To put such a question is the same as if one should ask: “Will the sun indicate mid-day correctly and unfailingly every day? Or: Will the ocean maintain itself unceasingly at sea-level?” Where the entire universe _has_ not but _is_ law there, “to take hold” is as much as to say “to take hold legitimately”: “to take hold legitimately” is as much as to say “to take hold rightly.” All such questions were justified only if we had to do with a reciprocal being attuned; but all things are found to be a series of ever new self-attunings, each after other--no working into one another like cog and groove, no pre-established harmony, no psycho-physical parallelism. The whole universe is a thing that finds itself in a state of perpetual nascency. If a jest may be ventured in face of the monster, one might say that the whole world is constantly in a state of bringing forth, yet never is there born a “something” that stands ideally fast, so as to be fitted to serve as a standard for true and untrue. The fact that a chemical compound decomposes, that its constituent elements are set free, always implies that from another direction forces more powerful are coming into play. Decomposition is nothing but the form of a new combination. In similar wise Kamma does not become free just for the sake of becoming free, just in order to be free. Not in any arbitrary fashion does it leap out of its old location; it does so only because its material falls away from under it. That it can take fresh hold and always can take hold, of this the guarantee is the simple fact that there is a world at all, for the latter is just the series of self-attunings each after other, itself. Were the world obliged to _come_ to this self-attuning first, never by any means could there be a world. What we find present is precisely something given--actuality, and this stands for no mere set of _possibilities_; it represents a _power_--its own power to exist; and the expression of this power to exist is just this eternal ability to take fresh hold.