Buddhist criticism of beauty

[Angelo D]

It seems the buddhist perspective is that the perception of beauty is a defilement based on delusion. Certainly this is not a commonly held opinion amongst most non-buddhist truth-seekers, who tend to see the perception of beauty as a high-consciousness thing. What it the proper conception of beauty? Is it fair to say appreciation is of higher-consciousness than the perception of beauty?

[The Lucid Dreamer]

Find out for yourself.  Tear away the shroud of the ego, and see what is left. 

[Consilience]

Never understood this one. The more I meditate the more beautiful everything becomes... was not my intention when I began the practice. 

[Johnny5]

You'll find countless more apparent paradoxes like that when you insist on reconciling the dream with truth.

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Angelo D said:

the buddhist perspective is that the perception of beauty is a defilement based on delusion.

Source???

This is a misunderstanding of Buddhism.

[Gesundheit]

I'm not a Buddhist, but yes, beauty is actually delusion related to survival, and survival is related to the ego, so yeah it makes sense.

[Angelo D]

Okay, I found this quote from another source which seems to clear up the confusion for me:

"In Buddhism, beauty is an intrinsic quality of all things, not a subjective attribute restricted to a few. Seeing beauty subjectively values some beings or things over others, judging some to be more beautiful. Beauty, the Buddha taught, should not become the basis for individual likes or dislikes, as this leads to attachment—rather, we find joy in the beauty around us without attaching external value to it. Buddhism recognizes that all beings are part of a whole, and the whole is beautiful. Beauty is without any specific form, and in effect could be called formless, yet it also serves as a unifying force. Because all beings are interconnected, all beings have intrinsic beauty."

Source: http://what-when-how.com/love-in-world-religions/beauty-in-buddhism/#:~:text=Buddhism recognizes that all beings,all beings have intrinsic beauty.

[Carl-Richard]

54 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

I'm not a Buddhist, but yes, beauty is actually delusion related to survival, and survival is related to the ego, so yeah it makes sense.

Bro. No. Bro.

[Angelo D]

So maybe it is that there is an intrinsic beauty in all things, but to say that one thing is more beautiful than another is something like a judgment and therefor false. 

So a pretty woman is not more beautiful, in truth, than a paperclip. 

Tell me if I understand.

[Gesundheit]

4 minutes ago, Angelo D said:

So maybe it is that there is an intrinsic beauty in all things, but to say that one thing is more beautiful than another is something like a judgment and therefor false. 

So a pretty woman is not more beautiful, in truth, than a paperclip. 

Tell me if I understand.

You could think of it this way but it's still not full non-duality. The false judgement is merely one layer of deception, which may be obvious to a lot of people on the path. The other layer which is difficult to understand, is that the whole concept of beauty is illusory, like literally unreal.

In your direct experience, examine what beauty means and see for yourself. What does it actually really mean to say that something is beautiful (or ugly)? What does it add to, or remove from reality? Who's the one citing and passing these judgements?

[Carl-Richard]

@Gesundheit There is Absolute Love and Absolute Beauty, and then there is relative love and relative beauty.

[Gesundheit]

14 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Gesundheit There is Absolute Love and Absolute Beauty, and then there is relative love and relative beauty.

Not true. Absolute cannot be love or beauty. It makes no sense to even say that it can.

Contemplate this question; how is absolute beauty different from absolute ugliness?

Edited August 28, 2020 by Gesundheit

[Leo Gura]

Beauty is an Absolute. Free of the ego's biases, all of God's creation is seen to be Perfectly Beautiful.

Any serious Buddhist knows this.

[How to be wise]

@Angelo D If you mean imaginary, then yes. All of reality is just imagination. 

[Ponder]

From my understanding of Buddhism, the perception of beauty is a defilement when applied to the opposite gender (or the same gender depending on your sexual persuasion). 

Since conventional Buddhists view lust and sexual gratification as strong, deep-rooted attachments (i.e impediments towards enlightenment), and the perception of beauty gives rise to these attachments, it can be seen why it is considered a defilement. 

This being the case, over the years Buddhists have devised practices for eradicating this defilement, such as “body contemplation” — whereby it is endeavoured to shine light on all the “not-so-beautiful” aspects of the body (blood, mucous, arteries, excretion etc.). 

Such practices, if carried on for long enough, are supposed to enable the practitioner to no longer perceive the body as beautiful, and thus no longer lust. And if this attachment can be overcome, it is believed, one of the most prominent barriers guarding enlightenment has been removed. 

 

 

[mavelezm]

@Leo Gura I get it, anything that is created with the "lego bricks" is perfect.

But, is aesthetic ego based then? What about a master piece work of art?

[Johnny5]

35 minutes ago, Ponder said:

From my understanding of Buddhism, the perception of beauty is a defilement when applied to the opposite gender (or the same gender depending on your sexual persuasion). 

Since conventional Buddhists view lust and sexual gratification as strong, deep-rooted attachments (i.e impediments towards enlightenment), and the perception of beauty gives rise to these attachments, it can be seen why it is considered a defilement. 

This being the case, over the years Buddhists have devised practices for eradicating this defilement, such as “body contemplation” — whereby it is endeavoured to shine light on all the “not-so-beautiful” aspects of the body (blood, mucous, arteries, excretion etc.). 

Such practices, if carried on for long enough, are supposed to enable the practitioner to no longer perceive the body as beautiful, and thus no longer lust. And if this attachment can be overcome, it is believed, one of the most prominent barriers guarding enlightenment has been removed. 

Yeah... no.

[gettoefl]

be

you

to

full

[StripedGiraffe]

8 hours ago, mavelezm said:

@Leo Gura I get it, anything that is created with the "lego bricks" is perfect.

But, is aesthetic ego based then? What about a master piece work of art?

The natural awe and love we feel from beauty come from a deep recognition of God. Since God is all things, it includes aesthetic and every masterpiece. Absolute Beauty can indeed be found within these things just as it can be found within all things. However, people also tend to use aesthetics as a function of survival. For example, stage blue uses aesthetics to design churches and clergy uniforms to create a perception of holiness worthy of praise, worship, and faith. Stage orange will wear aesthetically pleasing outfits to make a good impression on people, or design aesthetically pleasing rooms and buildings to create an impression of professionalism, trust, or significance. Stage green may design an aesthetically pleasing healing center or therapy office to support client comfort and healing. Remember though, that even though we use beauty for survival, the essence of beauty cannot be separated from all that is. Hope this helps.

Edited August 28, 2020 by StripedGiraffe

[Leo Gura]

9 hours ago, mavelezm said:

@Leo Gura

But, is aesthetic ego based then? What about a master piece work of art?

Beauty is an absolute, but the ego's job is to filter Infinity down to a limited, manageable, survivable level. Ego does this through biasing reality to suit its own needs and wants.

When the ego finds the master piece work of art beautiful, it is seeing through the clouds of its own selfishness to the absolute Beauty which permeates all of Creation. But the ego is so biased and limited in its vision that it falsely attributes this beauty to that one work of art. It doesn't realize that the wall on which the art hangs is just as beautiful and wondrous as the work of art itself.

Ego always sees partial truths, partial beauties, partial goodnesses. So it's not that the ego is wrong, per se, it's just always limited and partial.

It's like if I showed you a master piece work of art but your mind only focused on the face and missed the other 95% of the painting. You'd say, "That's a beautiful face! OMG!" Which is true. But you're still missing the other 95% of the beauty because your mind isn't open enough.

In this way the ego is never technically wrong. It's just highly partial and missing a lot of stuff.