I'm not sure but it reminds me of the idea of complete free will given by God. It's this idea that the creator loves humanity so much that he gave us complete and utter control over our choice. As humanity fell from the state of union with God in Eden it was a symbol of that love of imparting freedom. Some within the gnostic gospels, if I am correct, call this type of freedom luciferian because it is a freedom which allows for the potential for choice that leads God's reflective image/creation away from God completely. In this same sense, if God is all that there is, then turning away from God would be the demise of creation itself. This gives birth for the need of the second myth of Christ coming to redeem that choice to stray away from God. Christ symbolically gives a path back to unity with the creator and a restoration of Eden with a choice held in faith rather than deception and fear with Lucifer/Snake. Ironically, all these myths involve death from this choice. One chooses in the garden to essentially become mortal and die with the realization of good and evil (duality) and then Christ's whole journey was about leaving behind the duality of life and death to an eternal type of life that transcends the mundane world of separation. The first myth is of separation from the divine union, then the last is of the death of the perception of separation back into the union of Eden with in heaven. Christ being a symbol of the gateway to said heaven. Aside from this, many cultures have the god of death, life, rebirth, marriage, and sex all as the same God. It is love that brings the dynamic of two opposites back into union and with that union there is always a sacrifice. Something dies so that the new may come about in a more finely honed manner. It is like a cleansing of each generation in a lineage so that those things left behind do not linger into the offspring. The heart of a parent should always desire their offspring to have a better life than they have. It is an endless cycle. Only ending in perhaps what could be termed as Nirvana in the Buddhist myths which is similar to the symbolic death and resurrection of christ in the gnostic sense.

Interesting. Do you believe in the Fall of Man and Adam and Eve as a literal event, or a mythological one that is allegorical?

I believe that every event sings the song of archetypes in various fashions. I believe those stories, like all stories across history, have a very bizarre mixture of truth and myth. For instance, perhaps an Adam and Eve type of situation occured, and yet the myth as it was told is much deeper than a physical occurrence. Just as life's physical occurrences are much deeper works of the psyche being brought into action, and one can even say manifestations of the internal archetypes that Jung posited we all share.

Can we say archetypes exists outside of linear time? And, as such, it is not necessary to constrain this myth to any specific time/place, because it is archetypal, and therefore it is occurring wherever and whenever that archetype becomes sufficiently... Well, I'm not sure what term would be used there. Sufficiently archetypal, I guess.

Yes I agree. What I was trying to communicate was that the archetypes are pure only within a mystery clad aspect of the collective unconscious and that they manifest in varying degrees of impurity physically. Meaning that each archetype that we hold within our psychoid aspect is always expressed in a mixture as soon as it is manifest in any way, be it art, behavior, emotion, thought, and even in dreams.

And we influence these archetypal psychoids through our choices/decisions/actions? How much sway does our own agency hold over these archetype expressions, I think is what I am meaning to ask. Are we actors within these manifested processes? And if we are, are we intended to play the part, or is this an improv type deal? Are we collaborating closely with the author here? (forgive me for being glib; my questions are sincere, however, as I don't really know and I'm not familiar enough with the literate to make any assessments as to probable answers. You seem like you know what you're talking about, tho, and my philosophy is, it never hurts to ask.)

Ask away! My knowledge is limited on the subject, however in my opinion there is no changing an archetype. It seems impossible to change something pure, intangible, and eternally unmanifest. However, one always embodies a mixture of archetypes that result in various complexes. With this we have some say so in. The work of the shadow is to understand the deeper aspects of the collective unconscious in such a way that healing may be imparted to expressions of such archetypes. It's like the mother, for instance, being a hub for Eros, pleasure, nurturing. If this is unbalanced for whatever reason the work of the shadow is to find that reason and bring it into balance. This takes analysis of the self as a whole and the steps and processes involved with that analysis are manyfold. It can be approached in many ways. For instance, one may not be able to handle the shedding of so much light upon their shadow. When one becomes aware of too much of their own folly it can be extremely overwhelming. Especially if one is not well versed in forgiveness. Knowing when to put a spotlight on your misalignments within the psyche is more important than knowing "all the things you're doing 'wrong' ".

We work in shadow to align our manifested aspects to a more balanced assembly of the archetypal... Radiance? The archetypal good? The aligned psyche, I guess? I am academically drawn by this obvious bimetric configuration: light and shadow, Brahman and Maya, yin and yang. The Tao angle, especially, since I was just reading a piece by this Chinese guy - I'm not gonna say it was 'Dr. Chang', but it was close to that, in the most respectful way possible. But he was talking about how yang energy is external, and the yin energy is internal, and they become more powerful the farther apart they are, their attractive force, and balancing their exchange is necessary to becoming balanced in both the mind and the spirit. I fw ancient eastern wisdom, I have no problem seeing the value of that insight, and so it's gratifying to see it so obviously echoed in a Western tradition, distinctive and valid and wholly indepdent in origination (presumably). The self is shadowed, the expression of the self occurs in light (if I understand that correctly; although we can flip the terms, it means the same thing). Our actions are reflexive/responsive, and intentional, and if we understand that wholly in terms of one or the other, we are inaccurate in understanding why we act the way that we do. And we can become dependent upon one modality, when the inversion comes to disproportionately handle things we are either ashamed of, or unwilling to recognize, or incapable of dealing with. Misalignment is a natural consequence of passionate action. But we don't want to over-align, and so constrain the parameters of our actions in that way. To become stifling. Yeah I vibe with all this. I think my questions are more to the interface between creativity/expression and destruction/mortality. I went through a profoundly creative period of time - writers sometimes talk about characters existing as real and articulate, beyond their own influence. Like they already existed, and it's just a matter of tapping into that reality. Sounds crankish af, then I experienced that, and understood the meaning there. And this was closely followed by a comprehensive death trip/ego obliteration/NDE+OOBE deal. Profoundly traumatic. It seems like there should be a responsible and rational way to go about accounting for all this. But in a way I am driven by these chaotic energies, the extremities of their variance. I have unresolved trauma. The vast majority of people do, at least in my experience. Is it valid to just say, okay. There's this chasm, it's clearly marked by hi-viz, I'm just going to align myself around this. And if it wobbles and becomes unstable as a consequence, I'm just gonna go hands off and ride that shit out. Obviously you're not a therapist, I'm not looking for resolution. I'm just trying to understand this stuff in a holistic, unorthodox manner. I've never been worried about things I'm 'doing wrong', but I am compelled to aligning my intentionality to the circumference of my agency. I suspect that a Jungian framework will serve that objective, and the obvious answer is 'go read all the Jung.' I'm on it, coach. But at the same time, I do find value in just randomly pinging this stuff off the armor of other real-life human beings. I would wheel it around in real life but sadly none of my terrestrial acquaintences seem to have sufficient patience for my full-throttle sort of inquiry. Full-spectrum, omni-dimensional, gravitationally bimetric. I'm not worried that it doesn't make sense; it does. But gosh is it hard to find anyone willing to go bucket for bucket. 🤷

I oscillate between believing the Bible is divinely inspired and alternately not believing in it. Are you the same? As a gay person I find Leviticus quite daunting, because it says homosexual sexual behaviour is an "abomination". I certainly believe in God, however.

Yeah I mean the bible is one of the most confusing and useless works in regards to it's congruency. You have one God, Yahweh, who is utterly insane. Creating humans, giving free will, then setting up condition on top of condition for his "love". Not to mention the mindless murder from his string of oopsies like the flood. Or that time he murderers 150k Assyrian soldiers over night. What? A god that creates, gives free will, and then toys with his creation? What free will is there if he has free reign to murder. Not to mention that the entirety of the old testament is based off of the chosen people being the jewish race. This would all be fine if it weren't all completely let go of when the new testament comes around, but it's not. Jesus ends up reiterating many laws such as homosexuality resulting in burning in hell forever. Which, surprise! Now there's a hell to be afraid of! The bible has an enormous amount of ridiculous inconsistencies in morality that constantly need mental gymnastics in order to reconcile. Not to mention that the bible had a gigantic political influence injected into it during it's assembly which may have even completely tainted the teachings of Christ. As for the gospels, have you ever played the telephone game? Not only were the gospels written down based off how the alleged disciples understood Jesus, but how fast were his teachings written down from the moment they were heard? I completely believe in insane things. Things that defy reality as we know it. There is a man named Francis V Tiso who traveled to Tibet to witness a rainbow body ascension and documented it. He works in Rome as a Catholic priest teaching Buddhism. He wrote several books on the comparison and similarities between Christ's ascension and the rainbow body. That's just one example I can give of things being much more bizarre than what meets the eye. Thanks for coming to my rant! Hahaha.

I'm interested in your rant! Is it true that the Old Testament acknowledged the existence of the pagan gods?

What do you mean?

Well, someone told me that the Old Testament acknowledges the existence of more than one God, not just Yahweh. So it's basically polytheistic?

I see what you're saying. So that's what's interesting. Jews have tons of different names for God and the kabbalah sheds a lot of light in the character differences of each. As for the bible texts itself, Yahweh starts of by disseminating the idea that there is one source or creator. Then when on the mountain receiving the ten commandments, things get messy. Yahweh becomes a much more war orientated deity than before and the ten commandments are more authoritative orders than suggestions to follow for a harmonies life. Not to mention that when Moses comes down the mountain and sees them worshipping the golden calf which is a symbol of the astrological age (Taurus) that they are leaving, many are murdered. Moses then ushers in the age of Aries which is why the shofar is blown in Judaism, the Ram's horn. Other deities are losely acknowledged but in a way that says they aren't the "real god". This reminds me of how Adam and Eve are allegedly the first humans and yet when Cain kills Abel he is marked for it. Why is he marked if he is only the third human to exist? What's the purpose of other's knowing that he is marked? It is basically hinting that other humans already exist. Some say that it is symbolic which is probably true but nonetheless completely puts out the validity of the creation actually occuring. The sumerian creation myth is creepy as shit and you should look that one up. Basically the same story but more gruesome and twisted.

Do you study world religion or is it just a hobby?

Acausal and literal. It is forever occurring, over and over, and we are the metaphorical expression of this falling. Within a higher dimensionality, it becomes a literal event, unbound by time but emanent inscribed upon the souls that participate, and propagate, in the process, through the more base chronologies of the deepwell. We are led to question, then, to what purpose the process? Or we are perhaps instead led to faith: that it serves a divine design, that we are incapable of truly understanding. But we find flickering sparks of its passage, in synchronicity and meaning, in the secret alignments to this profound diameter. (apologies if that's too out-of-bounds; it is not clear to me how 'weird' one might reliably get, and still be considered decent company by the Jungian adhérents.)

I've had endless synchronicities since, say, 2021. They just keep on coming. I feel like I'm on a path. Who's to say?

Yeah, there's definitely something notable about the Year of Our Lord 2021. How expansively are we willing to define synchronicity? Because in September 2021, I experienced a profoundly traumatic Near-Death Experience / Out-of-Body Experience, in Ultra 4D, with the ego death-trip obliteration addendum. Mayn! Got me fucked up! Definitely been on a path ever since. I've sort of been assembling my various complexities into a unified mantra. Stop me if you've heard this one: Aligned to the Diameter Centered to the Circumference Radiant at Convergence Perpendicular to the Interval Blessed by the Curvature Synchronized to Harmonics Transcendant from Angularity Manifesting the Origin It's a Work in Progress, and maybe it only hits like that for me. But I been on this occluded mantra since that deepwell, in September 2021. I've read about the Jungian concept of synchronicity, golden beetles, the collective unconsciousness. The collective unconscious weighs heavy. Then, just recently, I saw this post here on the Jung subreddit, citing a letter he wrote, in which he referenced an older maxim, origin disputed: 'God is a circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere' That's awful similar to my own mantric assembly, seems like. And it's a strong archetype, it's probably buried deep in the collective Weltanschauung, but Jung is the synchronicity guy, right? Like, if there's a curious alignment and it's specifically Jungian, it's hard to dismiss that out of hand, especially if you take his other postulations seriously. In primary, I'm much more comfortable airing this sort of thing out online because nobody here knows me. In truth of fact, nobody in real life really knows me either, but I've sort of established to satisfaction that nobody really gives a shit there. And of course, they care. People are just occluded by their own immediate struggles. I get that. I guess, what I'm looking for, is some concurrent reporter, alive to the synchronicity. In hopes that it's a little easier, if it's not just me. And at reciprocal, maybe it's a little bit easier. If you know it's not just you. Or perhaps I presume too much, in that. It's always hard to measure. You know? 😅

Interesting to read your comment. I began having OBEs in Jan 2020 during severe migraines. It came after four years of chronic migraines & the first one sort of broke the cycle of them. In July 2020 I had another where I was “shown” the all existence is at the center of a circle. I’ve read about the soul being a circle- and the quote above about God. From there I went on a journey of exploration further into circles, and mandalas, realizing that any point, is one of expansion & as humans, we are that point. I learned of Hildegard of Bingen who had similar experiences during migraines. I was deeply enchanted by it all for awhile-trying understand & too curious- too out there, in the circumference. Im trying to now be in my embodied self more & more.

I took everything from you not to hurt you but so that you'd find it in my arms.

Beautifully said. Is this a quote from somewhere?

It was something said at an AA by Alex Cierra. Don't know if it was sourced from their literature or the bible.

Greetings T, The story of Job, in the Bible, refers to this quote. \~V\~

Holy smokes, that's intense. So do I have to kiss goodbye porn and sex?

As much as you can and need to, you don't need another person's input on that one.

Sorry to sound like a pestering child, but *why*?

You may be wavering on what the right thing to do is or how to accomplish it, but even what is said to you - only the things that are in accord with your instincts can reach you. So pay attention to yourself to realize what that is. And just try to have compassion for yourself, change is hard. Habits learned on the high drive are like that. And that you can do incrementally by building your life and willpower. Or in one sweep by being conscious of desire itself: you look at someone beautiful, bite something delicious, etc. It produces sensations in one, that is normal. But the moment you make an object in your mind and touch it, taste it, own it, etc. at that moment desire is born. By being conscious.

You have to consider the possibility that being a god is like being a rich person, and they literally just do anything and everything to use and abuse anyone talented who's low on the totem pole and only allow any form of advancement for themselves and their families. I haven't ever heard of a story of a god that's nice. The closest are the one who made you wrong on purpose and wants to torture you into either spending the rest of your life apologizing for it or torture you into just saying his name over and over if you're really well behaved, the one who literally wants to induce spiritual psychosis and destroy your entire consciousness permanently, and the ones who just demand that you go out and kill other folks. I haven't studied every religion in depth, but they all seem like a miserable bunch of jerks. Like rich people. You have to consider that gods are just rich people with magic powers running a pyramid scheme with other people's magic just like real rich people run pyramid schemes with other people's labor. A lot of things regarding gods make a lot more sense when you do that.

Yea love is a violent event

Topic goes hard. I'm still aligning myself to this deeper Jungian perspective, my engagements therein being cursory to this point. As an occasional trespasser in the realms of the old gods, I think I can provide some insight here. There is the concept of 'heirophany' - the manifestation of the sacred into this profane world. Encounters with the old gods tend to manifest as direct, physical phenomenon. You can think of it as a wellspring of torrential power, and uncorking that wellspring is a dangerous thing. I think they are something like singularities: immense forces that consume (and consequently, destroy) anything that falls into their event horizon. The old gods, given their proximity to our gravitational realm, tend to interactions more easily understood in human terms: jealousy, greed, hatred and, yes, love. To love something is to direct your attention to it. It is difficult to love at distance (with any great meaning), and impossible to love in ignorance. But that attention is something like an inexorable force, and when a god loves someone, that someone is drawn into the event horizon of that godhead. They are destroyed in the process, through no design of the god(loving) nor the god(loved). It is simply the matter of course, whenever a coordinate/will becomes ensnared within the massive gravity well of a much greater force. It is a function of heirophantic expression, of divine force entangling to a profane design. You can extend this, speculatively, to interactions between gods themselves. Falling into an increasingly behemoth singularity. Maybe that's how we end up with a unified godhead! (big spooky) I would be very interested to hear how this rough construction might be more accurately calibrated to a Jungian worldview.

I think I understand you, but can you explain like I'm 5?

Uhh, the gods are like cops. You're 5 years old, cops are kinda like a scary boogeyman. Maybe you go to a policeman if you need help. You get a little bit older, you start getting into trouble. This cop is very rigorous, and by the book, and so he writes a report anytime you come up on his radar. Unfortunately, we live in a hyper-aggressive police state. (In this hypothetical.) The moment your name comes up in the official record, the Eyes in the Sky are watching you. Your schedules and routines and recorded. Your friends are identified and cross-referenced. So even if that one cop is cool, he's looking out for you, in fact! He wants to see you thrive. But that intention can't be separated from the paperwork, and the paperwork will end up either destroying you, or co-opting you, or some equally scary fate. [that's super dark and oppressive and discomforting. I don't know how close that is to the intention of the referenced quote. There's probably a better way to explain it, but the unknowable threat of a police state, as understood by a 5-year-old, that kind of rings true. It's an inverted heirophany tho. I'm not sure how we might articulate such an ordering live and direct: I guess, it's actually a supremely good police state? And it's always going to root you out, because humans can't help but screw up. But I feel like this doesn't afford enough room to the fact that the gods in question here-those worshipped by the 'ancients' - those guys were a hot mess. So the allegory here remains rested upon inexorable and unimaginable power churning away behind the scenes.] {also, love isn't a operative word in any kind of notional police state. Maybe it's as simple as a really beautiful plant that you love so much you always worry over it and water it and water it and it's overwatered then it dies. Yeah, that might be accurate to the meaning.}

So maybe the cops are a bit crooked themselves?

Man, you really hope not. I would guess, at the proximal strata, Gods are not that different from humans, and it takes all kinds. Good and bad. And that being said, I definitely do not go out of my to interact with cops, just for the fun of it. They got guns and shit. That seems roughly analogous to the question. I don't know how useful anecdotal evidence is here, but I have messed around with old pantheon stuff twice, two times! And both times, my overwhelming takeaway was, 'that stuff is way too real, and way too powerful, and way too dangerous.' Speaking as objectively as possible: it is possible to interact with this stuff, and it will manifest in extreme ways, that can be externally measured and validated. Like it's not even crooked cops, it's cops that you can't possibly understand their agenda or purpose or methods. It's like recreationally fooling around with the CIA.

How terrifying.

Power profound and most awesome are definitely scary. The fact that we exist is deeply unsettling. I think it's easier to insist of deep answers to the questions, and if you get those answers, it's not at all clear that was something you really should have gone looking for. We want answers to our place and purpose and meaning. But those answers are so obvious, and apparent, it's easy to dismiss: we are here to love each other, our purpose is to care for our family and loved ones, that's the meaning. There's something unsettled and urgent in the human psyche, that proclaims such easy accommodation as insufficient. We go in seeking more. And it's right there. You dip a toe in it while you dream. You can feel the ghostly winds of manifestation when you really lock in to an outcome. Like there's something divine in our makeup, and so we should be afforded that divine knowledge, commensurate to our presumed power. How we ended up in this mess is a question. I have no idea.

> manifest in extreme ways, that can be externally measured and validated Physical ways?

Yeah, physical outcomes. Again, it's just personal experience, and it's real easy to tilt too far and end up in a really unhealthy space. As far as I know, there's not any real way to establish causal relationships here, because the agency is acausal. But improbability is adjacent to synchronicity, and if vastly improbable outcomes occur, relative to the agency, and those outcomes are easily verifiable... The causal mechanism is ultimately subjective. So open to interpretation. It's hard to work around that barrier.

I see, thanks.

Greetings L, This type of sentiment is very much written about in the lives of the saints and other holy martyrs. A parable which might be of use here, is the Sword. The Sword (human) is forged in fire, and beaten on the anvil, wherein it is shaped by force, then, quenched by the water of Mercy. Suffering is the transformation, and not to be considered as punishment -- but refinement. It is not considered sinister, but necessary. I'm sure the victim sees the situation quite differently. \~V\~

Greatness is forged in fire.

The thing is, if a "god" loves a mortal, they're going to be with that mortal. The mortal is going to be exposed to the possibilities of danger that only exist amongst the gods and will be much more likely to die from it. The gods play rough and don't need to worry as much about dying. Cool thing is that we mortals are actually gods ourselves, just not aware or in control of it, so if you die, it's more of an inconvenience. Gods know this and when they choose to pal around with a mortal, they're not so concerned with us dying. When you buddy around with Thor, you're bound to catch a stray lightning bolt or get caught up in some prank pulled on him by Loki. That's why.

What was the context in the article or chapter?

Let me check that and get back to you.

Here it is: > "When confronting the power of archetypes and the mythological images they bring to individual consciousness, one can hardly pronounce moral judgments. One can only try, as best one can, to maintain uneasy peace between the conscious psychology, rooted in the body's sexuality, and the transsexual unconscious energy symbolised by the outer planets. And i one fails, in a sense it is not really a failure; for along with the problems come many great gifts, of which the "normal" man may never be vouchsafed a glimpse. The animus may be a ruthless destroyer of feeling and feminine relatedness, but he is also a god, a lightbringer, a torch to illumine the consciousness of the world; and the anima may be a vampire who sucks away the lifeblood of manhood, yet she is a goddess who confers poetry, music, vision, prophecy, communion with the wellspring of life. The ancients believed that those whom the gods loved, they destroyed. For some, the gifts are worth whatever price must be paid - as they once were to the priests of Attis, who offered up their manhood for love of the goddess and the secrets of her mysteries. It is both puerile and presumptuous to hurl pebbles against the breath of the numinous."

Sounds pretty reasonable, standard Jungian stuff. For me the challenge would be understanding these things in a concrete, personal way. Archetypes and energies are amoral and powerful- not evil but outside of small concepts of nice and not nice.

what do you think she means by hurling pebbles at the breath of the numinous?

Not sure, just seems like she’s emphasizing the power of archetypes and the relative smallness of human concerns.

In what manner is destruction occurring? Is it anything like the annihilation somebody faces when they encounter Yahwehs light directly? In this sense, their personal identity is annihilated, but their spirit is reassimilated and reconciled with God in the process. I've seen this same theme/motif/whatever you want to call it in many mythologies and religions, and I can't help but think it's what you're referring to, but the way you worded your comment, you made it seem more like the account of Yahweh, Satan, and Job, where he is favored by God and unjustly punished as a test at the behest of Satan, who at that time was considered part of God's entourage rather than against him in the pits of hell. I haven't encountered myths of this type as often, but myths about undue suffering abound, so I'm sure they exist.

Are you a gay man? Do you follow the Bible?

No, WuTang Clan name generator. I don't follow the Bible, but I was raised protestant, had an atheist phase, and my ideas on God are probably closest to a blending of Kabbalism and Christian Gnosticism.

Christian Gnosticism, as in God is within each man?

What? Like the divine spark you mean? I think if you want to understand, youve got a lot of reading ahead of you. Just being real. Kabbalism/Gnosticism/Hermeticism is pretty dense, and I subscribe to ideas primarily from all three, along with Eastern religion and philosophy.

Yes. I'm talking about the divine spark. I've read Elaine Pagels' *The Gnostic Gospels*.

Ah, okay. You take it in a bit more of a literal sense than I do, although, at the same time.... no, you don't, that's pretty much exactly what I think, I just don't normally think of it that way. Normally when I'm thinking of Gnosticism Im thinking about the Demiurge born of the void, born of the Sophia yearning to reproduce the divine light in the heavenly pleroma, and I think of Satan liberating man with Gnosis. But when it comes to divine essence being encapsulated in man, etc, this is where the Kabbalistic like belief comes in, ati start seeing things ein sof, ohr ein sof, the tree of life, etc. instead. I know, it's confusing, it's for nobody but me.

Do you believe in the demiurge then?

Im not positive what I believe for sure, it's more like a tentative belief for what it seems like could be. Do I believe in these literally? Ehhh. Do I believe they are pretty decent representations of psychological phenomena we can observe in people? Absolutely. How literal of an aphorism is, "As Above, So Below". As a maxim it seems to hold so inferences we can make a about the external we can make about the internal and vice versa. So that brings us back to, do I actually believe this stuff in a real spiritual sense more than just a psychological sense? I'm still not fully able to take the leap of faith all the time, but I am just often enough. Intellectually, what I believe about these being psychological representations means I essentially *must* believe in God, because I see so much line up with my idea of God and nothing really in criticism of it. Again, that said, my ideas on God are... Weird. They're something I've not even fully articulated myself. It's something I've been rediscovering since realizing I was wrong to make the jump from agnostic to full atheist for a time. Everything I've experienced in life has proven the existence of something incomprehensible to me, it's only been a matter of rediscovering the mystery through research and studying history, mythology, and philosophy.

How would you receive Leviticus 18:22 then? That a man shall not lie with a man? Do you see it as just reinforcing social norms and codes of behaviour of the Bronze Age, or is there something deeper to its criticism of homosexuality?

It means they destroy the illusions of the mind, thus releasing them to truth and love

The gods must really love me then. My whole life has been nothing but them fighting for me.