the second objection is to say is his mind its origin the same as his existence and the same as his mind itself or something else? if it is the same as himself then there is no multiplicity in his essence except in the expression about his essence and if it is something else then this multiplicity is present in the first so he understands his essence and understands something else. if they claim that his mind itself is the same as his essence and does not understand his essence unless he understands that it is the origin of something else then the mind agrees with the intelligible and so it returns to his essence. so we say and the effect his mind itself is the same as his essence so he understands himself and the mind the intelligible and the intelligible from him are also one. then if his mind itself is the same as his essence then let him understand his essence as an effect for a cause for that is the case and the mind agrees with the intelligible and so the whole returns to his essence so there is no multiplicity. and if
الاعتراض الثاني هو أن نقول عقله مبدأه عين وجوده وعين عقله نفسه أم غيره؟ فإن كان عينه فلا كثرة في ذاته إلا في العبارة عن ذاته، وإن كان غيره فهذه الكثرة موجودة في الأول فإنه يعقل ذاته ويعقل غيره. فإن زعموا أن عقله ذاته عين ذاته ولا يعقل ذاته ما لم يعقل أنه مبدأ لغيره، فإن العقل يطابق المعقول فيكون راجعا إلى ذاته. فنقول والمعلول عقله ذاته عين ذاته فإنه عقل بجوهره فيعقل نفسه، والعقل والعاقل والمعقول منه أيضا واحد. ثم إذا كان عقله ذاته عين ذاته فليعقل ذاته معلولا لعلة فإنه كذلك، والعقل يطابق المعقول فيرجع الكل إلى ذاته فلا كثرة إذن. وإن