Questions to Answer?

[Fairy]

But, the 'Observer' observes other things, as well.

Also, it is very, very, very rare for 'you', 'observers', to observe 'thoughts'.



That may well be what 'you', individually, 'observe', and believe. But, 'that' is certainly not what the 'Observer' sees, nor believes.


Again, the thoughts, beliefs, and assumptions within that one human body are never necessarily what is actually True, nor Right, in Life.

Only when you produce a sound and valid argument for your claims, assumptions, or beliefs, here, is only when 'they' will be irrefutably True, and/or Right.

Until then 'you' are on 'your own', here.


So, you observing human beings are identical to the cat, phone, whale, and mars that 'you' observe, because there is absolutely no division at all between 'you', an observing human being, and a cat, phone, whale, or Mars. Well according to the one human being known as "fairy", here, anyway.


So, every one 'must' agree with and accept that, 'All physical things are non physical', okay?

Why? Because the human being, known as "fairy", here, says and believes so.

Think what you like. I have no business denying you of your dream. Dreams are infinitely finite within infinity, difference where there is none.

Think and dream whatever you like. you are also free to express those thoughts and dreams. But, if you can not back up and support those thoughts and dreams with irrefutable proof, then they will just remain only thoughts and dreams.

Now, as for what is actually True, and Real, and provably so, then 'this' is very different from your own personal dreams, and thoughts, here.

Enjoy your Sunday.

Only one day, only?

Enjoy every day, especially today since you don't know if you will be alive tomorrow.
Backing up and supporting a dream is unnecessary Age, because they're all different in expression, relative to the observer of them.. There's no need to provide irrefutable evidence for these dreamt expressions because they're already known, and self evident to the one who these dreams are appearing to.

You're continuous need to be fighting with these words is because that's all your/our, the one mind, is surrounded with. It's like there's got to be some answer or resolution, but the game that one is in is not noticed. Have you ever noticed that Age? Oh never mind.

Your answer is not the same as mine, and that's perfectly fine. There are many answers to the one question does the observer want to be observed.

My answer is ..it depends, because once the observer is observed for what it actually is, that's the end of the dream of separation, it's then seen that there is nothing observing the dream. So it's more likely that the observer prefers to be embodied within the somethingness of the dream, rather than to focus on the nothingness in which the whole dream is arising.

[Fairy]

As qualified there is no permanent self, i.e. a self-in-itself or soul-in-itself that survives physical death.

• "In epistemology, he questioned common notions of personal identity, and argued that there is no permanent “self” that continues over time."
  https://iep.utm.edu/hume/

This is only theory though, as observed, physicality being nothing other than appearances and disappearances observed, or perceived.
But is this observing 'permanent' or 'impermanent' though? Can 'permanence' be observed, if there's no permanence to observe?

Given the above, surely you can observe yourself as an empirical self, i.e. the complete 'yourself' i.e. physical and mental as one whole that is not permanent.
The observer will be like a hurricane, river and the like that emerged from a combination of conditions, in this case with self-awareness can verify its self exists as a whole and as observer can observed itself as it is.

You can observe yourself as a temporal appearance, which is actually constructed of sensation and thought.

There must be something that is not a 'thought' or a 'sensation' that is observing every thought and sensation, right?

That space between two thoughts, between sensation felt, and not felt, must exist. This space, or placeholder, is not nothing, it is the interface by which something, namely, thought or sensation is known to arise and fall, appear and disappear.

That space must be permanent, seamless, and necessary for appearances to arise and fall, to be known, and to exist.

A few lines will not explain the above issue sufficiently.

Here is a thorough counter to your points above from AI [points provided by me - comprehensive and save me time].

Refuting the “Permanent Self as the Space Between Thoughts” Claim
The poster is committing a classic error: reifying a structural condition for conscious representation into a metaphysical substance or permanent self. This error is exactly what Hume, Kant, Parfit, and Buddhist no-self (anattā) doctrine dismantle—each from different angles but converging on the same point:

There is no discoverable, necessary, or metaphysically permanent “self” behind thoughts. The ‘space’ between thoughts is not a substance but a conceptual abstraction.

Let’s analyze.

1. Hume’s Refutation: No Impression, No Idea

Hume’s principle:
Every legitimate idea must correspond to an impression.

When you introspect, you encounter:

• sensations
  thoughts
  moods
  perceptions
  interconnections among them

You never encounter:

• an observing entity
  an unchanging witness
  a metaphysical space
  a pure substratum

Hume famously writes that inner observation yields only a flux of perceptions, never the “self” the poster imagines.

Application:
The poster is mistaking the absence of a thought for the presence of a thing that observes thoughts.

But in Humean empiricism, absence is not evidence of an entity.
It is just the mind not presenting a perception at that moment.

No impression = no idea = no basis for a permanent self.


2. Kant’s Refutation: The Transcendental Apperception Is Not a Self-Thing

Kant dismantles the claim even more decisively.

The poster is conflating:
the transcendental condition for experience
with
a metaphysical object (a soul, witness, permanent self)

Kant’s key point:

• The “I think” that accompanies representations is a logical function, not an object or substance. It is not something you can experience. It is not a “space between thoughts.”

It is a unifying activity, not a self-subsisting entity.

Why this matters:

The “space” the poster imagines is actually:
a necessary structural form of inner intuition (time), not
a witness or metaphysical self

Time is the form in which inner states appear, but:

• it is not permanent in itself
  it is not an object
  it is not a soul
  it is not a consciousness-substance

Kant would say:
You are mistaking the form of inner sense for an inner thing.

And as you yourself emphasize, in Kant:
the thing-in-itself is a thought-only regulative idea, not a real object.

So Kant refutes the notion of a permanent self on two fronts:
The “observer” is only a logical function, not an entity.

The “space between thoughts” is the form of inner intuition (time), not a metaphysical substance.


3. Parfit’s Refutation: Identity Is Divisible, Non-Entity-Based

Parfit destroys the idea of a permanent observer by showing:

• personal identity is not a further fact
  consciousness can be split, fissioned, and divided conceptually
  survival does not require numerical identity

Thus a “permanent space” or “witness-substratum” is unnecessary and incoherent.

For Parfit:
Identity is not something over and above psychological continuity.

If no further-self is needed for identity over time, then:

• a metaphysical witness is redundant
  the “space between thoughts” is irrelevant to identity
  no permanent self is needed to bind experiences

Parfit ends up close to the Buddhist position:

We are not what we believe ourselves to be.


4. The Buddha’s Refutation: Anattā (No Fixed Entity)

The Buddha (and later Abhidharma analyses) reject the idea that:

• the observer is real
  there is a substratum
  there is a timeless consciousness behind thoughts
  there is a metaphysical gap to be reified

Buddhism identifies this error precisely as śūnyatā reification:
Taking a structural feature of experience (e.g., momentariness, gaps, transitions) and treating it as a metaphysical thing.

According to the Buddha:

The “gap between thoughts” is just another impermanent mental event.
It has no inherent existence, no permanence, no selfhood.


5. The Poster’s Logical Fallacies

Fallacy 1: Reification
He reifies a conceptual placeholder (“space,” “gap”) into an ontological object.

Fallacy 2: Category Error

Confusing:
structural necessity for representing experience
with
metaphysical necessity of a substance that exists

The gap is a feature of temporal cognition, not a thing.

Fallacy 3: Illicit Inference

He argues:
Thoughts appear and disappear.
Therefore something permanent must observe them.

This is identical to the argument for the soul in early Upanishadic thought—refuted by all four thinkers above.


6. Correct Interpretation (Consistent with Your FS-Concept)

From your Framework-System view:
Everything we describe about consciousness is framed within human cognitive conditions.
There is no absolute observer, only a framework-dependent representation of temporal succession.
The “space” is just a functional abstraction, not a mind-independent entity.

Your position aligns with Kant:
The structure of experience (forms, categories) does not imply metaphysical entities beyond experience.

The poster’s claim leaps from phenomenological structure → metaphysical self, which you correctly reject.

Final Summary
The “permanent self as the space between thoughts” is refuted because:

• Hume: no impression of such a self exists.
  Kant: the unity of consciousness is a function, not an entity; the “space” is just time.
  Parfit: identity does not require a metaphysical self.
  The Buddha: the self is a conceptual fiction; the gap is empty of substance.

What the poster thinks is a permanent witness is merely:

• a temporal form of cognition (Kant)
  a conceptual abstraction (Hume)
  not a further fact (Parfit)
  and empty of essence (Buddha)

Absolutely no philosophical tradition above supports the existence of a “permanent self.” or a self as space between two thoughts

Thanks for this, it's very interestingly coherent and widely known by many philosophers, including the average joe walking through the woods.

So, would you agree then, that nothing is permanent? And that nothing is empty?

[Age]

Think what you like. I have no business denying you of your dream. Dreams are infinitely finite within infinity, difference where there is none.

Think and dream whatever you like. you are also free to express those thoughts and dreams. But, if you can not back up and support those thoughts and dreams with irrefutable proof, then they will just remain only thoughts and dreams.

Now, as for what is actually True, and Real, and provably so, then 'this' is very different from your own personal dreams, and thoughts, here.

Enjoy your Sunday.

Only one day, only?

Enjoy every day, especially today since you don't know if you will be alive tomorrow.

But, once more, 'i' am always alive. Which, obviously, includes what 'you' call 'tomorrow'.

Backing up and supporting a dream is unnecessary Age,

I agree.

because they're all different in expression, relative to the observer of them..

To me, for other reasons.

There's no need to provide irrefutable evidence for these dreamt expressions because they're already known, and self evident to the one who these dreams are appearing to.

you missed the point, once again, and thus are completely off track and astray, here.

You're continuous need to be fighting with these words is because that's all your/our, the one mind, is surrounded with.

But, 'I' am not fighting at all, here.

'I' am just pointing out where 'your dreams' do not match and align with Reality, nor with the Truth, which is obviously irrefutable.

It's like there's got to be some answer or resolution, but the game that one is in is not noticed. Have you ever noticed that Age? Oh never mind.

'you' can 'try' and 'try' and 'try' to divert, here. But, when 'you' say and claim things, which are not True, then, if 'I' want to, then 'I' will continue to point 'this' out, here.

Your answer is not the same as mine, and that's perfectly fine.

And, as 'I' keep saying, and pointing out, 'you' can not show nor prove that 'your answer' is Right, nor True. Whereas, 'I' can. Which no one could refute. Which obviously includes even 'you'.

There are many answers to the one question does the observer want to be observed.

Are there?

If yes, then what are some of those 'many answers', exactly?

And, are all of those many answers True, Right, Accurate, or Correct answers? Or, are some of those answers 'just answers', only?

My answer is ..it depends, because once the observer is observed for what it actually is, that's the end of the dream of separation, it's then seen that there is nothing observing the dream.

'you' have yet even worked out who and what the 'observer' nor the 'Observer' even is, exactly. And, when, and if, 'you' do, then 'you' will, also, learn and know who, and what, observes who, and what, exactly?

So it's more likely that the observer prefers to be embodied within the somethingness of the dream, rather than to focus on the nothingness in which the whole dream is arising.

Once again, absolutely every thing is relative to the 'observer'. And, once 'you', also, fully understand and accept this irrefutable Fact, then 'you' will stop 'trying to' fight the actual Truth, here.

What 'you' dream up is true is, again, never what is necessarily True, and Right, in Life, at all.

[Age]

This is only theory though, as observed, physicality being nothing other than appearances and disappearances observed, or perceived.
But is this observing 'permanent' or 'impermanent' though? Can 'permanence' be observed, if there's no permanence to observe?


You can observe yourself as a temporal appearance, which is actually constructed of sensation and thought.

There must be something that is not a 'thought' or a 'sensation' that is observing every thought and sensation, right?

That space between two thoughts, between sensation felt, and not felt, must exist. This space, or placeholder, is not nothing, it is the interface by which something, namely, thought or sensation is known to arise and fall, appear and disappear.

That space must be permanent, seamless, and necessary for appearances to arise and fall, to be known, and to exist.

A few lines will not explain the above issue sufficiently.

Here is a thorough counter to your points above from AI [points provided by me - comprehensive and save me time].

Refuting the “Permanent Self as the Space Between Thoughts” Claim
The poster is committing a classic error: reifying a structural condition for conscious representation into a metaphysical substance or permanent self. This error is exactly what Hume, Kant, Parfit, and Buddhist no-self (anattā) doctrine dismantle—each from different angles but converging on the same point:

There is no discoverable, necessary, or metaphysically permanent “self” behind thoughts. The ‘space’ between thoughts is not a substance but a conceptual abstraction.

Let’s analyze.

1. Hume’s Refutation: No Impression, No Idea

Hume’s principle:
Every legitimate idea must correspond to an impression.

When you introspect, you encounter:

• sensations
  thoughts
  moods
  perceptions
  interconnections among them

You never encounter:

• an observing entity
  an unchanging witness
  a metaphysical space
  a pure substratum

Hume famously writes that inner observation yields only a flux of perceptions, never the “self” the poster imagines.

Application:
The poster is mistaking the absence of a thought for the presence of a thing that observes thoughts.

But in Humean empiricism, absence is not evidence of an entity.
It is just the mind not presenting a perception at that moment.

No impression = no idea = no basis for a permanent self.


2. Kant’s Refutation: The Transcendental Apperception Is Not a Self-Thing

Kant dismantles the claim even more decisively.

The poster is conflating:
the transcendental condition for experience
with
a metaphysical object (a soul, witness, permanent self)

Kant’s key point:

• The “I think” that accompanies representations is a logical function, not an object or substance. It is not something you can experience. It is not a “space between thoughts.”

It is a unifying activity, not a self-subsisting entity.

Why this matters:

The “space” the poster imagines is actually:
a necessary structural form of inner intuition (time), not
a witness or metaphysical self

Time is the form in which inner states appear, but:

• it is not permanent in itself
  it is not an object
  it is not a soul
  it is not a consciousness-substance

Kant would say:
You are mistaking the form of inner sense for an inner thing.

And as you yourself emphasize, in Kant:
the thing-in-itself is a thought-only regulative idea, not a real object.

So Kant refutes the notion of a permanent self on two fronts:
The “observer” is only a logical function, not an entity.

The “space between thoughts” is the form of inner intuition (time), not a metaphysical substance.


3. Parfit’s Refutation: Identity Is Divisible, Non-Entity-Based

Parfit destroys the idea of a permanent observer by showing:

• personal identity is not a further fact
  consciousness can be split, fissioned, and divided conceptually
  survival does not require numerical identity

Thus a “permanent space” or “witness-substratum” is unnecessary and incoherent.

For Parfit:
Identity is not something over and above psychological continuity.

If no further-self is needed for identity over time, then:

• a metaphysical witness is redundant
  the “space between thoughts” is irrelevant to identity
  no permanent self is needed to bind experiences

Parfit ends up close to the Buddhist position:

We are not what we believe ourselves to be.


4. The Buddha’s Refutation: Anattā (No Fixed Entity)

The Buddha (and later Abhidharma analyses) reject the idea that:

• the observer is real
  there is a substratum
  there is a timeless consciousness behind thoughts
  there is a metaphysical gap to be reified

Buddhism identifies this error precisely as śūnyatā reification:
Taking a structural feature of experience (e.g., momentariness, gaps, transitions) and treating it as a metaphysical thing.

According to the Buddha:

The “gap between thoughts” is just another impermanent mental event.
It has no inherent existence, no permanence, no selfhood.


5. The Poster’s Logical Fallacies

Fallacy 1: Reification
He reifies a conceptual placeholder (“space,” “gap”) into an ontological object.

Fallacy 2: Category Error

Confusing:
structural necessity for representing experience
with
metaphysical necessity of a substance that exists

The gap is a feature of temporal cognition, not a thing.

Fallacy 3: Illicit Inference

He argues:
Thoughts appear and disappear.
Therefore something permanent must observe them.

This is identical to the argument for the soul in early Upanishadic thought—refuted by all four thinkers above.


6. Correct Interpretation (Consistent with Your FS-Concept)

From your Framework-System view:
Everything we describe about consciousness is framed within human cognitive conditions.
There is no absolute observer, only a framework-dependent representation of temporal succession.
The “space” is just a functional abstraction, not a mind-independent entity.

Your position aligns with Kant:
The structure of experience (forms, categories) does not imply metaphysical entities beyond experience.

The poster’s claim leaps from phenomenological structure → metaphysical self, which you correctly reject.

Final Summary
The “permanent self as the space between thoughts” is refuted because:

• Hume: no impression of such a self exists.
  Kant: the unity of consciousness is a function, not an entity; the “space” is just time.
  Parfit: identity does not require a metaphysical self.
  The Buddha: the self is a conceptual fiction; the gap is empty of substance.

What the poster thinks is a permanent witness is merely:

• a temporal form of cognition (Kant)
  a conceptual abstraction (Hume)
  not a further fact (Parfit)
  and empty of essence (Buddha)

Absolutely no philosophical tradition above supports the existence of a “permanent self.” or a self as space between two thoughts

Thanks for this, it's very interestingly coherent and widely known by many philosophers, including the average joe walking through the woods.

So, would you agree then, that nothing is permanent? And that nothing is empty?

The Universe is permanent, and, the empty areas of the Universe can be called and known as nothing.

[Fairy]

The Universe is permanent, and, the empty areas of the Universe can be called and known as nothing.

What a fucking joke isn't it? Lmfao

One looks, OOO infinite unbelievable, crazy then there is nothing there.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thanks for this, it's very interestingly coherent and widely known by many philosophers, including the average joe walking through the woods.

So, would you agree then, that nothing is permanent? And that nothing is empty?

According to Buddhism there are 4 truths, the tetralemma.

The four corners of the tetralemma Affirmation:

• 1. The proposition is true (P).
  Negation: The proposition is false (\(\sim \)P).
  Both: The proposition is both true and false (\(P\) and \(\sim \)P).
  Neither: The proposition is neither true nor false (\(\sim \)(P or \(\sim \)P)). 

So, in the case of the propositions that 'nothing is permanent?' And that 'nothing is empty?' we need to take into account the context and practicality.

'nothing is permanent?'
Within higher philosophy, the statement is true, there is no permanent self.
Within common sense the statement is false, there is a permanent identify of self for practical sake.
Within science, the statement can be both true and false
Ultimately, the neither true nor false.

As such we accept the respective truths according to the circumstances.

Note this:
Who is the “Observer” Inside Your Mind? A Buddhist Perspective
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuE0z8ITuiM
includes practical reasons for the conclusions taken.

[Fairy]

Thanks for this, it's very interestingly coherent and widely known by many philosophers, including the average joe walking through the woods.

So, would you agree then, that nothing is permanent? And that nothing is empty?

According to Buddhism there are 4 truths, the tetralemma.

The four corners of the tetralemma Affirmation:

• 1. The proposition is true (P).
  Negation: The proposition is false (\(\sim \)P).
  Both: The proposition is both true and false (\(P\) and \(\sim \)P).
  Neither: The proposition is neither true nor false (\(\sim \)(P or \(\sim \)P)). 

So, in the case of the propositions that 'nothing is permanent?' And that 'nothing is empty?' we need to take into account the context and practicality.

'nothing is permanent?'
Within higher philosophy, the statement is true, there is no permanent self.
Within common sense the statement is false, there is a permanent identify of self for practical sake.
Within science, the statement can be both true and false
Ultimately, the neither true nor false.

As such we accept the respective truths according to the circumstances.

Note this:
Who is the “Observer” Inside Your Mind? A Buddhist Perspective
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuE0z8ITuiM
includes practical reasons for the conclusions taken.

So according to Buddha philosophy there’s just verb life living all by itself. All one. Alone.

The “you” cannot know “you” because “you” is All one. Alone.

How can one “You” exist? That’s got to be the most unknowable question to all our answers, because life living all by itself is already this knowing that cannot be known. That there must be the final and ultimate paradox.

Also, just as suffering is, but no I who is suffering, then surely that also means there’s no I who feels love and compassion. The love and compassion that Buddha talks about as being all that’s left, makes no sense, if there’s no I feeling love and compassion.

The video talks about love and compassion is all that’s left after awakening. But forgets to mention there’s no one to whom this love and compassion is known….. The Buddha explanation is still caught up in it’s own self made mental trap it’s trying to negate by identifying with an I that knows how to explain all this away…. It’s like trying to clean away blood using blood.

I’m still rooting for God. There’s always going to be something rather than nothing. Because even the nothing is potentially full of something, even though it can’t be seen, it’s obviously brimming with the fullness of something that has nothing to dissolve into but itself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thanks for this, it's very interestingly coherent and widely known by many philosophers, including the average joe walking through the woods.

So, would you agree then, that nothing is permanent? And that nothing is empty?

According to Buddhism there are 4 truths, the tetralemma.

The four corners of the tetralemma Affirmation:

• 1. The proposition is true (P).
  Negation: The proposition is false (\(\sim \)P).
  Both: The proposition is both true and false (\(P\) and \(\sim \)P).
  Neither: The proposition is neither true nor false (\(\sim \)(P or \(\sim \)P)). 

So, in the case of the propositions that 'nothing is permanent?' And that 'nothing is empty?' we need to take into account the context and practicality.

'nothing is permanent?'
Within higher philosophy, the statement is true, there is no permanent self.
Within common sense the statement is false, there is a permanent identify of self for practical sake.
Within science, the statement can be both true and false
Ultimately, the neither true nor false.

As such we accept the respective truths according to the circumstances.

Note this:
Who is the “Observer” Inside Your Mind? A Buddhist Perspective
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuE0z8ITuiM
includes practical reasons for the conclusions taken.

So according to Buddha philosophy there’s just verb life living all by itself. All one. Alone.

The “you” cannot know “you” because “you” is All one. Alone.

How can one “You” exist? That’s got to be the most unknowable question to all our answers, because life living all by itself is already this knowing that cannot be known. That there must be the final and ultimate paradox.

Also, just as suffering is, but no I who is suffering, then surely that also means there’s no I who feels love and compassion. The love and compassion that Buddha talks about as being all that’s left, makes no sense, if there’s no I feeling love and compassion.

The video talks about love and compassion is all that’s left after awakening. But forgets to mention there’s no one to whom this love and compassion is known….. The Buddha explanation is still caught up in it’s own self made mental trap it’s trying to negate by identifying with an I that knows how to explain all this away…. It’s like trying to clean away blood using blood.

I’m still rooting for God. There’s always going to be something rather than nothing. Because even the nothing is potentially full of something, even though it can’t be seen, it’s obviously brimming with the fullness of something that has nothing to dissolve into but itself.

As mentioned above, the Buddha introduced 4 truths.

According to Buddhism there are 4 truths, the tetralemma.

The four corners of the tetralemma Affirmation:

• 1. The proposition is true (P).
  Negation: The proposition is false (\(\sim \)P).
  Both: The proposition is both true and false (\(P\) and \(\sim \)P).
  Neither: The proposition is neither true nor false (\(\sim \)(P or \(\sim \)P)). 

"So according to Buddha philosophy there’s just verb life living all by itself. All one. Alone."
The above is not absolute.
One can should live like any ordinary human but with the above awareness where it is necessary and apply the other truths were applicable.
However, one should prepare oneself for the above state [equanimity] to modulate when the worst existential is triggered, whereby the fear is dissolved.

The existential crisis and angst are very natural and they trigger very terrible and painful primal fears.
The easiest and readily pain killer for such primal fears is theism which promise eternal life as a salvation, belief in God and viola! one is saved.
However, belief in theism is very flimsy and when doubts about God existence, e.g. rationality and atheists are everywhere, the primal fear is triggered and the defensive mechanism sets in; to the extent that a certain religion will command believers to kill non-believers when the religions threatened.

Christianity is well aware of the above dangers and thus set a moral ceiling 'love all, even enemies' but that do not help believers to alleviate the primal and existential fears when it is forceful.

In Buddhism, there is a method [meditation and other exercises] available for one to develop such a state to maintain equanimity to dissolve primal fears effectively; there is no need for belief, no need to defend one's belief or kill others.
For Buddhists who are not inclined to develop competence of equanimity, they can resort to beliefs like theism, i.e. non-theistic Buddhist deities.

An analogy:
Buddhism cultivation of competence in equanimity, is like one training to leap 10 feet and attaining the ability. It does not mean the person must leap 10 feet all the time, but he has to potential to save himself if chased by a bear with his ability to leave over a 9 feet chasm.

Bottom line is, how one is able to handle the inevitable primal existential crisis depends on the psychological state of the individual[s], the majority 90% at present are more inclined to theism, but there is a more effective method within Buddhism and the like.

[Fairy]

VA… the light which is God is fearless.

Fear is the mistaken identity that I am separate from God, who can choose to love him or reject him as ever existing. That mistaken identity is a self inflicted black hole.

God alignment dissolves all fear from one’s being forever, where one spends the rest of eternity shining.

[Walker]

Two questions to answer.

Is the gambling world giving odds on when and if the Caribbean will erupt upon Venezuela?

Is it true that legalized gambling is rotting the soul America’s youth, as opposed to fewer souls rotting from the lesser accessibility of gambling that was illegal, and that paid no taxes?

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA… the light which is God is fearless.

Fear is the mistaken identity that I am separate from God, who can choose to love him or reject him as ever existing. That mistaken identity is a self inflicted black hole.

God alignment dissolves all fear from one’s being forever, where one spends the rest of eternity shining.

• "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life". John 3:16.

The central purpose of Christianity for a Christian is be assured of eternal hell [primal fears] within a contract and a promise of eternal life in heaven. This carry the heaviest weightage as being a Christian.
The basis of 'belief' do not give relief to the fear of mortality but it is very flimsy and doubts can easily set in anywhere or exposed to counters from non-theists.


It is worst with Islam where believers are sanctioned to kill non-believers upon the slightest threats [cartoons, disbelief] to the religion; the consequences is so evident.

It is the same for other sorts of theism but of a lesser degree of belief, i.e. they are all driven by an inherent and unavoidable existential fears.

[Fairy]

VA… the religious belief in eternal damnation or hell, is a virus of the human mind. It’s not actually out there in the world, it’s a brainwashing scam used to control, manipulate and scare people into conformity and slavery.

Hell is one’s own mind full of its own constructed thoughts. But knowing we are not our thoughts is being in perfect alignment with God, our true nature before it was soiled by misidentification.

Think of puppies and kittens, and foals, and babies and toddlers and how they naturally jump around with uninhibited joy and ecstasy, effortlessly. There’s no sense of tension, no contraction, no ego, no fear, or otherness in them. They’re completely in the moment, not in their heads. That effortless freedom is our true nature of being.
That’s God.

[Fairy]

This is already eternal life. As energy is neither created nor destroyed. Death is but a temporary dreamless sleep between two bustling with life eternities.

In its conception, the I am is born, the mind of thought and feelings, the sense of a separate me. But that sense of ‘me’ is a self bound by syntax, it’s an illusion. In reality, it’s all just God playing the role of every conceived concept, as each concept is known by the only knowing there is, this omnipresence God. The sense of ‘me’ isn’t doing ‘me’

If it was you doing you, then you better make sure you stay awake every night, don’t go to sleep, stay awake so as to make sure you don’t forget to breathe and beat your heart. Point is, everything is being done for you already.

Life is living all by itself, as itself, and for itself only, it’s all just happening automatically and effortlessly. No pressure or performance, just perfect intelligence at work, and not one single human being on earth ever made it all happen.

[Fairy]

Two questions to answer.

Is the gambling world giving odds on when and if the Caribbean will erupt upon Venezuela?

Is it true that legalized gambling is rotting the soul America’s youth, as opposed to fewer souls rotting from the lesser accessibility of gambling that was illegal, and that paid no taxes?

You cant die. You are already what you think death is.

[Age]

VA… the religious belief in eternal damnation or hell, is a virus of the human mind.

1. There is no human mind.

2. The words, 'hell', and, 'heaven' are, contrary to the popular belief in the days when this is being written, not in relation to individual human beings, but rather in relation to human beings collectively, or to humanity, itself, regarding when 'they' are alive on earth, in the one and only infinite and eternal Universe, Itself.

3. Which means that if you adult human beings keep doing the Wrong, which all of you are obviously doing, in the days when this is being being written, then 'you', human beings, will keep living in, and keep creating, 'hell' on earth, for "yourselves", or in other words, an 'eternal damnation'.

4. Once you can comprehend, and see, what words mean, exactly, in their True, and Right, perspective, then all things start making sense, and nearly all almost instantaneously I will add.

It’s not actually out there in the world, it’s a brainwashing scam used to control, manipulate and scare people into conformity and slavery.

And, because it is, literally, 'human thought', itself, which causes and creates all human behavior, Right, and Wrong, and/or 'good', and, 'bad', then it is, literally, within where 'hell', and, 'heaven' comes from, or originated/originates.

Hell is one’s own mind full of its own constructed thoughts.

For example, if one 'looks at' only 'the bad', then they might well wish that they were never born, and also see and/or believe that it would be Wrong to procreate and produce more children.

But, remember there is no 'one's own mind', but there are obviously 'thoughts' existing, within human bodies. Which is where 'heaven', and, 'hell' truly exists. And, do not forget that it is from 'these thoughts' how and why the 'human created world' is, exactly, how 'it' is, at every moment humans' moment, in Life's eternal Existence.

But knowing we are not our thoughts is being in perfect alignment with God, our true nature before it was soiled by misidentification.

However, the very Truth is, 'you' people are the very thoughts, and emotions, within human bodies.

And, do not forget, that 'I' am, certainly, not 'you'. Also remember that there are many of 'you', in Life, but, really, there is only One, and one only 'I'.

Think of puppies and kittens, and foals, and babies and toddlers and how they naturally jump around with uninhibited joy and ecstasy, effortlessly. There’s no sense of tension, no contraction, no ego, no fear, or otherness in them.

That is, until adult human beings somehow adulterate, or ruin, Life's pure joyful, happy, unpolluted, and stressless Existence.

They’re completely in the moment, not in their heads. That effortless freedom is our true nature of being.
That’s God.

But, 'you' human beings are certainly not God.

For example, your human being True nature is of living in 'wonderment', being curious, with a desire to learn and understand. Whereas, God already knows all.