His indwelling in every existing being—animals and others—and even “union” with everything. Indeed, they affirm “oneness,” meaning that He is the very existence of all existing things.

The reason for this is that supplication, worship, purpose, will, and devotional turning require an existing object. Reflection, inquiry, and theological discourse are different: knowledge, discourse, inquiry, syllogistic reasoning, and reflection concern both what exists and what does not exist. When the heart is not engaged in worship, devotional turning, and supplication, negation and denial come easily to it, and it turns away from affirmation. By contrast, when engaged in supplication and worship, it seeks an existing being whom it can intend, petition, and worship. Negation entails only denial and nonexistence; thus, in negation, he does not negate what might be sought or worshipped.

An opponent of this poem who denies both opposing descriptions says: “I say that He is not separate, but I do not affirm indwelling or union. Why, then, have you said that if I do not affirm His separateness, I must affirm indwelling or union?” This is what the leading negationists say to a poet such as this.

At this point, those who affirm that He is separate from and outside the world—together with those negationists who say that He is everywhere, which is the apparent import of their statements and those of their learned authorities and people of spiritual insight—say: “We know self-evidently that an existing thing must either be separate from another or be co-located with it. We also know self-evidently that anyone who affirms two existing things, neither of which is inside the other—co-located with it—nor outside it—separate from it—has contradicted what reason knows necessarily. This knowledge is embedded in the natural disposition of all people, except those who uncritically follow the negationists’ position.”