Ordinarily, we need clear reason to start, and that concluding end.
But occasionally, that clearized scheme might have been neglected in generosity.
Otherwise, that not having decisive ending o conclusion, to the state, otherwise we could be allowed to be at in no dissatidfaction.

No way, to any other way which previously had readied for, only wanting nothing like that, just wishing that way could be easily accepted to us, occasionally.
That's amazing.

Far from it, nothing only could start, or be started, and only nothing could happen, and only that state could sustain, and no ending is demanded to anybody, that thing could be given the field to realize to us, that'd be not bad to us.

If we are aked to that thing by somebody, why don't we talk to the one, "Why should we need that daringly intentional something at this field?"

Originally, something could be anything and it could be everything and either nothing.
And the one who jedge each of it must be the one who knows nothing.

Denying any question, but simultaneously accepting any question in same running, that could be supposed to us, in the reality for us to survive.

And sometimes, so silently how about questioning to our mind, "What makes us questioning something on another something?"

What makes us quesionable mind? What makes us some mind to respond that asking?

Only questioning that mind to our reality, otherwise there we could see another thing to what we can see now.
Necessarily, there we'd see only nothing, even if the thing could be redied for us, either the thing could not be so bad, even it'd never be better, either the thing is not lament nor discontented matter to us, so essentially, you know what I mean.

Because, yes, only being there together for us, only the thing must be so enough necessary, only the thing could satisfy anything, is that right? Is that so natural?
Otherwise, some so useful definition, could you have that mind?

Feb.   27th.     2022