Certain things, by their very nature, are not open to debate. It is not worth opening a debate over transience and life, over beauty and ugliness, over truth and falsehood. Not because it is unimportant to clarify them, but because of the diversity of opinions.
For endless is the difference of views, and no single view founded on argument is decisive. (Narada: Bhakti Sutras 75.)
The first set of questions not to be debated is the pair of transience and life. These are eschatological questions, concerning the ultimate facts of existence, and to dispute the existence of facts is folly, while ideas may well be exchanged about how they exist. The wise were expected to form a personal opinion, and no one was really counted wise until he had one of his own. Truth is one, and the wise explain it in many ways – so runs the maxim of the Veda. Diversity, then, or oneness of essence? This is a matter of eternal debate, but so long as the object of inquiry is one and the same, and the subject of inquiry is sincere, the diversity of opinions has its right to exist. Of course, it is only the positive affirmation of existence that makes the fact of passing away real: if there is no existence, there is no passing away either. Heraclitus says that death is – birth. The two poles can be transcended in a higher synthesis, when we view the phase transitions in the light of eternity, and do not go blind staring into the eternal gloom of non-existence.
Beauty and ugliness are the next pair not to be debated. Beauty is all too subjective… and ugliness no less so. Though beauty is doubtless to be found in the world, it still depends on the beholder's point of view and the conditioning of his consciousness, just as the judging of ugliness does. To the mouse, the cat will never be beautiful. The beautiful is pleasing, the ugly repellent, which is to say that these aesthetic factors stir an emotional response in us. And there is no arguing over emotions. Moreover, there are two further forces that distort the picture: love and hatred. The loving mother rightly says that even her sightless child has eyes like stars… Love can carve something lovely even out of the ugly, while hatred makes even beauty look ugly. If both love and hatred distort, then it is better to choose the distortion of vision that rests on love, for it makes reality more beautiful, while the other distorts by devaluing. Beauty is the concern not only of philosophical aesthetics – which, let us admit, is the preserve of the few – but also of art, which speaks to the many. And art is nothing other than the praise of beauty, or the suffering its absence brings, and this is a language everyone speaks.
The third pair of opposites is truth and falsehood, which is likewise an exceedingly relative theme. There are many truths with a small t, and perhaps even more falsehoods. The petty man runs from truth, which asks much, just as he runs from villainy, which also demands much, and he is capable only of little pranks. Truth is best examined in the triad of facts, truth and reality. Of facts there are a great many, and with suitably selected facts anything can be proved. Truth is a worldly matter, and though it doubtless carries a moral charge, it is still fundamentally relative: whoever is a national hero on one side of the warring parties is an international terrorist on the other. Reality, however, let us regard as a metaphysical concept, in whose light we also see truth and facts more clearly.
If not on argument, then on what shall we found our inquiry? Moral neutrality would be spiritual provincialism, and blurring the difference between good and evil is not the same as the mystical experience of unity. Neutrality is the agony of wonder and the death of rapture. Beyond argument we need wonder, beyond human opinions the self-revelation of the superhuman Reality. Worldly beauty is only convention, but absolute beauty is the measure. Whoever explores life, beauty and truth, let them do so with love!