It is well known that essence has different validity. Essence, when considered externally and mixed with distinguishing accidents, is called mixed essence (bi šarṭi šei’), and when it is abstracted from external accidents and is considered in the mind, it is called pure essence (bi šarṭi lā). Mixed essence is limited to the outside, and pure essence is limited to the container of the mind. Essence in the container of the outside is an external individual, and essence in the container of the mind is an essence described as an universal that can apply to many individuals. However, these two validities ​​require a third validity that is free from external and mental constraints. The scholars named the latter validity absolute essence (lā bi šarṭ) and have placed it in a position the source of division (maqsam) for the two parts (qism) mentioned. Absolute essence is essence that is non-conditional on the mind and external, and it is known as a natural universal. Then, there has been a dispute as to when the third validity or absolute validity can be placed as the source of division. Therefore, they have distinguished between two meanings of the absolute and has divided lā bi šarṭ into a partial (lā bi šarṭi qismῑ) and divider (lā bi šarṭi maqsamῑ) and finally the essence lā bi šarṭi maqsamῑ is interpreted as a natural universal (kullῑ-i ṭabῑ'ῑ). This article attempts to address the misunderstanding that has arisen in Avicenna's thought regarding the essence lā bi šarṭ and to show that the essence lā bi šarṭ in the sense of a divider (maqsam) and essence lā bi šarṭ in the sense of a natural universal cannot coincide, and where the error that has arisen for the scholars of the view originates.