based on human understanding...
I'll rephrase, because I get the sense that I didn't give an accurate description of Saguna vs. Nirguna Brahman. (Saguna = Personal God/God with Form; Nirguna = Impersonal God/God without Form).
Saguna Brahman is when our biases, beliefs, ideals, etc. are applied to the Supreme, and this gives rise to the various God-concepts that we have.
Nirguna Brahman is free from all of that. The idea that Nirguna Brahman is the only Constant is based on the hypothesis that if you strip away all things that are transitory, you will eventually reach one thing that all things contain, are made of, are related through, etc.
For example, how are you and I the same? We're both humans. How are humans and chimps related? We're both primates. How are primates and, say, cetaceans related? They're both mammals. How are mammals and birds related? They both are animals. How are animals and plants related? They're both alive. How are living things and nonliving things related? They're both made of certain molecular elements. These contain atoms, which have their own components. These components have components of their own.
I don't know if there are things that aren't made of atoms (besides the actual subatomic components.) The theory is that eventually you'd reach a place where you can't go any further, and whatever you reach at that point is the Constant.
you said:
who breaks free from conformity? a leader.
Not necessarily. I didn't conform to society, but I'm way too timid to be a leader.
I broke free from society because society rejected me. Thus, I learned how to think on my own, so that even though I belong to certain subcultures, I don't "conform" to all the likes/dislikes of them.
without whom a branch of music would not have emerged
all of which did not conform to their influences
I could argue both points 'till I'm blue in the mouth, but I don't want to go off on too much of a tangent.
consider a tree... each branch is connected to the trunk but is original in form
But are still the tree, and thus aren't wholly "original." Besides, that's not how I'd apply "original." If I were to apply the word "original" to the tree, I'd think of a branch that grows in a perfectly straight line and grows leaves that don't exist anywhere else in nature.
BTW, I love the irony here, because the tree is often used as an analogy to describe dvaitadvaita, the idea that the soul is both the same and different from God. ^_^
and the "i" of today cannot be without the "i"of yesterday
when "i" learn "i" changes
therefore giving yesterdays "i" value...
But not extra-ordinary value. All the pieces of the puzzle are equal in value.
evil acts are not a form of inferiority...
But we tend to look down on those who commit evil, do we not?
i am understanding that as; the laws society upholds but are ultimately subjected to progress and change
...once again, what does that have to do with what I said? I'm referring primarily to cultures and subcultures.