Do Aghoris have a plausible take on Hinduism

[icehorse]

A rare and small group of Hindus, called Aghoris are in the news - apparently they are cannbals, and do other very unusual things.

My question is this: Can the Aghori interpretation of Hinduism be considered a plausible one? Is there Hindu scripture they can cite to support their beliefs and practices?

 

[Chakra]

Considering that there are no aghoris on this forum and are not considered "authentic" Saivism by many Hindus, the answers given to you will undoubtedly be biased.

Aghori philosophy is an adulteration of Advaita while taking key concepts from early Saivism. AFAIK, while Saiva Siddhantins and Aghoris are both monists, the former are a lot more sensible in their approach to connecting with Shiva.

But that is my opinion. A single text will have over 12 interpretations (even polarly opposing beliefs) due to the general poetic nature of the Upanishads and of Sanskrit. An Aghori can very well try to defend his beliefs from the Upanishads and Vedas, but that wouldn't legitimize his path.

 

[Fool]

A rare and small group of Hindus, called Aghoris are in the news - apparently they are cannbals, and do other very unusual things.

My question is this: Can the Aghori interpretation of Hinduism be considered a plausible one? Is there Hindu scripture they can cite to support their beliefs and practices?

sounds like the nicolaitans gnostics. the focus is solely on the negative aspects of shiva; which is possible but not positive

all data is open to interpretation and most ideas are like rorschach tests to the observer

 

[Vinayaka]

There are fringes in all religions. There are also extreme fringes. So too are there Aghoris, and extreme Aghoris. The end of the documentary focused on the 'ordinary aghoris' if that makes any sense.

 

[icehorse]

An Aghori can very well try to defend his beliefs from the Upanishads and Vedas, but that wouldn't legitimize his path.

I was torn about whether this should be a religious debate or a philosophical one. That said, I think that ISIS can claim they hold a plausible interpretation of Islam.

So I think the word "legitimize" is really interesting in this context. Who exactly is doing the legitimizing? It strikes me that any religious group that doesn't have some sort of central authority can't reasonably claim to legitimize or de-legitimize anything. This seems like a eating your cake and having it too sort of stance.

 

[Chakra]

I was torn about whether this should be a religious debate or a philosophical one. That said, I think that ISIS can claim they hold a plausible interpretation of Islam.

So I think the word "legitimize" is really interesting in this context. Who exactly is doing the legitimizing? It strikes me that any religious group that doesn't have some sort of central authority can't reasonably claim to legitimize or de-legitimize anything. This seems like a eating your cake and having it too sort of stance.

As Kirran told you in the Hindu thread, there is no central authority that can dictate legitimization. Let me clarify more on what I said.

Most Hindus would agree that the most important texts, the Shruti, has one main interpretation (ie, the correct one). We don't exactly agree on this main interpretation, and neither can we come to a clear consensus. That is the nature of a pluralistic religion.

An Aghori can try to legitimize his tradition using these texts, just like any other belief system. As I stated in my first sentence, my answer is biased based on what I know about Vedanta and Saivism.

 

[Vinayaka]

Philosophically, my branch of Saivism is very close to the Aghoris, and in many ways they are quite admirable, mostly for how tough it would be to be one. (extreme renunciation) They're also demonstrative of the vastness within Hinduism, and how some sects put far less emphasis on the Vedas than they do on more tantric scriptures like the agamas.

Certainly, they're not attention seekers, and avoid crowds or intermingling with regular folk. They have their own Guru lineages.

The substantial difference between Saiva Siddhanta in the south and the Aghori Saiva ascetics is in the interpretation of how to practice. It would be fascinating for me to sit with them.

Just to be clear here, my problem isn't with Aghoris, but its with using them to insinuate consciously or otherwise that this is mainstream Hinduism.

 

[icehorse]

That is the nature of a pluralistic religion.

I think I'm pretty up front about being quite skeptical concerning religion. FWIW, I'm less concerned with Hinduism than I am with Christianity or Islam.

Would you say that the consensus amongst Hindus is to support the Universal Declaration on Human Rights?

 

[Chakra]

Would you say that the consensus amongst Hindus is to support the Universal Declaration on Human Rights?

I can't possibly say yes or no to this question, but if it means anything, India (80% Hindu majority) has approved of it.

 

[icehorse]

Just to be clear here, my problem isn't with Aghoris, but its with using them to insinuate consciously or otherwise that this is mainstream Hinduism.

Understandable. On the other hand, I think it's important for the religious to be honest and aware of the dangers inherent in too much dependence on scripture.

 

[icehorse]

I can't possibly say yes or no to this question, but if it means anything, India (80% Hindu majority) has approved of it.

Earlier you said:

Most Hindus would agree that the most important texts, the Shruti, has one main interpretation (ie, the correct one).

Could you use your same "main interpretation" stance to discuss the UDHR?

 

[Kirran]

Honestly, scripture or whatever probably doesn't feature much or at all in their understanding. That's fine. For many people more into experiential spirituality, which would include both myself and the Aghoris, scriptures are something you go to to inform you rather than something which you define anything by per se.

There is no 'Hinduism' for their take to be 'of', really, but they would be classified within that general umbrella, sure.

 

[Vinayaka]

Understandable. On the other hand, I think it's important for the religious to be honest and aware of the dangers inherent in too much dependence on scripture.

Hinduism, in general, isn't at all dependent on scripture in the same way Abrahamic faiths are. Meditation, the temples themselves and the bhakti there, as well as Gurus and living holy men and women are also places where Hindus get their philosophy. Yes there are some Hindus that have what I would personally call an over-dependence on scriptures. They're recognisable in all faiths, because most conversations go ... "Well let's see what (insert scripture here) says about that." It leads one to believe that they can't think for themselves.

The Aghoris seem all about practice. Many village Hindus haven't read one iota of scripture.

 

[icehorse]

Hinduism, in general, isn't at all dependent on scripture in the same way Abrahamic faiths are. Meditation, the temples themselves and the bhakti there, as well as Gurus and living holy men and women are also places where Hindus get their philosophy. Yes there are some Hindus that have what I would personally call an over-dependence on scriptures. They recognisable in all faiths, because most conversations go ... "Well let's see what (insert scripture here) says about that. It leads one to believe that they can't think for themselves.

The Aghoris seem all about practice. Many village Hindus haven't read one iota of scripture.

Which helps explain why I'm not too worried about Hinduism. BTW, I'm a big fan of meditation.

 

[Vinayaka]

Which helps explain why I'm not too worried about Hinduism. BTW, I'm a big fan of meditation.

Thanks for being aware of the differences between paradigms. Lots of people can't see it. So there is irony. There is even a difference between paradigms about the very difference in paradigm. (In general the East sees a huge difference, and the West doesn't.)

 

[Kirran]

Thanks for being aware of the differences between paradigms. Lots of people can't see it. So there is irony. There is even a difference between paradigms about the very difference in paradigm. (In general the East sees a huge difference, and the West doesn't.)

It's interesting, because paradigms more in line with "Eastern" thought can be found in the "Western faiths" and vice versa, it's just about who dominates the narratives really.

 

[Chakra]

Could you use your same "main interpretation" stance to discuss the UDHR?

I don't understand. Shruti texts deal with religious, theological, and philosophical subjects, not social nor legal. Can you rephrase your question?

 

[Kirran]

I don't understand. Shruti texts deal with religious, theological, and philosophical subjects, not social nor legal. Can you rephrase your question?

This is a common conception that I find, that scriptures must necessarily be legalistic and prescriptive in nature. All the texts in Indian traditions which I hold in high regard are spiritual in nature! (Bhagavad Gita, Ashtavakra Gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, the writings of various saints etc)

 

[icehorse]

I don't understand. Shruti texts deal with religious, theological, and philosophical subjects, not social nor legal. Can you rephrase your question?

I would say that the UDHR is largely a philosophical document. So let me ask, do Hindus tend to agree with the philosophy that is foundational in the UDHR?

 

[Vinayaka]

It's interesting, because paradigms more in line with "Eastern" thought can be found in the "Western faiths" and vice versa, it's just about who dominates the narratives really.

Yes there are always exceptions, and more than 2 paradigms.