> Depends on what you mean by the last sentence fragment.
By that phrase (I wasn't aware that my sentences were becoming fragmentary, at least before the pubs close) I was being somewhat 'carefully vague', since I'm not sure in _what_ sense you are claiming that Atrilith 'manifested', exactly.
> >[...] but that's
> >quite a distance short of any evidence that he manifests _within_
> >the created world.
> But I didn't _say_ 'created world', I have always said 'Cosmos'.
I'm attempting to use a more useful term. The whole talk of 'manifestation' very much implies to me 'created world', or at least 'that part of the Universe (i.e., everything) which is not transcendent/ the Other Side'. If you're going to talk of a 'Cosmos' that the Creator is outside of, but that Atrilith is (or was) inside, I'm not at all sure I know how you're defining or using the term.
So far as I can tell, the concept of 'first individuated entity' is basically what the Western 'Creator', the Eastern 'Atrilith', and the Dara Happan 'One' is all about. By no means am I saying these concepts are interchangeable -- rather, that each is the _closest_ analogue each has in the other schemes.
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail