its parts does not mean that its parts produced it (1), or that they existed independently of it and exerted an influence upon it. Rather, it means (2) that it exists only with the existence of the whole—and it is well known that a thing exists only with its own existence.

If it is said, “In this sense, it depends upon itself,” this (3) is not impossible. Rather, it is true, for the Necessary Existent Himself cannot dispense with Himself.

If it is said, “He is necessary in Himself,” this does not mean that He Himself (4) brought His necessity into being (5). Rather, it means that He exists in Himself and does not depend upon anything other than Himself for this; His existence is necessary and can never admit of nonexistence.

Thus, if it is said, for example, “Ten depends upon ten” (6), this does not entail its dependence upon anything other than itself. If it is said, “It depends upon the unit that is one of its parts,” its dependence upon one of its parts is no greater (7) than its dependence upon the whole, which is identical to it.

If that is not impossible but is instead true—for (8 the whole does not exist except through the whole; how then could it be impossible to say that the whole does not exist 8) (8) except through the existence of one of its parts?