which could belong to another. Readiness’s reality cannot disappear or change into its opposite. Thus in knowledge of Nature we say heat does not turn into coldness; rather the hot becomes cold insofar as it is a locus and entity, not insofar as hot or cold.
One particular readiness does not change into another. The locus receptive to this assigned readiness is receptive to other readinesses. Willing singled it out for this readiness rather than others; it did not single out readiness itself[2].
I saw a group of our companions err concerning this. They held willing has no effect upon this locus through what its readiness gives, since it has no effect upon readiness. The affair is as we explained, if you understand.
(Among This Chapter’s Questions)
Nature’s balance disputed the divine, spiritual balance because it knew its balance was not through a maker’s making. It forgot that its balance’s appearance within a particular thing is through a maker’s making: the divine balance. Nature disputed the divine, spiritual balance through its own balance, and the divine, spiritual balance disputed it, being stronger and possessing the ruling. Dispute arose only from Nature, for it did not accept that balance
Notlar
[2]
(The author distinguishes readiness’s reality from assigning it to one particular locus. His following objection refers to this distinction.)
