that is continually present in the higher governing beings. This is a relation, while the absence of a veil is a negation.”

He said:

“What indicates that this much is sufficient is that seeing consists merely in the relation whereby a thing is manifest to the one who sees it, with no veil intervening. His relation to everything manifest to Him thus constitutes seeing—apprehending—it. The multiplicity of mental relations does not entail multiplicity in His essence.”

He said:

“As for providential care, it amounts to nothing.”

[Response to him]

The reply is as follows: He himself has demonstrated the falsity of their position, but the position he has chosen is also false. For he says:

“His knowledge of Himself consists in His being a light unto Himself and manifest to Himself; His knowledge of things consists in their being manifest to Him. This is a relation, while the absence of a veil is a negative condition.”

He should be asked: Do the manifestation, relation, and removal of the veil that you have described amount to sheer nonexistence, or do they entail something positive? If they amount to sheer nonexistence, there is no knowledge at all. For we know by plain reason that a knower’s knowledge of the things known is not sheer nonexistence. Rather, we know that our statement, “He does not know,” signifies nonexistence. Thus, we know that the negation of knowledge is nonexistence, while its affirmation is existence.