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’.