Theism

Theism, when contrasted with atheism, is broadly defined as the
belief in the existence of a deity or deities. The term theism
derives from the Greek theos meaning "god". Atheism is
commonly understood as rejection of theism in the broadest sense of
theism, i.e. the rejection of belief in a god or gods. The claim that
the existence of any deity is unknown or unknowable is agnosticism.
These three are the most well known terms used as the most common
division, but there are many more subsets beneath them. Some which are pantheism, which hold that the divine is wholly immanent in reality, and transtheism which takes an intermediary position. More
sub-forms as will be touched on below.

Theism obviously plays a heavy element
in the megaten series, being of course about gods among other things
and their interactions with humans. Each of the different sides will
have some theistic aspects, and even the sides that downpaly gods due
to the nature of how their world works are generally not depicted as
a-theistic per say. a-theism in universe seems most often to be less
a stance on what exists, and more a stance on how one approaches the
ideas. Since the megaten games normally take place at a time when gods are tangibly walking around on earth, total atheism rarely shows up as a concept.

Note this page won't talk about most
pantheistic types of theism. Since those are talked about on their
own page, as well as the list of types of them being contained there.
To see these additional aspects of theism see the pantheism page. For the overarching spiritual associations that the different groups have in general, see the spiritual concepts page.

## Types of theism

### Monotheism

**Monotheism** is the belief that there
is only one God. In common usage, this generally refers to one that
is both personal, bearing both a personality and direct immanence
with the universe, and transcendent, usually being the ultimate monad
and absolute of reality. However, as many of the terms for types of
theism are rather new classifications, many of the pantheistic forms
were originally thought of as types of monotheism.
**Classical theism** refers to the form
of theism in which God is characterized as both sentient, and as the
absolutely metaphysically ultimate being; in contrast to other
conceptions such as Pantheism, Panentheism, Polytheism, and Process
Theism. Note that although monotheism usually is synonymous with
this, they are not necessarily inherently identical per say. The
types of yhvh that show up in game obviously do not resemble this, though he does have a vague claim to monotheism of a sort. Classical theism says
that god is not merely another being, even the ultimate or an
infinite one, but is fundamentally different in nature. A logical
necessity the way 1+1=2 is.

**Theistic personalism** sees God not
as of a fundamentally different nature as other entities, but rather
just the irrevocably most ultimate version of one. God's qualities
are like that of other beings, merely in forms scaled up to infinity.
As opposed to forms which see God as a different type of thing
altogether that's not even comparable to regular beings. It is
contrasted with classical theism.

**Dipolar theism** is the idea that God
has both a changing aspect (God's existence as a Living God) and an
unchanging aspect (God's eternal essence). This is in contrast to
views which posit god as existing entirely outside of any form of
time or change whatsoever. Process theism is a form of this. This
also contrasts classical theism which says that God cannot change at
all, and all its actions are a single state that exists from eternity.
Dipolar theism often also denies that its even coherent for something
unchanging to be sentient in any meaningful way. It is usually
associated with panentheism rather than normal monotheism however.

**Exclusive Monotheism** is the idea
that only one god exists; other gods either simply do not exist at
all or, at most, are false gods or demons.

**Inclusive monotheism** accepts the
existence of a great number of “gods” but holds that all gods are
essentially different interpetations of one and the same, so that it
makes little or no difference under which name or according to which
rite a god or goddess is invoked. In the strictest sense, this does
not necessarily claim that all conceptualizations are equal, but
rather than humans lack full knowledge, and must build upon what they
have. Some some “more good” versions would be considered more
accurate than versions which are totally immoral / erroneous.

**Pluriform monotheism** is the idea in
which various gods or entities, without losing their independence,
are at the same time considered to be manifestations of one and the
same divine substance. This is very similar to soft polytheism, and
is considered a link between the two doctrines. The law side
occasionally describes views which border on this. Since it thinks of
itself as monotheistic, but god is not identical to yhvh, but
different entities can represent aspects of the abstract god. In a wider sense, in an interview they confirmed that the games as a whole have this reality. Because the great will encompasses everything, and everything is an aspect of it, and what you choose to view as divine is like an existential choice of your values.

**Unitarianism** is the belief that God
only has one personality. (although the word also has other
meanings.)

**Binitarianism** is the belief that
one God has two distinct personalities.

**Trinitarianism** it the belief that
one God has three distinct personalities. Orthodox trinitarianism
defines this in a specific way however, which you can get more
information on on the christianity page. Note that despite law having some Christian aesthetics, the Christian idea of the trinity is absent from the series.

### Polytheism

**Polytheism** is the belief that there
is more than one god. It sometimes involves them arranged into a
general collection or interaction-system known as a pantheon.
**Hard polytheism** views the gods as
being distinct and separate sentient beings with separate
personalities, and independent lives in the same way humans are. The
most obvious example being classical pantheons. Note that some of
these, such as the greek religion had inclusive beliefs, believing
all pantheons to be different interpretations of the same distinct
entities, and understood their own stories to be mere approximations
of the reality.

Polytheism usually makes no effort to depict its gods as flawless entities, instead more often opting to make them have very human personalities. Albeit often larger than life ones that may represent certain ideals.

**Soft polytheism** is a word for a
several different beliefs which are lumped under one umbrella. It
holds that various gods may be different sentient aspects of one
overarching “divine” (similar to pluriform monotheism), or merely
archetypal forms which while lacking tangible existence are
nevertheless inherent in the universe in some way. Some forms are
closer to pantheistic in beliefs, but hold that divine essence is
best understood by imagining it as independent entities which are
useful tools for understanding. Megaten games are a little bit of
both hard and soft, since the demons are archetypes, and while they
are all derived from the great will, when existing tangibly they do
seem to have some real independence.

**Henotheism** is the idea that there
may be more than one god, but with worship restricted to only one. It
comes in two main versions:

**Monolatrism** is a more specific
version of henotheism, which is the idea that there may be more than
one god, but that only one is properly worthy of being worshiped.
This may be because of various divisions, such that this universe may
be made by a god, but that there are other gods who preside over
other universes. It may also hold that only one god is fully good,
and that others are evil gods. In game, yhvh's pseudo monotheism is
actually closer to this, since he seeks to establish himself as the
only relevant absolute god, even if others still exist in a sense.

**Kathenotheism** is a term that refers
to worship of only one god at any particular time. It is similar to
henotheism, but bears the idea that individual people can or should
at times switch between which gods are worshiped. Sometimes even
including that at different times different deities are supreme among
them.

**Duotheism** is Belief in two deities,
of roughly equal power. It comes in two versions:

**Bitheism** is the idea that these two
gods exist in perfect or near-perfect harmony, and act as one unit,
despite being separate entities. Often a male / female pair.

**Ditheism** is a belief in two gods
who oppose eachother. Most commonly viewed as a god of evil and a god
of good. Although law and chaos in game aren't quite seen as this
since there is no obvious sole main figures to use. Mem aleph seems
to be a chaotic counterpoint to yhvh, but the closer depiction in
game is "god" and lucifer. But god in this context not even
necessarily meaning yhvh

**Animism** is a general vague
definition for early pre-polytheistic beliefs where indigenous
peoples ascribe a general “spiritual essence” to aspects of the
world, such as various natural phenomena or processes. Some tangible
polytheisms still retain these elements however. And the idea of
group minds is considered neo animistic in a sense. So this is also
relevant to megaten. Since it implies that latent animistic essence
exists in all phenomena de facto, but that observation turns it into
more tangible demons or gods.

### Autotheism

**Autotheism** is the idea of the self
as a god. This can be based on the idea that everyone is their own
god relative to themselves, or that one has an inner calling to
become divine, among other things. Note that dagda's ending in iva
calls this to mind, them talking about how it would make humans into
their own gods.

**Apotheosis** is when a being that was
not previously a god turns into a god. All the sides show some
examples of this. Neutral showing ex humans becoming gods who retain
their human elements. Chaos showing that you can raise to godhood.
And law having talk about how you can become a face of god.

### Deism

**Deism** is a form of monotheism which
believes that while a god exists, and may have even explicitly
created the universe that it has no (or little) interaction with the
universe itself. Deism is skeptical of the possibility of miracles,
saying that there would either be no reason for such things, or that
they have seen no examples of any.
**Classical Deism** holds that despite
the non interaction of this God, that it is still a being worthy of
worship or at least veneration. This is contrasted with some modern
forms of deism which hold that despite existing, or even creating the
universe that “god” is some type of amoral entity which is not
worthy of worship, merely recognition.

**Polydeism** is the idea that many
godlike beings exist, but that they do not interact with our world in
any meaningful way, and perhaps never have, and never will. (possibly
even that they exist in an aspect of the universe so distant or
different that it is not even possible) Though this is in fact an old
belief, it has had an important resurgence in modern times, due to
the fact that people realized that with our understanding of the
multiverse, it is very likely that such things could exist, but that
early religions merely misunderstood the size and scope of the
universe, placing the existence of such beings close enough to earth
to interact with. Those such as epicurus held that while the gods may
so remote as to not even know that humans venerate them, (or even
that they exist.) that it may not be a huge issue that people do so,
as long as it causes no problems.

Note that neutral has some elements of
polydeism. Often thinking gods are a good or venerable type of thing,
but should not directly intervene with human existence. Though it may
not be fully polydeistic, since some neutral things imply indirect
interaction with them is considered fine, just not then tangibly
manifesting to effect human destiny directly.

**Alatrism** is the recognition of the existence of one or more gods, but with a
deliberate lack of worship of any deity. Typically, it includes the
belief that religious rituals have no supernatural significance, and that gods ignore all prayers and worship. Alatrism is not identical to deism, since some deists still believe in worship. It also does not exclude the possibility that gods intervene; alatrists usually
 believe that any divine intervention occurs only for the
deity's/deities' own reasons, unconnected to any encouragement by
devotees. Historical alatrist groups include the epicureans.

There are aspects of this in megaten at times, since many of the sides' relationship to the gods is not necessarily classical conceptions of worship per say, especially on neutral. And in addition, due to the constructed nature of the religions, the rituals while they may have imbued significance are normally not considered inherently significant as an absolute facet of the universe.

**Spiritualism**, (sometimes though
rarely called Spiritual deism) is the religious and philosophical
belief in an indefinable spiritual essence which is the cause or the
substance (or both) of the universe. Spiritualists generally reject
divine revelation, religious dogma, and favor a personalized
connection with the divine presence through intuition, communion with
nature, meditation and contemplation.Generally, Spiritual Deists
reject the notion that God consciously intervenes in human affairs.
Many Spiritualists are more comfortable contemplating the universe as
a mystery than they are in filling it with specific belief systems.
This is often the general belief area of those who label themselves
as "Spiritual But Not Religious".

**Ietsism** or **Somethingism** is an
unspecified belief in a higher force, often with little added to it
beyond that. It is hard to place, due to the fact that it
deliberately tries to claim as little as possible, being merely a
general belief in something “greater than one's self.” Though the
concept is common, most people do not know it by these names.

### Other Theism

**Pantheism** is the belief that the
concept of god, while having tangible existence is not necessarily
something separate from the universe that caused its existence, but
rather is immanent within reality itself. Different forms differ on
whether this has any degree of sentience, or is merely a force of
divinity present in reality as a whole. This is a more common belief
in the east than in the west, though it did exist classically in
Greece, and has had a western resurgence in the last few hundred
years. For more information on the various types of pantheism, visit
the pantheism
page. Note that someone can be both a pantheist and a polytheist,
saying that these things exist separately (or even are related) and
both qualify for the general term of divinity. Megaten obviously has
both polytheistic and pantheistic elements.

**Emanationism** is the form of
panentheism in which all things flow forth from the first reality or
principle. Things are said to contain some of its essence inasmuch as
they relate to it. The first reality is often thought of as “God”
even though in many forms (though by no means all of them) it is not
meaningfully independently sentient. Note that if there is a sentient
godhead in emenationism, it is often considered more like the most
full embodiment of the divine qualities that all life shares than a
fundamentally different entity. Which makes the way it is looked at
and approached rather different. In game, the great will is treated
this way, being a kind of vague force that all things flow from, but
which didn't necessarily create things per say due to not even being
an entity proper.

**Platonism**, though also referring to
the philosophy of Plato as a whole, can also refer more generally to
the concept that there are abstract objects which exist and which are
a necessary existence. Although not all understandings of platonism
posit it as panentheistic or emanationistic, many do, or even claim
that the qualities of the “absolute” divine that people have
referred to historically ultimately refer to platonic forms, and so
it would be misguided to not consider it an inherent relation. While the jungianism that the series is based on resembles platonism, it is not necessarily definitively platonistic.

**Pandeism** is a belief joining
pantheism and paandeism which posits that while a sentient god may
have existed at one point, that at the current point it is now
equivalent with or immanent in the universe, and so is either dead,
or lacks independent existence. It is occasionally also used as a
synonym for pantheism that stresses that the universe is not
independently sentient. Kagutsuchi in nocturne is depicted in this
way, being an entity the new world is built out of. But this aspect
of the new worlds is not considered super relevant.

**Theothanatology** or **death of god theology** refers to either beliefs in which god literally died**,**
leaving there now being no sentient god watching over humanity
(though perhaps still exists pantheistically) or in which said god
never existed, but that belief in it that moved to a more inclusive
pantheistic element was a necessary step to frame the world into
proper context. This is relevant to megaten of course, especially in
such instances as law, and how it makes sense of its paradigm despite
the literal death of yhvh, surpassing the need for him in it. SMTII introduces the concept of staying within a christian paradigm even through the death of yhvh. This calls to mind death of god theologies, some of whom say that yahweh never existed, but was an important concept to help frame into mind a universal system, and other more radical ones of which say he was a literally existing entity that died at some point.

**Religious naturalism** is an approach
to spirituality that is devoid of supernaturalism. The focus is on
the religious attributes of the universe/nature, the understanding of
it and our response to it (interpretive, spiritual and moral). These
provide for the development of an eco-morality. Although it has an
ancient heritage in many philosophical cultures, this modern movement
is currently not well defined. This does not inherently imply
atheism, but that whatever exists operates on natural principles.

**Transtheism** is a word for any
beliefs that transcend a theism / atheism dichotomy. Generally being
for things which are not easily placed as one or the other. It can
refer to a variety of things in between such as pantheistic beliefs
or beliefs that have things like gods but which may not totally
resemble classical gods, being not entities that are the telos of reality, or beliefs that include both gods and
apotheosis so there comes a point where you may no longer have gods
above you. These concepts and the ambiguity between them are of
course heavily relevant to megaten as a whole, due to its humanistic reevaluation of humanity's relationship to gods. **Transpolytheism** is specifically transtheism that contains polytheistic gods.

**Radically emergent theism** is the
idea that there is no substance or thing that is inherently god, but
it is a quality the universe comes to have over time. This emerging
quality of spirituality feeds back into the world in the way mental
phenomena influence physical ones. God does not exist as an object in
a literal sense, but there is an increasing deification of the world
over time. Though there are a few versions of this, this is something
relevant to megaten in that divinity comes from the observations of
humans, rather than being an inherent thing in the world.

### Value judgement theisms

**Eutheism** is the belief that a deity
is wholly benevolent, usually also including the idea that it is so
knowledgeable (if not omniscient) that listening to what it has to
say, assuming you know, should be done without question. This does
not necessarily imply that it gives human commands or interacts with
them however, but it is assumed that if it does not do so that it has
a good reason.

**Theodicy** is the philosophical
process of making arguments for why apparent evils are allowed to
exist in the world if there exist any omnibenevolent gods who
technically have the full power to remove them. Note that such
arguments are considered unnecessary if these gods either do not have
full power to prevent it, or are not fully good, or any other
combination of things which does not immediately make it an issue.

**Dystheism** is the belief that gods
may not be fully good, but have moral slates that may be equivalent
to that of humans, but on a larger scale. Many classical polytheisms
actually were this, and in those versions the gods were viewed not
necessarily as moral guidance, but as forces that can be looked up to
or interacted with for other reasons.

**Maltheism** or **Misotheism** is the
belief that a god is either fully evil, or has evil in such a wide
scale that from a human perspective it can be seen as wholly
detrimental. This can be seen as either applying to only certain gods
in some forms of polytheism, or in some forms of devil worship, even
to all of them.

## What makes something a god in megaten

### Observation

One useful thing IVA did actually
explain, but much more vague than it did observation is what exactly
gods are. Note that a subtle distinction made in game is between gods
and other demons. Both of them come from observation, but they are
not exactly the same.

**Observation**. To describe
observation first, observation or understanding is a power humans
have which steven references by saying "humans have the ability
to assign an answer to phenomena without an answer." In the persona series it is referred to as **cognition**. how it
works is that the world in general has latent animistic spiritual
essence pervading all phenomena. Humans have the ability to form
mental ideas about this and about the world in general. And reality
responds to this by creating the archetypical forms that demonscan take. (in an interview they even point out that
even something like the collective idea of japanese kawaii could
become an essence that demons are born from. The ideas don't have to
specifically be ideas about specific mythological demons).

In persona 5 they talk about how the whole world in a sense is the product of cognition. And as such can be remade. They say that there is no such thing inherently as the "real" world, because the real world is the world it is experienced. And that this is what gives reality infinite potential. Implying a different experience as it responds to observation. Which is a metaphor for social construction as well as value assignment, but in game is also somewhat literal. Note that ideas like this have a long history in buddhism, especially tantric buddhism, which has a heavy element in the games.

This makes
the latent essence present in part of reality, like say rocks respond
to the human observations in their minds about rocks, and creates a
kind of latent group mind archetypal form among this essence, that can form into
tangible demons when a soul reincarnates into that form. Though at times it may give birth to their soul directly. The games are however ambiguous about the degree to which demons have these forms inherently versus merely from the human perspective, with the games wavering on how exactly it works.

Note that this essence that becomes demons includes both the natural
structure out in the world, as well as being within human minds. A further aspect to this
is when they are bounded by language. When people see demons and
begin to describe them it effects their nature due to effecting the
language humans use to conceptualize them. Observation interestingly has some relation to some beliefs like kabbalah which says that demons can be born from human thoughts, and that when they appear to humans the form is shaped by the human perception, rather than being their literal form. Note that this also has
parallels to the concept of a thoughtform or tulpa used in
esoteric texts to refer to spiritual existences created by human
thought.

However, despite the term observation coming off as if it is a 1:1 correspondence, observation does not work directly. Demons are not bound by the acts of observation exclusively, nor is it impossible to go against them. How it works is that humans are the primary sources of something called aether or magnetite. Magnetite is said to be in all things, but humans are a much more developed source of it. Humans thoughts in a sense create a "flow" of it. This flow not only can shape demons, but is a kind of flow that can empower them. Demons are not exclusively bound to comply with the flow, but it makes it easier to gain and maintain power if they do. But this is not the only way to maintain power. And the more remote a demon is from the human world the less that human thoughts affect them. With some not interacting with the human world altogether. One way demons can gain power without following it is by eating people directly. Demons who incarnate on earth are especially susceptible to their forms changing from direct human vision. Sometimes, like in raidou a demon can even be seen in different forms by different entities, or where it goes makes it more susceptible to changing form.

Note that the point is that there is
vague animistic spiritual essence in everything in nature before
humans observe it into specific demons or gods. This interestingly
parallels the history of religions, since anthropologists say that
this animism is an idea of the earliest human spiritual beliefs,
where early humans considered everything to have a latent spiritual
essence in this way before developing a specific idea of polytheism. Demons can keep remote from the human world, but the ones who visit it are more susceptible to these thoughts and can become the gods presiding over humanity. While there is no inherent distinction between a god and demon, gods are those who observation upholds as worthy entities.

For more information on this though,
read the entry on Jung., since the games' interpretations on demons and their relation
to pantheism is of course heavily based on jung (they even mention
that the expanse is created by the thoughts of man, being a kind of
world that relates to the collective unconscious). And reading the
philosophy of mind section can explain a bit about how they exist in
general, as things like group minds which are tangible higher powers
even when not manifesting in direct independently sentient form.

This
having to do with the philosophy of mind issue that since individuals
are constructs that we have due to biology rather than being
fundamentally distinct objects, that we can also view events from
other perspectives. I.E. the shared mental content of church groups
is in itself a kind of collective entity. One that exists in the same
way individuals do, despite being less integrated. And as a social
organism represents a higher force that does influence the people who
partake in it, giving it a tangible effect on the world. How this
works in game (minus the magically becoming a distinct entity part)
itself actually has heavy basis in philosophy of mind, being a not
inaccurate assessment of how to make sense of the fact that
individuals are in a sense a construct.

### Gods

**Gods**. One point the game obviously
makes is that divinity is relative. What -is- a god is largely dictated by
observation, though of course demons can fight to change their position. Demons are born from observations, but what
distinguishes a god seems to be that it specifically represents a
kind of positive ultimate ideal or value to people. If enough people see it as such, its form is more likely to be godly. But gods can maintain a stance of godliness via forceeven if it is difficult.

The game implies that what is a god is not based on who is ultimately
correct about any moral disagreement, but specifically that it is
relative to human perspectives. Gods (in the tangible sense) are like the embodiments of a self imposed telos
people are using for orientation in an existentialist way. By your choices, via the great will anything can be your god.

The tangible gods generated in the world have some form of symbiotic connection to the value they represent. But the world you are from may have
a majority orientation that is wrong, and so in general there is no guarantee that the gods are good. Note that
this doesn't imply moral relativism. Since you can just think the
paradigm you are stuck in is wrong. This is a reason behind the
importance of demonizing yhvh at the end. You strip him of his
divinity, reclassifying what he offers as not a positive ideal. Thus, what you are observing are specific ideal archetypal values, or roles that a soul can fill as an embodiment of, becoming a tangible instantiation of a god.

So for instance, if your ideology is X,
Then what can be a god to you is a demon observed into existence
that is in a sense functionally an embodiment of X, since it
feeds on X thoughts and uses that to take an X based shape. And is symbiotically connected to the idea of X in the world. You don't have to view these beings as absolute however, and they are not infallible, due to still being living beings that have their own lives. And the religious orientation in game tends not to be to see them as absolute, but rather just symbiotically connected to these realms of interest.

Its not
just limited to ideologies though. Your group can think various
things embody useful positive qualities. I.E. nature spirits can be
gods if your religion respects them as positive ideas, or you can
think different gods represent different positive qualities. But you
likely wouldn't think a demon that opposes X is a god. One can still
exist due to observation but it wouldn't be treated as a god to you, since its
not depicting what you consider a positive ideal. These gods are also symbiotically connected to the human mind, since the game takes a jungian perspective where they also exist as archetypes. Gods are not merely influenced by human thoughts, but influence human thoughts in turn. In Majin tensei ii they sum this up by saying that things that happen in each world affect the other.

This is why in
games like strange journey, demons on chaos endings talk about how in
a chaos world they can regain their godly forms. Since in that world
they would once again be seen as gods, representing positive ideals
to chaos figures. Note how these gods of chaos merely represent those chaotic systems, that existed even before order. But fallen angels more specifically represent the tone of rebellion against order.

Whether a demon in a given world has a godly form
of course also depends how most of that world or location sees it.
The underdogs of the world-paradigm would have a harder time having
godly forms instead of demonic ones. Since the forms demons take
depends heavily (though not necessarily exclusively) on the main
social observations, someone who is counter cultural worshiping a
thing many see as negative might be considered a devil worshiper to
others or society. Note of course that what you think of as a god may
not just be a representation of ideological things, but some people
also could for aspects of nature, etc.

One analogue to this in real life is
tillich's concept of ultimate concern that's part of his
transtheistic system. A religious existentialist position in which your
god is what you place ultimate concern in. Tillich notes that even
self professed atheists still have an ultimate concern. And that this
will be some idea or goal or telos or value that their actions are
oriented to.

Tillich is not however saying that god is a mere metaphor here. He takes a kind of panentheistic stance in which divinity can be contextualized via the absolute ground of being. And humans by their stances are relating to this absolute in different ways. This corresponds closely to the great will, and how atlus says in an interview that via your perspective you can consider any god a manifestation of it.

Note that even though you can existentially pick your
own ultimate concern that doesn't mean that all concerns are equally
valid. His own point was that there was a right and wrong answer, but
that you as a human can pick and aren't pre built with knowledge of
any right answer into you. Read this line from the interview.

>From her point of view, the gods
are a symbol of the ideal imagined by humans and the perfect form
envisioned by them as their target, their final point. Monotheism, on
the other hand, only has one final target, but there are many ideals
to pursue. This is tied to Nozomi’s lines above. It’s all right
if there are bad guys and if there are good people, there will also
be fickle ones. Nozomi’s credo is that everyone should choose their
own destination.

Note that although tillich's
description seems to imply one endpoint, and so does this description
that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone is a monotheist. Since in
a practical sense in game, obviously this is a bit more lenient, and
one can hold various ideas as positive even if you don't live all of
them yourself. (or different gods represent parts of a positive life
to you) Different manifested gods can be seen as different
reflections of a groups goals or what they see as positive, tangibly incarnating into the archetypal value / role that people observe. for
instance, note that it talks about how monotheism has one endpoint. In this sense, what beings you would consider gods would likely be those symbiotically connected to your ultimate concerns. This does not imply necessarily that you have a worshipful stance to them. And different possibilities for religious structures exist in the games. But it shows a general format.

For most games this makes sense of how law would see different goals
(since law often has different gods working for it) as derivatives of
the whole where people exist to work together even with different
specializations for how one does so. Whereas chaos would see there
simply being different possible positive paths that are unrelated. So
there's nuance to where different aspects of divinity would be worked
into a single religion in game.

Note the interesting aspect here is that demons being able to incarnate as gods rather than demons when appearing physically is based on the wide scale social opinion of them. Someone who upholds a god most see negatively can like as seen above be accused of devil worship. Note that what they usually call gods in game are the tangible instantiations of the ideals they uphold as the ultimate ideal. With the ideal itself creating a role for a soul to fill. Event though the ideal is what matters. Another line from tillich below:

>God is a dimension of quality of existence (or being, reality, etc.).
"The ultimate of the act of faith and the ultimate that is meant in the
act of faith are one and the same" (Tillich). God is your participation
in the ground or depth of your own being. Faith is not a kind of
knowledge. Knowing is confined to science. "Faith is the total and
centered act (commitment) of the personal self" (Tillich). Except for
assertions like "God is Being Itself," all assertions about God are
symbolic, including the assertion "God is dead." Statements about God
are about your experience and relation to existence (or being). For
example, "God exists" means "I experience a depth in my being when I
respond to reality with ultimate concern" (Tillich). It says "Religion
is man's response to ultimate concerns in terms of the ultimate"
(Tillich).

Going back to the persona 5 part where they say that the whole world in a sense is the product of cognition. And as such can be remade. They say that there is no such thing inherently as the "real" world, because what people see and feel is the real world. And that this is what gives reality infinite potential. This relates to divinity here as well. There is no "real" divinity because it is a construct and relation to the individual or society. So the connotations of religion can be changed as new conceptual schemas are made and values placed in different ways.

This is why a-theism per say doesn't really exist in an explicit sense in the megaten world. And the closest analogue is heavily humanist perspectives. Persona 5 also points out that this exists on the individual level, not just societal. So what divinity is to you and what your god is is in a sense self assigned. Even if in game the world responds to collective assignments by manifesting an archetype beings can spawn from. The part where he talks about being itself that one's gods derive from relation to corresponds to how gods in general derive from the great will, and observation relates to it.

This is why reverence to historical figures and hero worship is considered a continuous concept to gods, especially for
neutral, where a hero could represent living an ideal life. Which note, this has precedence in taoic religion where
people worshipped as gods can become guardian spirits of things, such as in greek hero cults. Neutral focuses on various versions of this, such as the theosophical concept of ascended masters, with its gods being transcended humans much of the time to represent more closeness to humanity. Or also at times gods who at one point incarnated as a human to show closeness. Neutral tends to value these figures more due to considering it a matter of significance that their value systems are structured around the idea of human existence.

Dagda's world interprets values differently. People there primarily see themselves as their own
gods since their ultimate concern or value is something they
interpret as personal and based on their own inner values where they
see value on a personal level. In keeping with how tillich talks
about how by this concept of holiness even self professed atheists
have uiltimate concerns, even in dagda's world about getting rid of most external gods being a presence in the values of humanity, the point is that what gods represent will still
exist, merely shifted to be based on values seen internally rather
than being raised to a group level.

Danu mentions how dagda's path would make people
into their own gods, since their interpretation of value is now
individual and internal. And this relates to nietsche's idea of ubermensch. However, even in dagda's world, some external gods will still exist, primarily involving you, who is a post human god over humanity.

In a sense what people are really
valuing is in many senses the idea itself. Its just that observation will often make there
be a god embodying that idea. But whether what you are interested in
is the idea embodied in a tangible god or not these things are
treated as symbiotically connected. In bonds people will generate new gods, since
they are making new humanistic versions of their ideologies. Humans too
can seek to get close enough to an idea that they embody it to
varying degrees. Neutral's main gods are often ex humans since it
being focused on (according to itself) more down to earth humanist
concerns, what it chooses to place its values in by embodying
humanism seems to place tangible humans at the center. Its in a sense
literally hero worship, considering it down to earth to use real
people as analogues of ideals rather than something more abstracted
from already existing human concerns.

Note that even if you uphold an idea, that gods who embody it are still sentient beings. And it is still possible to see them as filling their job wrong, and so you wanting that role to be filled by another. Which happens in iva, where a different being takesthe role of dagda.

Since gods are in a sense
embodiments of ideas, a human embodying an idea of humanism to a good
enough extent to become seen as a god is possible too. (Or they could
end up leaving human essence behind to become a more direct
embodiment). Since the point is what your idea is, if a being
embodying it closely happens to be a human or partially a human, that
is fine too. Which is likely what is being implied with characters
often literally becoming angels / demons / gods / messiahs /
whatever. Because humans can embody these archetypes in ways too.
Some archetypes like that of the messiah (the messian messiah, not
the iva one) even imply being human. and II points out that the
messiah is an object of worship also. This is a part of their overall
system. Note that danu talking about new gods being born on bonds is
meant as an indirect description of ideological progress.

An interesting sub note is that max stirner says that humanism is in a sense a form of theism, worshiping the abstract god "man" which individual humans have value in relation to. In megaten the idea of this association and the ideas being continuous is strong.

**Great one**. In iva's interview they talk about the distinction between regular gods and "great ones." Great ones referring to gods like yhvh that seem to have a seat of power in some huge way, like over the entire world. This likely derives from the hindu term mahadeva, which means great deva. Referring to the supreme high gods.

**God**. Although most gods referred to are polytheistic gods, an important distinction comes up for monotheism. The term god either refers to the one in the role of great one, or to the great will, or in a sense both of them blurred together because it becomes its main avatar. Some figures reject viewing the abstract absolute as a god in a more absolute sense. Since they see the idea of a single absolute presented as god as highlighting values in a more unified rather than pluralistic way. In an interview they say that the emergence of yhvh was what allowed the great will to be worshipped. So the idea of seeing it as "God" is derived from the monotheistic paradigm. But it is not bound by it, since yhvh can still be killed, and the voice zayin hears in the visionary items still refers to it as god. So there is an additional aspect of the views one can have if they use monotheistic language to refer to their value system rather than polytheistic.

**Emergent Theism.** There's another idea this relates to
called **radically emergent theism** or **emergent theism**. Which holds that
the world itself isn't divine, and there wasn't any originally
existing divine things, but divinity is something that emerges from
it. Which if divinity in game is a term for the social structures of
value and what is valued / value is oriented towards sounds kind of
like what is being expressed. Of course that depends on whether you
think the great will and its pantheistic elements counts as a god in
and of itself or is merely the source of them. But that's kind of an
issue of semantics in a way. The value in a sense already exists as
part of the world, even if not upheld by humans. But the point in
game seems to be that divinity as a concept is not about what is
correct but about what is valued by humans. So the correct values
might not be "divine" without being valued.

### Fusion

The in-game depiction of fusion and fission is obviously meant to call to mind somewhat the reality of both historical mythological figures as well as the evolution of ideas. In terms of lore, its common in myth for certain figures to be combined, or at other times for interpretations to eventually split into multiple figures. And in terms of ideological slants in terms of ideas, it is common for ideas to merge or split also. So this relation is meant to call this to mind. Note how while different demons represent aspects of a worldview they don't all correspond directly to ideology, or have no existence or identity outside of that. So while gods represent ideology, this is not entirely direct, but they have some independent existence as well.

### Pantheism

**Pantheism** Now an important final
note is how to relate external or tangible gods to the pantheistic
larger format. Since all the sides obviously have an element of
pantheism, but despite this also have distinct gods that are
entities. The relation here seems to be that they see the general
pantheistic essence as the ultimate representation and record of all
value in an absolute form, but distinct gods as manifestations or
depictions of an indivdiduals' place in it.

Like for instance, an
angel might be a representation or manifestation of the practice of
utilitarianism, but the larger abstract "god" is the point
of view of the universe or record of utilitarian value that the
morality is feeding into. So its a part of this absolute system, but
is not the absolute of absolute in and of itself. Nozomi calls gods
representations of individual human goals or endpoints. But one can
see how even an idealized endpoint one uses as an archetype to get to
is not itself the ultimate bearer of all value, but more like an
idealized form and embodiment of how to relate to it. For more information see the pantheism page.

Note that dagda talks about how the
essence of gods is in a sense one with the universe. Presumably due
to representing a part of its structure. So it makes sense to see
individuals in an emanationistic sense emerging from the larger
reality, and being a part of it, with gods being those humans uphold
as representing positive aspects to them whatever that means to them.
This aspect of being part of the larger whole applies to humans too
of course. Which is depicted as an important revalation to seraph at
the end of DDS2 the sense in which everything is connected.

## In-game Theistic views of specific sides

Now, one thing that has to be mentioned
a little bit is what distinguishes the different sides' forms of
theism. Obviously observation is a little more complicated than gods
just representing ideals or distinct parts of nature. One distinction
in game is the distinction between monotheism and polytheism. In an
interview they point out how this distinction implies the difference
between whether there are multiple endpoints, or only one ideal one
with the different roles for for different individuals being derived
from it.

On its surface, this appears as the basis of what distinguishes “angels” on law
from gods. Angels are seen as not ends in themselves but ends that
point to the larger goal. This characterization is not absolute of
course, but has to do with how things are seen. Though there are other gods on the law side, they tend to function almost in a hindu sense as seeing themselves as embodiments of one supreme reality. With law's monotheist slant, the highest
entities are often called faces of god rather than gods. Being
depicted as aspects of and pointing to the one absolute.

Yhvh himself
calls himself god, and is conflated with god as an embodiment of
aspects of the system, but note that it is hinted that this is
something the system itself must grow past. Which is why he is
targeted in II. In II He intends for the world to have everyone strictly flow him in a way that has less variety, and he is gotten rid of in part to show that the ideal shouldn't be this strict, but aknowledge different forms of expression. In II's added scene you see a voice tell zayin
that god is not yhvh but everything. Showing the realization of this inclusive nature.

Law also considers the messiah
an entity of veneration. So it is not only non humans who can be in
this respected role. And the messiah is presented as the central
figure of the law side. Note how this resembles the concept of
pluriform monotheism seen above.

Neutral of course emphasizes humanism
more, and so it tends to prefer gods who are humans who underwent
apotheosis / incarnated in a human form to understand humanity, or gods who otherwise don't want to directly intervene
effecting humanity / or have goals that radically transform it. Since at least IV this has also been equated to the theosophical concept of ascended masters in-game, who are humans who achieved ascension via spiritual enlightenment, to become somewhat like gods.

Note
that the godess of tokyo itself by its nature is focused more on it
representing tokyo than being a godess. Max stirner makes an
interesting point that humanists tend to worship the abstract concept
of the collective of humanity as a god without realizing it, valuing
in people their essence of being man more than in being an
individual.

So here we see that human focused spirituality blend over
to a more tangible polytheism. Though it has some regular god
worship, neutral worshiping deified humans might not even recognize
this as a religion analogue all the time, seeing it merely as
respecting heroic historical figures. And valuing gods as ideas is
still done, but they may not always recognize this as the same thing
that makes those ideas into gods.

And for chaos, demons tangibly
walking the earth is not just a metaphor for impulse, but humans and
demons being continuous has to do with chaos' individualism and
calling people to if they seek it to seek to become a demon
representing something themself. Similar to dagda calling people to
be their own god, except in typical chaos one can in theory become
one to others, and of course lower others are implied to fall in line
behind the values of the strong in a nietzschean type way, rather
than considering themself their own god. Though again, dagda has
similar things happen.

Chaos figures are seen as demons by others, but do adopt that identity somewhat themselves, though when chaos takes power, this tends to shift to being viewed more again as gods. Note that in the main game proper before the ending, the main figures of the sides being angels, transhumans, and demons makes gods themselves not uniquely the main focus of only one side in particular, but integrated among the other aspects.

Interestingly about early religions,
Campbell suggested that the reason many of the irl earliest gods were
half animal was because religion was then a means to contact and try
to control the outside world, the world of animals. They were
depicted as animals as part of "nature" because the
ultimate to early people would have been nature itself, rather than
an idea of something beyond nature that later came to be called the
supernatural. (Even though early people still saw nature as having
spiritual essence).

So gaians having these types of gods as well as
fallen angels who were animalized has a type of internal consistency.
As well as being depicted as animalistic and impulsive due to
representing the uncontrollable aspects of nature. Which is
contrasted with law's more logical robotic aspects, being based on
the idea of a pervading cosmic logos and distant from mere
animalistic qualities, though touching on the rational side of
humanity.

One more interesting point to note is that the games seem to depict the total subjection of people to gods in a worshipful abrahamic oriented sense as inherently bad, and an incorrect view on gods in general. In iva when yhvh begins to shout "praise my name," your team points out that now he is showing his true colors. Implying that non arrogant gods do not expect that absolute of praise or veneration.

This ties in a bit more to eastern views, (and especially modern views) where buddhas are venerated and respected as high beings, but the tone of your relationship to them is not one of absolute subjugation. As such, in game, gods are depicted as something that while it may make sense to be respectful of and venerate them, there is a sense in which this has limits, and should not be treated as an absolute. Doubly so since despite their exalted nature, they may be beings who can be corrupt or wrong and who need to be fought against at times.

## The sacred and the profane

The sacred and the profane refers to a
distinction drawn in religion between things of religious
significance versus things that lack them. This info derived from a
book of the same name by Mircea eliade. The concept of the sacred is
different in various religions. But in many there is overlapping
aspects of it that provides context. The sacred is generally a word
for the absolute reality which transcends the world, but which
manifests itself in it, thus sanctifying it. This sacred is often
also seen as the source of the world, or at least of order within the
world structuring it into a coherent shape out of the primal chaos.
The sacredness of things in the world is generally tied to its
relation to this absolute reality. Sacredness was tied to the
objective in a sense that the profane relative world that passes away
was not. It is seen as tied to stable truths that give value to the
world due to its nature of relation to it. Not all primal aspects of
being were seen as sacred however. Some properties were associated
with corruption or imperfection. And depending on how these are
interrelated you can have different views, such as a dualistic cosmos
versus one in which imperfections come from a lack of proper
structuring of properties.

Notably of course there is some
discrepancy between how absolute what is seen as absolute actually
is. In monotheism, the absolute of god is fundamentally eternal. But
in polytheistic religions the gods were themselves contingent. They
represent the power of being and are absolute in a sense relative to
humanity, but themselves have limitations. And so the nature of their
being absolute is not a total absolute, but in a sense a reflection
of deeper principles of being. In principles like taoism this is
highlighted more openly where the tao and its properties is seen as
an irrevocable nature of reality, but what gods fulfilled certain
parts of it was capable of change. The gods themselves were pointing
to a nature of something beyond the limited relative nature of
individual existence. Not all religions had a total absolute, but
generally the sacred reflects deeper principles of being.

A notable thing about the distinction
between sacred and non sacred is that it is emphasized that in the
worldview of religions even the profane world is itself a reflection
of the sacred. The world is not merely a thing which exists, but a
reflection of the hidden holiness in a sense, and which aspects of
point to this holiness. The existence of the world is normally seen
as meaning something, or expressing a message. For instance, the sky
is associated with the sacred and the infinite source because to the
human conception it seems boundless or unlimited. And so the highest
gods are often associated with the sky, and as reflecting their
presiding over the world.

Even when they have festivals like
spring festivals, the issue is not that they are merely celebrating
spring, but that spring is a manifestation of the sacred quality of
rejuvination. These underlying sacred properties are reflected in the
material world even if the profane manifestations are not themselves
sacred. The profane then does not share in the quality of the
fundamental powers of being, but is a derivative of it. Again, not
all religions are the same, but this is a common format that
contextualizes many of them.

Things in reality are often seen as
giving messages about the nature of sacred properties. Things like
stones are seen as immutable and long lasting, and reflecting the
property of permanence. Water is often seen as having a special
place, since it is often associated with the primal chaos, as well as
with being a source of life. Unlike objects that have tangible form,
water was often seen as undifferentiated. Which is why early
religions would often posit water as having existed before “creation”
proper. It was seen as both the source of and a purifer of creation.
Which is why it is tied to things like baptism and ritual purity.
While not every individual thing in nature is always seen as
independently sacred, “nature” itself in some form is often seen
as sacred. And as pointing to the hidden inner sacredness of these
properties that manifest in it. This may not mean tangible nature
itself, but the unerlying properties that support it, and which give
it being. By extension this applies to a human's place in the world.
A person's life is not merely human, but cosmic because they are a
microcosm who is part of and experiences nature.

This holistic conception of nature as a
reflection of the sacred is often contrasted against a kind of modern
desacralized view that sees it as merely a collection of things. In a
negative sense, ecologists say that the modern view of seeing the
natural world as a pool of resources ties to current ecological
crisis-es. In many ways the world in religion is seen as like an
organism. It is not necessarily independently a tangible organism
(although in many it can be said to be one), but represents a kind of
holism in the way that we would now think of the environment as a
collective system. Concepts like the world tree that show up in many
religions exist to depict it in an organistic sense. And of course
concepts like brahman in hinduism see it as a literal collective
organism. There are different versions of the idea, but an
overarching theme is the big picture sense of it as a unified
picture.

This holistic view of the world
generally ties to the view of the self. Humans were not merely seen
as something that emerges from materials, but like all things were a
reflection of this sacred source. Like different things in the world
pass from one mode of being from another, humans in the spiritual
worldview saw themselves as deriving from a pre existing spiritual
paradigm and generally having a path that they move to after death.
In the same sense that the world was seen a bringing forth, and then
in cycles plants would die and be born again, humans saw their
current life as a passage from one mode of being to another. Whether
that is reincarnation or to an afterworld. In basically all religions
the human world was seen as the center of reality in some sense. And
reality itself revolves around it, often highlighting realms of
spirits above and below.

The religious worldview often also has
concepts of sacred space and sacred time. The ties that the sacred
has to the objective relates to its use in their overall worldview.
Sacred Space is a space where transference from one cosmic plane to
another was seen as possible. As a place where there was a special
link with the sacred, and which when you were in you were “closer”
to the plane of the gods. Peoples would often see their dwelling as
closer to the realm of the gods than that of other dwellings.
Sometimes seeing it as the center of the world. The center was not
necessarily always literal however. In a sense one's civilization was
seen as a world unto itself. And so they considered the spiritual
centers to be a reflection of something not necessarily in literal
space, but a central pillar that connects the worlds of the sacred
and the profane.

This closeness was often seen as
literal, because the realm of the gods was generally seen as
something that is tangibly connected to the real world, even if not
in real space. Even monotheistic religions considered this connection
tangible in the past. With only more modern religious views tending
to deny it as tangibly connected altogether. An important note for
understanding this is that early religions did not have a concept of
the supernatural. Gods were simply seen as part of the world, without
a firm delineation against the natural. The idea of the supernatural
tends to be a later development that comes from later religion. Even
in the middle ages things like angels were not called supernatural,
but rather preternatural, which implies a different concept of
nature.

The existence of sacred space creates a
fixed point. These points were often seen as necessary for early
peoples to transform their civilization to order. Their civilization
itself was seen as like a microcosm of the larger creation by the
gods that created the world from the primal chaos. In a large sense
their civilization was a further construction of order seen as
reflection the creation of the gods. This ties to why outside the
civilization was still associated with chaos. Sometimes even
extending to outside peoples being seen as less tied to the divine,
due to lacking the same internal focus on order and the sacred that a
people saw themselves as having due to their ties to the gods. Even
their own civilizations, despite being made by human hands were not
seen as fully human endeavors, but as things the gods had a part in.

Settlements and the creation of a
civilization was seen as in a large way a consecration. The sacred
spaces they used were not usually seen as something chosen by
humanity, until the advent of later religions. Early people saw it as
something that they had to find via a sign. And would often construct
their civilizations around these places that they deemed sacred. The
temple was seen as something that sanctifies the world. Since the
creation of the world was seen as the archetype of all human
endeavors, the sacred was tied to a rejuvenation of the world,
sometimes abstract, or sometimes literal that helped facilitate order
and protect humanity. The temple was seen as the connection to the
source that helped facilitate this. As a fixed point it was seen as
an orientation to the sacred that is demarcated against the more
profane space.

Another aspect of the idea of the
sacred is the idea of sacred time. Sacred time refers to specific
days or holidays that are seen as having especially sacred qualities.
Normally, sacred time is seen as time that reflects a sacred event
that took place in the past, generally in a mythical time or the
creation of the world. Sacred time is normally tied to the cycle of
the year. It never permanently ends, but is rejuvenated annually.
This cycle was seen as tied to the rejuvination of man in general,
often with sacred days literally washing away the sins of the old
year. Certain time is seen as having taboos as well, implying that
certain actions shouldn't be undertaken during. This idea of sacred
time is seen as something that brings regeneration through union to
the divine origins.

One accusation of this type of
worldview of course is that the cyclical view of meaning and events
is something that implies that its not leaving as much room for
development and new ideas. Since it looks back to past events it
seeks to perpetually relive rather than forward. Since these events
took place in the mythical past and are a set tradition they are
often not something that is meant to be expanded on. This is not an
absolute rule however, since many did hold to concepts of progress
even if this was seen as a creative power that derived from the
creative powers set forth by the gods. In reverse, one defense is
that stripped of its sacred nature, the passage of time is associated
more with the march towards death.

Myths were also seen as paradigm
models. They show what is the sacred as well as what the ordering
structure of how to view reality is. They would often show contrasts
such as order versus chaos, highlighting how humanity was meant to
see these concepts. The sacred shows what is. The sacred shows what
is ontologically and pre-eminently the real whereas the profane does
not participate in being because it was not ontologically established
by the myth. Humans are called to uphold the value systems of the
myths, acting as the gods do. This also ties to how humanity has a
transhuman transcendent model. The ideal that man is told to seek is
something that lies not in the natural plane, but in a transcendent
one.

One shift that happened with the
development of judaism was that the actions of the gods were no
longer seen as deriving from mythical pasts that current ones are
derivative of. In many old religions the main stories were seen as
happening in mythical times, ones that are unconnected from the
modern world. And the actions of gods in the present were seen as
tied to this. Oftentimes the actions of the gods themselves were see
as having a cyclical pattern based on their myths, or that particular
actions showed “the same” wrath as that delivered in mythical
times. Judaism shifted this by depicting the appearance of god not as
in mythical times, but in human history. And the actions of god
became seen as more particular and intimate to specific real times,
rather than a mythic past.

This section was mainly used to
highlight these concepts in and of themselves, and so has less need
to directly tie it to megaten. But there is still some elements that
are useful for comparison. Like in religions, the gods in megaten are
seen as embodiments that point to these aspects of fundamental being.
But And like in many polytheisms, the gods are contingent. What god
fills any particular role is not necessarily set in stone. Likewise,
the idea of the gods undertaking actions in a vague mythical past,
and their manifestations in the world relating to this also relates
to how their stories will be referred to as real existing events, but
it is never exactly made clear when or where many of these happened.
With often only abrahamic events being highlighted as happening in
real history.

Megaten likewise highlights some of the
ecological issues that are seen as tied to humans shifting their view
of nature from a holistic one that gives it reference to one of an
atomistic pool of resources. The pre existing human society is seen
as having lost its ties to the more holistic or sacred understanding
of the world. And this in strange journey especially is tied to them
leading to the ecological crisis that destroys them. A large focus on
the sides is places on upholding this more sacred understanding of
nature. Though neutral often emphasizes that this view does not have
to come with the seeming negatives of seeing the gods as tangible
beings one needs to be subject to.

Another thing to note is the fact that
like in early religious views, the worlds of the gods or spirits were
seen as tangibly connected to the physical world. And the physical
world is seen as the center. In the visionary items lucifer even
refers to it as the center or core. Various spiritual realms are seen
as more easily able to be accessed from certain areas. But this
connection is not necessarily one that exists in tangible space, but
in a perhaps more abstract sense. The demon worlds can also move
closer to the human world, and so are not necessarily at a fixed
point, as seen in devil survivor. As such, you have your connotations
slightly of sacred space, and the ties certain locations can have to
the underlying spirit world. Sacred time however is not really given
as much a focus, since more emphasis is placed on the fact that due
to its religiously existentialist nature, events can be brought to
pass whenever you can manage to do so. In devil survivor, the harmonizer in comps is a thing which harmonizes the nature of demons closer to that of humans, making them susceptible to human weapons and less able to easily dispatch them.

Like in real religions, the myths were
seen as something that highlights which properties were seen as
properly sacred. The different sides of course disagree on the exact
nature of how each property should be seen. In IV merkabah talks
about the holiness of order. So the order / chaos dichotomy itself
shows how they view the sacred. With neutral taking a more middle
stance. They will all have views on things, but uphold them in
different hierarchies. For instance, chaos reveres nature more
directly. And law does not necessarily disparage it, but sees it as
something that should be more ordered. And in Iv talks about how
nature follows god's order. Likewise, on the flipside, the great will
is described as something that is worshiped in catholic churches.
While all the sides accept the existence of this absolute, law
reveres it more directly taken as a whole, whereas chaos instead
focuses on the plurality of manifestations.

This holistic view of the world, and
seeing humanity as tied to and derived from it also shows up in the
worldviews of the sides. Reincarnation is taken as an existing thing
in these worlds, since reality is taken as a cohesive system that
continually brings forth. The ultimate spiritual origin of reality
being the great will. The different sides likewise have an organic
view of reality. Law sees it in terms of the pervading great will,
with limited nature being a derivative of this. Chaos focuses more on
nature itself, with the cohesive collection of manifestations giving
it an organic collective structure.

An important note though is that while
the games highlight many aspects of the religious worldview, the
games present it neither as a wholly religious nor a wholly
nonreligious world. The gods represent and embody aspects of being,
but are not perfect nor absolute, and can be gone against. And which
properties are seen as sacred versus demonic is something that is not
necessarily a metaphysical truth of the world, but rather an
ideological one, which relies on moral judgements to make sense of.
Time is not seen as inherently following set sacred cycles, nor are
the manifestations of spirits seen as immutable to humanity either.
With humans seen as having greater power over their destiny. But this
secular aspect comes with a price in that humans are also seen as
capable of disrupting the harmony of reality by upending important
aspects of it. Likewise, while the gods are still seen as ideals for
humans, which is seen as the ideal is not a metaphysical truth
either. But an existential choice one makes on their own life
orientation.

Overall the games are taking a
transtheistic view here. Or transpolytheistic. Which holds that while
gods do exist and that there is a transcendent element to being that
there is not necessarily a set specific telos of mankind to be
compliant with them. And that one's god in a sense is something
ideological, based on what aspects of life and being one prioritizes.
It ties to the religiously existentialist view and aspects of death
of god theology of that one realizes that even if spiritual beings
exist that this can't be used to de facto be a reliable source for a
life path, and one still has to make one's own choice.

## Why specific irl religions are associated with the sides they are

Although the demons that show up on the
sides are often from various different groups, the sides do tend to
have themes as to what is mainly associated with what. For instance,
though some buddhist elements show up for law, such as a few
entities, hugo's outfit, shijima being a law analogue etc, buddhism
mainly leans towards chaos. Law obviously is designed to look heavily
like christianity. Neutral is depicted as heavily taoist. While some
of these might seem random there is some actual logic behind what is
associated with what. And while the point is not to depict the sides
as literal versions of any of these religions, it shows what
religions' content evolved into what over time.

One interesting thing to note here of
course is that the sides are based on some of the core or original
content from the religious texts the religions are based on rather
than how they are seen in modern day. And due to that combined with
the fact that it parses out some particular aspects explains how
things end where they are. For instance, it might seem odd for
buddhism to show up as chaos leaning, due to its emphasis on
compassion, but in the end all religions emphasize compassion to some
degree. So the ones that focus more on personal transformation as
opposed to moral action are shown as something the chaos side is more
likely to draw from (though obviously dropping many of the compassion
focused elements). So obviously keep in mind that the in game groups
are not meant to be literal depictions of the things they look most
like. Being composite groups.

Another thing to note is that although
people think of buddhism associated with the far east, the dharmic
and taoic religions evolved in different areas of the world. So
dharmic ones leaning chaos are a distinct group from far east taoic
ones leaning neutral.

Note that these lists are not
exhaustive lists of the themes of each side. They are just lists
explaining why specific religions lean that way. Note that atlus though obviously taking some of these things into account, its not clear which ones they were focusing on, and so some may be more intentional focuses than others.

### For law's Christian / Jewish association

1: original christianity pointed out
that you ideally should give almost all your money to the poor, and
acts of the apostles even implied they invented a quasi socialist
community where poverty no longer existed. So conflating it with a
side in game that is about always being other-focused and reflexively
doing things for others and ending in creation of this socialistic
system makes sense, since no other religion really implied this to
such a big degree. Irony here of course is that modern christians are
not associated with this that much anymore.

2: the christian idea of the afterlife
just being eternal peace makes sense to conflate with a worldly
outcome where peace and order are established manually. If you
conflate these afterlives with archetypes for what to do with the
world, you obviously get a picture of law establishing this peace but
taoist neutral not having that same focus.

3: Monotheism makes sense to conflate
with an orderly system that presumes a single project everyone partakes in. Since gods represent ideals, it reflects a collective understanding of society.

4: angels as figures are often depicted
more orderly and peaceful than polytheistic gods who are depicted as
doing all sorts of random ass things at times. So they make sense to
use as figures of peace and order. Doubly so due to the binary of
angels as all good / demons as all bad. Note that the fact that
abrahamic things are for the most part all law or chaos is an
accusation that Christianity uses binary thinking too much. (though
exceptions in series crop up later with mastema working for neutral).

5: The main figure of christianity is
noted for sacrificing himself. So the symbol of the cross makes sense
as a symbol for an others-focused ideology, being a symbol of self sacrifice when necessary being the highest ideal.

6: law reflects ideas that were seen as not native to the east. Smti presents the alignments as parallel to the real life japanese question of whether to accept wester egalitarian and futurist ideas, double down on their warrior values, or do a mix.

7: Christianity stresses that god is
ultimately the one who saves you instead of yourself. Contrasted in
some eastern religions, especially buddhism where its directly your
own actions. The latter if you want to convert it to a tangible
ideology sounds like self reliance, whereas if you use god as a
metaphor for the system then christianity can be a metaphor for
working for a system that takes care of everyone, and your protection
comes from the system. Which seems vague at first, but there's some
logic to it. In-game, law hero describes himself as wishing he could be an answer to prayers of supplication. Which are people asking for things. This has a tone of protection of the weak, and ties with the protection of god. Something that buddhas are less associated with, especially in theravada.

8: the whole "kill some people
being for the greater good" thing is something people often ask
about various old testament stories. Like noah's ark, etc. So
conflating an ideology that has that at times with those stories has
some logic behind it. Not that stories like that are unique to
christianity, but even so.

9: in keeping with point #8, some writers have noticed that god in new testament christianity seems to be more consequentialist, even though christian ethics are not. Since it often focuses on him allowing evils for greater goods, which gets given as an answer to the problem of evil. This is in keeping with how the plans in game of the law side have a consequentialist core, even though this is not mentioned on the level of the people as often. This also relates to the idea of two level utilitarianism.

10: Although this is more obscure, the
eastern orthodox monks focus on a concept called dispassion, being
freedom from emotions. One which stems from stoicism, which is a
concept heavily associated with law. Though this is rather obscure,
so its not clear whether the association to dispassion was meant to
be deliberate. However, angels are generally depicted as stoic
explicitly, (sometimes but not usually even a little cold) so
associating a side which leans that way with them makes sense. Jesus
of course in the bible is also depicted as not overly angry, being
able to passively take insults or even violence, though that
association was not made into one to directly tie to emotions
generally in christian history.

11: although most forms of christianity
don't have this, in gnosticism the final afterlife in the pleroma has
entities which while retaining their individuality ordered into the
order of uniting with and being part of the divine. Which resembles
Sjs law ending, or perhaps krishna's singularity, since some degree
of personalization still exists and it is an ordered relation. To
contrast this, compare it with the description of paranirvana for
buddhism below. Eastern orthodoxy which is more mainstream
christianity also says that people will share in God's divinity in
the afterlife, though will not independently be gods. They do call it
theosis, which emphasizes that this is not merely experiencing it,
but uniting with its nature in a sense where your being is now a
manifestation of it. Note the contrast of the term theosis with
apotheosis. Theosis is also referred to as deification.

### For neutral's taoist association.

1: taoism stresses that people are
naturally good, and that a lot of badness is a deviation from this,
and that getting in tune with one's inner natural goodness instead of
deviating from it like culture often does is a good thing.
Naturalness being considered a high virtue is conflated in game with
the neutral path: the path that most resembles how humans already are
being the taoist path. Since its interpreting this taoist statement
about people already being good as saying that radical transformation
of humanity is unneeded. And that people should just work on being a
better version of what is already inherent to humanity instead of
design an archetype for radical transformation.

2: Obviously the fact that taoism
focuses a ton on balance. Neutral is a balance between order and
chaos. The yin yang is too obvious of a symbol to not use. Note that
taoism does not always say that balancing extremes is always correct.
Yang is considered superior to yin, and so sometimes this balance is
about recognizing how to understand their interconnections to achieve
good ends and avoid the bad.

3: Neutral has a heavy existentialism slant. While existentialism and taoism are not the same thing, existentialism was derived from phenomenology, and heidegger's phenomenology had loose inspiration from taoism through the book of tea which is from where he got the term being in the world. This is also a large reason why eastern philosophy took heavy inspiration from these fields, seeing them as close to their own traditions.

4: Taoism specifically says that sages
won't go out of their way to do a ton of good, and that a more
nuanced approached of inspiration and doing small actions with larger
effects is needed. It even says in the tao te ching that people who
go out of their way to do a ton of direct good are more judgemental.
If we assume that the latter is referring to law, then the balanced
approach is being conflated with neutral.

5: Afterlives are compared with
different outcomes in game. Taoism originally had few beliefs in the
afterlife, since that wasn't its focus. And it had no story about the
world ending. Which implies that focusing on a post world "new
world" was never a big thing for them. Compared to law, this is
another reason that leaving the world more as is is being presented
as taoist. Since it simply saw the world a something that would keep
going on in this flow. It not being focused on an afterlife is an
implicit this worldly focus that can be conflated with a
this-paradigm focus in neutral.

6: in taoism there's a thing about how
the best leaders are people for whom their actions are invisible.
This is why sages act indirectly instead of doing a ton of good
directly. This is likely conflated with neutral thinking that gods
shouldn't sit on earth doing things directly, but should be vague
sources of inspiration.

7: in taoism sages could effectively
become gods. Although apotheosis is common in much of eastern
religion, some others like buddhism consider the gods to be distinct
entities from humans, whereas in taoism sages can become immortal
without ever leaving their humanity. So for a neutral "muh
humanist" slant that is still quasi religious, there's some
logic behind using taoism. Which is also likely why some neutral
figures in game are historical figures but appearing in deified form.

8: The tao is described as producing
all things without laying claim to them. While that might be a
bizarre thing to note since it is true mainly since its not usually
personified as an entity, this hands off attitude can call to mind a
neutral humanist slant. And is in general indicative of its ands off
or light touch mentality.

9: This extends to shinto and
confucianism as well, but the emphasis on worshiping important
historical figures at times and them becoming protector spirits of
areas being a source of inspiration for a humanist slant makes sense.
Figures like masakado actually did have shrines built to them and
them seen as protector gods.

### For neutral's humanist association

1: Basically, neutral being depicted as
humanist seems to be based on the idea that it should take humans as
they are rather than imagine a far distant archetype that involves a
mode of life very different from how things are now to try to shift
to. By being the path that already resembles current humanity, it is
associated with valuing that paradigm.

2: It also seems to be a jab at how law
and chaos have impersonal scopes. Law being about the big picture,
and chaos being about the self. With neutral being more about human
to human action that involve individual humans. It seems to be
accusing those of putting ideology above people. Since gods are
manifestations of ideas, then this valuing of humans is being
depicted as also of religious significance.

Note of course that in real life
humanism is a vague term, and its not clear that the ideologies that
are sometimes associated with the other paths are meaningfully anti
humanist. For instance, one could see this transformation of law or
chaos as transhumanism. And utilitarianism isn't really depicted as
anti humanist irl. Though to be fair, the ideologies chaos is based
on do consider themself anti humanist.

3: The above points are tied heavily to the fact that many religions in the past tended to hold values or ideals or images of an archetypically perfect world as things very alien to and absolute and distant from normal human existence. Since they tended to be based on monistic ideas of absolute values. With more recent humanistic visions toning it down slightly. So while law and chaos are not that close to specific religions, the focus they have on values being based on the absolute nature of spiritual beings is being depicted as very extreme relative to baseline human existence, and a more human centered approach tends to be less absolute.

### For chaos's buddhist association.

1: One of the main reasons that buddhism is associated with chaos has to do with something called imperial way buddhism that existed in japan during the time leading up to world war II. Many of the below aspects of comparison are tied to this fact. More information about this on the buddhism page.

Zen buddhism was militarized during world war II, and used for a nationalist agenda. Gaianism in-game is heavily based on this violent militarized form of buddhism, rather than peaceful depictions. Note however that atlus does not think that this violent depiction is totally true to buddhism, since it calls the gaian units things like "fallen monk" that imply deviation.

2: Another of the main reasons for the association with chaos seems to be the idea of karma. The system of karma and enlightenment places ultimate responsibility for where you end up on yourself. So that is something that can be taken as a chaotic theme, even if the response to this by buddhists was more compassionate than the chaotic response in-game. There is even a real world analogue in imperial japan where the idea of karma was used as a justification for social darwinism, similar to how chaos ties them together in-game.

3: another aspect of this association is the fact that chaos is not merely associated with buddhism, but tantric buddhism. Tantric buddhism was often heterodox, and had an association with the dark and demonic, and often even emphasized embracing desire and feeling in a way that normal buddhism does not. In SMTI their main symbol is the tantric om, cementing this association. Early tantric groups are actually the source of the term left handed path.

4: chaos is more specifically based on aum shinrikyo, which is derived from tantric buddhism. The plot of SMTI seems based on the beliefs of aum that involve apocalyptic events that the us plays into under the control of shadowy groups, and which involve nuclear power used against japan.

5: One reason is that in buddhism your
births and your enlightenment are not (usually) directly caused by
gods or buddhas. They can help you, but buddha is meant as more of a
figure to be inspired by and who teaches you to save yourself than
someone who directly saves you. In Buddhism, ultimate responsibility for your own rebirths or enlightenment are placed on yourself. Providing the basis for chaos to treat it as more of an inspiration than a direct help. This contrasts christianity where you
are saved by god. If you use god as a metaphor for a system, then
this makes a contrast between feeding into a system and being
benefited by it versus self reliance.

6: An important aspect is that zen buddhism was influenced heavily by taoism, and the taoist idea of naturalness. Gaians stress releasing your repressed emotions to act naturally without restraint, which is seen as a darker interpretation of naturalness. So since chaos draws aesthetics from specifically japanese buddhism, that gives it this zen aspect. Note however that taoism itself is more associated with neutral.

7: While buddhism does have gods, one of the main facets of it is that its original form denied the existence of a monotheistic god. So this denial can place it in opposition to abrahamic religion in a more explicit way, due to being a major focus of it.

8: Another important facet of being associated with chaos, is the fact that it has many aesthetics that make it blend in with demons. For instance, wrathful deities are good buddhist figures who are depicted in the form of frightening figures, and associated with violence. Buddhism uses skulls as a symbol, which blends in with demons. And many buddhist monks use red robes, which makes it already a color match. Since hinduism (though buddhism occasionally does it too) also uses tridents as a symbol, it has heavy matches with the aesthetics of demons.

9: Another aspect is that buddhist
morality is not phrased as imperatives. This has led some people to
even try to interpret it as amoral. Nietzsche even insisted that it
was a good religion for being beyond good and evil. In practice that
is a mistaken perspective on it though. Albeit a common one. It still has good and bad, despite phrasing them as skills.

10: One more aspect is that buddhism has
no particular permanent eschatology. People get enlightened and leave rebirth,
but the world itself as a cycle just continues on. With no particular
end of the world distinct moment caused by god, your afterlife path
or being enlightened comes off more individually. To add to this, the
core of buddhism is about enlightening yourself. Its about a personal
practice that will eventually help you overcome samsara. While it
does say ethics are good, these are almost secondary. Enlightenment
is seen as more about wisdom than ethics. Which feeds into people
downplaying that it contains an ethical system. In theravada everyone
would not even be enlightened eventually. So enlightenment ultimately
was your personal path, but the world as a whole will continue on
cycling forever. Since buddhism has no story about the end of the world leading into a world of peace, it makes sense to associate less with law.

11: One more interesting aspect is that
buddhist enlightenment is achieved when you get rid of the ten
fetters. However, there is something interesting noted about these by
some people which is that although buddhas are presumed to be by
nature good people, the definition of getting rid of these doesn't
seem to include it in the definition itself. Sure, you can't have ill
will explicitly, but there are things considered bad that don't
require it. On top of that, mahayana buddhism accuses theravada's
goal of enlightening yourself and leaving samsara without staying
around to teach others as selfish. So you can in fact become
enlightened while still remaining a somewhat selfish being. Making it
make sense to tie that to chaos. If buddhas leave forever shortly after enlightenment, there is no inherent compulsion for them to help others with it.

12: Many people have noted a dichotomy
between eastern and western religion. Noting that western religion is
exoteric, (for the masses at large) and eastern religion is esoteric.
(skilled members being presumed to get a fundamentally different
practice out of it) Or another aspect is that the west is outward
focused, and the east is inward focused. In practice these are
similar. Western religion focuses on your duties to others saying
that these will lead to self improvement. Eastern ones focus on self
improvement, saying that improving will make you help others better.
However, when mapping them to this law / chaos others / self focus
you can see the kind of logic of people who focus on the self leaning
to these eastern practices for inspiration. Obviously the context has
to be changed slightly. But yeah. A group focused on selfish
practices would have more to gain from something focusing on self
improvement than on morality. Interestingly, negative buddhist figures are often also depicted as chaos. Likely showing different paths one can follow.

13: Chaos focuses on change. One of the
core aspects of buddhism is acceptance that the idea of a stable self
is an illusion, and that the self like all other phenomena are impermanent. All that exists are aggregates that constantly
change. So chaos could conflate that to the idea of stability in
general and rejection of it.

14: Buddhism also focuses on not having
attachments. Here, accepting radical change can be interpreted in a
sense as not clinging to any particular state. In iva, maitreya even
conflates this buddhist idea of non attachment with not having strong
bonds with others, and your practice as about self reliance. Maitreya is likely also conflating chaos with the idea of how your enlightenment must ultimately come of your own effort and self reliance here. Some have accused this aspect of buddhism and its meditative association as potentially leading to apathy about moral issues due to detatchment from the motivations that make one care about them.

15: Another reason is that some buddhist monks have been known to practice martial arts as a form of meditation. Since things like this are unknown in christian monasteries, that can be used to imply a more combat focused practice. In practice, buddhist monasteries are not actually more violent. But this emphasis on this physical practice makes them something one could combine with a dojo for a strength focused religion.

16: paranirvana in some senses seems to be being
interpreted as a chaotic goal. In paranirvana after your fetters
binding you to the world are dissolved entirely, you lose any
semblance of exietence as a distinct entity. Buddhism itself is not
super clear what this means, aside from an end to suffering and being
exempt from causality. But the games seem to be interpreting it as
merging with nature itself. Which is why it is generally chaotic
characters that give up their identity entirely to do so. Like mem
aleph. Who you will note is laying in a buddhist pranirvana pose. So
here, the idea that any mental content of yours is spread out to
reality itself rather than staying together in an entity can be
interpreted as chaotic in a way.

While the idea of loss of identity
might at first glance seem to be law oriented, note that law only
shifts focus away from the self if it is towards the collective.
Whereas with nirvana this is not really the focus. And law taken to
an extreme tends to connect people together into a larger
superentity. Which is an expansion of the organization of individuals
into groups. Whereas this self annihilation is presented as the
opposite of that in game. The erasure of the order of the self into
the world at large. So spreading out all your mental content in every
direction has a chaotic tone. But it connecting with others stronger
to form a super organization in contrast is presented as law. So note
that there is an important distinction in tone there. (Note
interestingly that hindu themes are used for both law and chaos,
since it seems they couldn't decide which to associate it with).

Note that this does not mean all
chaotic people seek this goal. Most most likely do not. But note that
in theravada buddhism most wouldn't achieve this anyways. Here it is
simply presented as one possible thing one can seek. Mere the devil
of buddhism too is associated with chaos. But this dichotomy can show
an evolved focus on the religion where now both paths are presented
as up to the individual to choose between.

17: Another nirvana analogue shows up for tde. In nocturne they talk about how all life exists in a cycle of birth and death. Tde destroys the world rather than allowing it to be reborn, thus in a sense ending the cycle. Since nocturne is a buddhist themed game, this association for it is presumably meant to be explicit. What exactly it means for reality to exist without a human world is left a little ambiguous similar to how in Buddhism the idea of nirvana is implied to be indescribable for those still in nirvana. Here, this idea if freedom from samsara seems to be being merged with the satanist idea of the destruction of the cosmos below.

18: Eastern religions and metaphysics in
general, and buddhism in particular, especially zen often taught that
words or doctrines or descriptions are not themselves truth, but
merely point to truth, and that truth had to be skillfully learned
intuitively from what the words point to. So this comes off more in
terms of individual understanding rather than group. And is why
maitreya said that truth is something each must find for themself.
Since even if one knows the truth, they can only convey it to others
in words, and the others may not intuitively understand those words.
Some anthropologists believe that this idea that things can't be
described directly is why it took longer for modern science to take
off in the east. Because the idea of it wouldn't occur to them.

19: Buddhism in modern day was adopted by the west as a seeming counter towards the seeming mechanistic view of the world that people worried modern industrialism would cause. Chaos, by passing itself off as the more natural living alignment to contrast the futurism of law may be drawing on this association.

### For chaos's satanic association.

1: The obvious implication of angels
being law would be that fallen angels are the opposite of whatever
they are.

2: This is actually a criticism of
christianity using heaven / hell binary thinking. Saying that more
nuanced balanced thinking was more present in eastern religions. This
is also why in game the law and chaos sides see eachother as the
opponent and often barely notice that neutral even exists, or call it
incoherent sometimes.

3: Nietzsche considered socialism to be like a secularization of christian morality. Since in game those things are associated together, the opposite makes sense to be demons and hierarchical individualism. Chaos is based heavily both on nietzsche's idea of master morality and his idea of ubermensch (note that in his writings those were not the same thing). And nietzsche used anti christian terminology often, as well as thinking that master morality itself was contrary to christianity. Note that the term ubermensch comes from faust, which has someone make deals with demons.

4: real life satanist groups do
actually lean towards ideology that resembles chaos in game, though
usually not quite that extreme. Crowley shows up on the chaos side in
game and is noted for having an ideology that heavily leaned that way
in real life. Satanism is often social darwinist, heavily individualist, encourages unleasing repressed emotions, and elitist.

5: The devil figure is obviously a figure of rebellion against order.

6: The true demon ending is similar to the beliefs of the temple of the black light in which eventually the cosmos with its limited amount of dimensions will be destroyed, leaving only chaos, which has infinite dimensions. Chaos is also considered to be timeless in a sense due to having multiple time dimensions. This description matching very closely what actually happens in the true demon ending.

### Why hinduism seems all over the place?

1: There are a lot of forms of
hinduism. The idea of it as a single religion is relatively modern,
and as a classification was made to lump a lot of similar religions
together. With more interpretations, there's more ways it can lean.

2: In keeping with the above associations, hinduism is divided heavily along the distinction between vishnu and shiva. Where one is the preserver, and one is the destroyer. And different forms even alternate which they see as the primary god. Since these associations lend themselves well to law and chaos, it provides context for this division. Especially since in hinduism, even demons are said to be worshipers of shiva.

3: tantric dharmic practices are associated with left hand path attainments. And since dharmic religion is the place where these exist, you get a wide variety of the different forms of its depictions.

4: hinduism has many different interpretations on its afterlife. In some you lose self identity altogether. In some your mind is pervaded by brahman, but you still preserve it. And in some, it is closer to a normal idea of heaven. As such, there is a lot of room for interpreting it in various ways.

### Other associations.

**Left-Hand path and right-hand path**. In Western esotericism the terms Left-Hand Path and Right-Hand Path refer to a dichotomy between two opposing approaches to magic. This terminology is used in various groups involved in the occult and ceremonial magic. In some definitions, the *Left-Hand Path* is equated with malicious black magic and the *Right-Hand Path* with benevolent white magic. In more recent definitions, which base themselves on the terms' origins in Indian Tantra, the Right-Hand Path, or RHP, is seen as a definition for those magical groups that follow specific ethical codes and adopt social convention, while the Left-Hand Path adopts the opposite attitude, espousing the breaking of taboo and the abandoning of set morality. As such, left hand path often has a tone of either some degree of egoism or self glorification, and the right hand with submission to a presupposed higher order.

Sometimes, the right hand path is equated with more standard religious practices or ordinary christian monotheism. But difficulty in totally ascribing a coherent definition to western uses of these terms comes from the fact that it is rare for any particular group to identify as a right hand path group, with the terminology mainly being used by self identified left hand path followers, or in some cases those who say you can mix the practices, since both ultimately have a similar goal. And thus, it is defined around how those people self identify, with the opposite being a vague conglomeration of aspects they don't identify with, rather than a static identity. These terms ultimately derived from dharmic tantra practices, which upheld indulgent and taboo ideas, calling them the left handed attainment. And this relates to how chaos is depicted as heavily based on tantric buddism.

In strange journey, jiminez has a move called left hand, and zelenin has a move called right hand. The associations being made between law / right hand and chaos / left hand are pretty straightforward.

**Buddhism and law**. Although buddhism is primarily associated with chaos, a few aspects of it tie more to law, and there are a few buddhist aesthetic elements seen on law such as hugo's outfit. One obvious association being upekkha, the Buddhist concept of dispassion, and another being the concept of emptiness. Emptiness is a big concept in buddhism, and in a few games is associated with law, or even in nocturne where shijima is the law analogue, they call ahriman the god of the void. The association drawn here has to do with the accusation that someone fully identified with working for the greater good would in a sense lack a self, due to lack of prioritization of their own interests. Nietzsche ironically called monotheism and the monotheistic idea of heaven something like a desire for nothingness, due to the lack of distinction and personalization in the idea of a universal all good god. This equation of god and nothingness shows up in megaten as well, and can be a basis also for a very loose association with buddhism. And interestingly, since the angels when using the word god are referring not just to yhvh, but an abstract pantheistic essence, this lack of it being entirely an entity likewise relates to the emptiness of the idea of a universal god.

Note that the kabbalah also associates god with emptiness. Saying that the ein sof is so unfathomable to human existence that from the human perspective it is essentially nonexistent. And the kabbalah also talks about how ayin, or nothingness / voidness is actually more real than anything else. So law to fuel those aspects has use for a sense of the buddhist element of emphasizing nothingness.

**Buddhism and neutral**. Neutral also has somewhat of a buddhist tone, since in I it has the diamond realm, and en no ozuno is implied to be an incarnation of the bodhissatva vajragarbha. One reason for this is that bodhissatvas incarnating as human matches neutral's humanist tone. And while certain aspects of buddhism might lean chaos, bodhissatvas are more law leaning figures, although total law is more static or rigid in tone than buddhism is generally associated with. Which is why an explicit reference to bodhissatvas shows up for neutral instead. Buddhism also talks about the middle path, which is neutral in tone.

**Shugendo and neutral**. Shugendo is an obscure kami-buddha tradition founded by en no ozuno. SMTI strongly associates it with neutral, but it is not overly clear why. The only obvious tie ins are the fact that shugendo having more of a nature worship element can loosely have that crowbarred into equating it with the idea of taking science seriously, and by extension not dedicating one's self solely to religion as a source of understanding. Or the fact that it revolves heavily around training and transcending humanity in order to better be able to help people being equated with neutral's transcendent figures. The issue with that assumption though is that other religions have things of such a nature as well, especially in the east. Unfortunately, information about shugendo in english is hard to come by, so those are the best guesses that can be made.

**Kabbalah and law / chaos**. Since the mainline series is obviously heavily about abrahamic religion, with it monopolizing much of the main roles in the stories, kabbalah relates to this as a tie in that can include this, but spin it in a more pantheistic way. Kabbalah and the tree of life are used by both jews and (historically) some Christians, but likewise satanist groups, making it something that both sides can try to claim as their own, being aspects of one world. Kabbalah depicts the godhead as abstract and unrelatable, with any aspects of god you relate to in universe being emanations from it. Tying to how in a quasi monotheistic context megaten can make yhvh not truly the monotheistic god. And it considered everything to in a sense be part of god, tying abrahamic religion to a pantheistic slant. Note that still being abrahamic, it is mainly divided between law and chaos, which is why this kabbalic association does not seem to be present overtly for neutral.

Note that the reason that occultists and satanic groups appropriated the kabbalah is because unlike christianity which presents demons as opposed to the system of god, kabbalah presents them as part of it, and as emanations of the left side who seem to fulfill necessary functions, whether or not they realize. While this dark side is considered something to avoid by religious jews, occultists took its presence as part of the system and spun this around to say it is something that can be used and approached.

**Ancient Greece and law**. Although it is not a strong association, certain lawful areas have greek pillars, or names coming from greek legend like arcadia. One potential reason for this was the emphasis of greek philosophy on what was unchanging or stable. Whereas eastern religion and philosophy tended to focus more on what flowed and changed. This concept of stable or order making more sense to associate with law. Another potential reason could be due to stoicism, and its mentality of dispassion relating to a mentality of order and humility that law implies. And of course the fact that christianity took in a lot from greek influence. Such as using the word logos, which is the stoic word for god in the beginning of the book of john. And inspiration from greek philosophy.

**Confucianism and chaos**. Confucianism considers most morality to be heavily hierarchical,
based on the relations between particular individuals, and the duties
the higher and lower individuals have to eachother. These roles having
to do with various inter-family roles, and the relation of people to
their sovereign. While chaos' form of hierarchy is not identical to
this, in an interview they talk about how chaos is in some ways certain
eastern ideas taken to an extreme, whereas law is certain western ideas
taken to an extreme. Since they are talking about among other things the
 asian focus on ingroup and hierarchy, this means a basis in
confucianism, albeit adapted to focus more on a dynamic rather than static hierarchy. Confucianism heavily inspired bushido, which became a basis for chaotic ethics.

**Shinto and neutral**. In game, the neutral shrines tend to look heavily shinto inspired. One reason is that in keeping with the fact that chaos is based somewhat on imperial way buddhism, during the time of world war II shinto tended to stay more politically neutral than zen buddhism. And so from a japanese perspective it has more of this neutral association. Another reason is just because shinto is closer to a pure taoic religion, and it is in keeping with the theme of law looking abrahamic, neutral looking taoic and chaos looking dharmic.

**Gnosticism**. Although there are not that many, and it tends to be terminology rather than figures, Gnostic elements get thrown into chaos for a few reasons. The first being that in many forms of gnosticism, the villain is yhvh, and your goal is to free yourself from him. Second, many forms depict the highest goal as something that comes from self practice, rather than following laid down rules. And with your liberation ultimately being a persona accomplishment only you could do for yourself. Interestingly, instead of having positive gnostic figures on chaos, megaten tends to instead just more overtly throw negative ones onto law. Overtly associating yhvh with the demiurge multiple times, and having the angels referred to as archons in iva. Likewise, whereas normal abrahamic religion depicts eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil as bad, and megaten associates this knowledge with egoistic impulse, in contrast gnosticism associates this with gnosis. And so contrasting the chaos of taking it with the order of leaving it makes sense.

**Theosophy and neutral**. Theosophy is a heavy basis for law, since its main divinities are ascended masters, who are mainly seen as humans who underwent apotheosis. And this is what neutral uses as its main divinities in-game. This association may not have been there since the beginning, but IV added a lot more theosophical references. The ethics of theosophy also tend to closely resemble some of the aspects of neutral, especially anthrosophy, which talks about balance between two different forced.

The great white brotherhood from theosophy are a group which seems to be a heavy inspiration for the white, who are depicted as a different form of neutral. The reason for this is likely because they are the same group as the ascended masters, and are seen as a group of enlightened humans who guide humanity unseen. Since the white in game are depicted as in a sense humans, and as a neutral group, and who tries to guide you to something that association was probably added on to relate to this. Note that they are similar beings to Steven in a sense, and the other enlightened human figures that are the neutral representatives, and so are a darker analogue to him.

**Aniconism and neutral**. Aniconism is the absence of specific icons directly representing supernatural figures in various cultures. If those icons previously existed, and were later destroyed it is called **iconoclasm**. This does not necessarily mean that you are against the thing that you do not have icons of. Merely that you have reasons for not having them. for instance, islam does not allow icons of god, seeing it as a crude way to refer to him. And original buddhism originally had no statues of buddha until greek influence brought them. Neutral has elements of both of these. While neutral does have gods and does venerate them, it chooses to not make them a primary focus, instead focusing on a more inner spirituality. And so the lack of physical icons ties to the more human focus. Since neutral's religions evolved from religions that did use more icons, this is iconoclastic in a sense, since the downplaying of them would have been an evolution.

**Theosophy and law**. One of the more subtle associations is the fact that a few subtle hippie aesthetics have been merged with law. The obvious one is the peace sign being used to represent law in iva. In persona Iv however we already saw an angel figure using a peace sign. And even earlier in SMTII in arcadia the aesthetics of their outfits seem a little hippie inspired. This association likely stems from the fact that hippies heavily emphasize peace and a peaceful mentality, something that law is associated with. A possible second reason is the fact that hippie ideas ended up merged into new age neo-theosophical spiritual systems, which often heavily have angels as their main figures. And which also focuses heavily on peace. Interestingly new age systems often downplay or leave out the idea of god as an entity entirely, in favor of angels, which corresponds slightly to the law side often fighting yhvh itself.

**Zoroastrianism**. Zoroastrianism has a few all over the place associations that are hard to make sense of. Zoroastrianism itself is despicted as law leaning, though in a subtle way, with various zoroastrian angels and beings showing up on the law side treating it like their own dynamic. This is pretty straightforward as to why, since zoroastrianism itself is a religion based on a dualistic battle between order and chaos. Notably, despite this, the god of zoroastrianism ahura mazda is depicted as chaos. This has less to do with zoroastrianism though, and more to do with the fact that in zoroastrianism ahuras are good and daevas bad, but in dharmic religion it is the reverse. Since the latter is more common, ahura mazda is viewed through the lens of asuras, who are wrathful chaotic gods. And as such, the daevas are depicted as law leaning to contrast them somewhat.

In addition to this, in theosophy, ahriman is considered to be an evil law impulse, of logic and science, with lucifer a chaos impulse of creativity and spirituality. So ahriman showing up as a law analogue in nocturne could be related to this. Or simply because ahura mazda is depicted as chaos, he is depicted opposite. Despite the tenuous nature of that association. Although nietzsche uses the term zarathustra to depict his project, and this is an alternate form of the name zoroaster, the games don't make much of that potential association.