These two, faith and science, at their deepest roots, share in one common nature, since both in truth represent that grandest form of symbiosis in which is made manifest the instinct of self-preservation on the part of the universe--the universe considered as the totality of all living beings. When faith thinks things out it falls back into the lap of science. When science thinks things out it falls back into the lap of faith. And both by their simple existence demonstrate the truth of the Buddha-teaching that all mental life perforce operates under the encumbrance of ignorance. For let science, or rather the scientist in person, place himself, if only temporarily and for a specific purpose, at the artificial standpoint of the mechanistic world-view, and so soon as he really begins to think he gives the lie to his own scientific view, inasmuch as he everywhere works with the concept of identity. Nay, he is never even in a position to maintain a clear distinction between the two points of view. This is proven by the problems of science, which, without exception, are of a purely dialectical nature, inasmuch as they all presuppose the erroneous concept of things as _identities_. Our task here is to throw the light of the Buddha-thought upon these problems, and to this task we now proceed to address ourselves. VII BUDDHISM AND THE PROBLEM OF PHYSICS Were one to lay the Kamma teaching of the Buddha before a physicist, in all likelihood he would dismiss it with this objection:-- “Immediate passing over that cannot be put to the proof in space and time is telekinesis. Telekinesis is a fact only for faith. Accordingly, Buddhism too, like every other religion, is a religion of faith.” The scientifically-educated man would probably concur in this train of thought. Hence, if Buddhism is to have any prospect whatever of playing a part in our intellectual life, it must offer a reply to such a line of argument. That reply would run somewhat as follows:-- Actuality, when, where, and howsoever it makes itself manifest, really means nothing more than this--action is present. For actuality is action, doing, the power to do itself. It tells us, however, nothing at all as to how this action is bound to take place. Whence comes it then that science has the presumption to dictate to actuality a definite kind of action--would have it, so to speak, run along fixed rails? The one-sided requirement of science that all action must be mediate, demonstrable in space and time, follows perforce from the position she takes up towards nature. Science is only possible where there is the perceptible to sense--where there is what can be compared. Comparison is only possible where things are so arranged that the actual energies can be neglected. For every energy is something unique, strictly individual, not comparable, as my consciousness immediately proves to me.