Is there anything that is sacred?

Spirituality
#1

I have been wondering if anything was actually really sacred since watching an India film called “OMG: Oh my God” It is a satire about an atheist who takes God literally to court when an insurance company refuses to pay him insurance after an earthquake destroys his shop, citing it is “an act of God” The atheist files a case against all major religions and drags them all to court to speak on behalf of God and demands that they pay him back for his damages as they are representatives of God! During the court drama the atheist levels some very offensive attacks on religion calling is a business, a market and calling temples and idols just “stones” or “shops” In the end he even advocates bulldozing them all. Now, as somebody who does not believe in idol worship myself or setting up “houses of God” I still found it pretty offensive - because to millions and billions of people temples, churches etc are not just “shops” and idols, crucifixes are not just pieces of matter - they hold tremendous sentimental value, are considered holy and sacred - and is extremely disrespectful to insult them like this.

But is it? Just because we consider something “sacred” or “holy” or attach great sentimental value to does it really makes it sacred? Consider the recent protests from Muslims over the depictions of their prophet Mohammed, or protests from Sikhs against an American comedian depicting their holy shrine as a summer home for republicans, or Christians protesting against depicting Jesus as gay. Should they all just lighten up - after all its only a cartoon, or a satirical comment, or a parody - or are there indeed some things which are genuinely sacred and we should not blaspheme against them?

Even if you were not religious how would you feel picking up the bible, Quran or the Gita and urinating on it? After all it’s just paper - I bet you don’t feel bad when you urinate on paper OR is it more than paper? Is it sacred?

#2

Any opinions :stuck_out_tongue:

#3

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;80447]Any opinions :p[/QUOTE]

Respect for others space and what may be considered sacred are two different things, not?

“Truth is sacred; anything that pollutes Truth is not.” ~Ray Killeen

#4

It is an “act of mind”.

So, anything (including ‘nothing’) is sacred. Example? Starbucks Chai Tea Latte Tall, Jack Nicholson, Dr Zhivago, Yoga Forums, Stone as God, Chitale’s bakerwadi, Hotel Vaishali, P G Woodhouse, Madan Mohan …

#5

Is not every notion in human consciousness, beyond the I-am-ness, tainted by the mind?

#6

That which you make sacred is.
Habit is a type of ritual. Habit is empowering.

Would you wear a perverse dirty mans shirt? Even if it was washed?
would you use a murderers pen?
Would you Rep hitlers jacket?

It is the association and item coupled together that gives the “sense” of sacred or cursed. Blessed or defiled.

Now! This is just general. One way of looking at it.

#7

[QUOTE=Suhas Tambe;80457]It is an “act of mind”.

So, anything (including ‘nothing’) is sacred. [/QUOTE]

Brilliant!

#8

[QUOTE=ray_killeen;80453]Respect for others space and what may be considered sacred are two different things, not?

“Truth is sacred; anything that pollutes Truth is not.” ~Ray Killeen[/QUOTE]

I agree I should have respect for another space. It is disrespectful to violate anothers space and if they have some space defined as sacred then I should respect that.

However, can we really create an actual sacred space?

It is an “act of mind”.

So, anything (including ‘nothing’) is sacred. Example? Starbucks Chai Tea Latte Tall, Jack Nicholson, Dr Zhivago, Yoga Forums, Stone as God, Chitale’s bakerwadi, Hotel Vaishali, P G Woodhouse, Madan Mohan …

So it’s all psychological? But I wonder then why is that I would have no problem spitting in a Starbucks Chai tea and a huge problem spitting into a holy vessel? Is it psychological, or is there really something that is sacred about the holy vessel?

hat which you make sacred is.
Habit is a type of ritual. Habit is empowering.

Would you wear a perverse dirty mans shirt? Even if it was washed?
would you use a murderers pen?
Would you Rep hitlers jacket?

It is the association and item coupled together that gives the “sense” of sacred or cursed. Blessed or defiled.

Now! This is just general. One way of looking at it.

So it is all just ones mental association? Consider the following example I give somebody ordinary tap water and holy water, will the be able to tell any palpable difference between the two waters? Suppose there are two empty rooms, only that in one room I pray intensely about love, compassion and forgiveness - in the other room I think nasty thoughts - will the the room where I prayed in become a “sacred” space? Will it have a different palpable feel to it.

In the film I described the atheist derogatorily calls sacred places and sacred objects “shops” and “stones” pointing that these are no sacred objects at all they are only sacred because believers think they are - but they are nothing but materials. He uses this as an argument to get rid of temples etc - but what if a temple is not just sacred just because believers think it is, but becomes sacred simply because so many consider it sacred.

#9

We radiate constantly.
Of course individuals effects objects and space.
Simply looking at an object effects it.

Praying,concentrating, these would just increase effect.

A favored necklace. For me I have favorite “spots” I like to be. The more I’m at these spots, the more I effect them. At least its perceived that way. Dosnt matter it is internal effect I look for. Subjective world.

#10

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;80606]However, can we really create an actual sacred space?[/QUOTE]

Perhaps the only truly sacred space one can create is in consciousness; no one can go there but you.

#11

Well, I can imagine it being a mental process when looking it from a yogic perspective.
Imho, holifying objects in space can build superstrong associations (both in a good and a bad way, this is the responsibility of the person).

As pointed out by many yogis, it can have great benefits when one meditates at the same location many times.
Sometimes they go even further: nothing else other then meditation can be done at that location.
If one would follow this ‘holifying’ of an object in space as a practice, one will logically start to protect that object externally, and therefore internally as well.
Imho, if somenbody protects something externally, automatically he trains his internal dialogue at the same time (in this case ‘practice meditaton’).

At first I did not really buy all this stuff at all.
However, since childhood I’ve been making music, and thruout many years of musical development, I’ve come to the similar conclusion.

[B]How about observing this example:[/B]

There are 2 rooms, and each room belongs to 2 persons, who both own a laptop and a computer.
Person A uses his/her computer every day for the purpose of making art, and his laptop for all other purposes.
Person B uses both his/her computer and laptop every day for all purposes.

In the evening, when Person A will simply look at the corner, associations of art will enter the mind, which might often result in person A starting to make art with the computer.

In the evening, when Person B will simply look at the corner, associations of many tasks will enter the mind, which will probably result in person B not wanting to engage in computer activities.

Who knows there could be a Person C enter person A’s room, which is very sensitive, which could think (hopefully not claim) ‘[I]what a creative energy here in this computercorner[/I]’.

So my conclusion is person A protects his association for a particular activity by holifying an object, to forfill a desire to make music. Person B not, which makes it more difficult to seperate duty/fun stuff.
Person A uses the power of belief (‘this corner is for art-only’) to condition his mind.

Imho, often cynics dont engage in any (public) arts because their big collection of cynical beliefs are preventing them from other types of beliefs.
Artists who temporarily adopt dogma’s about their art, or guru’s can achieve great results (as long as they dont become dependant on their dogma/guru).

WDYT?

#12

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;80400]I have been wondering if anything was actually really sacred since watching an India film called “OMG: Oh my God” It is a satire about an atheist who takes God literally to court when an insurance company refuses to pay him insurance after an earthquake destroys his shop, citing it is “an act of God” The atheist files a case against all major religions and drags them all to court to speak on behalf of God and demands that they pay him back for his damages as they are representatives of God! During the court drama the atheist levels some very offensive attacks on religion calling is a business, a market and calling temples and idols just “stones” or “shops” In the end he even advocates bulldozing them all. Now, as somebody who does not believe in idol worship myself or setting up “houses of God” I still found it pretty offensive - because to millions and billions of people temples, churches etc are not just “shops” and idols, crucifixes are not just pieces of matter - they hold tremendous sentimental value, are considered holy and sacred - and is extremely disrespectful to insult them like this.

But is it? Just because we consider something “sacred” or “holy” or attach great sentimental value to does it really makes it sacred? Consider the recent protests from Muslims over the depictions of their prophet Mohammed, or protests from Sikhs against an American comedian depicting their holy shrine as a summer home for republicans, or Christians protesting against depicting Jesus as gay. Should they all just lighten up - after all its only a cartoon, or a satirical comment, or a parody - or are there indeed some things which are genuinely sacred and we should not blaspheme against them?

Even if you were not religious how would you feel picking up the bible, Quran or the Gita and urinating on it? After all it’s just paper - I bet you don’t feel bad when you urinate on paper OR is it more than paper? Is it sacred?[/QUOTE]
I have an opinion. The story is [I]exactly[/I] the same as the movie “The Man Who Sued God” starring Billy Connelly. I actually live in the area where that film was shot and it was [I]supposed[/I] to be based on a “true story”. Take that how you will.

As you probably know (or not), Sacred ties into the word ‘Sacral’ or the Mooladhara Chakra. It is the seat of Kundalini Shakti.

For one of vision, nothing is truly ‘sacred’ as everything is Maya or Shakti anyway…there’s no Bhagavad Gita, no Urine so who cares?

It’s only the Ego that gives sentimental attachment to objects of religious reverence, so as long as you urinate on ‘sacred texts’ bearing that in mind, it’s all good. :smiley:

#13

This would not be too surprising, many Indian movies are “inspired” from foreign movies. Sometimes it is blatant frame by frame copying, and sometimes it is just borrowing the idea. Without seeing the “The Man Who Sued God” I cannot say whether this is a copy or just an inspiration.

For one of vision, nothing is truly ‘sacred’ as everything is Maya or Shakti anyway…there’s no Bhagavad Gita, no Urine so who cares?

It’s only the Ego that gives sentimental attachment to objects of religious reverence, so as long as you urinate on ‘sacred texts’ bearing that in mind, it’s all good. :smiley:

Forgive me for this, but I wanted to give an example which creates the same moral dilemma as urinating on a copy of the Bhagvad Gita would do(in fact even typing those words makes me feel queasy) You say that everything is Maya/Shakti anyway, so there is no Bhagvad Gita and no urine so who cares? In the case there is no mother, no son and no daughter, would you sleep with your mother?

The above is a rhetorical question, but I hope it illustrates my point that despite the fact that is Maya/shakti, there are still some things we consider sacred. Almost unthinkable to contemplate. Now the question is this just psychological and hence purely subjective, or is there something objective and real about what we consider sacred?

#14

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;81090]This would not be too surprising, many Indian movies are “inspired” from foreign movies. Sometimes it is blatant frame by frame copying, and sometimes it is just borrowing the idea. Without seeing the “The Man Who Sued God” I cannot say whether this is a copy or just an inspiration.

Forgive me for this, but I wanted to give an example which creates the same moral dilemma as urinating on a copy of the Bhagvad Gita would do(in fact even typing those words makes me feel queasy) You say that everything is Maya/Shakti anyway, so there is no Bhagvad Gita and no urine so who cares? In the case there is no mother, no son and no daughter, would you sleep with your mother?

The above is a rhetorical question, but I hope it illustrates my point that despite the fact that is Maya/shakti, there are still some things we consider sacred. Almost unthinkable to contemplate. Now the question is this just psychological and hence purely subjective, or is there something objective and real about what we consider sacred?[/QUOTE]
It’s all a case therefore of what we are all raised to believe is ‘morally acceptable according to societal standards’.

We have to live in society as human beings and our spiritual lives/selves must be apart from that (no matter how much ‘thoughtfulness’ we try and keep regarding our relationship with Shiva and our place in the Universe).

Of course, you wouldn’t urinate on a copy of the Bhagavad Gita in front of a Hindu person or a Bible in front of a Christian person. That is what religions would call a ‘blasphemous act’.

I, personally would not do so simply because there’s no benefit that would arise [I]from[/I] me doing so. I also respect the laws of society by which I must abide.

If somebody tore up my picture of Lord Shiva on my altar, smashed all my Murthis, would I be insulted?

I would probably be angry for a millisecond, then I know, He is in my heart and always will be. His soul is MY soul and that’s where the real ‘altar’ is.

That’s what is [I]sacred[/I] to me. I hope you can understand my perspective now.

#15

I just thought of the [I]perfect[/I] example you could possibly give me about this.

When I started meditating again and opening my heart to the grace of the Divine, as well as feeling peace and love, something annoying used to happen when I was in deep meditation…totally by itself when I was in no way even [I]thinking[/I] about that…at [I]all[/I].

It still didn’t stop me from attaching ‘dirty things’ to it and trying to ‘control it’ to get further in my meditation (which also wasn’t working)…I didn’t think of Shiva in [I]that[/I] way…God isn’t 'sposed to have genetalia because well, God doesn’t [I]need[/I] it.

No, the Shiva Lingam isn’t His…well, it’s His ‘mark’ or ‘sign’ like how Jyotirlingam is a Lingam of light. Yes, I know it’s in a ‘Yoni’…

Suffice to say, a lot of ‘eeewww-ness’ ensued and I couldn’t meditate because my whole ‘Sacred image of God’ wasn’t so ‘Sacred’ anymore.

Finally, I got over that whole thing by letting my body do whatever it wanted…then went ‘okay, you quite done now? Let’s meditate, shall we?’

After a few weeks, all that basically stopped. It still happens very rarely, but I still pay it no mind.

#16

Again, please forgive me for the crudeness of my arguments. If all is just maya/shakti/matter, urine and holy scriptures also maya/shakti/matter, then so is son, daughter, mother and father. Now, if I understand you correctly you are saying that our ways of relating to these different things is socially constructed, so we would not urinate on a holy scripture because it is considered considered socially blasphemous and we would not commit incest with our mothers and fathers because it is not socially acceptable or that you would not gain any benefits from it.

My refutation: If your argument is right our sense of morality and relating is only due to social construction then

  1. How do you explain that certain morality is rather universal across different societies in the world. In all societies incest, murder, rape, lying are considered immoral. This certainly suggests it is not purely social construction, it seems to indicate a universal and innate morality.
  2. If it was just a case of being socially acceptable, then acts like incest etc would take place behind closed doors with greater frequency. However, while such acts do take place they are rare and infrequent.
  3. You state one of your reasons for not having sex with your mother is because you would gain no benefit from such an act, but why not? To put it crudely your mother has the same body parts as another human being and intercourse can take place and the same zones can be stimulated that lead to pleasure. So given this fact, why do you find it unthinkable to even contemplate the act? In fact not just you, but why do most of us think it unthinkable? This again proves we share a universal and innate morality.

The solution to this problem is the notion of “dharma” There is an objective, proper and natural way of relating to different things, though they are all manifestations of nature. We do not have sex with our mothers because that is not the way to relate to a mother, the way to relate to a mother is through affection, care and love. We do not relate to our teacher like our class mate because this is not the way to relate to a teacher, the way to relate to a teacher is through obedience, humility and surrender.

In the same way the way to relate to a holy scripture is through reverence, respect and sanctity. When we defile a holy scripture we do more than just violate social norms or violate our own personal meanings, we violate dharma. We violate something real, objective and universal and thus incur real consequences for our actions. This is why even subconsciously the very idea of urinating on a copy of the Bhagvad Gita makes me feel queasy. There is something genuinely sacred about the Gita which I cannot perceive through my 5 senses, but I sense through my inner-sense.

#17

I guess you are correct.

I have forgotten what it’s like to be a human being a very long time ago, so none of what humans do concerns me whatsoever. I am even [I]less[/I] qualified to give any opinions on the ‘human condition’ than I am to give opinions on the ‘divine condition’ so, please forgive that too.

It’s very difficult to love God yet detest every facet of humankind immensely.

Satan got kicked out of heaven for that.

#18

I shall also be taking my leave from here as well very shortly.

There’s nothing to be gained by [I]anyone[/I] from me remaining somewhere minds are so closed-off and unreceptive.

#19

[QUOTE=Nobody;81131]I shall also be taking my leave from here as well very shortly.

There’s nothing to be gained by [I]anyone[/I] from me remaining somewhere minds are so closed-off and unreceptive.[/QUOTE]

Nt == Nt -== My love. because one who respondes is a golum - it does not mean - that maybe an unresponding heathen in sack cloth - hasn’t read your words.

The heavens love you, and in there - is your smile.

#20

[QUOTE=Nobody;81105]I just thought of the [I]perfect[/I] example you could possibly give me about this.

When I started meditating again and opening my heart to the grace of the Divine, as well as feeling peace and love, something annoying used to happen when I was in deep meditation…totally by itself when I was in no way even [I]thinking[/I] about that…at [I]all[/I].

It still didn’t stop me from attaching ‘dirty things’ to it and trying to ‘control it’ to get further in my meditation (which also wasn’t working)…I didn’t think of Shiva in [I]that[/I] way…God isn’t 'sposed to have genetalia because well, God doesn’t [I]need[/I] it.

No, the Shiva Lingam isn’t His…well, it’s His ‘mark’ or ‘sign’ like how Jyotirlingam is a Lingam of light. Yes, I know it’s in a ‘Yoni’…

Suffice to say, a lot of ‘eeewww-ness’ ensued and I couldn’t meditate because my whole ‘Sacred image of God’ wasn’t so ‘Sacred’ anymore.

Finally, I got over that whole thing by letting my body do whatever it wanted…then went ‘okay, you quite done now? Let’s meditate, shall we?’

After a few weeks, all that basically stopped. It still happens very rarely, but I still pay it no mind.[/QUOTE]

Yada yada. Yada.

My lingam is

Who cares?

But she.

ANd who is she?

Just the nature of the beast. And when I am gone from here, what need of pleasure, when my pleasure is at easily hand - laughing at my former proclivity.

WHO CARES?

and to the query “what is sacred?”

For me. My answer is - “it all is.” But that doesn’t mean it’s to be clinged tooo.

OMG