Most rational and secular Hindus would.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do Aghoris have a plausible take on Hinduism
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
:O Let's not get complicated!
@icehorse - I don't think there are any especial problems with accepting the ideals of the UDHR among Hindu populations.
Sounds like Aghoris!
Although, yeah, some aghoris. They vary. I went to a puja done by an Aghori in Varanasi a few times.
Spirit_Warrior
Active Member
I have respect for the Aghoris, although I wouldn't consider the path myself. Like with all religions and branches of religion, there are good representatives of it and bad representatives of it. Some who claim to be "Aghori" are basically social delinquents who need a spiritual excuse to engage in debauchery like all sort of immoral acts, which within the framework of Hinduism includes fortification, meat eating, vulgarity, violence, indulging in intoxicants and drugs, hedonism etc. However, there is a legitimate group as well who have genuine and noble spiritual aims, however ignoble their acts seen ---- they want to conquer their desires and material nature by indulging in the very things they desire. The standard way, which is called right hand path(RHP) is far too difficult, because it requires total abstinence from those things. In real life, it is not so easy, conquering desires is like conquering addictions and going cold turkey may work if you can stick it, but initially can be like trying to tame a storm(gita) So Aghoris take another approach. They indulge in whatever desires they have, but they indulge to the extreme. So if you desire sex, you don't just indulge it once in a while, you indulge it to the extreme. Like rampant wild orgies of pure perverted and carnal lust constantly. The principle is this, you will get out of your system far faster by doing it like this, than suppressing it. As long as you approach it as a spiritual practice(sadhana) and do it with the same enthusiasm, dedication and one pointedness as the path of just abstaining, you can get faster results(with huge karmic costs though)
Another main doctrine of Aghoris is this world is just a gravyard of the living dead. If you had x ray vision all you would see in the world is skeletons. That is what you become in the end, or rather, that is what you really are. You are already dead. So the cremation ground or the graveyard is the most sacred for Aghoris. It is where you face the true reality about life -- it is actually death. It is not something to be desired. Incarnating in this world or samsara is not something to look forward to. The Aghori reminds himself/herself of this by smearing ashes on their face and meditating upon corpses. It is also a tradition in Tibetan Buddhism, do meditate on death. We behave like while "living" that we are never going to die, we go about our lives in denial of death, don't want to talk about it "don't be so morbid" but it the only thing you can guarantee about life --- everybody is going to die. We are going to die. Death will find you no matter where you hide. This gives the Aghori a sense of urgency, every moment because it is haunted by the spectre of death is precious. They consider themselves dead from the very outset, they are dead to the world and dead to themselves --- but really this means they consider their body dead --- so the soul takes on prime importance. Hence, once initiated into the Aghori tradition, the only thing that matters is the soul and its liberation from the vicious cycle of birth and rebirth.
Another part of their philosophy is the deliberate defilement of the body. They do not consider the body a "temple" like an RHPer would. They see it is filthy, dirty and disgusting made of excrement and urine, and hence by deliberately indulging in acts like drinking urine and even eating excrement or flesh, they remind themselves over and over again how disgusting it is.
Yet another part of their doctrine is deliberately doing things that shock and disgust society. This includes indulging in every taboo society hates, including stripping naked in public, obscene language and vulgarity, sodomy --- basically everything that is considered "sinful" To the absolute extreme, even human sacrifice. The aim is to become "shameless" Shame is one of the hardest things to overcome in life. Just ask somebody who suffers from shyness and social anxiety how much it eats them. To be free from shame is almost moksha in itself. In fact CBT therapy makes use of Aghori like principles, with shame attacking exercises, deliberately doing things that cause massive embarrassment, like streaking in front of a live audience.
I agree the Aghrois take a very extreme approach, somewhat similar to Digmabara Jains, and I personally cannot go as extreme as they are, but I have taken a leaf out of their philosophy and adapted it myself, I have deliberately indulged my desires and for my sexual desire has been the most hard desire to conquer. I have engaged in sexual acts that would horrify a lot of RHPers, though modern people might just think I am "kinky" I have learned to much about sexual desires, human sexuality and the nature of desire itself by doing so. However, it has been going on for years now, to the point where I think rather me conquering it, it has become an addiction. I still think I am not practising this path correctly, and I might need to intensify it more. I can see the wisdom in why Aghoris go to the near absolute extreme. I am very far from taking it to the extreme, because I do not the courage to do so yet. I definitely draw my line at human sacrifice though.
I do not recommend the Aghori path, because it carries massive karmic costs and I know myself just how much damage I have done to myself by even practising 20% of it, but if you adopt and adapt the principles it can be another aid on your journey to moksha.
Another main doctrine of Aghoris is this world is just a gravyard of the living dead. If you had x ray vision all you would see in the world is skeletons. That is what you become in the end, or rather, that is what you really are. You are already dead. So the cremation ground or the graveyard is the most sacred for Aghoris. It is where you face the true reality about life -- it is actually death. It is not something to be desired. Incarnating in this world or samsara is not something to look forward to. The Aghori reminds himself/herself of this by smearing ashes on their face and meditating upon corpses. It is also a tradition in Tibetan Buddhism, do meditate on death. We behave like while "living" that we are never going to die, we go about our lives in denial of death, don't want to talk about it "don't be so morbid" but it the only thing you can guarantee about life --- everybody is going to die. We are going to die. Death will find you no matter where you hide. This gives the Aghori a sense of urgency, every moment because it is haunted by the spectre of death is precious. They consider themselves dead from the very outset, they are dead to the world and dead to themselves --- but really this means they consider their body dead --- so the soul takes on prime importance. Hence, once initiated into the Aghori tradition, the only thing that matters is the soul and its liberation from the vicious cycle of birth and rebirth.
Another part of their philosophy is the deliberate defilement of the body. They do not consider the body a "temple" like an RHPer would. They see it is filthy, dirty and disgusting made of excrement and urine, and hence by deliberately indulging in acts like drinking urine and even eating excrement or flesh, they remind themselves over and over again how disgusting it is.
Yet another part of their doctrine is deliberately doing things that shock and disgust society. This includes indulging in every taboo society hates, including stripping naked in public, obscene language and vulgarity, sodomy --- basically everything that is considered "sinful" To the absolute extreme, even human sacrifice. The aim is to become "shameless" Shame is one of the hardest things to overcome in life. Just ask somebody who suffers from shyness and social anxiety how much it eats them. To be free from shame is almost moksha in itself. In fact CBT therapy makes use of Aghori like principles, with shame attacking exercises, deliberately doing things that cause massive embarrassment, like streaking in front of a live audience.
I agree the Aghrois take a very extreme approach, somewhat similar to Digmabara Jains, and I personally cannot go as extreme as they are, but I have taken a leaf out of their philosophy and adapted it myself, I have deliberately indulged my desires and for my sexual desire has been the most hard desire to conquer. I have engaged in sexual acts that would horrify a lot of RHPers, though modern people might just think I am "kinky" I have learned to much about sexual desires, human sexuality and the nature of desire itself by doing so. However, it has been going on for years now, to the point where I think rather me conquering it, it has become an addiction. I still think I am not practising this path correctly, and I might need to intensify it more. I can see the wisdom in why Aghoris go to the near absolute extreme. I am very far from taking it to the extreme, because I do not the courage to do so yet. I definitely draw my line at human sacrifice though.
I do not recommend the Aghori path, because it carries massive karmic costs and I know myself just how much damage I have done to myself by even practising 20% of it, but if you adopt and adapt the principles it can be another aid on your journey to moksha.
I would say it's a passable document. For a Hindu like me it would have to be balanced by universal declaration of human duties to each other and to the world/animals/nature/ecosystem.
From an upanisadic view, the self (atman) that is in the body is also the self (brahman) that is in the world. And just as the visible bodily parts , mind and senses actualize this self (atman) within me, the self within the world (brahman) is actualized by the human community, the living biosphere and the natural world beyond. They are the same self, and one needs to take good care of both the bodies that clothe this self. Thus if the language of rights is applicable to one, it must be applicable to the other as well.
So..what rights guarantee the inviolable sanctity, safety, integrity and flourishing of the human community, the living world and the natural world? Without it, dharma is unbalanced, one-legged and liable to fall.
Spirit_Warrior
Active Member
I did not address the main OP question whether Aghori is a valid interpretation of Hinduism. Some consider it anti-Vedic, or not Hinduism. However, this is not true, it is definitely not orthodox that is for sure, but it shares exactly the same philosophy of the Vedas. Such as 1) Disgust for the body, the body being compared to a prison etc or at best just a temporal vehicle 2) The primacy of the soul, it the apparent transmigrating entity between bodies which is the most important 3) The yearning for liberation, the release from the cycle of birth and rebirth, to never be born again in this world and 4) The need for sadhana, the need to take up some sort of spiritual practice to purify the mind.
It is only on (4) that the Aghoris diverge very strongly from classical Vedic RHP paths, but in principle the Vedas are not against that path. In fact the Vedas are OK with any means you adopt to purify the mind -- so as long as you have a sadhana or a path. These are definitely not the classical yamaas and niyamas of Patanjali, in fact it is the near total inversion of them, but they are only limbs of sadhana and not absolutely necessary. Just do what works for you. Do not be afraid to experiment. A path that works a charm for another, might not work for you.
It is only on (4) that the Aghoris diverge very strongly from classical Vedic RHP paths, but in principle the Vedas are not against that path. In fact the Vedas are OK with any means you adopt to purify the mind -- so as long as you have a sadhana or a path. These are definitely not the classical yamaas and niyamas of Patanjali, in fact it is the near total inversion of them, but they are only limbs of sadhana and not absolutely necessary. Just do what works for you. Do not be afraid to experiment. A path that works a charm for another, might not work for you.
Is it fair for me to summarize your post as follows?: The UNDR should be consistent with Hinduism, but not sufficient.
If my summary is correct, then hooray!
Hoorayy!!
Spirit_Warrior
Active Member
Not really sure what this has to do with the OP. However, there is one very fundamental difference between the UDHF and Hinduism and that is the caste system. In classical Hindu philosophy, we are not born equal and therefore do not deserve the same treatments. A Brahmin thought be treated differently to a Sudra and Sudra from a Brahmin and the law should also not apply the same to them. However, this understanding changed from the middles ages with the Bhakti movement, with caste distinctions disappearing and Brahmins and Sudras coming together. However, the caste system very much remains a part of the Hindu psyche and is still relevant in modern Indian politics.
I myself challenge the UDHF that we are born with equal rights. For example a genius child, do they not deserve better schools or schools for geniuses and a disabled or challenged child, they do they not deserve schools for them? Should people with average intellect be entitled to the same opportunities that a people with higher intellect is?
Inequality is a just a fact of life. We cannot pretend it does not exist.
It's an interesting question. I'd say that everyone ought to have the opportunity for an education, and when you get to the higher levels, perhaps university level, you would need to pass a test to continue.
Spirit_Warrior
Active Member
Sure, but what does this question have to do with the topic thread "Do Aghoris have a plausible take on Hinduism" We are now discussing "Is UDHF consistent with Hinduism"? Just find it confusing how that discussion became this discussion.
Anyway, to answer your question, I think that a genius child needs a special education from early grades itself, perhaps even kindtergarden. I think our tests are sophisticated enough to recognise special talents from a very young age. This is the philosophy behind the caste system in Hinduism in theory(rather than practice) we are born with different aptitude and our aptitude needs to be assessed and we deserve different treatment based on that aptitude e.g. I do not believe people who have low intellect should be allowed further education etc It is a waste of resources on that person. It is better saving that for somebody who deserves it.
What I do believe, and it is consistent with Hinduism, is meritocracy. We should have equal assessments but different treatments based on the results of those assessments.
Last edited:
You know these threads tend to drift a bit from topic to topic. My original questions were just a general exploration of Hinduism to see if the Aghoris had a plausible interpretation of the faith. In the course of that exploration I wondering about how Hinduism relates to the UDHR.
As for meritocracies, I think they have a lot of merit
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
No, they are not. But can you give any reason that beef can be eaten and human flesh not (barring the prion disease, Kuru)? Aghoris only like to bring this before you. Yes, investigations like 'aghora' fall in the perview of Hinduim.
Beg to differ. I value 'Aghora' philosophy more than that. "Aghora' literally, by definition, means what is not extreme, what is not violent. It is our misunderstanding to brand them like that, just because a few charlatans and sadhus do these things for money.
That should have been addressed to Christians and Muslims. I think there is no religion more self-inspecting than Hinduism.
A Hindu should always side with fairness.
Well, technically whether it is urine or the finest wine, basically, all that is atoms.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I think that is 'Tantra' and not 'Aghora'.
There is nothing like that in RigVeda at least, perhaps only in the later writings, which were influenced by indigenous thought.
Just being born in a brahmin family does not make anyone a brahmin. It has been clarified many times in Hindu scriptures. In addition it involves necessary training, observance of the mores of conduct (that includes sex according to dharma) and fulfillment of the obligations of a brahmin. All people are born as Sudras. It is the samskaras which make the difference. If anyone does not do that, then the person is brahmin only in name.
Last edited:
Spirit_Warrior
Active Member
Aghora is a subset of the Tantra path.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Views. Different people will have different views. I differ with this.
I greatly admire the Aghori and their practices. I would say that they have a very real understanding, and you can trace their practices back to the Kapalikas who were even more extreme than them to the point of taking penance for crimes they did not commit (the most famous and the name-giver, the penance for killing someone in the priest caste in which they were to carry a skull as an alms bowl and sleep in the grass for a number of years).
Something a lot of people don't understand, but a proper Aghori will never harm another creature. Sure, they are cannibals and eat meat, but they get it by scavenging or begging. I am aware that there are those who are called Aghori who do things like animal sacrifice from from what I understand and was taught that is a perverted interpretation of certain scriptures. This isn't to say that I condemn animal sacrifice, just that my understanding is that that a proper Aghori should never take part in it.
Their path is legitimate because it is unfettered nondualism, not bound by either society or bias. There is no pure or impure, and such concepts can often weaken one's realization towards liberation. They are Left Hand Path (vamachara) and so they don't need to justify their practices by the Vedas. It's inherent nature is in opposition to it's injunctions.
Spirit_Warrior
Active Member
Right, but some will be right and some will be wrong: Kaula-Tantra.com - On Aghora and Aghoris
You differ with everything Aupmanyav, that's the problem. You do not accept that there are accepted conventional definitions of things. Aghora is an accepted school of the Tantra tradition.