Isnt it gret to see the true nature of everything?
What about enjoing the sunset of flower?
Seing true nature of the flower would perceive a flower as beautiful and good smelling. It would see it as a plant that grows and consists of certain cemicals.
Sunset would be just a coglomerates of water and certain lenght of the light specturm waves…
Do you really want to see only the TRUE NATURE of Everything?
What do you think?
Truth, beauty and love are the same things.
What you are perceiving to be beautiful about the flowers and sunsets is nothing more than sensory data which you have associated with beauty culturally and personally internalized. Not everybody will share your judgement that the flower or the sunset is beautiful.
Instead if you go can peer into the real essential nature(deva) of the flower or the sunset beyond the sensory data, and astral forms to the very core of being, you will find the truly beautiful.
To get even a glimpse of that beauty I would sacrifice a hundred flowers and sunsets.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32138]To get even a glimpse of that beauty I would sacrifice a hundred flowers and sunsets.[/QUOTE]
have you gotten a glimpse?
Nope, if I did, I would not be here on this forum lol
I need a master to take me there.
Interesting question… I think I’m now in “subjectivity” phase. I mean, if you see beauty of flower or sunset, this beauty is inside you. All this light and beauty you see around is in your head/heart. That this flower itself has no beauty and only through relationship with you it comes to life.
That this flower itself has no beauty and only through relationship with you it comes to life.
Does that mean that a flower in the wilderness that is never seen by a human, has no actual beauty? No value? Very similar to “if a tree falls…”
I do think one has to have that beauty inside themselves in order to recognize it in other things.
Hmm, the value of a flower.
While I might value one flower over another for the perception of beauty it provokes in me, the flower is valuable in and of itself. It is of value as an organ of the plant to which it belongs, and to the plant’s offspring.
I hope to never see only the utilitarian nature of things, and to always be available to experiences of beauty and sorrow.
[QUOTE=AbdhijaKimberly;32175]Does that mean that a flower in the wilderness that is never seen by a human, has no actual beauty? No value? Very similar to “if a tree falls…”
I do think one has to have that beauty inside themselves in order to recognize it in other things.[/QUOTE]
As I mentioned, I’m in a subjectivity phase and I think that yes, this single flower in wilderness has no actual beauty in the same sense as color and shape. But it doesn’t mean it has no value. At least I don’t want to think this way. Because then our love should also rely on beauty and that would be just evil (you would love until you see beauty and discard and damage otherwise). I’m always strongly impressed by people who show love irrespectively of beauty (either external, emotional or spiritual).
I remember I had lots of such thoughts when I looked at this painting:
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/quinten-massys-an-old-woman-the-ugly-duchess
I’m always strongly impressed by people who show love irrespectively of beauty (either external, emotional or spiritual).
This of course, is one of the most difficult things. To love someone who is “ugly” on the inside is indeed a hard thing (to me anyways!)