Sacred versus mundane

[dfnj]

Does the word "sacred" have any real meaning?

If you pickup and carry a priceless piece of art you do so with extreme caution and care. I think the way we handle a priceless piece of art is what sacred means. A priceless piece of art is sacred. When something is sacred you handle with extreme caution and care.

I would like to think any religion worth its salt would convey the message that every person in the world or that you meet is just as valuable as a priceless piece of art. Each of us is sacred. We need to treat every person we meet as the most valuable object on earth. Each person is sacred and is something that should be handled with extreme caution and care.

But not only is each of us sacred, but everything around us is sacred. The air we breath, the plants, animals, and everything else is sacred and should be revered with the greatest amount of reverence. Any religion worth its salt should be conveying the message everything around us is sacred.

So my question then is what is the source or justification for dubbing something or someone as sacred? What is your rationale or reason why everything is mundane? If you think nothing sacred exists then what determines what you value you most? What is your argument against anything sacred existing at all?

 

[Misunderstood]

Does the word "sacred" have any real meaning?

If you pickup and carry a priceless piece of art you do so with extreme caution and care. I think the way we handle a priceless piece of art is what sacred means. A priceless piece of art is sacred. When something is sacred you handle with extreme caution and care.

I would like to think any religion worth its salt would convey the message that every person in the world or that you meet is just as valuable as a priceless piece of art. Each of us is sacred. We need to treat every person we meet as the most valuable object on earth. Each person is sacred and is something that should be handled with extreme caution and care.

But not only is each of us sacred, but everything around us is sacred. The air we breath, the plants, animals, and everything else is sacred and should be revered with the greatest amount of reverence. Any religion worth its salt should be conveying the message everything around us is sacred.

So my question then is what is the source or justification for dubbing something or someone as sacred? What is your rationale or reason why everything is mundane? If you think nothing sacred exists then what determines what you value you most? What is your argument against anything sacred existing at all?

Very good post, I just wish more people would think this way. I do feel other people and Gods creation should be treated as sacred, because they are part of Gods creation who is most sacred.

Thank you for a great post!

 

[Cacotopia]

I have lately adopted a nihilistic thought process. it's all mundane. No matter how big you think it is, it will ether be a footnote in human history or an occurrence that was never remembered. The most one can do is achieve footnote status in human history and development. You have to achieve extraordinary feats to even make it into a historical document.

Being a bullet point in human history is a hella hard achievement. But in the grand scheme it's still mundane. It's the accumulation of events and deeds that make up a difference and I think only a handful of people managed to accomplish that herculean feat.

Ex: Alexander the Great through his leadership and conquest shaped the European and Asian continent, in 30 short years he affected 100's of millions of lives. Ghengis Khan did the same, Ivan the 4th, created a vast empire of Russia in his lifetime.

I don't think such feats are now possible in a world with established borders. Or maybe it can happen if a person or group of people manage to transcend the invisible dividers of people.

 

[Misunderstood]

I have lately adopted a nihilistic thought process. it's all mundane. No matter how big you think it is, it will ether be a footnote in human history or an occurrence that was never remembered. The most one can do is achieve footnote status in human history and development. You have to achieve extraordinary feats to even make it into a historical document.

Being a bullet point in human history is a hella hard achievement. But in the grand scheme it's still mundane. It's the accumulation of events and deeds that make up a difference and I think only a handful of people managed to accomplish that herculean feat.

Ex: Alexander the Great through his leadership and conquest shaped the European and Asian continent, in 30 short years he affected 100's of millions of lives. Ghengis Khan did the same, Ivan the 4th, created a vast empire of Russia in his lifetime.

I don't think such feats are now possible in a world with established borders. Or maybe it can happen if a person or group of people manage to transcend the invisible dividers of people.

Sorry to hear that. I see you are listed as Atheist, which means you do not believe in an after life I guess. That is fine, I felt that way too at one time and sometimes I think I still might. Thousands of years from now who will remember, even my great great..... children will not even know who I was. But I figured, it is that way for everyone so why not try to be the best you can at what ever you do and be as helpful as you can in what little time we have. It helped me a lot.

 

[HonestJoe]

Does the word "sacred" have any real meaning?

It must do, otherwise nobody could understand your question. I think the key point to your question is that sacred refers to an individual perception of something, not necessarily any concrete reality – one persons sacred is another person’s trash.

Clearly there are objects, placed and in some cases more abstract things that some people consider sacred, because to them those things represent some kind of connection to their god or faith. That might be entirely meaningless or even ridiculous to others (myself included) but I don’t think that makes it any less meaningful. Your emotions are no less real just because I can’t experience them directly.

Your idea of the word is no less relevant though, and the idea that everything is sacred in a way is perfectly valid too. That could be said to be a slightly different definition of the word though. I’ve no doubt there are plenty of people out there who revere specific sacred religious artefacts yet would entirely agree with you that every persona and everything in the world is precious, important and worthy of care. Everything can be equally important while still being differently important.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Does the word "sacred" have any real meaning?

If you pickup and carry a priceless piece of art you do so with extreme caution and care. I think the way we handle a priceless piece of art is what sacred means. A priceless piece of art is sacred. When something is sacred you handle with extreme caution and care.

I would like to think any religion worth its salt would convey the message that every person in the world or that you meet is just as valuable as a priceless piece of art. Each of us is sacred. We need to treat every person we meet as the most valuable object on earth. Each person is sacred and is something that should be handled with extreme caution and care.

But not only is each of us sacred, but everything around us is sacred. The air we breath, the plants, animals, and everything else is sacred and should be revered with the greatest amount of reverence. Any religion worth its salt should be conveying the message everything around us is sacred.

So my question then is what is the source or justification for dubbing something or someone as sacred? What is your rationale or reason why everything is mundane? If you think nothing sacred exists then what determines what you value you most? What is your argument against anything sacred existing at all?

I assume its the type of relationship a person has with that said person or thing. I personally don't like singling put things because I put a lot importance on equality. So if I worship, I stay head level. It feels uncomfortable to treat anyone more important than myself.

The term mundane makes things seem like its not important especially in regards to spirit vs flesh as of the flesh and brains purpose is to throw people all just because it can get sick and go crazy and die.

Sacred, to me, is what is of value. What's important to me. It doesn't mean I see things I dont value a mundane. I love art, so I'd see that art is sacred or of value to me. I assume NASCAR is just as sacred to someone else. In and of itself all is of value. What makes something sacred is how something is more valuable to a person than another. All colors are cool, then we also have our favorite color.

What's of value doesn't mean the other is mundane. That's how I see it.

 

[sojourner]

Does the word "sacred" have any real meaning?

If you pickup and carry a priceless piece of art you do so with extreme caution and care. I think the way we handle a priceless piece of art is what sacred means. A priceless piece of art is sacred. When something is sacred you handle with extreme caution and care.

I would like to think any religion worth its salt would convey the message that every person in the world or that you meet is just as valuable as a priceless piece of art. Each of us is sacred. We need to treat every person we meet as the most valuable object on earth. Each person is sacred and is something that should be handled with extreme caution and care.

But not only is each of us sacred, but everything around us is sacred. The air we breath, the plants, animals, and everything else is sacred and should be revered with the greatest amount of reverence. Any religion worth its salt should be conveying the message everything around us is sacred.

So my question then is what is the source or justification for dubbing something or someone as sacred? What is your rationale or reason why everything is mundane? If you think nothing sacred exists then what determines what you value you most? What is your argument against anything sacred existing at all?

You have to do the etymology. The word sacred means “set apart.” God is “sacred,” because God is set apart from the created order as Creator ( as opposed to “created”). I wouldn’t call people “sacred” just because they ought to be dear to us. While I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment about the worth of the universe, I don’t think that the reason is because it’s all “set apart.” Rather, we should hold everything dear because we all are built out of the building blocks of the Source, and we are all interconnected.

 

[Quintessence]

Just to get some obvious biases out of the way, contemporary Paganism is in no small part characterized by perspectives that see all of the world as an enchanted, magical, and sacred place or deconstruct the (from its perspective) false dichotomy between gods/magic/spirit/sacred and nature/mundane/secular. It stands in contrast to the typical perspective of Western culture, where on the one hand Abrahamic religions divorce the gods/spirits from nature/matter and on the other hand secularists deny any ensoulment/divinity of nature or view it mechanistically.

With that context in mind, I wouldn't really characterize sacredness as "handle with extreme caution and care." I'd characterize it as recognizing something has value and worth in of itself (aka, intrinsic value) and behaving in a way that respects that. Put another way, sacred things are endowed with personhood and are things we can have relationships with. It's less about something having "more value" than something else than it is about being universally respectful of other beings as persons (most of whom are not human). In a world where only human persons tend to be recognized as persons or ethical subjects, that's no small declaration.

I obviously agree with the idea that "any religion worth its salt should be conveying the message that everything around us is sacred" given my own religions teach that, but I don't believe it is true. One size does not fit all, everyone should not hold the same values or sense of worthiness. The path of aiming to honor all things as sacred - all things as persons or gods worthy of worship - is not an easy one. Conflicts of interest are inevitable, and you have to prioritize. While picking favorites, you remain respectful of your adversaries. It's not easy. It is definitely not for everyone.

 

[Cacotopia]

Sorry to hear that. I see you are listed as Atheist, which means you do not believe in an after life I guess. That is fine, I felt that way too at one time and sometimes I think I still might. Thousands of years from now who will remember, even my great great..... children will not even know who I was. But I figured, it is that way for everyone so why not try to be the best you can at what ever you do and be as helpful as you can in what little time we have. It helped me a lot.

I make art, the work might survive for a few hundred years. If they take good care of it that is, the warranty on my paint is 150 years. So says the disclaimer on the bottle. But my work I think says enough about who I am but interpretations can easily vary.

It's whatever.

 

[ameyAtmA]

sarvam khalu idam bramhan' (ChhAndogya Upanishad) ---- Everything is Bramhan'

Bhagavad Gita 7.19
bahunAm janmanAm ante
jnAnavAn mAm prapadyate
vAsudevah sarvam iti
sa mahatmA su-durlabhah
After many births , the wise one who surrenders unto Me, understanding all of this to be VAsudev (God, not just sacred), is a rare great soul.

That means it is a very high state of existence where one just cannot be angry or take anything for granted, and is 100% peaceful, blisssful, grateful, soulful... at all times and naturally sees the Divine alone, in everything .(without effort)
It is said to come in stages - receptive, analytical, cognitive, intuitive, ...

So my question then is what is the source or justification for dubbing something or someone as sacred?

Since the Divine is the only source and only cause of all existence, the fabric of all existence is Divine hence. sacred. -> Bramhan' - Divinity , is immanent in created

What is your rationale or reason why everything is mundane?

Since all matter and material is, although a derivative of Bramhan' yet, Bramhan transcends all this, , Bramhan is transcendent to the created --- hence the material is mundane from that perspective , at that level. This second view is used to sort , sift out the transcendent Divine from the mundane.

 

[sojourner]

I have lately adopted a nihilistic thought process. it's all mundane. No matter how big you think it is, it will ether be a footnote in human history or an occurrence that was never remembered. The most one can do is achieve footnote status in human history and development. You have to achieve extraordinary feats to even make it into a historical document.

Being a bullet point in human history is a hella hard achievement. But in the grand scheme it's still mundane. It's the accumulation of events and deeds that make up a difference and I think only a handful of people managed to accomplish that herculean feat.

Ex: Alexander the Great through his leadership and conquest shaped the European and Asian continent, in 30 short years he affected 100's of millions of lives. Ghengis Khan did the same, Ivan the 4th, created a vast empire of Russia in his lifetime.

I don't think such feats are now possible in a world with established borders. Or maybe it can happen if a person or group of people manage to transcend the invisible dividers of people.

Why must we “make an indelible mark on human history” in order for our lives to be precious and have meaning? I think one of the biggest mistakes Christians make is to focus entirely and obsessively on the “hereafter.” Jesus didn’t come to “get us into heaven.” Jesus came to show us how our lives can be precious and sacred right now, by doing the “little things” that make our lives just a little bit better. It’s those little jewels of the “right now” that make life worth living. Whitman said, “the powerful play goes on, and you may contribute a verse.” A verse — not the whole dang production.

 

[dfnj]

sarvam khalu idam bramhan' (ChhAndogya Upanishad) ---- Everything is Bramhan'

Bhagavad Gita 7.19
bahunAm janmanAm ante
jnAnavAn mAm prapadyate
vAsudevah sarvam iti
sa mahatmA su-durlabhah
After many births , the wise one who surrenders unto Me, understanding all of this to be VAsudev (God, not just sacred), is a rare great soul.

That means it is a very high state of existence where one just cannot be angry or take anything for granted, and is 100% peaceful, blisssful, grateful, soulful... at all times and naturally sees the Divine alone, in everything .(without effort)
It is said to come in stages - receptive, analytical, cognitive, intuitive, ...


Since the Divine is the only source and only cause of all existence, the fabric of all existence is Divine hence. sacred. -> Bramhan' - Divinity , is immanent in created


Since all matter and material is, although a derivative of Bramhan' yet, Bramhan transcends all this, , Bramhan is transcendent to the created --- hence the material is mundane from that perspective , at that level. This second view is used to sort , sift out the transcendent Divine from the mundane.

Great post. Nice to know someone else appreciates my frequency.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Just to get some obvious biases out of the way, contemporary Paganism is in no small part characterized by perspectives that see all of the world as an enchanted, magical, and sacred place or deconstruct the (from its perspective) false dichotomy between gods/magic/spirit/sacred and nature/mundane/secular.

This is, of course, a rejection of the division between natural and supernatural. But that still leaves room for the concept of "sacred". To ancient European pagans (as opposed to modern American Pagans), the Latin sacer and the Greek hieros meant consecrated to or taken up by a god. A temple enclosure is sacred in a sense that the land next door isn't, for example.

 

[Quintessence]

This is, of course, a rejection of the division between natural and supernatural. But that still leaves room for the concept of "sacred". To ancient European pagans (as opposed to modern American Pagans), the Latin sacer and the Greek hieros meant consecrated to or taken up by a god. A temple enclosure is sacred in a sense that the land next door isn't, for example.

Pardon, I didn't mean to imply there wasn't room for the concept of sacred. Instead of a "this is sacred, this isn't sacred" it's more of a "this is sacred in this sense or to this deity, and this is sacred in this other sense to this other deity."