I suspect the first phrase denotes the fact that each god, being perfect, requires nothing from without to make he or she any better (indeed, they can't get any better, since they are perfect).
His use of the term "essence," though, raises some issues, largely because of the second point: the gods are "superessential," that is, above/prior/before Being itself. Indeed, the confluence of the gods, if I recall right, is what generates Being, from whence arises the Forms (I think?) and ultimately the material world that we inhabit.
But if they are prior to essence, then how can they have essence, even if it's perfect? I would assume he just is using "essence" as shorthand for intrinsic qualities, and not in the sense of "being," but...you know what happens when one "assumes."
An aside, one model for perhaps visualizing some of this, after a fashion (henads are, for all intents and purposes, the gods). I'm not sure where Being arises in this schema, but it would be below the level of the henads/gods.
no subject
His use of the term "essence," though, raises some issues, largely because of the second point: the gods are "superessential," that is, above/prior/before Being itself. Indeed, the confluence of the gods, if I recall right, is what generates Being, from whence arises the Forms (I think?) and ultimately the material world that we inhabit.
But if they are prior to essence, then how can they have essence, even if it's perfect? I would assume he just is using "essence" as shorthand for intrinsic qualities, and not in the sense of "being," but...you know what happens when one "assumes."
An aside, one model for perhaps visualizing some of this, after a fashion (henads are, for all intents and purposes, the gods). I'm not sure where Being arises in this schema, but it would be below the level of the henads/gods.
Axé