Mercea Eliade’s Myth of the Eternal Return brings a different perception to some common Pagan concepts and I believe makes more sense out of some ancient and modern practices.
As was mentioned in the last post, Eliade’s focus is on the concept of creation and how that manifested in the mythologies and ritual practices of the “archaic” peoples as he calls them. It might even be more accurate to say that his observations of the ritual practices of the archaic peoples led him to an understanding of the prominent role their view of creation played in their beliefs and practices.
So prominent was creation in their beliefs that many, if not most, ritual activities were intended to bring participants into sync with the ongoing process of creation or to pay homage to that process in some way. Viewed this way, certain ancient beliefs and ritual activities make more sense than the usual interpretations we have grown accustomed to from academics or those practitioners of later religions. Among these are seasonal rites and the creating of sacred space in the form of temples and the sacred designation of natural spaces like groves and springs.
Traditionally the explanation for participation by the ancients in such rites as seasonal festivals has been to say that the people involved believed they were insuring the seasonal cycles would continue to occur. An example would be rites occurring around the winter solstice being performed in order to insure that the sun would return. Eliade’s evidence demonstrates this is incorrect. He suggests that the rites were instead intended to put individuals and communities in sync with that rhythm of rebirth that was occurring. They, according to Eliade, were not audacious enough to believe that they could “control” the sun or that by their activities they would “convince” the Gods to bring the warm season back. They were not so ignorant that they did not realize the cycles of the seasons would happen regardless of what they did. The tens of thousands of years of observing nature that I mentioned in the “Sapient Paradox” post was not all for nothing.
What they did observe was that compared to humans and their activities, “nature” seemed to move in a surer, deliberate, and more predictable manner in regards to time. The celebration of a seasonal rites was recognition of this reality and an attempt to recalibrate individuals to be more in sync with this natural flow of time which is the never-ending process of creation itself. As humans we live in creation but are not, unless we make the effort, in sync with the unfolding of creation itself. Eliade suggests that the many creation stories throughout the world which talk of humans suffering some fall from grace, whether it be the garden of Eden in the Middle East or the various stories of humans disappointing or irritating the Gods in other myths, are not necessarily intended to suggest that we are “fallen” but is rather a recognition that humans live in a daily sphere that is removed from sacred time. A modern phrase is “we are not in tune with nature.”
Therefore, the continual process of creation and the cycles of death and rebirth that perpetuate it were considered the “real” or “true” measure of time and human time is temporal, artificial, or a complete illusion as seen in the Hindu concept of maya. The seasonal celebrations and their accompanying rituals were all about recognizing and transcending the temporal, artificial, or illusory nature of everyday human existence in order to experience the reality of the eternal unfolding of creation.
All of this ties into the creation or designation of sacred spaces as well. Joseph Campbell made points on several occasions that coincide with Eliade’s description of sacred time and mundane time, but also specifically supports what Eliade says about sacred space. Both of them point out that the idea of a temple, cathedral, or church is to create space that alters the orientation of our senses away from the mundane world. Stained glass, incense, idols and artwork are to tell your senses that you are now entering a different space where eternity is the dominant concept. Sticking with Eliade’s themes, this sacred space is intended to take the individual out of mundane time and put them into the space where true time is perpetually unfolding in the form of creation. The primary distinction being that the time unfolding outside of the sacred space is temporal or less than real compared to the time unfolding within the sacred space. In this way everything is linked back to the nature of creation being an eternally unfolding process that we can choose to take part in or not.
This function of sacred space has been recognized by some within monotheistic religions who take a more mystical approach to their religion and the Catholic Church wittingly or not has preserved this function of sacred space with their churches and cathedrals. Many Protestant denominations have actively worked against this by rightly accusing the Catholic Church of perpetuating Pagan practices with everything from the use of symbolism in the building of cathedrals to the use of idols (statues of saints, Jesus, Mary, etc.), incense, robes, and the list goes on. All of these are elements intended to alter the human senses and conscience in order to orient it more toward the eternal. Protestant denominations often denounce the senses and are freaked out by “spooky” things like conscience and so criticize these things rightly as being Pagan in origin.
I believe, quite obviously, these are not exclusive property of Paganism; however, it is the monotheistic traditions that set themselves in opposition to nature and those who recognize it as sacred. Thus it was not until the advent of monotheism that there was a distinction between right and wrong religions. As historian R. A. Fletcher in The Barbarian Conversion: From Paganism to Christianity, (New York: H. Holt and Co, 1998) and other scholars have pointed out, this notion of one “true” god or a “right and wrong” way to recognize eternity and celebrate it was always hard for Pagans to conceive. This was why sacred groves and temples were destroyed in the conversion process, because Pagans did not see how continuing their practices of visiting sacred spaces and recognizing sacred time (seasonal festivals) conflicted with believing in the Christian god. How could a god be averse to such things as celebrating reality?
As for the designation of natural features of the environment like groves, springs, and lakes etc. as sacred, it is just recognition of the eternal unfolding of creation in nature itself. Instead of needing to create the sacred space it has already been done for us. Certain natural places are recognized to have a particularly strong impact on the senses and conscience, thus altering our perceptions in a way that puts us in tune with creation. Some would argue this is the best way to experience it because it is nature itself and not an artificially created structure. Some experience all of nature as being the manifestation of eternal time and do not need to designate this place or that as sacred, for it is all sacred.
Perhaps the words of William Blake sum this post up best:
To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.
Pagan Philosopher 
0 Responses to “Primordial waters and sacred spaces pt. 2”