The Aghori: Taboo, Transendence, and Culture / Do Right and Wrong Exist?

[!!4iV4HF9R34g]

When you think of an ascetic or a monk, what do you see? An aged Asian in robes? Maybe a hermit or recluse focused on the esoteric in a cave? Typically though, nobody imagines an impoverished necro-cannibal living in a cemetary.

But that's the spitting image of an adherent to the ideas of Aghori tradition.
They wear no clothes, or only the rags and death shrouds of corpses. Their begging bowl ought to be a skull. Their hair is unkempt. They are not vegetarian. They are not even liked by many other Hindu practitioners..

Still, the ideology behind these veritably strange practices boils down to embracing transendence, accomplished through the passing through of societal and religious norms.
In this thought system, all that is incarnate is perfect. How could it not be, when all that is, Is?
The idea goes like this: when you focus on what is considered holy, you create a distinction that allows for the unholy to exist. Which is an illusion along the lines of duality.
So by, instead, embracing that which is taboo or unclean, you are making null the original distinction developed in you by culture. You are breaking down internal barriers to your absolute consciousness.

The ideology refutes the existence of morality, and all separation. It is exampled by practitioners how a baby is indiscriminate and will play just as soon with filth as with toys; how as the child grows and becomes ingrained with their society's beliefs and culture, they develop distinctions between supposed right and wrong.

Essentialy, the Aghori employ these taboo-breaking techniques like cannibalism, ritual copraphagy, and extreme asceticism in degenerative conditions as a means to realize and destroy barriers within themselves to seeing the entirety of life as pure.


I find myself having a lot in common with these ideas.
Do you think that societal norms and cultural expectations have a beneficial or detrimental effect on development and finding one's unique truth?
Are taboos in place for a greater physical good than their absence would benefit free thinking philosophy and spiritualism?
Where is the line drawn between for the good of the person and the good of the group?
Finally, is there an objective distinction between good and evil?

 

[panic in paradise]

there is a moral distinction between good and evil.

the concept of a "corpse field" came from Buddhism, where they would observe death, the decay of a corpse, and discover life, and its relation to them. you can not be shocked by what you also are, but the fear brought from the shock of the unknown is enough to divert from the self seen for the first time.

what you said about children is interesting, yes they do some nasty stuff with out knowing any better, but they can be aware of more then we are, by not shutting off what they are perceiving with their cultures reasoning; considering past life recollection or seeing things like relatives they had no way of knowing the description of.

 

[!!4iV4HF9R34g]

What is morality, where does it come from? And how can morality be applied cross-culturally when norms and values vary so widely?



Moreover, the thread was intended to stimulate the discussion of societal expectations and their effects.

 

[panic in paradise]

i think its funny, kind of, and a bit telling, how similar moral and mortal sound and are spelled.

 

[!!4iV4HF9R34g]

Dude, what? Hahaha...

 

[panic in paradise]

morals are a human intellectual condition, animals dont have morals because they dont have the intellect we do, they dont need them.

morality cant be applied cross-culturally, because of the variety of cultural norms and values as you posted, but a stronger sense of global ethics, through acceptance of other cultures, no matter how foreign they are to us would have a great impact.

 

[!!4iV4HF9R34g]

But based on whose intellect? I have seen people in the same household carry entirely divergent sets of values. The morality of the Middle East allows for Jihad and terror attacks because they're fighting for their god. They fully believe that what they're doing is a holy and just cause. But we in America don't see it that way, because they're morals (to us) or outdated and stuck.
Hell, even on a less extreme scale, the morality of buddhists and christians are so different, despite their end goal being approximately the same thing in an esoteric not religious sense.
I just can't see how amorality isn't the fitting answer. That's the way nature works, so that's what works for me.

 

[panic in paradise]

I think about this a lot, and have my opinion on how the Muslim religion became so violent, as well as Christianity, and the odds between them too.

The morals acted out and presented to me my whole life by the general christian population in the USA, has been what has kept myself and others from away from Christianity. IMO often the charitable kind feeling christian isnt motivated to do an act of kindness and charity because they feel it is the "humane thing to do", personally, but, because they feel it is the "christian thing to do" collectively. This is not a true sense of compassion.

 

[!!4iV4HF9R34g]

We agree on that one. I was just talking with my dad about that, in fact. Because of the coverage on 9/11.
Don't get me wrong, loss of life is loss of life. But it honestly is appalling to me how people react.
Did anyone see the History documentary called "102 Minutes that Changed the World"?
Well, during the attack, there were people talking to cameras all over. This one guy was talking about how he wanted to go to war, and I quote, "Kill all those middle eastern bastards. All of them!"
Another man wanted them to be caused the same pain they caused others.

It's amazing to me... In a terrible way.

Compassion isn't something you just turn on when it's fitting, or that you only have for certain people.

 

[panic in paradise]

Compassion isn't something you just turn on when it's fitting, or that you only have for certain people.
Compassion for humanity is not being outraged over a terrorist attack and being cocksure about going to war for revenge.
Compassion is not wanting to hurt somebody. Ever. Period. Violence is not compassionate.

these are differences between compassion and passion. passion turns into chaos, which love can be, but compassion also involves mindfulness. thinking with the heart as compared the gut.

 

[DeathDomokun]

Okay, so somebody is in immense pain and they're incapable of killing themselves but want to die, and want you to kill them. It's not compassionate to kill them?
There is a dungeon/chamber full of people chained up, being tortured and abused. It's not compassionate to harm the abuser in order to free the prisoners?
Who the fuck are you to decide what is compassionate? Compassion is subjective. Your sense of right/wrong, of good/bad, of righteous/evil, that is yours. There is no such thing as objective compassion.
In fact, I'd say compassion is completely removed to western societies 'general morals'
Compassion is about the outcome of an action, compassion is about doing good.
Morals are about intention, morals are about making yourself feel good.
That's how I see it, at least.

 

[panic in paradise]

^ i take it you havent been in a situation presented as hopeless, as in lethal in many ways due to nothing at your own cause.
(ive been told by drs i was going to die in more ways then i can remember in the last few years due to nothing at my own cause)

from true compassion, as in seeing the relation of my life, in the life of all else, i lived.

but, it took a different point-of-view then any i was offered.

 

[panic in paradise]

i never knew darhma and karma as true until i was meet with this.

life isnt fair, get over it.

 

[!!4iV4HF9R34g]

Domokun, I agree, which is why I had edited that last portion out of my response (even though our lovely PiP here decided it was better that I don't have control over what is said by my profile).

 

[panic in paradise]

... There is no such thing as objective compassion.

In fact, I'd say compassion is completely removed to western societies 'general morals'
Compassion is about the outcome of an action, compassion is about doing good.
Morals are about intention, morals are about making yourself feel good.
That's how I see it, at least.

i would say that morals are what you do not do, because you feel it is wrong, and against what you personally stand for.

compassion to me is about, not empathy, but a relation that comes from an honest understanding. there is no personal pleasure involved in this. passion and empathy are emotions which in turn dictate thought, compassion is a state of being, because it takes no thought.

 

[Zopiclone bandit]

When you think of an ascetic or a monk, what do you see? An aged Asian in robes? Maybe a hermit or recluse focused on the esoteric in a cave? Typically though, nobody imagines an impoverished necro-cannibal living in a cemetary.

But that's the spitting image of an adherent to the ideas of Aghori tradition.
They wear no clothes, or only the rags and death shrouds of corpses. Their begging bowl ought to be a skull. Their hair is unkempt. They are not vegetarian. They are not even liked by many other Hindu practitioners..

Still, the ideology behind these veritably strange practices boils down to embracing transendence, accomplished through the passing through of societal and religious norms.
In this thought system, all that is incarnate is perfect. How could it not be, when all that is, Is?
The idea goes like this: when you focus on what is considered holy, you create a distinction that allows for the unholy to exist. Which is an illusion along the lines of duality.
So by, instead, embracing that which is taboo or unclean, you are making null the original distinction developed in you by culture. You are breaking down internal barriers to your absolute consciousness.

The ideology refutes the existence of morality, and all separation. It is exampled by practitioners how a baby is indiscriminate and will play just as soon with filth as with toys; how as the child grows and becomes ingrained with their society's beliefs and culture, they develop distinctions between supposed right and wrong.

Essentialy, the Aghori employ these taboo-breaking techniques like cannibalism, ritual copraphagy, and extreme asceticism in degenerative conditions as a means to realize and destroy barriers within themselves to seeing the entirety of life as pure.


I find myself having a lot in common with these ideas.
Do you think that societal norms and cultural expectations have a beneficial or detrimental effect on development and finding one's unique truth?
Are taboos in place for a greater physical good than their absence would benefit free thinking philosophy and spiritualism?
Where is the line drawn between for the good of the person and the good of the group?
Finally, is there an objective distinction between good and evil?

My Guru-Ji is Aghori, his Guru was Datta Ram from Baba Keenaram Ashram.

"Essentialy, the Aghori employ these taboo-breaking techniques like cannibalism, ritual copraphagy, and extreme asceticism in degenerative conditions as a means to realize and destroy barriers within themselves to seeing the entirety of life as pure."

Jai Aghor.

 

[Zopiclone bandit]

But that's the spitting image of an adherent to the ideas of Aghori tradition.

I'd read upon Aghoreshwar Bhagwan Ramji

 

[Zopiclone bandit]

When you think of an ascetic or a monk, what do you see? An aged Asian in robes? Maybe a hermit or recluse focused on the esoteric in a cave? Typically though, nobody imagines an impoverished necro-cannibal living in a cemetary.

But that's the spitting image of an adherent to the ideas of Aghori tradition.
They wear no clothes, or only the rags and death shrouds of corpses. Their begging bowl ought to be a skull. Their hair is unkempt. They are not vegetarian. They are not even liked by many other Hindu practitioners..

Still, the ideology behind these veritably strange practices boils down to embracing transendence, accomplished through the passing through of societal and religious norms.
In this thought system, all that is incarnate is perfect. How could it not be, when all that is, Is?
The idea goes like this: when you focus on what is considered holy, you create a distinction that allows for the unholy to exist. Which is an illusion along the lines of duality.
So by, instead, embracing that which is taboo or unclean, you are making null the original distinction developed in you by culture. You are breaking down internal barriers to your absolute consciousness.

The ideology refutes the existence of morality, and all separation. It is exampled by practitioners how a baby is indiscriminate and will play just as soon with filth as with toys; how as the child grows and becomes ingrained with their society's beliefs and culture, they develop distinctions between supposed right and wrong.

Essentialy, the Aghori employ these taboo-breaking techniques like cannibalism, ritual copraphagy, and extreme asceticism in degenerative conditions as a means to realize and destroy barriers within themselves to seeing the entirety of life as pure.


I find myself having a lot in common with these ideas.
Do you think that societal norms and cultural expectations have a beneficial or detrimental effect on development and finding one's unique truth?
Are taboos in place for a greater physical good than their absence would benefit free thinking philosophy and spiritualism?
Where is the line drawn between for the good of the person and the good of the group?
Finally, is there an objective distinction between good and evil?

This is also what Aghori get upto.