|
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’. 
|
