|
Richard, reading through your correspondence on the Krishnamurti list I have come
across something that I cannot grasp. [Correspondent No. 12]: ‘If the many are reduced to one, what is the one reduced to?’
[Richard]: ‘When it is understood that the one is the epitome of the many and that ‘I’ am the ‘many’ and the ‘many’
is ‘me’ ... ‘I’ self-immolate at the core of ‘being’. Then I am this material universe’s infinitude experiencing
itself as a sensate and reflective human being. A desirable side-effect is peace-on-earth’. What does it mean, when you say
‘I’ am the ‘many’ and the ‘many’ is ‘me’? There was another quote in your correspondence with Alan, where you
said: ‘Being born of the biologically inherited instincts genetically encoded in the germ cells of the spermatozoa and the ova,
‘I’ am – genetically – umpteen hundreds of thousands of years old ... ‘my’ origins are lost in the mists of
pre-history. ‘I’ am so anciently old that ‘I’ may well have always existed ... carried along on the reproductive
cell-line, over countless millennia, from generation to generation. And ‘I’ am thus passed on into an inconceivably open-ended
and hereditably transmissible future’. I have taken it simply that ‘me’, my instinctual programming, is as much part of my
DNA as it has been the case in every human being on the planet since ‘the beginning of time’. 
|
