlations.
The editors have also restricted themselves to Western traditions, i.e. in fact mostly to European and (North) American, so no traditions from Asia, Africa or South America will be found within this dictionary. So comparison between Western and other traditions will not be found in it, which I regret although I can understand it for practical reasons. For not only are there important Eastern influences upon esoteric Western traditions in the last two centuries (Theosophy, Anthroposophy, and many more) but it is well known that Eastern religions have a great deal of attraction in the West, not the least for adherers of the Western esoteric traditions I am sure. So if practically not yet possible, this theme is missed regrettably by me. It will be an important theme for the future of the subject fields of this dictionary.
Another miss - mentioned by the editors - is the relation with Judaism and Islam. Although an important miss because of the close relation of these three “monotheistic” “religions of the book”, there are practical reasons - the state of the art of the study of these relation is not very grown up or stable yet and the number of those with a good knowledge of it is few - why at this moment in time it is difficult to produce qualified articles about these subjects, for example about Jewish non-canonical scriptures, or about Islamic gnosis. One should not forget however that the parallels between these three religions are generally rather close so that they are unmistakably important and elucidating but mostly not too different. Manichaeism although a separate church might be regarded clearly as a part of Christianity, and could be added to the list of topics to be expanded in later editions because of the close correlations and parallels with other traditions among which Judaism, Gnosticism and Islam. The study of Manichaeism is rising thanks to new discoveries and studies. Also relative little attention is paid to non-Jewish and non-Christian mystery religions or secret cults in the Hellenistic Age and classical Greece, as well as to Egyptian and other religions in the Near East in the old times from which the influence is mentioned but not clearly spelled out.
From all mentioned misses together one could perhaps be inclined to ask if the editors perhaps had or have an unmentioned or even unconscious bias to mainstream paradigms of academic (religious and scientific) research, indeed of their fundamental premise - that the “Western” aspect of their subjects is only a geographical designation or that it implies still something of the old prejudices about Western superiority, well known and practiced in European and North-American Christianity and Judaism as well as in (even secular) academia in these parts of the world, and about the inferiority of other cultures and religions. To be more precise: the fact that Western technology is nowadays the dominant one does not mean that that is also true for Western culture and religion, or only that the last cannot be compared with other cultures and religions because of their different paradigms. The last statement namely depends upon the supposition that it is not possible to compare any culture of religion with another one, or - what leads to the same conclusion - that 'our' fundamental truths or paradigms are by definition better than all 'other' ones.
In summary, 'gnosis' and 'esotericism' have a connotation of rejection within dogmatical theology and reasonable science which more often than not were not neutral to these subjects of study. Or better said, within the course of fighting those phenomena they - or their forerunners - intentionally shaped this terminology with a negative connotation, that is defined those phenomena as to be judged negatively. Now my question is: by using the terminology coming from the enemies, does not the very title of the dictionary give in too much to standard prejudices? Of course a problem with this is that a dictionary like this one is part of the academic discourse and does not want to remove itself to much from this discourse - which itself is not a truth but a chosen method and viewpoint. But within the academic discourse there should be the possibility and in reality often is much discussion and struggle or better fight about paradigms, and it has to be said that the subjects of this dictionary - as do religion and spirituality in general - give much occasion to that.
So the strength of this dictionary is explicit in the well written articles on separate subjects, almost all from a remarkable neutral viewpoint that is without implicit or explicit prejudices. However in those broader and fundamental questions and topics as mentioned above this strength is still implicit only. This dictionary nevertheless stands out for its rich contents on diverse topics, well divided into correlating articles about historical periods and systematically differing orientations, on many persons and organisations and so on. I cannot withstand the inclination to mention some of them because of their importance or because I like to make some more personal comments on them.

Comments on specific topics or articles.

In this part the titles of the articles mentioned will be written in bold. As mentioned above, I assume I already have read about half the dictionary, but not much after the letter P. The articles mentioned below is not my complete list of read articles (and surely not even half the list of entries of the whole dictionary which would be about 400 items, including f.e. Tarot, Pessoa, Reincarnation, Schelling, Secrecy, Theosophical Society, Yeats, Zosimus) but if no negative comment is given, they are all a pleasure to read and very informative. And with these article-names you also have at least one impression of the contents of this dictionary.

Some general articles are really splendid, among them Gnosticism, Hermetism (brilliant), Hermetic Literature (I Antiquity II Latin Middle Ages (extensive too) III Arabic (!) IV Renaissance - Present), Hermes Trismegistos (esp. I Antiquity and III Modernity). Some citations from the article Gnosticism I: “Christian Gnostics of the 2nd century could sometimes speak about Jesus with much more warmth and spiritual depth than their non-Gnostic fellow Christians.” (411) “Moreover, from Hellenistic times onward, philosophy, and later Platonism in particular, had become increasingly religious. Under these circumstances, one understands that it is often difficult to draw a sharp borderline between philosophical and Gnostic writings, especially in the case of non-mythological Gnostic texts. In general, however, one can say that the philosophers sought philosophical solutions to philosophical problems, even in their language was religiously coloured, whereas the Gnostic thinkers sought religious answers to religious problems, even if they made use of philosophical terminology. The philosophers aimed at understanding, the Gnostics sought and proclaimed salvation through revealed knowledge.” (413) “… Jews must have played an important role in the formation of the Gnostic myths. From Philo on we know that there were Jews in Alexandria who rejected the beliefs and practices of their paternal religion. But the deeply pessimistic view of the human condition expressed in the early Gnostic myths, cannot have been limited to some apostate Jews. It apparently reflected a more general experience of alienation from the world and a longing for salvation by spiritual knowledge, which is also evident in those Gnostic writings that do not show any specific Jewish influence. The Christian anti-Gnostic works of the 2nd and 3rd centuries testify to the great attraction of Gnostic views, and of the religious experience upon which they were based, on Christian thinkers or teachers and their followers. The result was a distinct Gnostic current within the variegated world of early Christianity. The most influential Gnostic variant of Christianity seems to have been Valentinianism, which was based on older mythological constructions (…). That Valentinus and even his pupil Ptolemy were simply well educated Christian Platonists, who did not yet teach the “Valentinian” mythological system that was taught by their followers, as has been argued from a church-historical point of view (…), is highly unlikely. In the middle of the 2nd century, ecclesiastical leaders in Rome began to define the boundaries of the church and, accordingly, to reject the views that for a time had been acceptable within the Christian communities. The Christian teachers who taught the prevalence of Gnosis over faith or ascribed the creation of the world to a lower Demiurge were expelled from the Church and vehemently fought.” (414v.) “The Gnostic character of a considerable number of texts can be disputed, since their contents show a position intermediate between a distinct Gnostic and a more philosophical, hermetic, or generally Christian views. The decisive criterion is whether or not esoteric knowledge is held to be indispensable for personal salvation, i.e. the return to one's divine origin. But even this criterion is not always easy to apply, because the indispensability of Gnosis is sometimes merely presupposed rather than explicitly expressed. However, all these ambiguities are no reason to deny the existence of Gnostic religiosity in the Roman world and to declare terms as “Gnostic”, “Gnosticism”, “Gnostic movement”, etc. meaningless. The Gnostic religion, its mythological variants included, was not a degenerated form of Greek philosophy, nor did it arise as a Christian heresy. To some extent it was a religion in its own right, or at least a distinct religious mentality, which expressed itself in an almost inextricable combination of important notions derived from Jewish mysticism, Greek philosophy, and Christian philosophy. Its central belief found a succinct expression in the Christian Gnostic Testimony of Truth, NHC IX, 44,30-45,6: 'When man comes to know himself and God who is over the truth, he will be saved, and he will crown himself with the crown unfading'.” (415)
Valentinus and Valentinians: the best introduction I know into the history and the mythology of the Valentinian writings, as well as of the different Valentinian teachers and systems. Namely explanation of the gospels within the framework of (mainly platonicizing) views intended upon salvation, and as such typically religious (confer the role of the child in the manger with Valentine, which seems to have impressed him very much and influenced his views and thinking apparently). Hymns and Prayers: very balanced and informative treatment of many materials; promising object of study for the history of several traditions because of the possibility as well as necessity of perceiving and explaining differences and equalities of texts which played very important roles in their practice.
To name a few further good articles in this context: Archontics; Justin the Gnostic (very interesting and informative); Marcion (interesting); Menander; Nicolaïtans; Sethians: important hypothesis to be researched further. As well as Elchasai / Elxai; Naässenes; Mandaeans. And of course the important Clemens of Alexandria.
Mani and Manicheism: balanced, much oversight, very informative; still a lot of stuff to be studied from newly discovered sources which are in the process of being published or promised so. From these studies probably a new view can be obtained about the original relations between Judaism, Gnosticism, Christianity including Manicheism, and Islam, which were much closer to or intertwined with each other in old times than we now generally suppose. This will of course influence our view of Islamic Sufism, of Gnosticism etc. very much.
Those who wish to find an entry into the whole field of the dictionary can read the article about Macrohistory (somewhat more difficult because of the required pre-knowledge but in general stimulating and very informative). If I may make a remark: The writer ascribes the origin of Gnosticism to the non-Jewish parts of the Hellenistic cities; I doubt this. His argument is that historical consciousness is well attested in the Jewish tradition and that Gnosticism is not so historically conscious. To me the explanation to this is not so much that the Gnostics could not have been Jews but that in the Age of Hellenism there have been processes of hellenization of Jews (and people of many other traditions) during which they adapted original stories to new situations far from their homeland and as part of a greater city or society (perhaps situations of losing the connection with old roots or interpretations and having to give new answers to new problems for example insecurity, at a practical as well as a cultural level). The interesting thing to me is more the explanation of the strong Jewish influences in Gnosticism (although in early Hellenistic times there also was a general trend to adhere a positive value to aspects of the Jewish religion, for example: not making statues of their God, as well as ethical and other universal aspects which could then be interpreted by Philo of Alexandria and others within a Platonic context) than only of the differences with the traditional Judaism of that time. The circles in which Gnosticism originated probably were not restricted to one part of cities but could attracted members - or adhere to ideas - from more than one part or ethnic background. It then has not to be decided in advance that the basic ethnic background of a Gnostic group could only have been the non-Jewish part of Hellenistic cities. The central question is of course in which aspects the Gnostics stayed Jewish and in which not, like this was also a central question for (other) Christians and Jews within the context of Hellenism or even the process of Hellenization. Probably there were a lot of movements from one circle to another - be it in person or be it in ideas and over a longer period - as is also the case nowadays. But this is only a minor aspect of this lengthy and informative article.
Another interesting general article is that about Tradition, in the sense of adhering to the supposed presence of a general tradition of wisdom and central religious ideas, which can be found always but also is lost often, so that the connection sometimes has to be established anew and historically vindicated. For example one can find in this way the combination of the history of the tradition with a systematic overview of its main ideas in the form of a philosophia perennis, an eternal philosophy. The article expounds in examples of this sort, and is splendid and elucidating.
Correspondences: important and very interesting subject which the article seems to get a good grip at.
Imagination: excellent article with good list of references to literature, though still with omissions, namely Feuerbach & Marx as roots of the Frankfurter Schule (Marcuse) and of the 'imagination au pouvoir' (1968, Paris), as well as modern neurology about the role of imaginations and the memories of them as part of our systems of perception and intellect, emotion and reason (Damasio).
Mnemonics: important, very elucidating, good.
Esotericism: the limitations of this field within the article call in mind the questions mentioned above in the first part of my comment, regarding the fields of study and their paradigms of this dictionary as a whole.
Mysticism: very interesting about the continuities and discontinuities with esotericism; helpful though far from definitive (solution to be found within the direction of discerning 'different objects' as well as the possibility of 'objectless'?).
Astrology / Magic: important but not so much my fields of interest.
Intermediary Beings I-IV: from the sheer unbelievable abundance of them you could conclude that they play important roles, and indeed they seem illustrative for many psychological and cultural developments of their inventors and devotees (among other the interesting contrasting developments of syncretism and divergence). But they also are illustrative for (understandable!) vagueness when a figure is incorporated or give a needed role without much relation to the whole.
Music: rests vague regarding the particular relation to the topics of this dictionary.

The articles on Aristotelianism and Neo-Platonism are very rich and informative in relation to the subjects of this dictionary and as such (the last article can apart from 'good' and 'important' even be said to be still to small relative to the vast range of interesting topics and relations, in my opinion); Dionysius Areopagita: much influence but himself also influenced; Hesychasm: meditation in Eastern-Orthodox Christianity.
Jewish Influences III: splendid article from Joseph Dan about Christian Kabbalah in the Renaissance (Pico and Reuchlin were very positive to Jewish 'oral' 'Tradition' from Mozes on!) [remark: Dan ascribes the invention of the duality of gender within the godhead as a “new, revolutionary concept found for the first time in the book Bahir (1185)” - which idea, contrary to many other Jewish kabbalistic ideas, however did not make much of an impression on the Christian kabbalists (Dan of course restricts himself to the Renaissance). Apart from later developments in Boehme (and later Christian Kabbalists), one often seems not to know - as here too seems the case with Dan - that the images of the androgyne and their forerunners (f.e. Anthropos and Sophia) have old roots also within Jewish circles (a.o. the tragedy-writer Ezechiël 200 BC, Philo of Alexandria and some rabbi's). Let me add, that one too often seems not to know that, like with the Jewish Kabbalah in later times, the general valuation of the Jewish religion in Hellenism was often very or rather positive until the Christians - themselves in the beginning mostly Jews and surely taking ideas and images and more from the Jewish traditions! - became powerful and a process of devaluation and discrimination of the other - rabbinical, not Hellenizing - Jews began as too different, too unmodern i.e. un-Christian!, as well as of those other - Hellenizing - Christians now regarded as heretical, f.e. the Christian Gnostics]; I / II informative but not very original qua historical insights, nevertheless good lists of literature; IV very good about the ways in which the Kabbalah was used within literature, philosophy and esotericism within Enlightenment / Romanticism; V Occultist Kabbalah: insightful.
Witchcraft: about 15th to 17th centuries: important for many very interesting insights which - with the instruments of the authors of these authors - from the study of this subject could be taken for the explanation in a totally new light of many non-esoterical, ecclesiastical and orthodox traditions (f.e. comparison of pietism and Christian theosophy with Gnosticism and Hermetism: liturgically and dogmatically or, in other terms, ritually and mythologically).
From the articles about Alchemy (esp. I-IV) I learned a.o. that this tradition in many cases and periods was not a spiritual one at all.
Eriugena: good, important list of literature.
Hildegard von Bingen: good and very stimulating.
The article about Catharism is, although extensively informative, rather dry and not very inspiring.
In the article about Albertus Magnus you find information to see this man and his work from a different side than usual as a systematic philosopher only. Particularly interesting in this regard are his sources.
Avicenna / Cusanus: important.
Ficino: important article with extensive literature; Lazzarelli: (interesting example of Christian-Hermetic literature, his Crater Hermetis); Lefèvre d'Étaples; Lull; Dorn (Dorneus); Weigel; Arndt: many impulses from him, as well as interesting influences upon him. All these articles interesting.
Paracelsus: from this informative article you can also easily discern that his great name and influence must have something to do with A. his ascription of a very important role of the human / healer / ill person at the occasion and in the process of healing, as well as his valuation of the 'magic' aspect within healing; B. his high regard for and intensive studies of the gospels, his many spiritual (theological) works with Jesus' Sermon on the Mount as radical starting point.
Paracelsism: This article makes clear the strange status of Paracelsus' reception in official (generally accepted) as well as non-official (generally not accepted) circles of knowledge and science (medical science, chemistry, academic theology, philosophy) and spirituality (Christian theosophy, esotericism, alchemy) and their amalgams. Very often one fights against a (self) distorted phantom of Paracelsus and his views or one takes Paracelsism to be representative for some other or older idea or set of ideas and practices. Those who value Paracelsus much, also vary much in their way of representing his ideas, selecting some or changing others, etc. The article about Christian Theosophy is very good (although alas without any comparison with traditional theology and philosophy).
The articles about Johann Valentin Andreae, as well as about Rosicrucianism (I and II) from the hand of Edighoffer (as some other articles from him) are informative and very readable.
Boehme: very good, including good literature list. A.o. about the origin of his main themes (Luthers divine omnipresence! Ptolemy's planet spirits become Boehme's Quellgeister!) and their correlation and development in the context of sources and the spirit of his age. The latter a.o. in his Die Drey Prinzipien, written anti-war - including themes as free will, theodicy etc. etc. - at the beginning of the 30-year War (1618), with a role for the androgyne Adam before the Fall and the corporeal Adam after it, and for the androgyne future of salvation as a goal (perhaps with sources in Paracelsus and Weigel?). For some later writings the Kabbalah and Weigel are mentioned as some sources. I miss the mentioning of Meister Eckhart's view of the Birth of the Trinity within God and the Birth of God in Man as a probable source for Boehme's important theme of the kosmos as a world always in birth, especially for his description of the several Births within God and of Man's spiritual rebirth. Interesting is also that the much guessed intention of Boehme's voyage to Dresden at the end of his life simply boils down to a politically unavoidable interrogation or defence for the worldly powers which for the rest were not very much against Boehme in before, and treated him not badly however without showing much open interest either.
The article about Blake is very good, particularly about the development of his myth.
Khunrath (very much influence through the pictures in his Amfitheatrum; possible Khunraths works are the source for Sophia in Boehme's writings; partly undeveloped areas of study); Arnold: very important; Fludd; Pietism: good, stimulating article about the relation with Hermetism; Illuminism: important movement, very elucidating article (Novalis!); Goethe; Novalis (very interesting, partly undeveloped areas of study); Swedenborg: very influential; Oetinger (very good and informative: great influence on German Romanticism, religion and philosophy; on Mozart too see van den Berk, The Magic Flute, 301-314); Naturphilosophie: elucidating; von Baader: very important, stimulating (a.o. about society according to a reading of Meister Eckhart!); Freemasonry: far from answering questions about sociological settings and roles of this movement (the same seems to be the case for the whole dictionary in regard to the interrelation with social roles of movements, traditions and persons).

You will find very clear articles about Anthroposophy (myths / concepts / thought) and about Rudolf Steiner (sources, development, idiosyncrasies). Also about New Age Movement: very elucidating overview (although relatively few details) and about Blavatsky.
C.G. Jung: very good comprehension of Jung's erudition and new views and insights and his impulses but rarely critical or better explanatory to the internal (non-)consistence of Jung's views (compare the thorough 'philosophical analysis' by Peter van Soest - in Dutch - which offers much insight in some limitations of Jung's psychological and cultural views as well); Jungism.
Occultism; Ariosophy / von List: interesting but their being characterized as 'dualist-manichaean' should of course not be taken as a scientific category; Lorber: informative; Meyrink: very informative; Spiritualism; René Guénon; Grail traditions: only about 20th century traditions; Gurdjieff / Gurdjieff tradition: very informative and elucidating articles; Joris K. Huysmans; Evola; Karl Graf von Dürckheim; Essenes, Esoteric legends about: only from modern times it seems, but well known book of Hugh Schonfield is not mentioned and given its place; Human Potantial Movement; Mozes: as icon; Neo-sufism: very elucidating about the difference between Islamic Sufism and Non-Islamic as well as partly Islamic Neo-sufism: very elucidating; Neopaganism; New Thought: North American cultural movement of positive thinking, very elucidating about Norman V. Peale, Louise Hay, the Course in Miracles e.a.a.

Concluding remarks.

I summarize my findings as follows. This insightful new dictionary is absolutely indispensable for academic research as well as for the spiritual seeker who wants to know more about the ideas of the traditions of Gnosis & Western Esotericism in general. Every article is a pleasure to read by style and structure. So before you know you are looking to other entries for more! This dictionary stands out for its rich contents on diverse topics, well divided into correlating articles about historical periods and systematically differing orientations, on many persons and organisations and so on.
Most articles seem or are very good; some topics have been treated in a splendid way. There is to be found much stimulus and inspiration for further research as well as for study from more individual points of view. So in one stroke we have now an indispensable goldmine of information about a once dark corner of our culture at our disposal. This is very good quality for sure.
What has become visible now, is a vast field of academic knowledge - about topics despised of in the mainstream Western religions as heretic and dangerous as well as until recently more often than not neglected by the academic world. Which knowledge now also figures within the boundaries of many generally accepted paradigms or discussions shared by a large number of academic researchers, among which the writers of the articles in this dictionary.
The balance between general and special topics seems adequate for the time being, particularly as this is only the first edition. The attention to Judaism and Islam could easily have been more abundant than the rather limited information that is now given. The same applies to the relation with Eastern (and possibly other) religions - and of course their mystical, gnostical and esoterical sides if relevant as such or to the subject in case - which could have been dealt with more systematically. But this requires of course a network of participant researchers and writers which is still larger. To me in any case it is not understandable that not more attention is given to the context of Hellenistic and related surrounding (mystery) religions within which Gnosticism and Hermetism rose; why surely to the philosophical influences of Aristotelism and Neo-Platonism and not to these contextual and also influential religions? One should learn to know that religions grow syncretistically as well as diverging and concentrating. Or do I overestimate those backgrounds? Again there is no systematic treatment of those influences and developments here. The terms 'gnosis' and 'esotericism' have a connotation of rejection within dogmatical theology and reasonable science which often were far from neutral to these subjects of study. Or better said, within the course of fighting those phenomena they - or their forerunners - intentionally shaped this terminology with a negative connotation, that is defined those phenomena as to be judged negatively. Now my question is: by using the terminology coming from the enemies, does not the very title of the dictionary give in too much to standard prejudices? If one as is done here, gives a neutral view of a subject field and sees that it can be treated the same as 'normal' subject fields, why restricting oneself to this field only? Of course a problem with this is that a dictionary like this one is part of the academic discourse (as indeed is also the chair system on which the differentiation of subject fields within a university is based) and does not want to remove itself to much from this discourse - which itself is not a truth but a chosen method and viewpoint. But within the academic discourse there should be the possibility of and in reality there often is much discussion and struggle or better fight about paradigms, and it has to be said that the subjects of this dictionary - as do religion and spirituality in general - give much occasion to that.
This dictionary is very well organized and edited. The design is also very good, a pleasure to see, to hold in your hand and to read (pleasant typography). The indexes are very useful. There is however one great omission: an index on subjects you will not find. I remember having worked with many encyclopaedias, f.e. the RGG (Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart), and - I assume - without its index on subjects I would have had only half of the advantages compared with having this index. For example there are so many concepts of which the history and meaning becomes co much clearer if one can search for and look within the articles or pages of them which contain those concepts, that this omission within this dictionary really is a pity to me. And it is not only concepts but also names of Gods or heavenly beings, or hypostases, for example I so dearly would have had an entry to Sophia or the personified Wisdom, but alas. Could one say that Sophia / Wisdom is less suitable or less important for an entry than is Reincarnation (which has got an entry)? The making of this index is much work of course, because it implies the selection of which entries should be combined although it regards entries which are written differently, for example the names of the devil. But this work is very fruitful and could have been combined with the making of the present indexes on persons and organizations which too require going through the whole text. I urge the publisher to give attention to this omission for a following edition. A following edition of course could also be expanded easily, but then it would be better to make a small and a large edition of this dictionary, one with only the very important entries and another one with 'every relevant subject', ideally. However, one absolutely can say that this dictionary gives a sound basis of information which in itself is indispensable for those who want to be up to date with current research.
So the strength of this well designed and edited dictionary is explicit in the well written articles on separate subjects, almost all from a remarkable neutral viewpoint that is without implicit or explicit prejudices. However in some broader and fundamental questions and topics this strength is still implicit only.
14 June 2005

Retour naar overzichtspagina gelezen teksten

Google
"To Serve Divine Wisdom, in Full Awareness of Death and Life
Waiting for Her unmistakable Signs,
Tapping from and Revering the Source of True Healing, the Kingdom of Complete Eternity
Manifesting Always through All Polarities and Changes Here and Now" (Kalliopeia)

Ieder apart wezen compleet en diep één met zijn eeuwige grond, verbonden in één gewaar-zijn


URL: http://www.bk-books.eu/lezen18.html
Version 2 = latest revision of 14 June 2005 (Version 1: 1 June 2005)
© 2005 Boudewijn Koole; copying admitted in case acknowledgement is provided (at least reference to site: www.bk-books.eu and with link to url (unique resource location or web-address) of the text copied or referred to; if wished so with your valuation)