This it is which makes possible that scepticism--as found in Hume, for example--which denies that there is any _actual_ causality at all. For the adequate causes of happenings can never _be proved_, since as forces they can never be perceptible to sense. From this there follows the possibility of unravelling a process to any extent one chooses without once coming upon anything to justify the conception of causality. One must first have understood that my consciousness, the consciousness of the investigator, is this causality itself, if one is to understand wherein lies the necessity of seeing a causal relation everywhere--_without seeing it!_ To arrive at the conception of causality by way of experience is quite impossible. This has been shown by Hume in masterly fashion. But his escape from the difficulty by declaring this conception to be a product of habit is all as mistaken as the other device of declaring it to be a something given _a priori_ to all experience. There is a third alternative, lying between and above these two opposites. As from the polygon one could never arrive at the conception of the circle, though one carried the duplication of the angles never so far--one would still be left with the concept of the polygon,--so from the simple data, from the following upon one another of two occurrences, one can never arrive at the conception of causality though one should multiply one’s observations even to infinitude. One can only comprehend the circle from the polygon, when the former is given as ultimate concept (_Grenzbegriff_). In the selfsame way one can only comprehend the causal relation from the succession of events, when the former is given as ultimate value (_Grenzwert_). This, however, does not mean that it is a something given _a priori_; it only means that _consciousness itself is this ultimate value_. Towards this it is that all unwittingly one is striving when one sees in events the causal relation and yet is unable to furnish any explanation of it. Such is the riddle of the _logical necessity of the law of adequate cause_ as solved by the Buddha. Again: All mental life splits itself up into these two divisions--faith and science. Faith says, “There _must_ be present a something imperceptible to sense.” Science says, “We are unable to find anything imperceptible to sense and therefore reject in principle any such conception.” At this point the Master interposes and points out that they are both of them right, because they are both of them wrong, since neither of them knows how to interpret “consciousness,” _i.e._ oneself. Consciousness, as Kamma, is the something imperceptible to sense, is the _in-force_, but it _becomes_ perceptible to sense for me, the individual, in the course of its beginningless, self-acting development. Such is the interpretation supplied by the Buddha as to how it is possible for mental life to manifest itself in the two contradictories, faith and science.