[Advaita-l] ishwara swarupam

[amith vikram]

>But space is nevertheless an object of perception and nothing can be so
unless
>it has a form.
Space is percieved only in relation to other objects and not independently.

>As formlessness is an attribute of objects,
>though not seen, we have ask what is the form of formlessness?
Form is an attribute of objects, formlessness being the logical opposite IS
not an attribute of objects. If formlessness would have been an attribute
of objects, we would have known it by now through direct experience.

I didn't understand the rest of your post but i think you are trying to
conclude - formlessnes of form, but form of what? If we take space as an
example, then the formlessness of form of space is true.