In Himself because it is the sum of His essence, even though they are reasonable in distinguishing one from the other .
« Question » [Forms of knowledge and essence] < /h3>
Every form in The world is an accident in essence, and it is the one upon which dislocation and flaying occur, and the essence is one. The division is in the form, not in the essence.
« Issue” [Plurality in the first effect]
The saying of the one who said: “It is found that the first effect has multiplicity, even if it is one of the considerations.” Three things are found in it, which are its cause, its essence, and its possibility. So we say to them that you are bound by the first cause. I mean that there are considerations in it, and it is one. So why do you prevent that only one should emanate from it? Either you adhere to the plurality emanating from the first cause, or one emanating from the first effect, and you do not believe in both. < /p >
« Issue » [denying causality from the divine essence]
Whoever is required to have self-perfection and self-richness cannot be a cause of anything because his being a cause results in his being dependent on the effect and the essence. It is free from being dependent on anything, so it is an impossible cause, but divinity may accept additions. If it is said that “God” is only applied to the one who is complete in essence and rich in essence, and does not want addition or attribution, we say that there is no disagreement in the wording other than