The risk to thinking about these distinctions, obviously, lies in the way one imagines that one understands what the “gunas” signify, the realm of qualities. There are many ways of formalizing qualities and characteristics as concepts. But one always goes astray if one decides to adopt one of them as though one could somehow pick up a meaning, put it away in a pocket, and walk off with it. To put saguna together with nirguna means opening a way toward understanding something entirely different from objects and the world of objects, which includes the view of oneself as the possessor and the knower of objects in the world of objects. A teacher has to feel out how far he or she can go in pointing out how the quality of mind determines such questions and such answers because it doesn’t help the student to push too far and to speak too elusively. Wherever one pauses along the way of understanding a transcendent meaning, one should remind oneself that the idea one embraces is likely to be step along the way, and the meaning only a pause toward recreating the quality of mind that reaches out toward the complete transformation of one’s mind. The difference between saguna and nirguna is the journey along that road. The question changes, therefore, to the determination: is there a destination? You can form an idea of who you are talking to by the way he or she responds to that question. If he or she can make you feel comfort in the understanding that the answer is not yes, and it is not no, and it is not both yes and no, nor is it neither yes nor no, then at least you can be certain that this teacher has not placed new obstacles in your path.