With her working hypotheses science acts like a man who, in order to relieve himself of troublesome daily disbursements, pays out one lump sum of money for the settlement of all these petty claims. So science, in the place of countless daily, hourly--yea, in the amplest sense of the words--continuous incomprehensibilities of life, pays out one single, great incomprehensibility in the shape of central forces, atoms, ethers, out of which all the trifling requirements of the day--the running expenses, so to say--can now be met. The knowledge which science supplies us is the most pregnant possible expression for our ignorance. Were a genuine comprehension in question, one would make a speculation of it like a man who should buy up all the tickets in a lottery in order to make sure of the first prize. From the position which science takes up towards the play of world-events--that of potential comprehensibility--she is obliged to combat everything that would militate against this potential comprehensibility. Hence the embittered fight over the axioms of mathematics. Science, if she would remain science, may tolerate only what springs from experience. But what springs from experience can also be swept away again by experience. As the god Kronos devours his own offspring, so, in reverse wise, does each young experience devour its genitor. But it is just this mobility, this, the complete relativity of her results, which lends to science her security. Were she anywhere to strike against solid ground, against anything not springing from experience, it would be with her as with a deep-sea vessel gone ashore: she would be dashed to pieces by the crashing waves of actuality. Of course there is no danger of any such thing happening so long as science keeps to _her own domain_, the re-actual world. As biology, however, where she must encounter life itself, face the fact _consciousness_, she is such a stranded ship as long since must have gone to wreck under the assaults of actuality did not physics time and again come to her aid and support. This is the interpretation of the fact “science” in the Buddha-thought: We can do nothing but inexhaustibly react to a world which in its every motion _is law itself_, and therefore offers the possibility of a _reading in accordance with law_, but in regard to its own essential nature for ever and ever remains utterly beyond our reach. Whence then the possibility of the human mind ever and again adjusting itself anew to this inexhaustible play of world-events?