When science wins, doubt wins. This is why science could not be born in India. It could not have been. Where trust is deep, there just cannot be any journey in science. This is why the days of the Upanishads were the days of no science; there was no development of science. This is also why there cannot be any development of religion in the West today, because science has become successful there and doubt has won. The two journeys are opposite.
The East has given religion, because it gave to mind the base of trust; the West has given science, because it gave to mind the base of doubt.
I do not say that doubt is wrong, nor do I say that doubt is right. I do not say that trust is right, nor do I say that trust is wrong. Understand my viewpoint rightly.
If somebody uses trust for science, it is wrong. If somebody uses doubt for religion, it is wrong. If someone uses trust in religion, it is right; if someone uses doubt in science, it is right. Doubt has its own capabilities.
For knowing about matter, doubt has its accepted use; for knowing oneself it is impotent. Trust has no capabilities for knowing about matter, but for knowing oneself, trust alone has the capability. When we try to use a means from one world in the opposite world we are in difficulty. There is no need to do such a thing. If I want to go out of my house I have to keep my face towards the outside of the house and my back towards the house. If I want to come into my house, my face has to be towards the house and my back towards the outside of the house.
Trust is to face towards the house, doubt is to face away from the house. Trust and doubt are two sides of the same coin, but their uses are different and their achievements are different. One who is in confusion about the two falls into difficulty.
In the days when the Upanishads were born, trust was the foundation; what was heard was assimilated instantly. Trust means receptivity, trust means loving acceptance.
This acceptance was intrinsic to the society. It was not that somebody casually told something to someone while walking on the road; one had to sit with the master for many years. One had to drink in the master for years, one had to live with the master for years. Slowly, slowly the rhythm of the master’s breathing would become the rhythm of the disciple’s breathing too. Slowly, slowly the sitting and the rising of the master, the movements of the master, would become the sitting and the rising of the disciple too. Slowly, slowly an attunement, an inner harmony would be created between the two, and then the disciple knew from his innermost being that the master was right.
This recognition used to commence slowly. It was not like asking someone passing on the road, “Is there a God?”
I come across such people. I am going to catch some train and they stop me in the middle of it, on the platform, and say, “One moment please, is there really a God?”