we said there is no difference for there is no purpose in specifying the word above and below. rather we change to the word behind and outside and say the world has an inside and an outside. is there something outside the world of fullness or emptiness? they will say there is neither emptiness nor fullness behind the world. if you mean by the outside its upper surface then it has an outside and if you specify something else then it has no outside. so likewise if we are asked does the existence of the world have a before? we say if what is meant by it is does the existence of the world have a beginning that is an end of it then it has a before on this basis just as the world has an outside on the interpretation that it is the exposed and cutoff surface end. if you mean by before something else then there is no before for the world just as if what is meant by the outside of the world is something other than the surface it is said the world has no outside. if you say it is not conceivable that a beginning of existence has no before then it is said and it is not conceivable that a finite existence of a body has no outside. if you say its outside is the surface which is its end and nothing else then we say its before is the beginning of its existence which is its end and nothing else.
قلنا لا فرق فإنه لا غرض في تعيين لفظ الفوق والتحت، بل نعدل إلى لفظ الوراء والخارج ونقول للعالم داخل وخارج، فهل خارج العالم شيء من ملاء أو خلاء؟ فسيقولون ليس وراء العالم لا خلاء ولا ملاء. وإن عنيتم بالخارج سطحه الأعلى فله خارج، وإن عينتم غيره فلا خارج له. فكذلك إذا قيل لنا هل لوجود العالم قبل؟ قلنا إن عني به هل لوجود العالم بداية أي طرف منه ابتدأ، فله قبل على هذا كما للعالم خارج على تأويل أنه الطرف المكشوف والمنقطع السطحي. وإن عنيتم بقبل شيئا آخر، فلا قبل للعالم، كما أنه إذا عني بخارج العالم شيء سوى السطح قيل لا خارج للعالم. فإن قلتم لا يعقل مبتدأ وجود لا قبل له، فيقال ولا يعقل متناهى وجود من الجسم لا خارج له. فإن قلت خارجه سطح الذي هو منقطعه لا غير، قلنا قبله بداية وجوده الذي هو طرفه لا غير.