The Unfairness of "Ugly" Creatures

[bansy]

The following came up in a humourous discussion, especially as it has become hot and humid lately, with the certain appearances of noticeably irrating bugs.

Why are cockroaches so ugly whilst butterflies are so colourful. All creatures are of the creator so why are some just plain ugly sight. It is a bit body conscious one may ask, but is this perfection thing a joke.

I read also in the news recently that a dog was voted the most ugliest looking dog in the world, yet some people find him "cute". You can google "worlds ugliest dog" and gets lots of hits. Here's one: click for link.

Maybe no-one really cares about the look of the walrus, or that of the duckbill platypus, but given equal footing, would you prefer to keep a bunch of cockroaches (say if they did not bite) the same way as keeping a bunch of bumble bees (if they did not bite) ?

Nature has its ways. How are they bound by the drama cycle.

For the human side, if a Godly Chariot was to look like a leper, would anyone follow ? Or is that body consciousness ? Does physical appearance relate to karma ? i.e no or little karma means a good looking body and face. If so, then what is the image of the perfect human physical appearance ? And thus also what is the image of the perfect looking dog ?

[fluffy bunny]

Why are cockroaches so ugly.

Yes, at least pre-Gyan we could believe that we need some species for lawyers to reincarnate as ...

Personally, I am amazed at the variety in the human form alone. For example, how does a big nosed Westerner look like to a no-nosed (or pre-plastic surgery) Korean? Stand a big African woman with a Bantu's bottom next to a little Japanese ant lady. An blue aborigine to a Norwegian blonde ... did we really all come from the same planet?

[paulkershaw]

Oh thats an easy answer --->

Ugly creatures exist in order to make us beautiful ones look more beautiful ... :D.

[bro neo]

Oh thats an easy answer ---> Ugly creatures exist in order to make us beautiful ones look more beautiful ... :D.

:lol:

Saw a show on Discovery where people were given a bunch of smells to smell and then were surveyed to see which smells the people disliked the most. Turned out it was the smells people associated with harmful substances, like mold or rotting stuff. The conclusion was that we developed this 'like' and 'dislike' from our tribal days when we lived off the land and eating the wrong food meant death. So as usual, IMO, likes and dislike goes back to what we associate with our survival and our personal core values. An individuals contemporary social values, no doubt, are key determinates.

In regards to what kind of person a person finds attractive, IMO, it's largely programmed into the persons brain what an ideal mate is like when they are very young. Children very early on start to develop impressions of what a mate should act or be like by the people around them. Interesting research abound for those who want to look.

Also a lot of surveys suggest that people are attracted to mates that have characteristics that they can have the best off spring with. So a guy wants a (or many) hot chick(s) because he associates that with a healthy and supportive means for the survival of his genes and a gal wants a confident and strong man (men) cause he (they) has good genes and will be a good care giver for babies. A homosexual wants their own gender cause that's the impression of the ideal mate in their programming that triggered that aspect of their primal nature. You'd be suprised at how many animals participate in homosexual behavior (lions for example).

I think most people try to say that attraction is just a feeling or love at first sight or an impulse or what ever, but I like to look at the details as to the why of what is and I believe there is logic behind it. This love, or lust, like and dislike are driving forces in this universe.

But cause people are so mixed up about associations most people make self-deprecating decisions.

[tinydot]

For the human side, if a Godly Chariot was to look like a leper, would anyone follow ? Or is that body consciousness ? Does physical appearance relate to karma ? i.e no or little karma means a good looking body and face. If so, then what is the image of the perfect human physical appearance ? And thus also what is the image of the perfect looking dog ?

We cannot make generalization in my opinion. Look at DJ's physical beauty. She is very ugly looking in my opinion but she manages to look beautiful "physically" in front of her bhagats. I guess the physical appearance is just one factor, the more important thing is, power to make others believe that you are beautiful.

So what is so unfair of being ugly when you can carry yourself and influence others that you are beautiful?

[bansy]

I think we have programmed some image of the "perfect" looking person, and if people do not have this image and distorted from it, then we can accept it as we are able to look into the soul and not that of the outer physical.

Actually in this thread, I was't so much referring to the human body so much, rather on how we are subjective to the appearance of everything else, why are penguins "cute" whereas spiders "creepy" etc. If you play with young children, you'll notice that they would pick up bugs and locusts and all sorts of creatures in their hands, pluck their legs off, however over the years, the sight of a squiggly looking frog makes one jump up. But frogs are cute little things when you are 2-3 years old, why you even drew a picture of one when you were that age. So is it all down to sanskars? Are humans programmed to accept the image of some animals to be safe and some animals to be threatening? How is a cockroach threatening when you are 1000 times its size. All animals lived together in the Golden Age side by side. When did we create the concepts of beautiful and ugly for everything else?

In the Planet of the Apes, Heston gets to have a departing kiss on the lips of the female chimp doctor (whose name escapes me now), and she hisses back something along the lines "What an ugly creature", referring to Heston, i.e humankind.

Any Klingons out there willing to help with this thread ? :P

[fluffy bunny]

She is very ugly looking in my opinion but she manages to look beautiful "physically" in front of her bhagats. I guess the physical appearance is just one factor, the more important thing is, power to make others believe that you are beautiful.

Nature seems to be fairly simply and universally color coded. The forms bound to self-protection and function. Humankind appear to be the only species that define appeal in purely non-functional to the point of handicapping the individual genetic and body modifications, e.g. the archetypal super model.

How much is instinctual and how much in children is conditioned by peers and adults? I have to think a lot is culturally conditioned, as what you say is mainly tied up with concepts of clean and unclean, and psychological symbolism, than the natural curiousity of a child. Or the protein interests of a large proportion of the world's population that will and have to eat them to survive. Wok-fried locust satay anyone? American kids say, "Yuk!" to a worm; Aborigine kids say, "Yum, Yum".

DJ is a kind of character actor, rather than a leading lady. More like the Mickey Rooney/Bob Hoskins type (sorry, cant think of female equivalent). In fact, the original ET movie was very good for her career in the West. Has anyone seen photos of her as a young woman?

With age, we all end up looking the same. I think she has always been "everyone's granny" to the Westerners.

[alladin]

"Look at DJ's physical beauty. She is very ugly looking in my opinion but she manages to look beautiful "physically" in front of her bhagats. "

Mesmerizing followers and audience? Illusionism?

Interesting point, and even more surprising, is the effect brainwashing can have on bhagats and how it makes them obey weird instructions on the account that "they are certainly beneficial" and follow potentially harmful suggestions setting aside any critical power and rationality.

Here we are really talking about guru-disciple relationship, where no questioning is allowed and everything that comes out of the guru's mouth is gold or nectar. Many people on the Forum admitted that this obedience based on blind faith in Seniors, resulted in a lot of damage to their family relationships, studies and careers, and even health, due to diets , lack of sleep and over work for service. We have no stats for the people who realized this and left before it's too late. Of course, often, most self-considering pukka BKs will predict, with a mixture of pity and arrogance that, "they will come back, at the end, there's only one Baba's shop" - sounds like a threat. Maybe it's confidence in the depth and power of the old programming we all received.

One of the learnt behaviours and concepts in BKs, is that of seeing only the qualities and not looking at defects in others. Very elevated teaching, as long as we don't take it to the extreme of turning a blind eye on people's "vices", consequently being hurt or cheated.
It applies to the BK clan in particular.

I suppose we all went through the phase, during our "Honeymoon Period" where we felt we found a flawless spiritual family, whose members were angels, totally reliable, trustworthy, full of pure thoughts and intentions, not capable of harming even a mosquito. Then someone hurts us, through words or actions, perhaps the same sweet smiling sic that introduced us to the supreme knowledge.

She's sour and cannot even put up with our flying stage and enthusiasm, so she will shoot our plane down. Many times I heard wounded BKs bursting out with comments such as " BKs themselves are worse than lokiks!". The victim will be labelled as "over-sensitive". So, looking at qualities is a great practise to be balanced with the capacity to discriminate whether the soul we have in front is not just a pretender or a good salesman/woman.

Animals' sixth sense works miracles in this field but as humans we are still very much addicted to listen to words and believe in appearances.

[bro neo]

alladin :D , very well thought out post. And yes isn’t the great art of seduction amazing in what it can do to bhagats? Something from a new post by ex-l is also relevant to what we have been saying.

Traumatic Abuse in Cults: A Psychoanalytic Perspective by Daniel Shaw, L.C.S.W.

Certainly, people who join cults are not seeking to be controlled, made dependent, exploited, or psychologically harmed when they first commit themselves to membership. Cult members actually come to embrace and even glorify these kinds of mistreatment in part because their leaders, and their followers by proxy, have mastered the art of seduction, using techniques of undue influence (Cialdini, 1984). As Hochman (1990) notes, cults, by employing miracle, mystery, and authority, promise salvation. Instead of boredom - noble and sweeping goals. Instead of existential anxiety - structure and certainty. Instead of alienation - community. Instead of impotence - solidarity directed by all-knowing leaders. (p. 179)