By "sacred symbolism" I intend all the intermediary forms that are between a Man and the divine: so this includes all intended-means towards the desired-end: contact with the sacred.
"Sacred symbols" include religious symbols (the cross, the crucifix, the ICHTHYS fish) and Icons; ritual and ceremony; prayer and meditation; sacred places such as churches, cathedrals, places of pilgrimage; and "the church" itself*.
None of these are "the thing itself" but are intermediary - intended to function as means to that end.
(For my present purposes; this also applies to the Eucharist/ Divine Liturgy/ Mass/ Holy Communion - since, even when there is believed to be the real presence of Christ as a consequence of the ceremony; the ceremony is understood as intermediary - a means towards that transformative end. )
From our Modern perspective that is rooted in a non-sacred, materialist world-view, we usually tend to regard sacred symbolism in a positive sense: the sense of symbols generating "sacredness" from a context of the mundane.
Those serious about their religion therefore tend to emphasise, and try to strengthen, the power of symbolism.
But sacred symbolism is double-edged.
It is intended to bridge between the mundane and the sacred; but symbolism also (and necessarily) stands between the mundane and the sacred.
I believe that historically (and in our own development from young childhood) symbolism became a part of religion as a response to the waning, declining, sacredness of life-as-a-whole.
Originally, I think that humans lived in and experienced a sacred world. That seems to be the situation of the nomadic hunter gatherers. Symbolism ("totemism") emerged as a later development.
Likewise in the transition between young and older childhood - initially all the world is experienced as "spiritual" (or "enchanted" - which includes negatively such), but later much of life retreats to the mundane - and the sacred becomes discrete and increasingly separated.
Symbolism therefore has both the positive and intended effect of making a bridge to the sacred; and also a negative and inevitable consequence of relatively down-grading the rest-of-life (the "not-specifically-sacred" images, actions, places etc.) to a lower and mundane level.
Therefore... If or when symbolism loses its power to form a bridge to the sacred; then symbolism in practice will have a negative spiritual consequence.
By focusing attention and hopes upon intermediaries that actually fail to generate the sacred; symbolism stands-between the individual and the sacred.
Symbolism will then block our access to the sacred: will block our potential capacity to experience the sacred.
In other words; the pre-existing systems of symbolism may claim to be the necessary and only means of accessing the sacred; yet in practice they fail to provide access to the sacred - and thus the consequence is for sacred symbolism to prevent access to the sacred.
Then we need to realize that...
The above is not just a hypothetical; but actually has happened: is our present situation.
*I regard my general point about symbolism to be of primary importance for Christians; but it naturally applies to other religions, to New Age spirituality, and to occult "techniques" intended to engage with the spiritual realm - such as astrology, Tarot, numerology, ritual magic; and many types of intermediary method relating to meditative or group work.
8 comments:
My impression is that people are busy doubling down on symbolism, not just in religion but also mundane life, on both 'sides' of the divide. (E.g. Patriarchy, or Sacred Democracy) Yet this doesn't seem to be motivating anyone or effecting any success.
I increasingly feel this way about even words. My first church post-conversion was one of those that is obsessed with looking up the definitions of words in “the original Hebrew” or whatever. Having had some background in linguistics and the art of translation, I always rolled my eyes a bit at this, but now I recoil completely having seen the fruits of these efforts. You’ve noted it all before, the way these types are effortlessly corralled by evil, given some room to fight minor battles and feel good about themselves but overall failing 9 out of 10 litmus tests that are far more urgent. And they just. Don’t. Notice.
I used to think it could be done better with better training. Now I highly doubt that would work.
"If or when symbolism loses its power to form a bridge to the sacred; then symbolism in practice will have a negative spiritual consequence."
Yes, I am certain that is correct. It seems many mistake the bridges for the sacred and stop there, settling into an objectifying idolatry in the process. Conversely, they tend to regard anything but the bridges as mundane and unreal. I suppose it all comes down to the recognition that symbols are not reality or spirit, merely the objectification of reality or spirit.
@Mia - yes; it continues to amaze me that so much faith continues to be placed in scholarship to clarify Christianity - given that scholarship is always conflicted, scholarly consensus frequently changes - and academics are so easily corrupted.
@Frank - I think you would agree that symbolism did, in some times and places in the past, used to have an almost objective power to elicit the sacred. It does not any more.
The question is whether this change and decline in the power of symbolism is - ultimately - in human consciousness (as we would both assume); or else is due to modern people not trying hard enough; or perhaps not being in precisely the correct branch of the correct church (as the various trads would assert).
Those who agree with us that ineffective symbolism becomes a barrier to faith, then need to try and work out something new and unprecedented that aims directly at the sacred.
Excellent post. I don't think (as a matter of logic) that symbols act or change or are effected: they stand immutable. Isn't it rather that we have changed? The Cross or The Sacred Heart of Jesus are still themselves, are still the same, aren't they? Isn't it ourselves who can't walk over those bridges anymore?
This obviously gets into Cyclical Time and the degeneration of Man...
PS. Guenon says that rituals are Symbols enacted via motion through time....
@S-h - More exactly, ultimately the symbol and consciousness cannot be disentangled. In that there can be no symbol without a consciousness. Effective Christian symbols arose in context of (say) Roman, Dark Age or Medieval consciousness - so that the symbol had an objective effect.
There was, of course, variation and change was not instantaneous - but now, for the modern consciousness, the symbol has lost its objective power; and strikes us as highly subjective to the point of being changeable by will, practice, context - and often, what was a symbol is no longer a symbol.
From where modern man stands, it seems that the symbol was a man-made device for reaching the sacred - for example, many modern Christians acknowledge that much Christian symbology (and practice generally) arose in a known historical context, and some time (maybe a long time) after the faith began.
In the end, as symbolism declines - as churches are corrupt - it is a matter of whether or not we believe that God makes it possible for modern men to know Him directly, without symbology. Given that symbolism is failed, does God hope that we moderns will rebuild it - or is it intended by God that we establish a different basis for access to the sacred?
Christians each need to ask this question, and seek an answer they can rely upon - because the default is a faith so feeble as to make no substantive difference (which we see all around).
Thanks for the reply. I agree with you on the "big picture" and strongly with the last two paragraphs of your reply.
But, is it mechanically possible for a human intelligence to construct a valid symbol? Wouldn't the valid Symbol have to come from the higher level? How would a merely human intellect accomplish this? And do we really have any evidence that a given valid Symbol was constructed by a given human intellect? Wouldn't an Angelic (superior) Being have to provide the valid Symbol fully formed? If so, and maybe it's not so, I can't really see how it could have a negative effect.
Sorry if I am being tedious. I find Symbols fascinating.
Post a Comment