and His attributes; and that whose existence has a beginning, namely the originated.” He said: “This is a self-evident division based on affirmation and negation, for an existent either has a beginning or has no beginning.”

Since he has included Him in the division of existents into the eternal and the originated, he must likewise include Him in the division of existents into the independent and the dependent. Indeed, this division is clearer and more evident, and rational people agree upon it. They do not dispute that the Creator, glory be to Him, exists independently and is not dependent, just as they agree that He is eternal and not originated.

Yet knowledge of His independence and self-subsistence has greater priority, is clearer, and comes earlier to the heart than knowledge of His eternity, just as knowledge of His existence takes priority over knowledge that His existence is necessary. For if He were not independent in Himself and free of any need for a substrate, He could not be the sole eternal existent or necessary in Himself, just as, if He did not exist, He could not be necessary. The converse, however, does not hold: something that is not the sole eternal existent, or is not necessary in itself, may nevertheless be independent or existent. Thus, the relationship between these is like that between an essence and its attributes.

Furthermore, if the beginningless existent has no beginning or end to its existence, and this does not prevent its inclusion in the division of existents into the eternal