Sky is the mistress of my existence
loyal in the folds of yielding space upon space
but shows the dolls of stars in reticence glow
as beauty would be laid to sleep
chagrin as Socrates forsake the sky
and the will to become the wind that never dies
is cheated back by the sorties in the skies.
Still pilots fly forgetting the hemlock that Socrates
did drink and pass away in annoyance of skilful manoeuvre
that is done high and still
To spend the life in mortality of sin and without mast
show the sky nothing but their face as vagrant it would be
shunned and inheriting the earth vanish away far away
Himalayas are the alter ego of God as it is evident in its beauty as in its loftiness. If God had beauty it would commensurate with the beauty of the Himalayas. The Himalayas means the abode of snow. It is with the God spirit that Pandit Jawaharl Lal Nehru, the first prime minister of India empathized with Himalayas where his ashes was spread upon his death.
The becoming of universal spirit is the essence of the Himalayas. What does spirituality of the man means? Oneness with the cosmic spirit and so the Himalayas does the proxy of the cosmic spirit on the earth.
What is matter is the differentiation between various particles but the form of Himalayas seems to unite the matter into one holistic spirit. It could mean that the Himalayas is the personification of spirit that could exist in the matter. It is not animism that things have spirit, it is spiritualism that matter has one cosmic spirit.
It is because of the aloofness from the worldly ties that man thinks of intermingling with the cosmic spirit that in the past men or sages in search of Knowledge visited the Himalayas. The Himalayas represents the purity of thought hence towering imagination, the source of knowledge and the possession of beauty.
The more important expect of the Himalayas is the transcendence from the worldly ties hence going beyond matter into the world beyond where there rules the one true Brahman the self, as the cosmic seed, representing the oneness of the cosmos. To plunge into such oneness by overcoming the rigors of weather and life, the sages seem to amass knowledge of being with the God. So Knowledge is of two types, one that of matter and the other that of spirit while the former is immanent, the latter is transcendental . So it is the becoming of a transcendental spirit that the true essence of Himalayas lies in.
Nature is the representation of reality that is the object of any subjective understanding of the Universe. In a matter of perception, the object of nature different from thinking being could be subsumed under nature itself. Then the question arises about human nature which is the instantiation of nature within the thinking being. So nature as being is present within the thinking being as an idea, the object of understanding.
Now is the nature more beautiful than the work of art which is the understanding of reality? So put in other words is the painting of Van Gogh more beautiful than nature as we understand than nature itself? The painting of Van Gogh deals with the meaning lent to nature which in general sense is meaningless. Nature, the study of which is though meaningless so when a Physicist studies nature, he is struggling with meaning, looking for finding meaning. The same is true of Van Gogh who lends meaning to nature. Now is this meaning beautiful than the meaningless nature? Indeed the sunset is beautiful but it is meaningless but when an artist paints the nature he lends meaning to it. Indeed meaning is more desirable than meaninglessness. So nature as painted appears beautiful than the sunset in reality.
A marriage of beauty with morality so that beauty could be tamed is the sole purpose of society at large. The basic instinct yields to us that beauty is far more superior to reason that you cannot find any reason for the thing of beauty to be beautiful. The society doesn’t yield to nature that beauty is the sole criterion of demarcation of reality and as such walks in the world of Physics, the study of nature whereby reason is made stronger than aesthetics.
Then society makes us moral. Why is there religion but to oppose the ancient myths of beauty that the ancient men found in Mythology? The Church thus is born. What the Emperor of Rome, Nero wanted to curtail was that beauty no longer belonged to the Church that he despised the church so much that he set Rome on fire for he feared the ghost of beauty would engulf Rome.
The will though denies beauty its claims to high society for the volition is jealous of the beauty as the church and gives rise to the demons in society. The whole problem of the mankind to apprehend its alter ego is the prejudice against beauty. Keats had said a thing of beauty is a joy forever, hinting the pleasure borne off a beautiful thing is almost eternal in its length. The church as thus wanted to overcome the will of man that it put in charge the morality as the safeguard so much that any appreciation of art or aesthetic judgment is considered as sin or the carnal pleasure.
The sole criterion for the religion to be present in the world is the beauty of nature which the religion has denied even though in terms of reason as was in the case of Galileo. The religion is there in retaliation to beauty as such it preached the immortality of the soul as opposed to the carnal sin of the body. The body is viewed as the source of appreciating beauty hence the originator of sins. The beauty of nature is likewise nullified by the religion for it inspires Romanticism that goes against the will of Church.
Thus the religion is there out of sole reason of curtailing beauty.
Beauty as it seems is a reflex behaviour of nervous system as in the case of Narcissus the look or glare at beautiful object is a reaction to what is not beautiful. Narcissus stares at himself for there is no other idea which makes him look ugly.So before we conclude the idea of beauty we must discourse upon what is not beautiful. To describe the not so beautiful object, there is one word mundane meaning its boring to look at non -beautiful objects which hardly means it is exhilarating to look at beautiful objects.
We begin with Narcissus what impels him to keep on staring at himself? Whatever it is ,it is surely not mundane and neither too exhilarating. It must be beautiful. So within the limits of mundane and exhilarating we find a moment when an object of our own device compels us to keep on staring at it as if it were our own fond object. Yes, an object is beautiful if we are fond of it. But beauty is more than that. Beauty is ideation about existence where the absolute of existence matters more than that of mere existence. The turning of an object into beauty for us is a moment where the existence of object is absolute such that any relative consideration about anything else is redundant.
What is not beautiful hence is what is redundant of an object that we can’t desire to have. So the beauty must be an ideal thought of absolute existence for which becoming into anything else is redundant. Thus for Narcissus there is absolute existence for him in his reflection and hardly there is any other essence about himself other than beauty.
what causes the objects to be beautiful is the super-symmetry, for every symmetrical arc of an object there is an equally symmetrical other arc which reinforces the structure of the object as primary to the essence of object. Such objects are beautiful and there is hardly any other reason to have anything as attribute for the object.