Chapter 2: So Far, So Good
The first question:
Many people in the West are engaged in the creation of a science or technology of enlightenment. The need is certainly there, but how do you see the possibility? Is it irresponsible to engage in its creation without having reached the state of enlightenment? Is the Arica method a valid approach?
The first and most fundamental thing to be remembered is that enlightenment can never have a technology. By its very nature, it is impossible. But the West is obsessed with technology, so whatsoever comes into the hands of the West, it starts reducing it into a technology. Technology is an obsession. For the outside world science is a valid approach, but partial, not total; not the only approach, but only one of the approaches. Poetry is as valid as science.
Science is knowledge without love, and that is the danger in it. Because it is knowledge without love, it is always in the service of death and never in the service of life. Hence, the whole progress of science is leading man toward a global suicide. One day when man has committed suicide - the Third World War - cockroaches will think, “We are the most fit to survive.” Some Darwin, some cockroach-Darwin, will prove, “We are the fittest because we have survived - the survival of the fittest.”
Man has committed suicide, he has destroyed himself. Knowledge without love is dangerous, because poison is in its very root. Love keeps balance, never allows knowledge to go too far, so it never becomes destructive. Science is knowledge without love - that is its danger. But it is one of the valid approaches: the object, the material, can be known without love; there is no need for love.
But life is not only matter; life is suffused with something tremendously transcendental. That transcendental is missed. And then science, by and by, automatically turns into a technology, it becomes mechanical. More and more it becomes a means to exploit nature, to manipulate nature. From the very beginning, science has been with that idea: how to conquer nature. That’s a foolish idea.
We are not separate from nature, how can we conquer it? We are nature, so who is going to conquer whom? - it is absurd. With that absurdity, science has destroyed much: the whole of nature is destroyed, the climate is poisoned, the air, the water, the seas, everything polluted. The whole harmony is dying, the ecology is being continuously destroyed. Please remember - this is enough, more than enough.