A return to the beginning affords an opportunity to change what has gone wrong and thus try and regain orientation and meaning trough naturalistic processes (sacred) oppose to an objective supernatural reality (profane).
In the book The Sacred and the Profane written by Mircea Eliade, the author notes that the sacred space is always considered the “really” real part of the universe, while non-sacred space is ambiguous and without structure (20). And therefore, the sacred is the solid, fixed point from which all else is oriented, while the non-sacred is a formless expanse without essence. And profane space is characterized by chaos and homogeneity and relativity (22) while sacred space is ordered and distinct and moral.
Based on the author’s argument, the profane space is unlivable, meaning it does not provide a context where anything can be accomplished, according to Eliade’s argument, “Nothing can begin, nothing can be done, without a previous orientation – and any orientation implies a fixed point” (22). Therefore no man can live without religion, “the man who has made his choice in favor of a profane life never succeeds in completely doing away with religious behavior” (23). He …show more content…
If profane can be described as reality, mankind would not have the necessary foundation to construct a “sacred” reality. The idea that religions, and the sacred spaces that are an essential part of their observance. Eliade notes that the building of a sacred space is not a work of man meaning that man designed it or consecrated it through his own will or effort. Rather, sacred spaces are built on the model of the gods. In building a sacred place, man is emulated the creation of the world by the divine. This act is motivated by a desire to “take up his bode in objective reality” (28) and escape the illusion and relativity of profane
In the book The Sacred and the Profane written by Mircea Eliade, the author notes that the sacred space is always considered the “really” real part of the universe, while non-sacred space is ambiguous and without structure (20). And therefore, the sacred is the solid, fixed point from which all else is oriented, while the non-sacred is a formless expanse without essence. And profane space is characterized by chaos and homogeneity and relativity (22) while sacred space is ordered and distinct and moral.
Based on the author’s argument, the profane space is unlivable, meaning it does not provide a context where anything can be accomplished, according to Eliade’s argument, “Nothing can begin, nothing can be done, without a previous orientation – and any orientation implies a fixed point” (22). Therefore no man can live without religion, “the man who has made his choice in favor of a profane life never succeeds in completely doing away with religious behavior” (23). He …show more content…
If profane can be described as reality, mankind would not have the necessary foundation to construct a “sacred” reality. The idea that religions, and the sacred spaces that are an essential part of their observance. Eliade notes that the building of a sacred space is not a work of man meaning that man designed it or consecrated it through his own will or effort. Rather, sacred spaces are built on the model of the gods. In building a sacred place, man is emulated the creation of the world by the divine. This act is motivated by a desire to “take up his bode in objective reality” (28) and escape the illusion and relativity of profane