Then surely the divine qualities would belong to the 'nature' (for want of a better term) they share in common (the universal aspect), rather than to the individual aspect of the equals in association? Where the crucial distinction lies, it seems to me, is in the 'I am'? It seems to me that no theology/metaphysic has as its Supreme Principle anything other than the One, even though that One be monad and, simultaneously, henad. The same could be said, to use an analogy I am conversant with, of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Here we have what appears to be three Gods, and a 'simple' of 'naive' expression of the doctrine could be accused of tritheism, which Scripture expressly refutes: "He that seeth me seeth the Father also" (John 14:9), "I am in the Father, and the Father in me" (John 14:11). If I may try and transpose your terms into a Christian context: The doctrine of 'non-dualism' is present in Christianity, expressed in apophasis, and can be traced from Scripture onwards. Although it was preached famously in Eckhart, he was building upon a long and venerable tradition of non-dualism within the tradition. In more recent times there has been Christianity and the Doctrine of Non-Dualism an anonymous work by 'A Monk of the West', as well as the works of the likes of Bede Griffiths, among others.