in something else and is not separate from it. Saying, “It must be either inside the world or outside it,” is like saying, “It must be either simultaneous with the world or prior to it.” For its spatial coincidence with the world and its sharing a spatial domain with it are like its temporal concurrence with the world and its sharing the same time. It is either spatially coincident with the world or separate from it, and either concurrent with the world or prior to it.

Likewise, whenever another existent exists, every existent either precedes it or does not. If it does not precede it, it is either simultaneous with it or subsequent to it. It is also either separate from it; then it is either a substratum for it or inheres in it.

The opponent did not formulate the argument he reported precisely enough to bring out the parallel. He said, “We cannot conceive of an existent that is neither beginningless nor originated. Likewise, we cannot conceive of an existent that is neither within the world nor outside it, nor in any of the six directions relative to it.”

A precise formulation of the parallel would have been to say that no two existents can be conceived without one preceding the other or both being concurrent. Likewise, no two existents can be conceived without one being outside and separate from the other, or both being spatially coincident, such that one is inside the other; or