It was not so in the beginning. Just a hundred years ago scientists were very adamant, stubborn, absolute about their findings, because whatsoever they were finding was without exception. But within these hundred years all that absoluteness has disappeared. Every day, new facts are being discovered which go on dismantling the old theories.
Now a new standpoint has arisen; that is, that science can only be temporarily, hypothetically accepted. Nobody can say of anything that the same will happen tomorrow. We can only say that, up to now, whatever we know, this is the conclusion out of it. Anything new being added to it is going to change the whole conclusion.
The dilemma is that science cannot accept being, life. You can cut a man in thousands of parts, you will not find life anywhere. In fact, you cannot put him back together again. Even if you glue him together again, life will not come back.
What is life? How can science accept it? It is beyond the scientist’s grasp. So if he accepts it he accepts a limitation of science – and he accepts something higher than science. Then science cannot be the decisive factor in human life. This is against the ego of the scientist.
He can deny, as he has been doing up to now, or ignore, which is far better; but some standpoint has to be taken. Even ignoring it is a standpoint – you have accepted it; otherwise, what are you ignoring? Either reject or ignore: in each case the acceptance is there. If you reject it, if you simply say it does not exist, that it is a by-product…. Try to understand the word byproduct.
You mix a few things and out of the mixture a new thing arises; it was not there before. But if you take those things which you have mixed…for example, water: hydrogen and oxygen are mixed. Water is formed in a particular ratio, H2O: two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen, and water arises. The water is a by-product. If you take oxygen out, or you take hydrogen out, the water disappears.
But the scientist cannot say even that, because when you put the hydrogen back, the water appears again; yes, it is a by-product. I accept that. But life is not a by-product, because when you put the parts together it does not appear again. You cut off the head, and then you fix it back – you can call Leeladhar, you can do perfect plastic surgery – but still life will not appear. Hence the scientist cannot even say that life is a by-product, that consciousness is a by-product. He will still have to prove both.
Karl Marx said that life and consciousness are both by-products. But he is not being logical, he is being simply a fanatic materialist. It is so clear. A by-product is something which arises out of a certain mixture; it will always arise whenever the mixture is made, it will always disappear whenever the mixture is taken away. That is not the case about life.
The second problem in the dilemma is that the scientist has to deny himself. The moment he denies being and says the world consists only of matter – that is, only of things – then who is he? He is a thing.