Mythical Conversations // God Descends As A Woman

Krishna & Sophiachus - Pt. I

Krishnamurti’s holotron has been called forth to commune with that of Sophiachus, a modern philosopher.

K: In your self-awareness, it’s quite apparent that in your meditations of becoming one with everything, you’ve suspended your molecular state and literally entered into a status of continued observance of nirvana with all things. But in that course, readily, you’ve come to sort of disperse your energy in order to interact with the particulates of the natural realm of phenomena. Obviously, this is nothing short of psychopathic if practiced amongst the off-balanced world of humans in society and not as it were, up on the mountains of the site abandoned Himalayas or some such completely natural setting. One should be averse to sprawling out the self as one would do in nature, for example, in blending in with the trees (in said environment, an aspect of the unique siddhi of invisibility, i.e aka which is no different from, camouflage). How would you go about remediating this as a wizened teacher of the self might suggest from third-sight witness consciousness?

S: Well as you iterated, if the problem is that one is too expansive, one must concentrate oneself on being concentrated, self-absorbed even, conserving the energy in general. Not, you know, like all the time, but as a general modus for solving the problem. I understand that one lives the self through the self, not in reference to it or something, for that would be to reference an inanimate thing as the world of ideas and labels is necessarily bound. Language is somewhat limiting in reference to the concept; please excuse my own.

K: As you said, one solution, one medium or strain, what have you, of meditation for one purpose may be entirely unnecessary and even harmful for that of another purpose. Obviously, we must abandon ties to a given practice right away if it is proving to be maladaptive and contrary to prior indicated intentions of behavior and outlook. A right action is only so, circumstantial to its situational context, relative to its particular environment. A right action here is entirely the wrong action there. And so on. One must be mindful to concentrate themselves amongst humans and behave appropriately, evidently. We cannot just beam our light into every one, lest we come off as too ostentatiously arrogant and conceited. Ironically, the opposite of this may seem like a dimming of one’s light, as a monk might in the streets or a thief amongst a bazaar, which posits its own requisite problems, so, once again, we have to be mindfully sensitive and aware about our environs and avoid possible contagion in interfacing with the other humans properly. We must keep our airs about ourselves by regarding ourselves strictly in being self-aware. 

S: Okay, good. Sounds proper. 

K: What then, do you think about the inherent nature of reality, to expose pathways of opposites? In other words, do you feel that the paradox created by reality leads to its eventual synthesis?

S: Explain please? Oh, no I see what you mean. Well, yes, this is even the case, on a much subtler scale of course, in the world of the plant and animal kingdom, amongst other natural phenomena. Much of what is created by society is artificial, and in its artifice, its artificiality, it conveys and cannot help but to convey intonations of the false, of synthetic, of extremes. I think the absurdity of that can really bring the realm of duality into light. Of course there are realms in accordance with any and every number and combination thereof. Before there was 1, there was 0, and the negative numbers of pure potentiality, motus, intention, and will. It is into this realm I believe that we dip into whilst we sleep. In the land of positive integers alone, quote on quote “real numbers” (which insinuates that in between decimalized numbers are not real numbers, but we can address that never because it’s rather complicated, like half doing a thing but not completing it) there’s a plethora of possibilities (rather than “potentialities”, in the land of the negative numbers or “imaginary numbers”) and indeed overlapping realms of those quantum possibility sets. 

K: Sure, but can you get us back on topic? What do you make of duality altogether?

S: Sure, of course, I was getting there after all. So just as there are even and odd numbers (not getting into everything in between), there are this and that’s. Hot and cold. Color compliments. X and Y axices. Various opposite coordinates, sometimes coinciding, apparently, within an environment simply because our universe is only even possible given the prerequisite of complementary actions. When something happens, immediately as it does, as it becomes so, it ceases to be a possibility, and its negative valence assumes a positive charge. It turns from imaginary into real. It ceases to seem primitive. It becomes instead an eventuality, and then an actuality, and then at which point, it is attractive by its very fact. People will rag on you for things you haven’t accomplished yet saying, well you’re not a real actor, right? You’re an imaginary one. You’re a successful actress within your own mind. You’re scarcely even capable of a lie, not even one, let alone a whole act.  Why look at you; nothing about you is a lie, simply is what it is, never was what it wasn’t, so how can it be what it isn’t? 

Can a thing ever be what it isn’t, or does it just shapeshift into the new form of its imaginary impulse and then a thus newly realized articulation, a total transfiguration of its other versions?  Well you don’t even wear makeup.  An actor. That’s pure imagination. In fact, imagination, the art of it, is even hassled quite a lot in fact, and it's the source of both intrigue, wonder, and fear and loathing, a bit like Pandora’s box. Any artist is tasked with the rather significant effort of rendering something beautiful and unreal, real. They have to be content to let it be choppy around the edges and what not, in order to content themselves in the action-based productive process, because undoubtedly reality will eat away a few of the things that leave it paler than its original vision. That is what reality does. It is an uncontrite burning mechanism, with a huge gaseous ball of fire at its very center, and at its very core, right? 

K: You’re getting off topic again. Duality?

S:  Sure. You want to know what I make of it? Fire and water. Evaporation on ice. The process of entropy versus the life giving bounty of the original universe, created again and again through the wombs of women.  I’m against it, but it is the original creatrix. 

K: How can you be against duality?

S:  By the very same reasoning in fact by which I can stand for it. 

K:  Ah.

S:  You act pompously at times but why is your favorable position smarter or superior to my negative favor of it? Favor is favor, opinion, opinion, by which we opine. Surely it is most godly to have no opinion? Is that not most egalitarian, most transcendent, indeed most… equanimous? Most democratic? Because we aren’t put off balance by it since, to adopt one perspective, is to reject its complement and both being necessary for either to exist, given that one is impossible without the (at least theoretical) existence of the other, it’s “opposite”... how do we make of this?  We don’t. There’s nothing to make of light and darkness or their fusion and synthesis. It is such with tropes and archetypes, and we see duality in nature.

K: I never said that I was for it or against it.

S: So you agree that it is superior, in a godly sense, to transcend duality by experiencing the sixth sense of witness consciousness alone?  Rather than baselessly adhering to the biased presuppositions of the dogma that resides and pressures us within the confines of culture and society (as opposed to sub-culture or supra-society, which are respectively created consciously by the people themselves, i.e., with right cognizance)?

K: Well, and I’m sorry to have to take a side here, under incorrect auspices of enlightenment (which is our birthright, and rather carved over by big industry and corporate society, hoping to fit us in as cogs in their wheel of endless production and by its effect, destruction, I mean real demise of the natural world and so on, funny thing that)... However, I would hasten to remind of you that while a demagogue is a politician who will champion a cause for the people’s predilections in order only to arouse their favor, the pedagogue, or even an elite colleague, or master of a discipline, will always use right discernment and what I’d call a non-judgmental judgement in order to champion what is right and pure and true. I don’t think that the abstention from opinion is the way to transcend duality. And this isn’t my interview, but, since you asked, I might as well come out with it.

S:  Aha, so the board has flipped!  And the chips fallen. This being so early in, and already I’ve catalyzed a reaction in you that you found fitting to voice a real comment, being in total complement to mine and helping thereby, expose the truth that can only be seen by the periscope of duality! An all-inclusive approach we have of, here!  The libra rising in me is proud. This is in truth, true bipartisanship, and sportsmanlike, at that. 

K:  Ha, you indeed cause me to react.  I think that even in opining about non-extremeism, by that very tour de force you’ve awakened in me some kind of devilish tiger, a monstrosity, that does hope to cage the bird of nuance and rather tear the flesh of the wrong and the unsupported argumentation.  Whether you’re right or I’m right, the point is that there’s a true and purposeful dialogue that necessitates the getting to the bottom of it, in right form and measure over time. 

S:  Scarcely do I understand your metaphor, however, I do agree with your thesis. 

K: What do you think about the purpose of discipline? 

S: Well in my experience, I think that the longer you can withhold or abstain from or suppress the reward, the greater the prize will be. 

S: And not at all for the purpose of prideful self-abdication and evasion from the world but as a form of self-mastery. Then you will see results arise in your outer world that are more within the bounds of self-control. Because what you see outside of you is and only can be a reflection of what is within you, since the consciousness that gave rise to you is what created the world, giving rise to it, as itself. That is you. That was, is, and always will be. 

K:  Why is it better to practice from a state of calm and tranquility first, before indulging or counting on external things to make us feel a certain way?

S:  Well, I know that for myself, though I might not come from the most erudite tutelage (every one I’ve learned from has neither titles nor buildings to toast to my name, and they frankly usually ask me for alms even though I’m dirt poor) that from a simple point of pride, whenever I feel as though anything is trying to make me feel a certain way, a certain really primal place in me tends to try to feel or do the exact opposite. 

K:  Right, elaborate on that.

S:  Sure.  The idea is to work with ourselves in such a way that we naturally inspire the divine graces and muses to awaken naturally of their slumber and frankly, boredom about our world of mortals, and pick up and breathe some life into our endeavors via the format of synchronicity, as so often occurs (divine and auspicious patterning exposing itself from the universe) or, as the case may be, noticing how we block or disallow the opportunity for outward expansion into the infinitely unfolding world of many numbers and permutations of what sets our soul alight. Although given the metrics of practicality, really the pace and type and flow of synchronicity is set by the allowance of the characters in creating of what’s in their mind’s eye. What activities the parties both actively consent to participate and flow or fly or flutter or sing or dance or exercise or hover about in 

K: What are the two principles of life fundamentally? 

S: Well, that which gives rise to the other and vice versa, (reciprocally) are the life positive and life negative principles. We’ll find if we rise in the amount of things we’re willing and able to create that our substantial outlooks rise as well, and we’re able to adjust our attitude to receive the perfect eccentricities of the moment that we create that is a unique and perfect balance of ourselves within ourselves within the world, and in no other order. 

The way to ensure this is to guarantee freedom and permission of all beings to create nonviolent choices that don’t harm anything or anyone.  Obviously the human potential can only be assessed on the basis or presumption of selfhood, expressed outwardly in the world. In terms of dialectical opposites, we are whole only before we have to make the decision, before we align ourselves to or against the consistent flow of opposites that exist (are inherent within) the wave form function that composes our universe. 

As we well know, brain waves are mirror and flipped opposite the forward and backward moving (in various speeds) double helixes that exist within ourselves. 

As a cyclist, we are ordinarily computing many things about the road, when we ride on our two wheels and two handlebars. …

K:  Alright thank you, we all know you like to talk about yourself.

S:  Haha… not really

K:  So, what do you think is the most intellectual, ie productively cerebral meme(for providing constructive conceptual frameworks instead of oftentimes limiting and provocative ones that may deleteriously affect our observations or the quality or expectancy of the prognosis of what is based on a limited or curtailed understanding/comprehension of it or that may reductively or reactively antagonize it) and what about being alone is so important/why can that reconstruct or recalibrate the results we create, life’s karmic or not so karmic consequences? (and here, I’m not sure is worse, simply riffing for your entertainment).

S:  In laymen terms, to answer your questions backwards, in the categorical proximity thereto, B) Aloneness is that which restructures and reframes the individual to look within. And if we aren’t capable of fostering the neural connections to create engaging activities and hobbies for ourselves from the inside out (like a workout, or a painting, a song, a dance, a chant, a literary selection, an understanding, a new theorem based on the empirical method, whatever the art is) then we aren’t capable of developing (ie, sensing out, proverbially) the connections and third point engagements that are satisfactory and productive with others, with our peers, within the complex webs of our local and extended communities.  And A), the 

K: Exertion is pointless. 

S: Okay so, wait what? 

K: It doesn’t of its own accord amount to anything, except within the borders of its own creation. 

S: Sounds a little nihilist there, bud, you sure you’re okay?

K: It’s a philosophy, but I’m not sure you grasp my meaning. I didn’t say that action itself was pointless. But pointless exertion, by nature, even without the descriptor, is a pointless phenomenon, if it could be considered a phenomenon at all. 

S: Oh, are you referring to what Yoda said in Star Wars? There is no trying…

K: “Do or do not; there is no try.” [He went on to explain the quote; see footnote #2]

S. Yes, I see. You’re saying that exertion, outside the grace of perfect action, is meaningless of its own accord, merely the egoic attempt of the self to fly outside the bounds of oneself in a grasping, seeking effort, without heeding the divine whispers about how to accomplish best the soul’s true resolution.

K: [Let out a small smile on the uppermost left lip, sort of like the Madonna’s gaze of the Mona Lisa.]  Yes, something like that. I was hoping you could help me clarify. Is this really nihilism, after all?

S: I think to a degree, but I think that a healthy dose of skepticism, is a mark of the true spartan, a righteous samaritan, and a healthy dose of asceticism and energetic conservancy. 

K: Mm, then we don’t work off the beaten track created by the self alone, sole proprietary, modus operandi

S: Funny that you sound like the cheshire cat hm?

K: Ah yes, for to lose oneself is to find, and to find… to lose…

S: And you forget, to remember is to forget, and to forget, is to remember.

K: Ah yes, and to tarry is to not delay the present moment but that of impetus, oughts, and shoulds.

S: Yes, so it must be. And all that glitters is not gold, but all that isn’t gold, will never glitter.

K:  So one must seek the glitter for the gold, but not see the forest for the glitter.

S: Glitter does not connote gold, but it might, and if it doesn’t glitter, it isn’t gold, but all that glitters is not gold, but

K: But at least it’s glitter

S: Worthless, though

K: Unless stuck to gold

S: For gold without glitter...

K: Is valuable but worthless….

S: and glitter without gold?

K: Meaningful, though not itself necessarily valuable.

S: … I see. I thought you were to say, ‘Valuable, but meaningless.’ How can meaning be devoid of value?Is not meaning the ultimate value?

K: Meaningful, but not necessarily valuable. Glitter without gold can be fool’s gold. If its basis is not a precious metal, then it is baseless. As a metaphor, and as a valuable item.  Meaning is always valuable, though, yes.

S: Okay, I knew what you meant.

K: Do you though?

S: I admit, not really, not so far as I am capable.

K: So let us continue. 

S: Persevere, we must!

K: Please S, no “musts” in my company

S: Course not, only the finest of mists. Even if we mustn’t.

K: Oh, but we must... mist we must lest we miss the mist… no?

S: Lest we miss the mist the most!

K: You’re confusing me

S: Am I though?

K: Let’s continue. 

S: Where did we leave off?

K: You’ve got to pay better mind to your entrances and exits, is where we left off. 

S: The mists, wasn’t it? In the misty mountains, the musty forests, the kathmandu’s and don’ts of ordinary culture versus sacramonious ceremony and…

K: I’m serious. You’ve such a strong outward thrust of aeonic particles in the very nature of your beingness, when you are extroverted, that you extraneously shoot out in every direction like a supernova!  You must mind so well therefore, your entrances and exists. Don’t be afraid to resound yes or no, but make it true, and make it known! Don’t let yourself linger. Be resolute. Be like the wolf, hungry or full, taking entrance or exit, never both at once, never unannounced. Be impeccable with thy word, Sophiachus, lest you be stolen and jabbered about because you’re improper with the articles of your doors! In or out, not out and then in. you do the in to the in to the in and then you leave unannounced, it isn’t right! It leaves marks of fury upon the skin of the townsfolk, like clever lashes that they cannot keep up to or fathom the direction or purpose about. 

S: The what of the what ? what even are you saying K. Pronounce yourself 

K: Karma is like caramel. Sweet, but sticky. The sooner you stay on the carousel, the more apt the ride is to turn stale like treacle treats or burnt and yet gooey as creme brulee. I’m certain you’ve had the feeling where sweet turned sour in the lingering process, the not-knowing when to cut off, be snappy, be curt. Courteous to the moment, to the lingering gypsy of time herself, that maker of order and bringer of paesans to the table. 

S: Yes, I understand. I’ve had that experience.

K: Entrances and exits, child, take thy leave or make of the self known! They’re both important! Inhale, exhale! Let your presentation announce yourself at the party, in a big way, let the airs of yourself coalesce and crescendo, make of thyself a spectacle to dazzle the eyes and enchant the ears with hidden poetries and longings and desire, thorned with its aversions and distastes. Gustatory pleasure is not far from the mind’s eye; we are all inwardly the ever hungry and gluttonous hedonist! We want to savor a taste of the finer things, and there is no humility or titles to be earned in denying it. We’ll all sail the river Styx one day, we were all plucked from the heavens in equal accord, because our parents were trying to copulate and make something of their love! Some supraconsciously, some subconsciously, all with an understanding of their actions, I’ll not be swayed to the contrary of it! 

S: Much agreed. And what do you think about Capitalism?

K: The fight for capitalistic games makes one more clever, but less evolved in the worldliest sense, and by far less intelligent overall, in scope. 

S: That bad, ey?

K: The system is designed for tribalism. Tribalism is always self-defeating. Anything that benefits one winner to the detriment of the rest, is the opposite of egalitarian, and by its own making, it becomes tyrannical. If only 1% are strong, it is by design and will make that 1% mean and withholding, and the rest their willing servants. It’s animalistic, primal in the worst sense, like a metaphorical cagefight with the ruling class overseeing affairs, lifeguards that are the only one’s allowed to rest above surface levels of the water, under which anything could lurk and where survival is uncertain. The only way that wealth would trickle down in such a system is if the shareholders tore apart the CEO and ate him piece by piece. Then the horde mongerers at the top would be forced to unclench their fist and great droves of wealth would trickle down like a storm, like a waterfall, and bolster the people giving them boats with which to sail the seas blue as they can and should do. 

It is literally the Native United States Americans’ tribalism, the fact that they were not a united states, that created and led to their downfall. They could be convinced to contest their neighbors to the north, the south, east and west. Now all of a sudden everyone is a threat; because everyone can be bribed to divide and conquer their power. Now imagine that other countries all across the world decided that they were a part of the same structure, and became united states themselves. They would choose, unlike us, sovereignty between and amongst all of the states, united not in terms of needing to tithe half their income away to taxes to the Queen, that bein gin America, the United STates government, that then indirectly made and conducted the will of choices for the Americans not as a direct extension of their will but on their behalf. 

K: It started with good intentions, but it’s evolved into something much more sinister and macabre, evidentially, and for that, it’s unfortunate. Imagine a chess board, and you’re the CEO right, we’ll call that the king, and to you, the one that runs the gambit (the show; but a game, more like, so you’re the player of the deck), every other piece besides you (that is inherently much more capably, ironically, let’s call this your working class) is deemed less important and even, yes, expendable. After all, chess is s******c!  It’s very selfhood is the act of sacrificing elements of the mandala for other elements of your “opponents” mandala (which is of course, an oxymoron, a setting of apparent paradoxes against one another, via individuals, which results in war, but which starts as, fundamentally a discord about the existentiality of the 3rd dimension to begin with, a lack of zen, not a parable but a foible, an unfortunate circumstance with much dramatic irony and as such much ado about nothing) 

S: wow so, I take it you hate chess?, or…

K: Chess has nothing to do -- yes, I despise chess. But that’s neither here nor there. You asked me about capitalism. What I’m saying is that even though Adam Smith, its founder foretold that there would be massive problematic predicaments if the game were to become ruled by monopoly, it has nevertheless evolved in such a fashion, to the extent to where a few at the top, what’s now an oligarchy you see (a nepotistic plutocracy) has taken over the game and assumed kingship, and made all the rules. All the pieces, more able and agile than the king, are nevertheless expendable in order to save and protect the interests and bottomline of the king no less, yes? So, we see corporations firing their employees, taxing them highly, having them work a minute under overtime in order to stymie their wages, keeping the cost of their labor low and consistent, low tides stagnant and unable to rise to meet the ever accelerating and escalating rates of inflation that correspond to the times and indeed to the exigent demands of the times. It’s no longer that a team sinks or swims together!, no, now, in order to keep a company from going under, banks will invest major amounts into the corporation which will in turn fire most of its employees in order to keep the buck for the bill, paying only the rulers and commanders up top. Commandeers, more like. All the money has been such siphoned that way by the rule makers and commandeers who claim to be the kings and CEOs by being essentially as overbearing and domineering as they can be, in order to hoard the wealth and store in offshore credit accounts and evade tax requirements of the nation state. 

This is all well known. The rich profit off the poor and take from the working class; the picture of whites standing on blacks to make a basket on the court is pretty prophetic, or accurate in hindsight. It’s not like they earn any of their own money, only command it. But the lords of the banking system circa 1912, are a bunch of British jerks and Vatican correspondents that negotiate world wars and profit off them and buy up evolutionary technologies in order to keep the status quo on the level of cavemen and oil and stocks, the Dao Jones and S&P.