And his saying: "and if He were neither commingled nor distinct, He would be nonexistence," because there is nothing beyond these two categories except nonexistence. He only intended by this to point toward manifestation and to negate descriptive traits from Him. Do you not see his saying: "However, I say that He is distinct from them in His essence," meaning that the essence of the Eternal is distinct from the essence of the originated, "

(yet not distinct from them as an antithesis)" meaning He is not their antithesis from the perspective of manifestation, but rather He manifests in their likeness. And his saying: "(and I say that He is outside of them, yet I do not mean that He is not within them)" he intended by it manifestation, then he clarified that by his saying: "(rather, I mean that His essence is separate from their essence)" meaning the Eternal. And his saying: "(even if He is within them)" he intended by it manifestation.

And his saying: “(And I do not say that their essence is mixed with His essence, because they are originated while He is eternal, and they are created while He is the Creator)” negated that the essence of the Eternal be mixed with the essence of the originated with the mixing of commingling; rather, it is a directness of manifestation only, so that existence is established and direct witnessing and eternity become valid, etc.

This is a little out of many textual and intellectual proofs that I have adduced so that the reader may see that our principles are built upon a deep, essential philosophy whose depths cannot be readily fathomed.