Take it from a different angle…. Common sense thinks that a blind man lives in darkness – that is absolutely wrong. The blind man has no eyes; he cannot see darkness. To see darkness you need eyes, and if you can see darkness, who is preventing you from seeing light? The blind man does not know anything about light, nor about darkness. The deaf person does not know anything about sound, and he does not know anything about silence. If there was nobody present and there was only sound – it is impossible, scientifically impossible, because sound can exist only with ears. Unless the eardrums are struck, there is no sound.
It would have been better if they had chosen silence, but still not right because even for silence somebody is needed to feel it. If there is nobody, silence cannot exist.
What I am trying to show to you is that the very idea of one in the beginning is an assumption. In fact, one cannot exist without two; two cannot exist without three; three cannot exist without four…ad infinitum. If one exists, that means one digit of an infinity; otherwise, one has no meaning. What meaning will you give to one?
You can say it is not two, but you have brought two into it. You can say it is not three, but you have brought three into it.
These are all assumptions, and once we accept them then they create a thousand and one problems. Then the problem arises: if there was only one in the beginning…
The questioner has been an ambassador to England from Nepal. He is well educated, but even he is not aware of a simple fact: who told you that in the beginning there was one? On what grounds do you accept the ultimate “in the beginning”? Who told you that there has ever been a beginning?
As far as I am concerned there has never been a beginning. Existence has always been here, and there is going to be no end. Existence is going to be always here.
Changes may go on happening – new forms, new beings – but the inner core of existence is eternal. And all the philosophies talking about beginnings are childish. But this is a problem – once you accept an assumption without questioning it, you are getting into trouble.
And that’s what happened to the theosophists…. They accepted the ultimate “in the beginning…” then they had to accept that there was a time and there will be a time again when man and woman will be born together, joined together, and will walk on all fours. And this is not only for theosophy, theosophy is a very new movement. It developed in the last century, and it has died out. It has no significance anymore.
Jainism is the most ancient religion in the world. It also has a similar kind of theory – a little bit different, but the idea is based on the same assumption. Jainism believes that in the beginning, satyuga, the age of truth, every child was born with his partner – one boy, one girl, together; they were twins, not joined. A man and woman joined together, walking on four legs, looks absolutely ugly. I don’t think it is a development, it looks more like a cartoon than like a spiritual ideology.