Q: On the physical plane there seems to be (among humans anyway) standards of aesthetic beauty: to us, the sky is beautiful to look at, certain foods have a pleasant taste, certain musical sounds seem to have universal appeal. However artists of all kinds have tried to stretch the boundaries of what is appealing – sometimes exploring many extremes but not always to the general acceptance of all.
Is there such a thing as an ideal in aesthetic beauty on the physical (or other planes)? Is there a tendency for all to gravitate towards a ‘standard’ in beauty? We talk of abrading vibrations/frequencies vs. compatible ones – which implies that there are standards for what is pleasant and what is not. And yet I find a great deal of beauty in what others perceive as discordant or ugly. Can you comment on this?
Answer: The concept of beauty is, for those of the physical plane, more a combination of that taught and their perceptions. For culture and society play a very large part in one’s determination of beauty and this is further narrowed or expanded by one’s perceptions (overleaves). For if culture touts those days of sun and gentle breezes and gentle temperature as beautiful, but you have a goal of rejection, then will you find yourself seeking out beauty in those situations contrasting or contrary to those touted by others.
We see also beauty as a tool for those who are 3rd cycle. For what a culture or society values, in beauty, do they then use to manipulate others. For if a certain body type is beautiful, then will they seek to obtain that, or if of that body type, will they attempt to use it as a bartering tool to obtain those items they want.
What pleases one, may not please another. This is all based on enculturation and perception. For what you perceive as a pleasing melody, may others find offensive. It is your choice. When we speak of abrading energies or overleaves, we mean this quite literally. For the frequencies vibrate in a manner wherein they collide or rub; thereby, creating incursions or secondary vibrations that create not a balance. For that is our “beauty”—balance. We see all as being equally worthwhile, for all is necessary to experience that balance. We do not see one body type as better than another, for we them all as having equal and useful purpose. However, we are also not incarnate. Many strive to achieve what others determine is the ideal–whether in body, music, art, intelligence. But that is culture’s and society’s version/vision of what is beautiful; yet, there is no shame or ugliness in being different.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, for it is very dependent upon one’s amount of enculturation, as well as their perceptions. So, all will see value in different things. Our standard for beauty is the understanding that beauty is in all things. For none can be more beautiful than any other. A butterfly is beautiful, yet so is that which would eat the butterfly. For they are in harmony, in balance. To change one, would change all.
You see beauty only in those things you consider living, yet we say to you, that all is beautiful. For even those forms not sentient are, in their own way, beautiful. For they, too, fulfill a purpose. A rock upon the mountain is beautiful for it is—it exists, just as all of you exist. That is beauty to us.
What you consider as beauty is based on your teachings, your overleaves, and your fears. What we consider beautiful is life—all of life. For you consider rocks, nails, etc. to be not alive, yet we know that they are. Sentient, no—and we did not say that, but quite alive. Therefore, we see beauty everywhere, for all life is beautiful.
What you consider harmonic is but a fraction of the “sounds” that we perceive. (We do not “hear” as do you, but there is still a sensing of those tones, those vibrations, in a “musical” way.) Therefore, do we find many combinations of sounds beautiful, but none more so than any other. For all are part of the whole and all are equal in “value”, in comprising the whole. What you perceive as colours or light refractions, again, are but a fraction of those that we perceive, and again are those but just a part of those comprising the whole. We would not judge one part a better, or prettier, or more important, for all are equal.
That abrading energies occur just within the physical plane is not true. For we would find this occurring with all planes. For are there instances where one would interact with another, yet the vibratory frequencies do not mesh at that point of interaction. To change “positions” or interaction points does then alleviate that problem. That you recognize not when this occurs is due more to the obtuseness of the physical plane than to any other reason. For you, too, do find that if positions are shifted and others act as emissaries or go-betweens that the encounters are quite pleasing. Those instances wherein you might state that “they bring out the worst in me?” would be a good indicator that the energies abrade, and are therefore causing you to react through a vibratory pattern that is not your “normal” one. That their frequencies may cause you to shift to all negative poles, or to change chief features, is what we term an abrasion.
If one has energies abrading within self, then little can be done to alleviate it. If an overleaf can be dampened, will it sometimes help, as will trying to change the frequency of oneself, but most are not successful and so create for selves many problems both physical and in essence.
There are no universal, or pandimensional esthetics of beauty, for there is no universal or pandimensional perception nor culture. That your perceptions of beauty vary quite differently from ours is true, for we find all of Earth esthetically pleasing, just as we find all of the astral plane esthetically pleasing.
* * *
Beauty is a subjective term. For it is totally reliant on each individual’s ego as to what they find “beautiful”. Each culture has their own standards and how these standards are “taught” is also part of that culture or society. For in your society are you made aware early on that rich and thin are the most beautiful. In several cultures are they taught that branding or tattooing of the entire body is beautiful. So each is different. Also is their there teaching of what is beautiful in terms of paintings, sculpture, architecture, and music. For there are actual classes wherein one is taught that Bach is beautiful but that rap is not. Other classes convince you what is beautiful in terms of literature or clothing or even weather. For always are you taught that hurricanes are not beautiful, but rather are they destructive. But destruction can also be beautiful. We see all as beautiful, for we see all things physical and non-physical as appropriate; therefore, are they beautiful. If one decides to end an event through an act of violence, you may declare it to be an “ugly incident”, but we see it as beautiful. For although other choices might have been made, the one chosen was quite appropriate (for that now, for that fragment, for that lesson) and so accepted. We did not say balanced, for it most likely resulted in karma, but that does not make it inappropriate, incorrect, or “ugly”. It was a choice made and an experience had. We find all things beautiful, then. For there is no “ugliness” if one accepts all choices as being valid.
As to abrading energies, we speak not in terms of harmonics or of sounding better than another, rather do we state exactly what we mean. For some overleaves do abrade or actually impact one another. This creates secondary vibrations or “movements” or energy patterns that can cause those energies that abrade to shift to the extremes of their poles or to change the rate at which they vibrate. This can make essence uncomfortable for they choice a chief feature of stubbornness but are now experiencing martyrdom, because that one abrading with them causes their chief feature to shift its vibratory pattern so to avoid the scraping or rubbing. This can occur with any overleaf or with several. When the one who abrades with you moves away, then do you find yourself “back” to those overleaves originally chosen. So it is not a matter of esthetics or taste, but more a matter of actual interference, each with the other, causing choices made to shift and change, with no agreement and having not chosen to change.
There is no pandimensional standard of beauty or any common esthetics except for the understanding that all choices are acceptable. That we on the causal plane judge others or objects as to some standard is not true. For we have learned to accept all as they are. That you can or need to compare one rock to another, or one person to another, is not a truth. For all are unique and so none can be compared. When you find one person, object, or event more beautiful or nicer, then are you making a judgment. For you just developed some standard by which you judged that which just occurred. For those on the physical plane, does this behaviour seem “normal”; however, we see not the truth in such a judgment. For each is unique and wondrous on its own, and cannot be compared to another. So we see all as beautiful, for we judge not.