Again: Science makes shipwreck on the boundlessness, so to speak, of her results. Make a beginning where she will, everywhere there opens before her a new, unending series of facts, each one of which in turn is the starting-point of another unending series. And in science herself no point of departure is to be found, proceeding from which she might be able to account for this fact. She is unable to say whether these series, converging, move on towards a conclusion, or the reverse. Here again the Buddha-thought proves its value as a working hypothesis. The entire world of actuality consists of an endless number of self-sustaining processes. The _in-forces_ in virtue of which these processes subsist are imperceptible to sense, save where they become sense-perceptible to the individual himself as consciousness. This amounts to saying that I can comprehend nothing but myself--that I can do nothing in regard to the external world but _react to it after a fashion altogether inexhaustible_--that, however, despite the endless diversity of the symptoms necessarily bound up with the same, a genuine comprehension ever remains equally near and equally far. Whence, then, the fact of scientific law? For that science is in possession of genuine laws is proven by her faculty of calculating in advance. If, however, I can calculate in advance, this must mean that I not only react but also really comprehend. It is precisely upon scientific law that a peculiar flood of light is thrown by the interpretation of the play of world-events yielded by the Buddha-thought. Where the universe is nothing but an endless number of combustion processes, there the whole play of world-events is just the passage from one process to the next, the self-adaptation of process to process. _The play of world-events is law itself._ This, however, for the observing mind, also implies the possibility of apprehending the play of world-events as something that _has_ law. As the flame _has_ light and heat because it _is_ light and heat--these themselves, so the play of world-events _has_ laws because it _is_ law itself. The laws of science are simply the outcome of an act of self-adaptation, self-accommodation to actuality. To use an illustration: Science in its relations to nature resembles an old body-servant who has studied his master’s ways long enough to be able to prophesy with tolerable accuracy what his master will do then and then under this or other circumstances--provided only that he does not do something else! Such is the position of science towards the inexhaustible play of world-events. The longer she observes, with all the more probability of being correct, she can tell beforehand what her master, Nature, will do at this or the other moment under such and such conditions--always supposing that he does not go away and do something else quite different!