Splitting hairs on a bald head

[Gregory Goode]

> >Is this a problem?  Are you thinking that if you can't make sense of one
> >without the other, then we aren't correctly describing the nirguna side,
> >where it seems that it should be able to exist without there being any
> >quality-filled counterpart?
>
> 1.  You *can't* make sense of one without the other.

Agree!

> 2.  Nirguna Brahman, by definition, cannot be described.

Agree!

> 3.  What is a nirguna side?  It's all inclusive isn't it?  This sounds more
> like noumena/phenomena partioning.

I think I meant "nirguna side" of the notional distinction.
>
>  >There are times where "at rest" is without the
> >"in motion" side.
>
> Conceivability is not one of those times..

That's true.  Ramesh once said that if all sentient beings
all perished, there would be nirguna Brahman only.  In pralaya, the
cosmic dissolution, all there is is nirguna Brahman.  Along with
nirguna Brahman goes the ajati vada theory of (non)-creation, where
the world is not created at all, but appears as an uncaused
appearance in Brahman, and identical with Brahman.  The world is not
unreal, because it is identical with Brahman, and not real because it
is appearance and not self-existent.

> say whatever you want about Brahman.  To me, Nirguna Brahman
> is everything that ever is was or will be now.
> It can't be spoken of because there is no vantage
> point outside of it to connect with a prepositional bridge:
> no "of", no "about".

I agree.

> that *is* saying the same thing as that it is "at rest."
> If  there is no real separation between past, present and future
> then there is no real change either, and rest is all there is.

>From the viewpoint of the Absolute, I think this is how it really is.

Om!

--Greg