If we assume a linear teleological axis, the nature of the fathomless eidolon can be interpolated from the nature of known deific hierarchies: the closer to our plane the god is, the more temporal their aspect. (Indeed the parallel between god and worshipper becomes so rigidly unimaginative that, in cases where the deity has fallen silent or perhaps never communicated interpretably, their existence is indistinguishable from complete fabrication: god as childish wish fulfillment.)
The more distant the entity is from the prime material plane, the more abstract its domain. It is said that Ao serves a “luminous being,” of which a rigorous holy text, were one to be written, would only contain the two words “luminous being.” I shun the many-aspect interpretation, as it posits the pointless fractioning of a single entity as evidence of some sanctimonious complexity; a “low infinity” which satisfies a layperson’s desire for a champion containing unspoken multitudes, while appealing to their need to wholly define its domain in the same shallow breath.
I do not perceive “aspect” so much as I do “function,” or perhaps more accurately “apparatus.” the physiological whole of a common organism is factored into organs, each with a purpose. This may suggest a more tolerant philosophical construction, to imagine the corpus of the fathomless eidolon, served by innumerable duodena tasked with filtration, transport, etc. However in this analogy I have found that any given deity has far more in common with the mechanism of a cancer: a once-purposed discrete biology that has forgotten its original function, and now can only devour resources in a blind parody of divinity. The congregation solemnly gathers to worship not a god, but a tumor.
It is not strictly sacrilege to hypothesize that our pantheon was influenced by its lesser supplicants on this plane, if not birthed entirely by this plane, thus our recognition of numerous parallels and symmetries therein. A linear interpolation godward would suggest a conceptual bearing more deeply abstracted from those which our lives orbit.
Of course, even the idea that a cogitable hierarchy exists is a low construct of a low mind. It is too simplistic to think that gods of unknowable aspect would adhere to structures of fealty, service, or order. Thus, to express my disappointment another way: it may be that the gods we worship are inferior to the point where they are the only ones visible to our kind. They are merely sapient beings subsequent to us on the axis of scale. They demand tribute and worship; they war; they love; they die.
There must have been an absolute origin, an origin to the origin. Everything we know is a static coordinate in a system with infinite dimensions. I believe the “ur” is not a data point but a vector.