REL 278: Religion in the Himalayas

My post is in response to “The Divine Madman.” I felt confused, disgusted and intrigued all at once by this reading. However overall I didn’t really enjoy it. After reading it I felt glad that I was done with it. The constant reference to Drukpa Kunga’s “Flaming Thunderbolt of Wisdom,”
how he used it both to destroy demons and to liberate, or save young virgin girls from samsara, was both confusing and unexplained.
Did anyone else wonder why it seemed essential that his large penis, or “flaming Thunderbolt of Wisdom” be the consistent tool he used for implementing action, whether the action be demon fighting or liberating beings from samsara? I get that this may have been a scriptural document but some analysis explaining the significance of this text, presenting some explanation of the significance of it’s erodic nature, would have been useful for me in understanding the texts main point.
After reading it I feel like I exposed myself to a rather confusing depiction of sex, desire, faith and religion- and I am struggling to make sense of what I have read. I wonder is part of my confusion may be due to my American cultural context which ingrains the perspective of viewing sex with masters as taboo. Is having sex with a women how Drukpa Kunga transmits his blessings upon them? If this is true, is Drukpa Kunga a Lama that can only serve women? There was no example in the text of him liberating a man by sleeping with him. However there was an example in the text of Drukpa Kunga defeating a male demon by engaging in anual sex with him.
I feel like some relation can be drawn between Drukpa Kunga and Virupa. Both masters obtain new faith from devotees by demonstrating their power through obscure and often violent or erotic means. Virupa stops the Ganges river from flowing, torturing families with fear until they surrender to his power and cultivate great faith in him. Similar to Virupa in his causing suffering to innocent beings, Drukpa kills an elderly women, bringing much pain to her friends and family, until they realize that he has sent her to heaven and has divine power. Virupa’s actions for the most part remain in the realm of screwing people over with money or interfering with their daily life. However Drukpa Kunga takes things to a new level by killing people and sleeping with many devotees wives and virgins. A few minor similarities that can be drawn between both men is that they both fancy beer and both travel extensively.
After reading and discussing Virupa in class I began to accept him as a master. I find it even harder for me to do this with Drukpa Kunga. I think that the main reason it is harder for me to accept Drukpa Kunga is because of his sexual relations with women. Virupa’s actions were obscure, abnormal and outrageous, but they were primarily not sexual like Drukpa Kunga’s were; and it is hard for me to believe that sleeping with women is the best way for him to transmit his blessings.
However, in the second part of the reading the text begins talking about Drukpa Kunga’s consorts. And if he was sleeping with his consorts I don’t see a problem. This would also mean that the women he was sleeping with were also already fully realized and divine and were simply his divine feminine side. Meaning he was sleeping with himself, his feminine consort, his feminine form. Is this what he was doing, sleeping with his divine consorts? Or was he liberating ordinary women from samsara by sleeping with them? Or was he doing both?

The relationship that religion has with the government has long been a complicated issue with the U.S.A. “In God We Trust” is our official motto and has been challenged multiple times in court with the results generally stating that the motto does not, in actuality, establish a relationship state church (as dictated in the Establishment Clause) and thereafter cannot be officially banned. We, beginning as early preschool, say “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and if we question it our teachers never give us a proper explanation. We swear on the bible in court and the president whenever they get officially inaugurated. It’s in our Constitution. We, who try so hard, or seemingly attempt, to keep the church and state separate, probably fail to understand the way countries like Tibet work with the Dalai Lama acting as both a major religious figure as well as a major political figure in their society. I remember questioning it entirely when I had first learned this fact, and still am a little apprehensive with my “what if” questions.

How much should religion actually be involved with the state? It’s obviously a very complicated question that has no singular answer and is interrelated with many other aspects of a country and how it functions. For places such as the United States, many of the original colonies were founded by religious refugees of many different religions. As more land was gained through war, treaties, etc., more religions were added to the mix. Yet the majority of people, especially in the original colonies, had a God to believe in. Some argue that “framers’ goal was to communicate to all, including the Deistic, agnostic, and atheistic, that the valued members of the political community” (Meyerson). On the other hand, some might also believe that the use of God was directly attributed to the majority and, while maybe not establishing a religion, does directly involve the state with a particular religion over others. Over time, since so many other religions whether they be polytheistic, monotheistic, agnostic, or any other denomination have joined the nation, doesn’t it make sense to be rid of religion completely in regards to the country’s government as a whole?

Tibet is a nation that, while not having its roots planted in Buddhism, has been majority Buddhist for thousands of years and has been deeply involved with it enough to have its government rely heavily on the leaders of the religion. As we mentioned in class, the Dalai Lama has been involved with the Tibetan government in making decisions across all aspects of the country. The fact of the matter is, many of these major decisions were also aided by the Nechung Oracle who consults with the Lama regarding what the best decision would be best to make for Tibet. This is controversial to us who try to separate the church and state as how can a country rely on the spiritual encounters of what man to determine its fate? We can also look at places in the Middle East such as Israel or Pakistan who became independent countries because of their religion. These countries were formed as a response to discrimination and oppression and thereafter seeked refuge to create their own sanctuary in the form of a new country. In such cases, who is there to tell them that they can’t have religion be involved with the state if it’s so embedded in their way of life?

On the other hand, these individual situations cannot or are very difficult to be compared. Because of such different historical backgrounds and types of governments and cultures, we cannot compare these different types of societies. I just wish to evaluate how religion functions within the state and to what extent it is involved and influences government decisions. So what do you think about the involvement of church and state and in what situations can or can it not function? Can the government really be completely secularized?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-meyerson/religious-freedom-in-americas-founding-moments-_b_1632067.html

While reading about the teachings of Mahayana path in “Freeing the Heart and Mind” by Trinzin, what I found really interesting was the technique of developing compassion for all sentient beings via practicing compassion towards enemies. In fact, it is the technique of practicing compassion towards enemies in Mahayana path that has surprised me the most. The technique of practicing compassion towards enemies is completely different in Bhagavad Gita – A Hindu religious text that compiles the teachings of Krishna. In this essay I am going to argue that the technique of practicing compassion towards enemies as described in Gita is a more realistic approach to developing universal compassion than the one described in Mahayana path.

According to Mahayana path, compassion should be practiced by meditating and reciting “Toward this very harmful enemy, may I develop sympathy and feeling of compassion.” (Trinzin, 50) This does not seem logical. By being sympathetic and developing compassion via reciting chants, although, we would be able to get rid of our internal hatred, we would not be able to help the harmful enemies in any way. This is because, in that way they would not realize their mistakes. What use is of a compassion that does not help the enemies? Moreover, one who is harmful for me could be harmful for all the sentient beings. Compassion is defined as “a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering.” (Merriam-webster, definition) Then by not punishing them, would we be able to alleviate the sufferings of all sentient beings as a whole? It seems that, the Mahayana definition of compassion is lacking an essential component of compassion – that is the willingness to alleviate the sufferings of those who are stricken by misfortune.

While studying Gita in eighth grade, I have learnt that it is only via punishing the enemies for their sins with a mind devoid of any hatred that compassion for enemies can be practiced. This is because, according to Gita, punishment helps the harmful enemies in bringing themselves in acquaintance with their param atmas –absolute souls – that reside in all human beings and are considered to be pure. As per Gita, punishing the enemies with a mind devoid of hatred is not a manifestation of hatred but forgiveness (BHAGAVAD-GITA, karma-yoga). This, I think is a more realistic approach to developing universal compassion. This is because, this approach not only helps the harmful enemies realize their mistakes, but also, in effect, helps all the sentient beings. Similar to Mahayana approach, by requiring the freeing of the mind of hatred before punishing the harmful enemies, the Gita approach also serves the purpose of developing universal compassion via developing compassion for harmful enemies.

In conclusion, we see that, while the Mahayana approach of developing universal compassion lacks the willingness to help the enemies by rendering them incapable of improving, the Gita approach recognizes their capability to improve and helps them improve. Through this approach, human beings would be able to develop compassion for both the enemies and all the sentient beings but in a realistic manner.

Bibliography

“Compassion.” Merriam-Webster.com. 2015. http://www.merriam-webster.com (19^th April, 2015).

Sivananda. The Bhagavad Gita. Sivanandanagar: Divine Life Society, 1969. Print.

Trinzin, Sakya. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Freeing the Heart and Mind: Introduction to the Buddhist Path: His Holiness the Sakya Trizin, Khenpo Kalsang Gyaltsen, Ani Junga Chodron: 9780861716388: Amazon.com: Books. Web. 19 Apr. 2015.

A God is “a supernatural being, who is worshiped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or the personification of some force” (“God definition”). The power of the Gods and the power of a religion is often recognized as equivalent; the more followers in a particular religion, the more powerful the Gods within that religion are. While the truth of this statement can be disputed, Virupa, in the Life Story of Mahasiddha Virupa, uses this theory to weaken the Hindu faith by weakening the Hindu God Shiva in order to gain more power within the Buddhist faith. In the end, he not only gains followers for the Buddha, but also for himself, demonstrating his selfishness.

The destruction of the shrine in Somantha by Virupa is the most damaging threat as it destroys the place where people to worship Shiva. Throughout most of the second half of Virupa’s life, he threatens people into becoming Buddhist followers though violent, destructive means. In Virupa’s last violent act, he decides to destroy the God Shiva. He will do this by destroying the shrine which contains a naturally arisen Shiva lingam as well as the location of worship (Gyaltsen and Chodron 29).  The latter aspect of this destruction is the ultimate threat as without believers, the strength of the belief is weakened.

The dynamic between Virupa and Shiva undermines the strength of Shiva which undermines the strength of Hinduism.  The brahmans ask Virupa, “can you destroy it [the shrine]? The god is the greatest in the world” (Gyaltsen and Chodron 30). Shiva then appeared in front of Virupa, prostrating at Virupa’s feet and complying with every request Virupa stated (Gyaltsen and Chodron 30). Gods are seen as more powerful than men. Since Virupa is superior to Shiva, this proves Virupa’s superiority to all beings as well as that Shiva is an inferior which challenges the power of Shiva. However, since Shiva, a Hindu god, is being challenged by a Buddhist, this also challenges the power and strength of Hinduism as a whole.

Virupa’s request of Shiva demonstrates Virupa’s quest for Buddhist power. Virupa’s reasoning for destroying the shrine was the presence of animal sacrifice. If he only wanted to end animal sacrifice, he would have just requested that no further animal be sacrificed in the name of Shiva. Instead, he changes the being that is worshiped as well as how to worship, demonstrating his true intention. Virupa asks that a Buddhist temple be built and for Shiva to be one of the beings who worships the Buddha (Gyaltsen and Chodron 30). By asking Shiva, a Hindu god, to worship the Buddha, Virupa further attempts to show that Buddhism is superior to Hinduism. This type of request also demonstrates that Virupa is more interested in power than in animal sacrifice.

Part of Virupa’s request is that he be worshiped alongside the Buddha demonstrating his quest for personal power. This request does not correlate with his want for Buddhist power.  If he only functioned according to the needs of the people and the needs of Buddhism, his individuality would not have shown through in his request. Instead, he abuses his power with Shiva and demonstrates his selfish and greedy demeanor as he seeks to be worshiped.

Works Cited:

 “God definition.” Dictionary.com. Web. 19 Apr. 2015. <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god?s=t>.

People tend to view Buddhism as a peaceful, non-violent, and conflict free religion, but after hearing about the incident in Arizona regarding Geshe Michael Roach, and Ian Thorson, I realized that Buddhism, like other religions, has had its fair share of controversy and violence. Though, I wanted to figure out whether or not this was something that only occurred in Buddhism in the West, or in the East too. Upon researching, it is clear that this is not unique to one specific region, but has occurred all over the world.

It’s not possible for Buddhists to fight in the ‘name of god’ because in Buddhism, there is no one god. Having said that, they have fought on behalf of Buddhism on the whole (or their particular branch). In that way, there are several examples of violence between Buddhists and other religious groups for varying reasons. For instance, following the colonization of Sri Lanka by the British, there was a surge of Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism. This became more aggressive in the coming years, and Sinhalese Buddhists came into a lot of conflict with the Hindu Tamils during the Sri Lankan civil war. This violence lasted for 25 years and only ended in May 2009. It’s estimated that more than 70,000 people were killed (BBC). Besides this, there have been several other examples of violence between Buddhists and other religious groups, such as in Thailand, China and Japan. A more recent example is the events that have occurred in Burma, where “Buddhist gangs, including monks” (Campbell) have been engaged in anti-Muslim riots.

Once Again, Racial Tensions in Burma Turn Ugly 

How An Extremist Buddhist Group is Sowing Hatred Across Asia

In terms of other controversies that have occurred, there have been several noteworthy lamas in recent years who have made headlines in Tibetan Buddhism – but these have mostly been in Western nations. For instance, in Dijon, France, a Senior Monk at Kagyu Ling has been the first ever-appointed lama to go to prison for assertions of sexual violence against women (Finnigan). In the UK, one man posed as a lama, without actually having the qualifications and is currently serving time in prison for being convicted of rape (Finnigan).

In class, we already saw the example of Geshe Michael Roach, and how he was a controversial figure. One particular Lama stated, “Michael Roach teaches an extremely exaggerated, and from a Buddhist perspective somewhat dubious, form of tantrism” (Finnigan). The Dalai Lama has also heavily criticized him for growing out his hair, and having intimate relationships. While some people may argue that he is leading a cult, whether or not that is true is unclear, as some people have said that Roach’s program does offer good learning (Whitaker).

On the whole, my conception of Buddhism as a spiritual, peaceful religion has not changed – its core beliefs are still ones of nonviolence, but in practice, like other religions it is not perfect, nor is it completely innocent. However, because it has the reputation of being such a conflict-free religion, when controversy or violence occurs, people find it tough to believe. In reality, when any religion is practiced, other issues come into play but people seem to think of Buddhism in a higher moral regard. Having said that, perhaps this is a Western ideal? Buddhism is not as common here as it is in other parts of the world and people don’t know as much about it other than what they hear from world figures like the Dalai Lama, who consistently preach nonviolence. Though regardless of what the reasoning is, Buddhism, like other religions, has also had its moments of unethical behavior.

Campbell, Charlie. “Once Again, Racial Tensions in Burma Turn Deadly.” Time. Time, 4 July 2014. Web. 19 Apr. 2015. <http://time.com/2956180/burma-mandalay-race-riots-sectarian-violence-buddhist-muslim/>.

Finnigan, Mary. “The Lamas Who Give Tibetan Buddhism a Bad Name.” The Guardian. 8 Oct. 2012. Web. 19 Apr. 2015. <http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/oct/08/tibetan-lamas-buddhism>.

“Sri Lanka Country Profile – Overview.” BBC News. 9 Jan. 2015. Web. 19 Apr. 2015. <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-11999611>.

Whitaker, Justin. “Prof. Robert Thurman on Tibetan Buddhism & Michael Roach’s “cult” – Dateline NBC.” American Buddhist Perspectives. 10 Mar. 2014. Web. 19 Apr. 2015. <http://www.patheos.com/blogs/americanbuddhist/2014/03/prof-robert-thurman-on-tibetan-buddhism-michael-roachs-cult-dateline-nbc.html>.

International relations is a subject that I have been pursuing since entering college, and the area that I have been particularly interested in is that of human rights. Reading about the worship of the Kumari living goddesses in Nepal was very intriguing, especially as some have condemned the tradition as violating the human rights of these pre-pubescent girls chosen to live out the role of the Hindu goddess, Durga. The discussion brings to mind the debate between moral absolutism and moral relativism. Coming from an American standpoint (assuming no substantial ties to or in-depth knowledge of the Nepali culture), is it morally imperialistic to impose our own ethical framework onto a practice that is situated in a cultural context that we most likely will never be able to fully understand? Is it really our business at all? Perhaps part of the answer to this very difficult topic has both to do with the severity of the practice in question (or at least how much it violates our own framework of right and wrong), and the agency of those affected.

In terms of child abuse, the way the Kumaris are treated, at least the most recent generation, is on the milder side. Although they are expected to sit still on a throne for hours every day, may not have normal relationships with their family and friends, are constantly the center of attention, cannot go outside unsupervised, and in some cases cannot let their feet touch the ground outside, they are also well looked after, cared for, loved, respected, fed, clothed, housed, and provided an education. If looked at closely, some of the dynamics within the Kumari tradition resemble somewhat quirky, but familiar, parenting approaches in the United States: even if there are many problems with a lack of proper socialization, you could in some sense say the same about people who homeschool their kids; if the Kumaris are never told “no,” you could say the same about parents who just happen to love to spoil their children; if it is hard to watch a bored little girl in heavy makeup being swarmed by strangers, you could say it’s just as cringe-inducing as watching stage moms drag their glitzed-up toddlers to beauty pageants. Although there is still something very off-putting about the tradition from our “American,” or more specifically, Smith College feminist viewpoint, and also that we are women barely a decade out from pre-pubescence ourselves, it is still not intolerable.

But what if Kumaris were denied an education, as they used to be, or the ability to marry even after they were no longer Kumaris? What if, hypothetically, the girls had to undergo female circumcision as they do in some parts of the world (as incompatible as this is with the Kumari tradition)? Would the practice be wrong in an absolute sense, or would this be a matter of ethical framework? Agency may play a role in these types of cases, because although children do not have much agency themselves, it is up to the community or some members of it to make up their own minds on the subject if they are provided with an alternative viewpoint. To avoid moral imperialism, but still call attention to the human rights violations (in terms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) of FGM, many organizations have adopted a strategy of disseminating information and creating focus groups of community members who went through the practice themselves. But is this simply paternalism through education? And in a different vein, does moral relativism or absolutism have to do with the boundaries of culture, or the boundaries of state? Since in the U.S. we do not allow for the views of certain cultural groups, like particular evangelical Christian communities who extol beating children as a form of discipline, to interfere with existing child abuse laws. Do you have any thoughts?

In reading the sources about the Kumari and its many reincarnations, my first thought was how difficult it must be for a girl of that age to fully comprehend her role in the tradition. While I do think it is a distinct characteristic of Hinduism for the followers to worship a living goddess as a way to foster faith, I am concerned about the willingness of the girls identified as the Kumari. The videos and interviews showed a young girl who must sit for prolonged periods of time with strict rules on her lifestyle.

To be identified as the incarnation at such a young age, the child grows up without a concept of the world around them. I wonder about the parent’s role in such a decision; do they have the chance to say no? Or would cultural custom declare that they must accept their daughter as the reincarnation? Consequently, both the parents and Kumari must live their lives in service of Hinduism and its followers. My greatest concern is for a young girl to begin her life as a Kumari, and then come puberty, be thrown into learning the aspects of life she was unaware of. That is a monumental lifestyle change to have to undergo in addition to puberty. It also associates the female body and its natural processes as unclean due to the fact that after her first menstruation, the Kumari is no longer considered holy.

On a different note, the act of searching for a reincarnation reminded me of an article I saw in the news a couple of weeks ago. A baby was born in Uttar Pradesh India with a birth defect that caused her to be compared to the Hindu God Ganesha (I have attached a link to the article). The process to identify a reincarnation is fascinating, but it also calls into question where consent is involved in an ancient tradition, and how being recognized as an incarnation has a profound effect on the way in which a person lives his or her life.

I am unsure about the particularities in identifying reincarnations, in both the case of the Kumari and the baby in India the process appears to be based in visual identifiers. Comparatively, there is an interesting documentary made in 2008 about the search for the reincarnation of a Buddhist Lama called Unmistaken Child. It shows the process of the Lama’s disciple journeying through the Himalayas recognize the reincarnation. If you have time to watch it, I highly suggest it.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/SiBe1h2Qleg[/youtube]

I personally believe that religious and cultural traditions should be respected and protected, but if you were to ask me ‘Is the welfare of one girl more important than the continuation of a specific tradition?’ the answer I always come to is yes. I could never support a system that abuses one child let alone a long line of them. This leads to the question of whether or not the girl is actually experiencing abuse and therefore if this tradition should be abolished. The conclusion that I have come to is that I do not think that the tradition of having a living goddess should be abolished because she is not personally experiencing any kind of neglect, the girl and her family are well cared for, she is not being forced to do hard labor for long hours.

A Kumari is certainly not neglected. Some might say her education is behind that of the other kids her age. That that problem was mostly rectified when a memoir, From Goddess to Morta, by ex-Kumari Rashmila Shakya, brought to light the lack of education for Kumaris, and the Nepalese government ruled to have more formalized education for the Kumaris. [1] Although she does not get the same socialization as she would through public schools, she does get time to socialize with carefully selected peers.

Being a Kumari also means that she and her family are much more financially stable. They all eat well and live in a beautiful palace. The father of one of the Kumaris said in the video that we watched in class that his daughter becoming the Kumari has given the family the opportunity to educate all of their children. I believe it is better to have all three children get an education and one of them be only marginally behind her peers academically than to not have the resources to educate any of the children in the family.

A Kumari also is not forced to do hard labor for long hours. Though her days of touring at festivals are long, they only happen a few days out of the year. Aside from perhaps being coerced into taking offerings of alcohol she is not forced to do anything, and being carried through the streets and allowing people to kiss her feet can hardly be defined as hard labor. Some might argue that having to sit still for long hours taking offerings and letting people kiss her feet is not natural for a young child, but it would certainly teach her an amount of patience that other children her age would not have mastered.

A Kumari’s social development may have been slightly delayed, but as an adaptable preteen she can catch up to her peers and acclimate to her new position as mortal. She is well cared for, given every opportunity, and is not forced into hard labor. In short, what a Kumari experiences is clearly not abuse, therefore this important tradition that teaches the masses to respect the strength of women and brings Buddhists and Hindus together should be preserved.

[1] Martinez Cantera, Angel. “Meeting Nepal’s Living Goddesses.” VICE. 1 July 2014. Web. 13 Apr. 2015. .

The section of “Mandals: Buddhist Mandalas” from Encyclopedia of Religion gives a great overview of Buddhist Mandalas; this resource informs in detail about the definition, origin, history, and symbolism of mandalas. However, since it did not tell who makes the mandalas, how the mandalas are made, and how the mandalas are used after they are completed, I wanted to examine the process of making the mandalas, and also the significance of the mandalas. I found one article from The Jersey Journal, which gives a lesson on Buddhist sand mandalas: impermanence by describing the process of making the mandalas and the procedure after completing them as well.

Small boy mistakes Jersey City sand mandala for playground, destroys hours of work

This article was published in April 2014, and it is about a young New Jersey boy who climbed over a rope barrier and got onto the four-foot-square display. He made his inadvertent mark on an intricate sand display created by Buddhist monks to represent “the fleeting nature of life” (McDonald). This was more shocking because the monks had been building this sand mandala, made from millions of grains of sand in a variety of colors, in Jersey City’s municipal building for five days, and the time was just one hour away from being completed. Even though there was damage, Lobsang Chodak, of Newark, whose sister was providing a temporary home for the monks here in Jersey City, said that everyone got a lesson from the child who damaged the mandala: “It’s so beautiful and then, next thing, it’s gone” (McDonald). This indicates one of the Buddhist teachings that everything is impermanent.

I learned that there is a deep intervention and correlation between a core idea within Buddhism, which is renewal, and Buddhist mandalas. A core idea within Buddhism is renewal, and human beings are in a cycle of mental and spiritual growth, reborn again and again until they achieve enlightenment. One of Buddha’s main teachings was of the impermanence of things, which is one of the teachings of the Mandala itself. As for the Mandala itself, its simple imagery is a very powerful metaphor for life. It is painstakingly created to form a beautiful and complex form, and then when it is completed, it is brushed away, never to exist again. Similarly, each sentient being slowly grows into a complex system of structures, memories, experiences, and relationships, seemingly only to be destroyed.

However, I believe that Mandala’s apparent “destruction” is not absolute. The Mandala’s sand is returned to the earth to spread its energy and rejoin the elements. After death, each being decomposes to become part of the earth and reform as something else and return its elements to other living things. As an art form, the sand Mandala is made from dust and sand, and it is returned to dust and sand. It is a metaphor for the continual flow of life, a brief moment of beauty, then all of it is blown away to create something new, which is also a reminder of the lesson of impermanence.

I have also taken an interest in the meaning of scared space. As with all language, the word has evolved over time to mean different things. Sure a sacred space is a church or perhaps a piece of land but sacred places have branched out to mean a vast array of things in today’s society. A state of mind is an example of how the word has evolved as it can also be considered a sacred place. While searching around, I stumbled on an intriguing article titled, “6 ways to create a sacred space at home.” The article list a number of things such as using sound and scent to help improve the energy within your household, and creating an altar as a means of honoring your living space and everything you love within it. Is a sacred space really that easy to come by these days? In a society where it is becoming more common to not be affiliated with a religion, why are articles like the one I found so popular? This got me thinking what exactly is it that turns an ordinary place into a sacred space.

For me, I have always believed that spiritual practice or some aspect of the divine is needed to create a sacred space, but I am quickly coming to the realization that there are many other aspects that go into forming a sacred space. “Creativity—whether it’s expressed in the improvisation of ecstatic dance or in the mind-bending sculptures, performances, and installations at an event like Burning Man—is another common thread [for creating sacred spaces], says Bron Taylor, a professor of religion and nature at the University of Florida.” The religious aspect alone does not make a place sacred, but rather human activity in general is what consecrates these places and turns them from ordinary to blessed, regardless of if they are man-made or if they organically exist in nature.

After further thought, I have come to settle on the idea that a sacred place is simply a location which can make someone feel renewed, as well as, somewhere one can become closer to the things that are dear to them. For each individual this will be different; a person’s definition of what is and can be sacred is as individual as their DNA. There is no one definition of a sacred place. The fluidity of the word is why so many places can be considered sacred and for different reasons. With that said, I feel sacred spaces are the one common element amongst all people. In the article we read for class about sacred spaces, it demonstrates how all religions connect to this idea and even those who are not apart of a specific religion are still longing to creating these holy spaces. It is a way to connect, to find common ground and understanding amongst the most unique and diverse religions. Whether we think of a sacred space as a room with walls, or a river running free, or even perhaps a routine, sacred spaces are every where and across cultures we can use this universal concept to form understanding and respect.

Salario, Alizah. “What Makes an Ordinary Place a Sacred Space?” Spirituality & Health Magazine. Originally Published as “Sacred Spaces, Holy Places” in Spirituality & Health’s Practice Issue 2013, 2013. Web. 6 Apr. 2015.