Having free will means having the right to refuse. In a contractual society, this right to refuse is restricted by the argument that one has entered into a contract. This becomes a matter of life and death for people who possess free will.

From a Japanese perspective, it is often thought that "even if there are some discrepancies, the basic principles should be agreed upon in a contract, and problems can be discussed later." However, this implies that there is a basic right to refuse, even if a contract has been made. In Western societies, however, there is no right to refuse if the conditions are not written in the contract. It is considered an "absolutely binding contract," and if there is a misunderstanding, one must fulfill the agreement, and if not, they will be sued and forced to pay damages. The underlying assumptions are completely different. In the West, everything is based on "oneself," and the other party is merely a tool. While the other party may have the "freedom of choice," they do not have the "freedom to refuse" in unforeseen circumstances. Therefore, contracts are essentially something that must be done. Furthermore, it is assumed that one will be able to enjoy the maximum benefit from the other party, and if the actual result is lower than the expected outcome, the other party will be forced to compensate for the difference. If there are no exceptions written, everything is considered to be according to the contract, and if one does not comply, they will be sued and forced to pay damages.

This is due to the different underlying assumptions. Moreover, the difference between "action (choice, doing something)" and "refusal (not doing something)" in free will is not recognized, which is why contracts are considered absolute.

Because human free will is absolute, people inherently have the right to choose and act, and the right to refuse and not act. Therefore, even a contract that involves "action, choice, and doing something" is inferior to the freedom of choice (doing something or not doing something). Thus, a contract is not an absolute thing, and it is essentially only a "confirmation of principles," regardless of what kind of contract it is. However, this is not the case in contracts around the world, including Japan.

As a result of entering into a contract, there are times when someone intentionally exploits the other party, or when they believe that exploitation is natural, or when they are so accustomed to exploitation that they are not even aware of it. This is what an advanced society looks like: a relationship between slaves and nobles. Slaves are expected to give, and nobles are expected to receive. Slaves have no right to refuse. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to say that slaves are not human. Similarly, if one is forced to perform labor or work due to being bound by a contract, and they do not have the freedom to refuse, it could be said that they are not human.

There are various issues, such as unfair contract terms or codependency, but the key point is quite simple. The question is whether you can exercise your free will in that situation. If the situation is such that there are no options, or the options are limited, or your perspective is narrowed by marketing or Sun Tzu's Art of War, leading you to make choices, then that is a loss of free will, regardless of whether the person is aware of it or not.

This applies not only to contracts, but also to situations where free will is restricted by advertising and marketing. In such cases, the person doing it is bad.

Generally, when people talk about free will, they refer to "freedom of choice." This "choice" is a vague term. Who started using it like that? Originally, "choice" should include both "action" and "rejection," but when people say "freedom of choice," they are referring to the freedom to "choose to act," and it does not include the "freedom to reject." Even though the freedom to reject is also a form of freedom of choice, when people talk about free will, they only focus on "situations where one can choose," and they mistakenly believe that free will exists. In reality, there is free will in everything, and there is the freedom to reject everything. The public's understanding and the mechanisms of agreements do not work that way. That is why there is no end to conflict in this world.

For example, creating a situation that is difficult to refuse and then using group psychology to force someone to sign a contract is a violation of free will (a restriction of free will), and therefore is bad.

From the perspective of the person forcing the contract, they would say, "There is the freedom to refuse." They would make excuses like that. In reality, they use unspoken pressure to make people believe that not signing the contract is foolish, and that the people who sign the contract and purchase or take action are the correct ones. There are many evils in this world that simply provide an "out" and then justify themselves. This is similar to the situation where unethical business practices are protected by law because of the principle that "it is free to sign or not sign a contract."

Unethical business practices or cults often involve gathering people in a group and then suddenly presenting them with a subtle contract that is difficult for one person to refuse. That is a violation of free will. No matter how much a cult talks about saving the world, if they do something like that in the first place, they are bad. Even if they consider themselves to be fighting a battle between good and evil, and even if they claim to be on the side of light, they have already become evil from the very beginning. Even if they claim to be good, and even if they promote good products or seminars, any contract signed in a difficult situation is meaningless. It is important to be aware that there are ways to invalidate contracts made in difficult situations.

However, if the person being contracted accepts the situation and the contract, it becomes a real contract. In such a spiritual world, once a contract is accepted, it becomes valid. Even in situations where it is difficult to refuse, if you accept it, it becomes a valid contract. Therefore, it is important to include a clause that allows for cancellation in the contract from the beginning. Not only in the written text, but also as a mental agreement, include a clause that makes it invalid. If you sign a clause in a difficult situation, it can be canceled on a spiritual level for that reason. Even in that case, the written contract may be valid at the physical level, and the other party may not agree and may require some compensation, so there may be confusion at the physical level. However, if the spiritual connection is severed, you will eventually separate from each other physically. If the other person unilaterally breaks the contract, a person who understands the situation will understand and accept it. However, in most of this world, which lacks such understanding, it may lead to lawsuits or claims for damages. That is why cults hint at lawsuits to restrict the actions and words of believers and members. If a cult cannot allow its members freedom, then it is a malicious organization. Cults and unethical businesses must restrict people physically and spiritually in order to survive. This is based on a contract of duality between oneself and the other party.

This world will not be saved by a simple scenario of "the light winning in the battle between light and darkness." It is not a scenario where "good defeats evil." However, cults claim that it is. That is a duality, and it is living in a world of separation.

In this world of duality, it may seem that way at first glance. In the future, it may also seem that way phenomenally. And cults may claim that "the light has won" or "good has won." However, at that level of duality, the world of conflict will not end. Only through integration at a higher level will the situation appear as such in the lower world. If you cannot see this, and you only see that the light has won, then you are not integrated in terms of perspective or level of consciousness, and you are living at the level of separation. In that case, for the cult, it may not be able to distinguish between a temporary victory until a new conflict arises and true integration. Even if true integration occurs, there is a possibility that it may appear as if the light has won at the level of duality. Since you can only see things from your own level, understanding that true integration has occurred requires recognition at that level. If you recognize the battle between light and darkness, then you are living in a world of separation.

Because people are in a state of separation, the need arises to bind others with "contracts."

Cults may force people to agree to things like "not speaking badly about this organization," and the very act of imposing such restrictions suggests that they are unaware of their own evil. Do they not realize that taking away free will is undermining their own position? Cults are, after all, cults. They claim to be absolutely right, and they ignore or silence anyone who disagrees.

In the end, a certain cult leader publicly said, "Those people are the ones who will be eliminated," and laughed. That leader, who had claimed that a great upheaval and a spaceship would save the world, never experienced either of those things, and eventually died of old age. And that cult disbanded. There are quite a few cults that spread evil to others while claiming to be good themselves.

If you point it out, they get angry or try to silence you. There's no point in dealing with such trivial cults.

When you get involved, the people involved become confused and incomprehensible. This can be said to be because that cult is inheriting ancient karma. They are drawn into the old karma of others.

The situation is diverse. However, if you look at the fundamental aspects, it is clear whether the situation is good or bad. It depends on whether or not free will is respected. That free will guarantees not only the freedom to choose, but also the freedom to refuse.

In reality, this basic principle will also be an important principle when the three religions reconcile in Jerusalem in the future. Until now, contracts and promises have been used to bind the actions of others by imposing obligations on each other. The purpose of contracts has been to narrow the range of predictable actions and to restrict freedom. And with that approach, religious conflicts will not disappear.

When people in the West hear the word "contract," they immediately think of the traditional "binding" contract. Contracts are used to restrict the actions of the other party. At the root of this is "fear," which creates a wall between people and leads to various actions to manipulate them. Such an approach cannot achieve religious unity.

The principle must be changed. The principle is very simple: "freedom" is the basis. It is the freedom to act and the freedom to refuse.

When the three religions agreed in Jerusalem, the content of that agreement was different from the traditional form of a contract. On the surface, it may not seem much different from a contract, but it contains fundamental principles. Specifically, it will explicitly state that "each individual has the freedom to refuse." Otherwise, that agreement will eventually be broken. The very concept of "breaking" is consistent with the traditional concept of a contract. To be broken means that, as a premise, the contract is restricting the actions of others. If there is free will, it is natural to be able to refuse. And it is not to consider the refusal to fulfill as a breach of contract or agreement. This may be difficult to understand at first.

Even if the reason for non-performance is negligence, one can be blamed, but the reason is not always something that can be verbalized. There are often cases where the reason is vague and cannot be expressed in words, and other seemingly relevant reasons are given, but those words are not necessarily the real reason. And it is common for such behavior to be judged as negligent or as someone who does not keep their promises. In short, it is that the person does not genuinely agree with the contract, and the "reason for not agreeing" may not be able to be verbalized. Even if they do not agree, there may be various reasons, such as being forced to sign a contract due to the atmosphere or pressure, or realizing later that there are unfavorable conditions.

Therefore, if the form of a contract is an indispensable constraint, there will be no end to conflict in this world. Even if the agreement in Jerusalem was in such a form, it is possible that someone who does not agree will not follow it. Therefore, the three religions cannot move towards integration in Jerusalem with an agreement in the traditional form of "restricting actions."

An agreement should be an agreement that, even with various differences, even if there is a right to refuse, the three religions will still unite as one Jerusalem, and move in that direction. This is a different form from the traditional agreement of "restricting actions."

Initially, you may wonder what meaning such an agreement has. However, over time, the meaning of that "freedom" will be shared and understood. And that same principle will become the principle when integrating the governments of this Earth into one and creating a global government.

Perhaps, there may come a time when it is metaphorically expressed as being "based on a Jerusalem Agreement-like contract." The metaphor of the "Jerusalem Agreement" may spread, meaning a contract that does not bind the other party, but rather guarantees the other party's freedom (not only in action, but also in refusal).

Each country will be clearly defined as having free will. That free will means that they are free to follow or not follow the policies of the Earth government. There is not much of a problem if they refuse. This is because each country has different ways of thinking and principles.

Until now, there was an obligation (in principle) to follow what the government or the United Nations decided. This restricts free will. Strictly speaking, it is said that the resolutions of the United Nations have no enforcement power. United Nations resolutions are recommendations, and there are no penalties for violations. However, in principle, even the United Nations operates on the same platform as ordinary contracts.

Instead, what the government, the United Nations, the national government of Jerusalem, or even the Earth government decides is simply a policy. It is not a mandatory order or contract. Otherwise, this kind of integration will quickly collapse like rubble. When a country chooses to follow, it does so voluntarily (again) based on the country's free will. Then, the countries that choose to follow can agree and cooperate on specific policies. And the countries that decide not to follow simply do nothing. They cannot be blamed for not acting. That is the principle. Currently, not following what the higher-ups decide is considered a bad thing and is criticized or used as an excuse for war. Such a situation, where people are bound by a contract, will not lead to the unification of the Earth.

People who agree with the policy act voluntarily. And if they cannot agree, they do not act, and their refusal or agreement, and the choices of others, are not criticized. If there are people who cannot agree, it means that those in power lack virtue, consideration, or that the policies are immature. If everyone truly understands, they will follow. It is natural that it is difficult for everyone to completely agree. However, people who have agreed to a certain extent should do what they want without causing trouble to others. And at that time, those involved have the freedom not to participate. The ability to refuse means that they can refuse when it is detrimental to themselves. There will also be people and countries who, even knowing that it will be detrimental, accept it for the sake of the whole.

In such situations, there may be harassment where people are implicitly disadvantaged if they do not agree and act accordingly. However, this can be addressed by people becoming more aware and exposing those who are harassing, thereby correcting the situation.

Things will not go smoothly immediately, and it will take time, but by changing the fundamental principles, at least the forced actions will decrease. The understanding that indirect manipulation and situations where people are forced to act are the same will spread, and attempts to control the situation and public opinion, and to manipulate others through marketing, etc., should be criticized. As people around the world become more equal, they will realize that marketing itself increases the burden on someone, and if people realize that it is more beneficial to themselves not to promote consumption through marketing, the current situation where new products are aggressively promoted will calm down. If travel is no longer promoted, the living environment will also become more stable. When the principles change, business activities also change.

In a peaceful era, the war business will also calm down. And, mass consumption of goods will be recognized as a "troublesome thing." Countries with large land areas will find it difficult to maintain, and smaller countries will be preferred. The expansionist policy of expanding the country will change to a situation where it flourishes locally. However, it may take a considerable amount of time for such values to change.

Changes in the perception of free will will lead to various changes.

In reality, what needs to change is the Western values, and for Japanese people, these are not so different. Therefore, the key is Jerusalem. There is not much need for Japan to change at this point. If the old values are abandoned in Jerusalem and the three religions merge, the world will become peaceful. At that time, the concept of "freedom" will be the foundation.

Even so, if the fusion is rejected and an agreement among the three religions in Jerusalem is not reached, the world will move towards destruction. However, it is likely that an agreement will be reached, and it will not lead to destruction.

For that agreement, the values that Japanese people naturally possess will become important. It is important for each individual to share the feelings that Japanese people take for granted with people in the Western countries. With the accumulation of such efforts, Japanese values will be understood in the West, and finally, there will be a final push that leads to an agreement in Jerusalem.

Therefore, in that sense, it is not an exaggeration to say that the Japanese can save the world. It is about sharing the sensibilities that Japanese people naturally possess with people in the West. If people in the West, who believe in the principles of a contractual society or a capitalist society, feel that something is wrong from a Japanese perspective, then we should teach them about it. Such accumulation will lead to saving the Earth.

On the other hand, cults that are influenced by Western values and import the Western dualistic separation of "good and evil" and "light and darkness," believing that it is correct, believe that Zoroastrianism and other dualistic worldviews are correct, rather than Japanese values. These imported dualistic ideas will not lead to the unification of the world's religions. These cults, which are arrogant and full of self-importance, may still claim to save the world, but they are simply importing the ideological conflicts that are currently happening in the world. It is not such cults, but the traditional Japanese way of life that will save the Earth.

In many cases, the Japanese values that are often criticized as "old" or "Showa era" are actually very important for the future.

In short, it is about valuing the heart. If you value the heart, you will feel pain when you force others to do things they dislike. If you don't feel pain, it means that your spirituality is low. Japanese people understand this, but surprisingly, many people in the West do not. These people live with a sense of separation, which creates religious conflicts. Even if these people open their hearts, religious conflicts will be resolved, and finally, the foundation for a world government will be established.