Now that this has been clarified, when we say that a thing is “in need by its very essence,” we do not mean that there is some essence—other than the actual existent entity outside the mind—that is described as needy. Such language would only be acceptable to one who claims that the nonexistent is a “thing” and that its reality is something added to existence in the external world. Our intention, rather, is that the very created existent outside the mind is poor and dependent: its own reality, which is identical with its existence, is the needy reality. Even if one were to posit an existence additional to it, or its existence considered as an originating source, all of that would likewise be poor and dependent, just as the entity itself is poor and dependent—whereas the Lord, by His own existent reality, is inherently self-sufficient. The creature, therefore, is marked by poverty and need both before it exists and after it has come into existence.

Before its existence, we mean that it can only come into being through the Creator; it does not bring itself into existence. After it exists, we mean that it did not become existent, nor does its existence endure, nor did it acquire a reality, nor does that reality persist, except through the Creator.

When we say, “it is nonexistent,” we are speaking of something we have conceived prior to its existence—this is what is envisioned of it in the mind.

There is no doubt that those who said “the nonexistent is a thing,” and those who said “the quiddity of a thing is additional to its existence,” perceived the difference between what is fixed in the mind and what is established outside the mind.

This distinction is indeed sound, for the mental concepts are not the realities themselves.