it's possible to live

The theme of Anuradha nakshatra is to cleanse oneself from the collective unconscious and rise above the noise of social programming. The Anuradha native is the literal lotus flower born and raised in the mud — various religious groups and high-control individuals will seek to control the Anuradha native by making them submit themselves to their belief system. They will be told that their individual dreams and desires don’t matter and that pursuing your own path will lead to disaster and ruin. The Anuradha native is a victim of fear-mongering, as they’re constantly being preached to about actions and consequences which ultimately little by little, stifle their creative heat (the Mars rulership of Scorpio). The beautiful devotion that Anuradha displays in their daily life is almost fetishised by religious authorities; they see the native as a “pure flower” to keep to themselves and preach the “value” of submission to the Anuradha in order to win them over and keep them under their control forever.

Martha said to me, very quietly: "There is a vitality, a life force, an energy, a quickening that is translated through you into action, and because there is only one of you in all of time, this expression is unique. And if you block it, it will never exist through any other medium, and it will be lost. The world will not have it. It is not your business to determine how good it is nor how valuable nor how it compares with other expressions. It is your business to keep it yours clearly and directly, to keep the channel open. You do not even have to believe in yourself or your work. You have to keep yourself open and aware to the urges that motivate you. Keep the channel open."

I need to hear from someone who reads Japanese and can confirm.

I think it's just that there's no archaic version of "we" in English. The old version of "we" is just "we". Imu speaks roughly a sort of Elizabethan/Shakespearean era English (or at least the official translation is mimicking that kind of vibe even if it's not always 100% authentic), but "we" was already "we" back in Shakespeare's time. And so was "were", and so was "foolish".

"We were foolish" in Shakespearean English is just "we were foolish".

(Actually the official translation has already kind of been playing it loose with the archaisms, like overusing "thou" even when nobody would ever have authentically used it, like in plural. But I get why, it's exactly because they're trying to make it sound old, and people would be even more confused if Imu suddenly switched to "you". Personally I would have used "ye" at least, but I know I'm the weird one here because I'm a huge nerd... Also the conjugation is wrong sometimes but I'm not gonna get into it now)