Questioner: I just wondered what you thought of this statement: “Inner beauty, too, needs occasionally to be told it is beautiful.” — Robert Brault
Keeb: The question implies an inner entity that is beautiful, actual. Is that a correct assumption? A full investigation begins here and when the exploration is both correct and honest it enables the discovery of real beauty. Perhaps it is not where we assume it to be? Our questions and assumptions always reveal our illogical and misconstrued thinking.
Secondly does beauty need to be verbally augmented? Does a flower need to be told it is beautiful? What is ugly is also beautiful or consider the beauty of putrefraction. In the quote once again thought is involved here, needing to be reinforced, craving a sense of security (security is a much wider concept than many think). Such a craving is not beautiful. Only a mind that is free of craving will ever truly appreciate that.
Questioner: The concept of inner-beauty seems ridiculous to me, as how can something only be partially beautiful? It reminds me of cutting off the thumb to spite the finger. So, if craving is not beautiful then is it ugly then? And if craving is ugly, then is craving beautiful too?
Keeb: Beauty begins (and ends?) in the absence of the distorting ‘me’. This is a reality one must find out for oneself. There is beauty and what is not beauty, there is love and what is not love. What is the relation of beauty and love? An important question. Notice there are no references to ascetics here, nor is there a polemic involved. Love and hate, good and evil, beauty and ugliness – incorrect assumptions. Hate is not the opposite of love. There is no absolute evil. See how our language structures limit our thinking.