I’m curious to know if you would define “sacred” in any way separate from the behaviors (e.g., in the golf example). That is, does something become sacred because of the human activity toward it, or does there need to be some kind of cognitive acknowledgment like “I revere this as sacred”? Certainly the latter is not sufficient (words without deeds being what atheists tend to decry), but is it necessary?
My buddy told me this reminded him of some of the language that Paul Tillich used: religion or spirituality is "that which is of ultimate concern" so whatever is "that which is of ultimate concern to you" answers the question of what your conception of the Divine/Sacred etc. I like that phrasing.
I came to this framing because it’s often obvious when talking to someone when their relationship to something has a religious/is of ultimate concern vibe. One of my favorite ways to get to know someone is by searching for their sacred stuff… I’ve yet to meet someone who didn’t have something!
Reminds me of this bit from Stephen Cope’s “The Great Work of Your Life”
Katherine found it closer to the truth to say, “My life belongs to the world.” This reframed the struggle of her life. It set her free. As she internalized this insight, she realized that she had made a small but crucial error in her understanding of her life. Up until this point, she had been dedicating her gifts, her assets, and her opportunities, to herself. She had taken her self as her primary project in life. And this had caused suffering.
I’m not entirely sure I totally endorse this as a critique of any person that puts their own self as their “ultimate concern”, but it does make sense to me that for this person, and certainly for myself at times, this can lead to suffering. At times I’ve looked to make “officially sacred” things the ultimate concern of my life, but I’m probably more of the view now that it’s an orientation or stance that matters more than the object.
I‘m currently reading four thousands weeks and seeing the book in this sacred/religious context now (still early on, maybe it’s gonna go there anyway).
You guys familiar with the book? Do you see overlap?
Yes, I love that book. Burkeman cites Joko Beck and maybe Bruce Tift? He mostly has experience in the consensus mindfulness tradition, but I think totally possible to read his book from tantric view.
Cool article!
So religion is like an already present, ever evolving ground? 🫣
Sorry, I had to go for it.
I like how the five benefits made me think of the five elements from earth to space 🌍
I’m curious to know if you would define “sacred” in any way separate from the behaviors (e.g., in the golf example). That is, does something become sacred because of the human activity toward it, or does there need to be some kind of cognitive acknowledgment like “I revere this as sacred”? Certainly the latter is not sufficient (words without deeds being what atheists tend to decry), but is it necessary?
My buddy told me this reminded him of some of the language that Paul Tillich used: religion or spirituality is "that which is of ultimate concern" so whatever is "that which is of ultimate concern to you" answers the question of what your conception of the Divine/Sacred etc. I like that phrasing.
I came to this framing because it’s often obvious when talking to someone when their relationship to something has a religious/is of ultimate concern vibe. One of my favorite ways to get to know someone is by searching for their sacred stuff… I’ve yet to meet someone who didn’t have something!
Reminds me of this bit from Stephen Cope’s “The Great Work of Your Life”
Katherine found it closer to the truth to say, “My life belongs to the world.” This reframed the struggle of her life. It set her free. As she internalized this insight, she realized that she had made a small but crucial error in her understanding of her life. Up until this point, she had been dedicating her gifts, her assets, and her opportunities, to herself. She had taken her self as her primary project in life. And this had caused suffering.
I’m not entirely sure I totally endorse this as a critique of any person that puts their own self as their “ultimate concern”, but it does make sense to me that for this person, and certainly for myself at times, this can lead to suffering. At times I’ve looked to make “officially sacred” things the ultimate concern of my life, but I’m probably more of the view now that it’s an orientation or stance that matters more than the object.
I‘m currently reading four thousands weeks and seeing the book in this sacred/religious context now (still early on, maybe it’s gonna go there anyway).
You guys familiar with the book? Do you see overlap?
Yes, I love that book. Burkeman cites Joko Beck and maybe Bruce Tift? He mostly has experience in the consensus mindfulness tradition, but I think totally possible to read his book from tantric view.
Cool. I really like it so far. Yes, good to see Tift and Heidegger mentioned.