1-5 are all aspects of seven. So I’m really not sure what the point you’re trying to make.
We do now regard 1-5 as all being made out of the same stuff that 7 is made out of. But many folks persistently felt that there had to be separate kinds of essences involved in at least some of 1-5. I felt that way for some of them. The point is that I/they were mistaken; and the next point is to ask if there are any other questions about which we may be similarly mistaken or confused.
We do now regard 1-5 as all being made out of the same stuff that 7 is made out of. But many folks persistently felt that there had to be separate kinds of essences involved in at least some of 1-5.
Even before 1-5 were succesfully reduced they were still seen as part of 7.
They were just seen as parts of 7 with different properties to the rest.
Does that make any more sense?
It doesn’t really clarify my main point of confusion, which is what you’re attempting to gain by listing 7 (ie. pretty much everything) as a single thing to be reduced
We do now regard 1-5 as all being made out of the same stuff that 7 is made out of. But many folks persistently felt that there had to be separate kinds of essences involved in at least some of 1-5. I felt that way for some of them. The point is that I/they were mistaken; and the next point is to ask if there are any other questions about which we may be similarly mistaken or confused.
Does that make any more sense?
Even before 1-5 were succesfully reduced they were still seen as part of 7.
They were just seen as parts of 7 with different properties to the rest.
It doesn’t really clarify my main point of confusion, which is what you’re attempting to gain by listing 7 (ie. pretty much everything) as a single thing to be reduced