What makes a "sacred text" sacred?

How and why do we regard certain texts as "sacred"? Do different religions use different criteria? How does a religion's view of what is sacred affect which texts it considers sacred?

Politics mostly, IMO. Whatever beliefs suit the majority of those determining what's sacred and what's not.

Good question. The main reason religious texts become sacred IMO is that they are treated as sacred, that is they are objectified as possessing inherent symbolic power.

I certainly feel that the way seriously religious Jews view the Torah for example, or serious Tibetans Buddhists certain sutras, goes way beyond the verbal content. Merely reading the Torah without comprehension, or spinning a prayer wheel containing a text, hanging it by your door to protect from evil, etc., has a strong effect. This is the same as with any other talisman. The New Testament's objectification might not seem quite as strong -- but look at swearing in. Any time you are seeing a symbolic use you are seeing something 'talismanized'.

The 'criteria' question is very interesting. The secret is time. Only an old text can be sacred IMO! When Plato was writing his works were philosophy only and no-one really thought to save manuscripts as inherently precious, but to the neo-Platonists everything he wrote was scrutinized line by line as sacred. Still I think burning a Plato text in front of a Platonist would not produce the same effect as burning a Torah in front of a Jew!

One other point is that some cultures view writing as inherently sacred in a way others do not.

As to this:

How does a religion's view of what is sacred affect which texts it considers sacred?

... I think it's very complicated. For example: a text can be sacred to a culture but not to a particular religion (eg. I Ching, and maybe Tarot qualifies in a way in the West.)

In general I think it is more the other way round -- a text the religion considers sacred seems to determine the other things it is allowed to consider sacred, because sacred texts have an aura of infallibility and they become a procrustean test of righteousness.

Lots more could be said! But that's enough from me.

If your talking about religious heirarchy like the papacy I think they define a text as sacred if if promotes their overall idealism.

For the brainless masses they just do whatever the religious heirarchy says.

For me, I guess I am not so different. I consider any text which suits my spiritual center and promotes my overall spiritual being to be sacred. I hold texts from many religions as sacred while I also reject texts from collections which those religions would generally consider sacred.

I also hold passages from Winnie the Pooh to be sacred, so go figure.

PSyn remarked in part:

One other point is that some cultures view writing as inherently sacred in a way others do not.

As to this:
How does a religion's view of what is sacred affect which texts it considers sacred?

... I think it's very complicated. For example: a text can be sacred to a culture but not to a particular religion (eg. I Ching, and maybe Tarot qualifies in a way in the West.)

In general I think it is more the other way round -- a text the religion considers sacred seems to determine the other things it is allowed to consider sacred, because sacred texts have an aura of infallibility and they become a procrustean test of righteousness.

You make some very important points here, I feel.

I'd quibble a bit that Tarot has attained quite that status even among the more intense practitioners of "alternative religions" in the West. Most IME regard it as a tool employed to useful effect but not really something to be held in awe by any means as are the primary texts of the three monotheisms, for instance. Which is not to say that the "twoo beweevers" among New Agers in particular do not hold things such as crystals or tarot in that light. On the whole, however, I don't think the Tarot is generally venerated to that extent.

I'm wondering if we all are on a page, so to speak, with the definition of "sacred." When we refer to a text as that, aren't we implying that someone, usually practitioners of whatever sect regards it as sacred, believes it to be something more than quite profound human expression? Thus, the works of Plato are profound but hardly sacred.

DoNotInOz wrote:I'd quibble a bit that Tarot has attained quite that status even among the more intense practitioners of "alternative religions" in the West. Most IME regard it as a tool employed to useful effect but not really something to be held in awe

Well I did say maybe it qualifies in a way. For me where it starts to cross the line is with the talismanic value attributed to the cards in books like

http://www.amazon.com/Tarot-Magus-Opening-Divination-Guardian/dp/1904658024/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263593575&sr=1-3

... and others, where tarot cards themselves become a gateway to divinities, to realms, to powers... in other words they operate like a magical tool, an athame or a magical sword. As with those items, that kind of use seems to make them into 'something more' than mere signs of the sacred, but I admit it's definitely a borderline case. There's also the fact that it's not exactly a 'text' either!

When we refer to a text as that, aren't we implying that someone, usually practitioners of whatever sect regards it as sacred, believes it to be something more than quite profound human expression? Thus, the works of Plato are profound but hardly sacred.

Ooh, no, see there I would disagree. If you talk to a hardcore Platonist, from Iamblichus to Thomas Taylor, you will definitely get the 'divinely inspired' thing. Remember the completely spiritual context of Platonism. That's why an early Hermetic Alchemist like Zosimus is quite happy to refer to 'Thrice Greatest Plato and One Thousand Times Greatest Hermes'. Personally, I think texts like the Timaeus particularly were regarded as having an aura of divine awe after the Hellenistic period.

Well, yes, I concede you that point about Plato.

I probably could be said to view him through blinders, being somewhat of a purist where his works are concerned. I've largely studied them within the context of my graduate work at St. John's College, Santa Fe. The approach there strongly discourages consulting critics and commentaries on an author to the point that doing so is very much "not the done thing." The hype is that one ought to "dialogue" directly with the author via the works. (Which was all well and good until Kant and Kierkegaard ate my lunch! Never could figure out what Kant was saying and thought Kierkegaard hopelessly fatuous.)

Consequently, I know very little about the extent to which Plato may have been or still is venerated. Sure, I've heard of neo-Platonism but have little awareness of the degree of veneration which neo-P's may employ.

Well nowadays we read him as 'a philosopher'; there's some context missing there.

With your interest in Ceremonial Magick you might like Iamblichus. Fairly late Platonist, brought ritual in so isn't studied much now -- but there was a time when he was accounted 'the saviour of the pagan world'. He got a lot of stuff from Egypt (as did Plato of course) and his system involved the conjuring of spiritual energies, he brought 'theurgy' to Platonism. Most modern philosophers ignore all this because for years the Platonist period was considered a falling-off into superstition.

It was actually the church that picked up Platonism and ran with it. But modern pagans aren't bothering with Platonism very much, perhaps because of its association with the church, and the church didn't regard it as sacred like the bible. As a result that aura of sacredness has worn off. But if you asked Kathleen Raine, David Rankine or William Irwin Thompson they might still feel it.

Seeing as how modern psychology is kind of taking the place in our society that philosophy had back then, will this perhaps one day be seen as a sacred text? :-

http://www.amazon.com/Red-Book-C-G-Jung/dp/0393065677/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263596798&sr=1-1

Some people are already taking it that way. In fact there is some superstitious awe developing.

That's me for tonight, great to meet you!

I don't hold any books sacred. I like a lot of books and I might really love other books but I don't feel that any of them or any of the words in them are sacred except to other people. Do you think that the sacred books take the place of a personal relationship with their gods?

P_Synthesis wrote:

DoNotInOz wrote:I'd quibble a bit that Tarot has attained quite that status even among the more intense practitioners of "alternative religions" in the West. Most IME regard it as a tool employed to useful effect but not really something to be held in awe

Well I did say maybe it qualifies in a way.

Granted. Hence, my saying I quibbled a bit with you. Nitpicking would be about the size of my quibble, truth be told.

For me where it starts to cross the line is with the talismanic value attributed to the cards in books like

http://www.amazon.com/Tarot-Magus-Opening-Divination-Guardian/dp/1904658024/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263593575&sr=1-3

Nothing personal, but damn you for linking us to that particular book which I'd love to have but not at the listed price! Horrors!

Never having seen it, I can't assess that text's approach, but when it appears to be an advanced work on use of Crowley's Thoth deck from a Thelemic standpoint, I'd be very surprised indeed if your following statement is at all accurate:

...where tarot cards themselves become a gateway to divinities, to realms, to powers... in other words they operate like a magical tool, an athame or a magical sword. As with those items, that kind of use seems to make them into 'something more' than mere signs of the sacred,...

I disagree entirely here but can speak only for myself from my experience. I don't invest ANY "something more" in magickal tools. They are a means to an end, that's all.

And no, I wouldn't say that using tarot, for instance, as a divinatory tool in preparation for some magickal working is any more mystical or "sacred" than an architect's use of a drafting program to design a building. Most such implements may be more efficient or perhaps lend a certain luster to a given working but are hardly essential oftentimes. Since I've not gotten into higher level ritual, I can't speak to the degree to which such may be requisite at that level.

I was told that I really must set up an altar and assemble the trappings--candle for fire, bowl of water, etc.--starting out. However, I used such things for a while and then abandoned them when I found that I could easily "cut to the chase" and felt far less encumbered without material objects. Pointing one's index finger works quite well in lieu of a willow wand cut from a sapling while the dew is still on the grass at midsummer, if you get my drift.

Now, obviously, I've met Thelemites who asked on message boards how others celebrate "Crowleymas." (Crowley's birthday elevated to the ridiculous, IMO.) Such questions generally don't get much response other than, "You're joking, right?"

gillyflower wrote:I don't hold any books sacred. I like a lot of books and I might really love other books but I don't feel that any of them or any of the words in them are sacred except to other people. Do you think that the sacred books take the place of a personal relationship with their gods?

Hell, Gilly, for a good many Christians of the more intense variety, I think the Bible IS a god of sorts.

There's a weird sort of disconnect operating with some of them in that they are taught not to regard anything as an idol, and yet, how they venerate the Bible certainly smacks of idolatry to me. It did even when I was a Christian.

I meant to add to my diatribe above on magickal tools that unlike some tarot readers, I don't store my cards only in a specially blessed silk bag and never allow anyone else to touch my decks for fear of contaminating their energy.

I do keep the decks I use most frequently in nice wood chests, but that's a matter of esthetics (they're attractive chests) as well as ease of access--lift the lid and have at 'em--rather than any feeling of obligation to isolate a "sacred object" from "negative energies."

'Tis true that I don't want anyone messing with my decks, but that's largely due to my being even more territorial than your typical Scorpio. Being a triple-Scorp and anal by nature can do that to a person. That's my excuse, anyway.

I would love more discussion on tarot.

My poor old cards get little bags if they are lucky or their duck taped original boxes sometimes. I don't let anyone touch them but I think that if my kids asked I'd probably let them. I am territorial too - Mine, my precious! I let my kids play when they went to college with the original set I first got oh, 40 years or more ago but I was so glad to get the deck back. When I read for someone, I will let them cut the deck until they are satisfied with it. I think that is generous with the touching, myself.

DotNotInOz wrote:

gillyflower wrote:I don't hold any books sacred. I like a lot of books and I might really love other books but I don't feel that any of them or any of the words in them are sacred except to other people. Do you think that the sacred books take the place of a personal relationship with their gods?

Hell, Gilly, for a good many Christians of the more intense variety, I think the Bible IS a god of sorts.

There's a weird sort of disconnect operating with some of them in that they are taught not to regard anything as an idol, and yet, how they venerate the Bible certainly smacks of idolatry to me. It did even when I was a Christian.

Well, I think it has become that. Anytime you turn to a book rather than your god - and IF you think your god may have contacted you, but first you have to check what s/he says against the book and if the god disagrees with how you interpret the book, then you decide it was a demon and ignore it? Yeah. You've got a problem. The book is more important than the god, IMO.

Btw, it just occurred to me that PSyn may not be familiar with the context of the term "Holy Guardian Angel" in Thelema. It has nothing whatsoever to do with guardian angels as understood within Christianity and about as much to do with holiness from that standpoint.

There's a lot of argument about what precisely Crowley meant by the term, but very roughly speaking it refers to a deeply profound personal tranfomation that results in full awareness of what one's life purpose is. The usual phrase for one's having experienced that transformation is to have achieved "Knowledge of and Conversation with the Holy Guardian Angel."

Crowley was inordinately and somewhat perversely fond of taking Christian terminology and turning it on its head. This is probably yet another example of that.

And now, I really will shuddup for once. < sassy grin >

I find myself largely in agreement with Gilly on this one. Mythic texts which tend to be the sources for "information" on the exploits, character and history of certain deities, heroes and historic persons are quite central to Reconstructionism, but few would hold them to be sacred, in the way that certain religions hold their texts to be. Aside from the scribal issues (i.e. all of the Gaelic mythic texts were transcribed after the conversion to Christianity), there is the problem of speaking about a "religion" at all. Most of the evidence we've got does not delineate between the secular and the spiritual, so the notion that the texts have an intrinsic religious value because they are mythic narratives is something which would have been unknown to the Gaels at the time. They have value for what they are, what they teach us about the understanding of deity and cosmology but they are not sacred in and of themselves.

Such recognition is reserved for the dé ochus andé, the actual "objects" of worship so to speak.

The Hamaval would be a sacred text, for it holds within it the lessons that Odin set forth for his folk in the beginning. These are not commandments, but outlines of priorities and reasons for such actions. In this work are the tools for building a harmonious society, for living an honourable and successful life It is not based on an ideal world, but a working set of priorities for an imperfectly understood world, filled with imperfect people.

The rest of the myths and saga's are the framework for the sacred mysteries, they form the metaphor and the language of the messages of the gods. Not sacred per se, but definitely tools for sacred understanding.

DoNotInOz wrote:
I'd be very surprised indeed if your following statement is at all accurate:

...where tarot cards themselves become a gateway to divinities, to realms, to powers... in other words they operate like a magical tool, an athame or a magical sword.

Oh it's completely accurate. I worked briefly with the guy who wrote the book. He uses the cards themselves to contact all the standard Thelema/OTO spirits like the goetia etc. He uses them for divination too of course, but also as magical tools. I'm familiar with the Crowley terminology, although not as familiar as he was. (Interesting guy, a little nutz though. Hence briefly. ^_^ http://newtarot.com/ ) I've read J.A.Newcombe on the HGA also and I know about Mathers etc., have read Crowley Bk.IV. This was all a while back mind you.

But there are numerous other books using the cards in a talismanic and directly magical way. The only other one I've read is this:

http://www.amazon.com/Tarot-Magic-Special-Topics/dp/0738701858/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263643845&sr=1-4

... but Hughes-Barlow had a bagful of them. It's quite common now.

I don't invest ANY "something more" in magickal tools. They are a means to an end, that's all.

That's interesting! For me spiritual tools of any kind are definitely sacred objects, to be treated with the utmost care and reverence -- 'as if they were relics' is what Franz Bardon says. That seems to work for me.

I think it's just when you can use a text as a sacred object that it has definitely become more than just a text, like I mentioned. Eg. the Mezuzah:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezuzah

Or the huge rows of stationary prayer wheels in Lhasa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_wheel

That certainly could be considered 'idolatry' of the words if one has a problem with such. But the word idol only means image/eidolon; a problem perhaps comes, as everyone is implying, when the image starts to take the place of the reality of the nonphysical. But that need not happen, it all depends on how really 'in contact' people are with the divine I'm guessing?

I think it comes down to something as simple as how much "things" matter to a person about the spiritual tools, PS, and how much you like the endorphins - emotions - in the brain (or whatever it is) triggered by symbols. Some people really do enjoy seeing something that induces pleasure just by seeing or touching something that provokes an immediate emotional response. That can be very powerful stimulus and very enjoyable too. Sometimes people think that emotional response means that the object itself is powerful but I think it just means that the object stimulates a powerful response in the person. Pavlov's dog and all that.

Well we'd be OT if I ventured the story of my first teacher's talking sword Lydia at this point. Suffice it to say, I think there's more to it than neurotransmitters.

That's the good thing about all of us - we can all believe something different, and it exposes us to people who do not believe what we believe. I've had a lifetime - 60+ years - and I'd love to find an object that has magical power in itself. I just haven't yet.

I'll do it in a separate thread when I have a mo.

P_Synthesis wrote:

DoNotInOz wrote:
I'd be very surprised indeed if your following statement is at all accurate:

...where tarot cards themselves become a gateway to divinities, to realms, to powers... in other words they operate like a magical tool, an athame or a magical sword.

Oh it's completely accurate.

Perhaps so from your perspective. However, not from mine.

Did the author indicate by word or action that he regards the cards themselves as sacred objects?

What I'm wondering is if this is more your perception of their role than his.

But there are numerous other books using the cards in a talismanic and directly magical way.

There's a distinctiion as I see it between that which is regarded as sacred and that which is used magickally. The two are not necessarily the same...indeed, may be quite distinct from each other.

... but Hughes-Barlow had a bagful of them. It's quite common now.

Which doesn't necessarily mean squat, with all due respect for our differing views on this.

I don't invest ANY "something more" in magickal tools. They are a means to an end, that's all.

That's interesting! For me spiritual tools of any kind are definitely sacred objects, to be treated with the utmost care and reverence -- 'as if they were relics' is what Franz Bardon says. That seems to work for me.

Doesn't mean much to me. I certainly use reasonable care when storing or handling such items, but they are no more precious than my set of drillbits for my variable speed Black & Decker. I know, that's odd, but that's just the way I see such things...tools, without a lot of mumbo-jumbo invested in them and their use.

I think it's just when you can use a text as a sacred object that it has definitely become more than just a text, like I mentioned.

And I'm not sure that doing so is at all desirable. I think it too often results in making much of something that is supposed to point one's attention toward the divine rather than becoming regarded as possessing divinity itself in a sense. In short, too much danger of investing overweening significance in an object.

That certainly could be considered 'idolatry' of the words if one has a problem with such. But the word idol only means image/eidolon; a problem perhaps comes, as everyone is implying, when the image starts to take the place of the reality of the nonphysical. But that need not happen, it all depends on how really 'in contact' people are with the divine I'm guessing?

Which in my case would be not much at all, since I'm not the least bit convinced that anything we humans refer to as "divine" is supernatural. The beings we encounter through magickal workings or astral travel may be quite natural ones, I surmise. I honestly don't know but endeavor to remain open to learning otherwise.

Investing such significance in any object used for ritual may well be useful and meaningful for others, but I think it's a waste of time and energy. They are physical trappings which can be destroyed, stolen or lost. And then what? If I've invested no particular significance in them, another pleasing object or none at all will do quite nicely.

A simple case of YMMV, probably.

Nah, I don't really think we're disagreeing here. What I'm getting from you is that magickal use and 'sacredness' are two different things in your personal practice. Which, given that you see your tools on the level of your black & decker, I totally get. And since you add that:

I know, that's odd...

and that

investing such significance in any object may well be useful and meaningful for others

... it seems our worldviews could happily co-exist. As far as Paul's ideas on the 'sacredness' of tarot, file it under magical tools, it's the same discussion. I'll post in a separate thread on the putative 'sacredness' of 'magical objects' since it's OT. I don't mean to imply there is a right or wrong way here! Just stating that many practices do indeed see magical objects as sacred, and a significant subset use cards as direct magical objects. That's not to say this is the only attitude with which these things can be done...

I think it's just when you can use a text as a sacred object that it has definitely become more than just a text, like I mentioned.

And I'm not sure that doing so is at all desirable.

Personally I don't have an opinion on the desirability. I was just speaking to the original question -- 'How and why do we regard certain texts as "sacred"?' Etc. When the text has talismanic value it has obviously crossed that line; whether that's wise or not is another question.

You know, I have used on occasion things out of my kitchen, and had a very good experience with them. I think tools that are used regularly for a good cause - and preparing food is a good cause - have good ties to the earth, life and death and the circular patterns. It is of course colored by my world view as a Wiccan but nothing is more important to the Divine than any other part, as far as I am aware, meaning that to the Divine a wooden wand and a plastic spoon are equally divine, IMO, which means to me that it is the person that finds the one tool more to their liking than another.