Jan Andrzej Kloczowski - Sacrum, The Sacred: Fascination and Doubts

THE ORIGINS OF THE SACRED

The first to tackle the problem of "the sacred" were the French sociologists, in the open?ing years of the twentieth century, encouraged by Marcel Mauss, who wrote, "Holiness is the mother-idea in religion. Myth and dogma analyse its content in their own specific ways, religious morality results from it, priests incorporate it, religious monuments bring about and consolidate its presence on earth. Religion is the administration of the sacred". The sociolo?gists needed such a concept of the sacred for other purposes than the anthropologists; they were trying to find a definition of religion that would enable them to express its function in society as "a uniform presentation of the system of beliefs and practices relating to holy matters", as Durhkeim wrote.

In 1913, almost simultaneously with the French sociologists, Natan Soederblom, a Protestant theologian and Bishop of Uppsala, who was also an outstanding expert on and theoretician of the history of religion, wrote the following memorable words in a British ency?clopaedia of religion: "Holiness is the great word in religion; it is even more essential than the notion of God." 1 Such an approach met and responded to the researchers who were convinced that the extension of our knowledge of religion through anthropological studies would require a departure from the European notion of this term as applied to a personal God. It appeared that such a concept did not correspond to the situation in many religions: there are religious traditions in which there is no notion of a personal God, such as Buddhism, Jainism, or Taoism. In order to open up these fields of religious reality it was nec?essary to find a key that was different from the categories suggested by the religious tradi?tions best known to Europeans. The magic word "sacred" was to become such a key.

But at the same time the object was to discover a key that would enable the opening up of the most essential dimensions of the religious view of the world. It was a question of the great challenge posed in religious studies by reductionism, that is the search for an expla?nation of religion through the identification of a reality that was more elementary (accord?ing to the reductionists) - like the sub-conscious in Freud's theory or class warfare in Marxist doctrine. "The sacred" was summoned up to preserve the nondegenerativeness of religion and its existential autonomy; in other words the definition of religion in terms of man's rela?tion of the sacred was to provide certainty of the real existence of religion (Leszek Kotakowski).

Thus the expression we are interested in appeared in the early twentieth century in aca?demic literature on religion but, significantly, in diverse contexts. Soederblom wanted to emphasise the non-degenerative value of religion, which could not be identified with any other field of culture since religion had its own specific subject ("the sacred") towards which it oriented man. On the other hand the French school of sociology wanted to distinguish reli?gion as a special field within which social ties were realised. Soederblom was interested mainly in the refutation of reductionism; whereas the sociological hypothesis on the specific nature of religion merely indicated the functional distinction of the religious bond from any other bond. But this was not the same as recognising religion as a distinct field in its own right.

But even in the field of pure religious studies (not just sociology) the term "the sacred" was introduced for two different reasons: one group tried to get rid of a term that was uncomfortable or (as they believed) failed to explain anything, "a personal God", while oth?ers were more interested in disproving reductionism, which had lost the very essence of reli?gion.

Rudolf Otto's book, Das Heilige 2, was of special significance in the consolidation of the position of "the sacred" among the categories in religious studies. On the basis of an enor?mous body of comparative material, he described religion as the domain of the revelation of the enigmatic power of God's "numinousness" (numinosum), a power that arouses in man a paradoxical reaction of simultaneous fascination and fear (mysterium fascinosum and mysterium tremendum). Religion, according to Otto, was not a field of knowledge or hypotheses but a sphere in which man met the enigmatic Reality which could be perceived through emotional experience.

SACRUM AS THE SACRED EXISTENCE (MIRCEA ELIADE)

From among the many researchers writing about and explaining religion I am choosing Eliade because he has done most to develop "sacralogical" studies, on the basis of research into the archaic forms of the religion that is called "cosmic".

The religious image of the world of archaic man is built on the opposition of the sacred to the profane. This is not just a contrast between two opposites, it reaches much deeper, to the opposition of existence to non-existence. At the archaic level of culture the understand?ing of existence is strictly connected with the sacred: only what is sacred is real. Eliade is in favour of an extension of the basic religious category in such a way as not to limit it to the idea of God: "Religion may become a useful word providing we realise that it need not nec?essarily refer to a belief in God, gods or spirits, but to an experience of the sacred and hence to the idea of existence, sense, and truth." 3 This text is important in that in spite of the opinions of diverse researchers Eliade thinks that sacrum is a name for the reality towards which the religious man is oriented and that it is this tendency that constitutes his religious nature. Eliade explains, "The fact that religious man wishes to live in the sacred is actually as important as the fact that he wishes to locate himself within objective reality, that he strives against the incapacitating force of the infinite relativity of purely subjective experiences, that he wants to live in a real and fruitful world, not in deception." 4

The existence of the sacred for man has an existential meaning when he has the means of establishing contact with the sacred Reality. This is possible through participation in ritual, through which man transcends the historical time which is the setting for his life, passing into a time that is simultaneously sacred and archetypal, in which the gods live and work and from which all things take their beginning. To be, or to exist in reality, is possible only when one knows the way leading to the sources of being, since only they allow man to regener?ate his energy and to renew the world. The world emerged out of chaos, and the condition for its continuing existence is the cosmic order, which must be renewed periodically ?hence participation in ritual strengthens existence and hence contact with the gods must be established through ritual. The opposition between the sacred and the profane is not an opposition between two kinds of reality, rather it is an opposition between two methods used by man to make real his existence - the religious approach, which has its own sense of applicability, since it is invigorated by an awareness of participation in universal order; and the secular, "chaotic", approach, which has no sense and hence ultimately no existence either.

THE SACRED OR HOLINESS?

However, the argument over the sacred was conducted not only by the researchers into religion, but also became a subject for debate by the philosophers. I would like to say a few words about the difference of opinion on this matter between Heidegger and Levinas, not only because of the importance of the names themselves, but primarily because their con?tention is a remarkably distinct presentation of the essential points of the whole matter.

It would probably be no exaggeration to call Heidegger "the philosopher of the pagan sacrum". 5 He follows Nietzsche in the conviction that the most penetrating insight into the reality of the world is provided by art. That is why for Heidegger the most profound source of philosophical inspiration was, alongside the ideas of the Pre-Socratics, poetry, and most of all Holderlin. I will dwell for a moment on his description of a Greek temple from Das Wesen des Kunstwerks. 6

The temple stands on an extensive plateau, beneath the azure firmament. It is all for itself - it does not imitate anything, it does not represent anything, but at the same time it is not solely for itself. Hidden within it is the figure of the god, and the temple is his dwelling place. Each and every, even the smallest, part of the temple expresses this dwelling. The temple contains the god within itself, but at the same time it is open to the surrounding world, and it might well be said that through the open colonnade the god comes forth to his people. Those exits and entrances make Greek life connected with the temple; it is from here that every inhabitant of the valley draws his life. This presence encompasses the whole of the life of the Greeks, birth and death, blessing and curse, failures and successes, joy and defeat. The entire Greek world is enclosed in the temple. It is a genuine work of art, but at the same time it is something that is much greater. Truth is an opening out, and it is the temple that gives rise to this opening out onto the essence of truth.

This sounds somewhat enigmatic: what is it that the work of art opens out onto for us, what does it reveal? It does so in two ways: through the presentation (in the sense of making aware, making present) of "the world", and through the revelation of the earth.

Let us decipher the meaning of these concepts. "The world" in Heidegger's philosophy means the spiritual atmosphere of the age, and the cultural, social and political currents pervading a given period in the history of man. When we read in this text that the temple (a work of art) presents "the world" to us, this means that it opens us up to the greatness, digni?ty and sanctity of the world in a given age. In the temple the truth of the world is fulfilled and accomplished. This is brought about by the presentation of the divinity. What does this mean?

We ask - for this is what is of interest to us now - what is the relation, in the Heideggerian sense, between the sacred (das Heilige) and divinity. In the famous "Brief von dem Humanismus" we find and interesting excerpt: "It is only thanks to the truth of existence that the nature of sanctity (holiness) may be conceived of. It is only from the nature of sanctity that the nature of divinity may be conceived of. It is only in the light of the nature of divinity that we may conceive of and express what the word `God' endeavours to show." ~ Holiness is thus connected in an enigmatic way with the most profound level of reality, while the gods merely announce holiness, and their divine nature is divine only because it heralds holiness.

Heidegger's ideas - not merely this one - have given rise to a fundamental debate: is he a philosopher that has opened up a way back to the most fundamental dimension of phi?losophy, or is he a thinker that has revived the wisdom of the ancient pagans, banished from European culture by Judaeo-Christian monotheism?

The adherents of this interpretative trend (such as Alain de Benoist) 8 say that the sacred allows of the deepest insight into the mystery of existence, revealing the most profound abysses of reality. To prove its validity a quote is referred to from Heidegger's treatise on poetry: Holderlin describes the nature of the sacred, since it is older than time and above the gods... Holiness is not one of the qualities ascribed to a definite God. The sacred is not sacrum because it is divinum: quite the opposite is true - it is thanks to the sacred that the divine is divinum." 9 Let us note this significant reversal of the order we are accustomed to: the sacred is more important than the divine, than divinity (God), and nearer to the truth of existence.

Heidegger's idea found an emphatic opponent in Levinas. This is distinctly visible in Levinas' treatment of the relation between the sacred and divinity, in which he deliberately refers to another Mediterranean tradition, Biblical thought. The foundation here is the doctrine of the transcendent God, Creator of heaven and earth. This is in radical opposition to Heraclitus, for whom the world is "full of gods". The world with respect to which and in which we are has been created by God and is a secular world, not a sacred world. We read in one of Levinas's texts, "Here is the age-old, enticing power of paganism, reaching far beyond the long since conquered infantile idolatry. The sacred pervading the world ?Judaism is perhaps the contradiction precisely of this. To destroy the sacred groves - we now understand the purity of this apparent vandalism. The mystery of the matter is the source of all cruelty to humans." 10

Levinas writes in a different way to Heidegger about man, too. The basic category which Heidegger uses to describe man is the category of inhabitation. To be is to inhabit, building a home under the eye of the Divine Beings in Heaven. For Levinas the fundamental catego?ry is being with Another, the relation to Another, prior to man's relation to the world and more important for him. I establish a bond with God when I open up to my neighbour, espe?cially the one who is most defenceless. That is why Levinas proclaims "holiness" as opposed to the religiously sacred. In this he is faithful to Biblical tradition - and he stresses it deliber?ately - which depicts man listening to the Word, rather than man looking for signs.

SO IN THE END, HOW IS IT REALLY?

I have given a brief account of the debate about the sacred, but I know I can't just finish there since I would be leaving the justifiable curiosity of my readers unrequited. It seems to me that we have to move out beyond the geography of the contention as it has delineated, since any solution based purely on the sacred/profane dichotomy would not really be fully satisfactory. I would agree with Heidegger on this point, but only on this one, for suggesting that there should be another term introduced, divinity (divinum). But the mutual relationship of these terms requires rearrangement. If we study the religious traditions springing from the Abrahamic roots (viz. Judaism, Christianity and Islam), we shall be obliged to accept a tri?partite arrangement, divinum (Dens) - sacrum - profanum. God reveals Himself in the world and speaks to man through man's history. He addresses him by means of messages through the prophets, but he also speaks through nature and through the whole of creation, whose Lord and Maker He is. So when I use the work sacrum what I mean is that applying this word I am describing the properties of all that stands between man and God and what constitutes the sphere of revelation mediation. The sacred is theophanic; it reveals God. The world belongs to God, but it is not divine; it is full of divine symbols, since God wished to speak to man through this world. Paradoxically speaking, the world is secular because it is God's. That is why in this secular world man is to look out for the signs of God's Presence, like Moses when he saw the Presence in the Burning Bush and full of reverent worship took off his san?dals (Gen. 3;5). Biblical man experiences the presence of tire Living God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in other words the God speaking in and through history.

This is not the God (god?) of the coppice or of the country road, as written about by Heidegger; this is God speaking the language of ethical obligation, "Be faithful, go forth!" It is the God who in these latter days has come to live among us in the Word and in the Sacraments. The outstanding modern theologian, Father Yves Congar, has written aptly that for the Christian there is only one sacrum, the humanity of Jesus Christ. This is a profound truth. The humanity of the Son of God is the most meaningful and ultimate theophany, the fullest revelation and presentation of God. The Church is an extension of the Incarnation, since she proclaims Christ and through the power of the Holy Spirit administers the sacra?ments of salvation. That is the sense of Christian worship, the expression of the personal and collective bond with the beloved God, with the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. Hence the position in Christianity of the sacred, which relates to the administration of the sacramental signs of the Lord's Presence - and nothing else.

What is the conclusion from this? I propose we stop using this term in the substantive form (sacrum, the sacred), and instead use the adjective "sacred", to express ideas like "this building is sacred" and that the music we are just listening to manifests God to us. The sub?stantive usage is unnecessary and likely to induce error, since it creates the impression that there is some thing that corresponds to the idea in reality and that there is some self-existent reality to which this word is supposed to refer. But in effect it is quite the opposite: the sacred is what refers us to God through things.

So when we talk about the links between culture and Transcendence, let's just talk of the religious element in art or literature. I strongly recommend this, since there is a new type of bunkum being bandied about, in which the poor term sacrum is being given the full works.

Let's not leave ourselves liable to be suspected of using the word sacrum because we are ashamed simply to say "God". In a book by an American thinker I came across an excellent comparison. 11 The term sacrum, so often used vicariously, is reminiscent of the mangy old circus lion that is shown off in the ring to arouse something like an atavistic fear in the audience, which at the same time knows it is perfectly safe. Such a lion is no threat at all, unlike the one roaming the jungle. But the Living God is still a young and dangerous predator.

This is an extended version of the text that appeared in the Catalogue to the "Sacrum" Triennale of the Visual Arts, Czenstochowa, 1987.

1  The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. J. Hastings, London, 1913, Vol. VI, p. 731

2  Rudolf Otto, Das Heilige, Breslau, 1917

3  Traktat o historii religii, Warszawa 1966, s. 30

4  Op. cit., s. 454

5  Sacrum, not holiness, since this is the term used by Heidegger, the same one as Rudolf Otto uses in Das Heilige.

6  This essay is to be found in the volume entitled Holzwege, Frankfurt, 1956.

7  "Der Brief von dem Humanismus", in: Martin Heidegger, Bauen-wohnen-denken.

8  Alain Benoist, Thomas Molnar, L'eclipse du sacra. Discours - Reponses, Paris, 1986.

9  Martin Heidegger, Was bringf ein Poet.

10  Emanuel Levinas, Heidegger, Gagarin and wir, in; Schwierige Freiheit, Essays fiber Judaismus.

11  Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind, Chicago, 1987.