neither eternal nor originated, or neither necessary nor possible. It also knows that two existent beings cannot be neither close to one another nor separate, neither spatially separate nor co-located. Thus, saying, “This existent being is neither inside this other being nor outside it,” is like saying, “It is neither concurrent with it nor separate from it by preceding or following it.” Or one may say, “Of these two existent beings, neither is concurrent with the other, nor before it—or, nor after it.”

Once this is clear, consider his statement: “Sound reason does not reject dividing existent beings into those that are spatially located and those that are not. But it does reject a thing’s having neither beginningless existence nor its negation. Thus, drawing an analogy between the two is far-fetched.”

He may be answered: This is not a fair comparison. In saying, “An existent being is either spatially located or not,” he either means by “space” something existent and separate from the spatially located being, or he does not mean something existent and separate from it. If he means the former, this parallels saying, “An existent being is either in time or not,” if by “time” he means