Philosophical and Religious Claims on Sacred

The Sacred and Profane, by Mircea Eliade, and its first two chapters illustrate symbolism in almost everything. This comes from a religious and a philosophical place that aims to explain what is sacred versus what is not. I would argue that this exemplifies a dualist perspective. I read another text Freshman year which I cannot remember because that was years ago which made claims about animals, food, and places. Certain animals were considered sacred depending on what they ate. Places like the sky would be considered light while the ground was considered dark. These dualist perspectives are important for the basics of a religion and what people can agree upon. In The Sacred and Profane though it is noted that religious people rely on these symbols and that they do not just merely exist. A temple is seen as place that reaches into heaven but also functions as a place for worship; connective tissue for man and God. The temple and other places like cosmic mountains do this by being the 'center' (Eliade 40). They are thought to be the middle of the Earth, I think, to function as a place for religious people to be centered with the cosmos. It makes sense that Jerusalem would be considered the center of the world on the basis of that- religious groups exist there with their respective temples and monuments that exist to bring people in center with the cosmos. What I found most interesting is the connection between a human's birth and growth in comparison with the universe. The universe started out small and then went outwards. Like a universe we start out as a small embryo and grow into a full human being (Eliade 44). I think it is a bit reaching, but interesting to see connections between us and something so much larger; a very naturalistic viewpoint. We may find ourselves to be complex beings, but we are so similar to everything else.