In the story ‘Kiss of Death’ by Richard Starkings in ‘Popgun Volume 1’, the conclusion reads – ‘… one should never forget that the people who write history books often substitute beauty for truth when it suits them [or is it the other way round]? Which is a shame, because if you look hard enough at that which some consider ugly, you can always find beauty. And by the same token, if you look at something beautiful for long enough, well, you can always find ugliness there as well.’
I think it’s a huge misconception that ugliness and beauty are always totally relative and within each other. Yes, ugliness and beauty are dualistic qualities, but the essence of true ugliness and beauty should have nothing to do with physical attributes, and everything to do with spiritual qualities. That done with nothing but greed, hate and delusion is always ugly, because no good can spring from it, while that done with nothing but generosity, loving-kindness and wisdom is always beautiful, because good will eventually spring from it. However, most deeds are on a sliding range between absolute ugliness and beauty, as no one unenlightened is purely good or evil all the time.
It’s also a common mistake to associate that or who is physically good-looking in a worldly way to be synonymous with truth and goodness. That is unrealistic romanticism. Just ask anyone conned by a handsome or seductive stranger and you will know what I mean. An attractive appearance is in fact the best disguise for the most devious non-truthfulness and evil. Likewise, a beautiful story does not always tell the truth or do any good. It struck me that there is only one kind of beings who embody the triple qualities of truth, goodness and beauty perfectly, physically and mentally – Buddhas! The rest are simply not true, good or beautiful enough… yet.
[ad#popgun1]