unity, to the unity of Substance, identifies himself with it, and thus gives it existence. Some by nature share in the existence of this unity; others have it in their power to rise to the attainment of it.
The unity which is here the ruling power makes, it is true, an attempt to unfold itself. The true unfolding and the negativity of the combination of differences would be Spirit, which determines itself within itself, and in its subjectivity manifests itself to itself. This subjectivity of Spirit would give it a content, which would be worthy of it, and which would itself also have a spiritual nature. Here, however, the characteristic of naturalness still remains, inasmuch as an advance is made to differentiation and unfolding only, and the moments or elements remain in an isolated condition alongside of each other. Here the unfolding necessary in the conception of Spirit is consequently itself devoid of Spirit. Accordingly, in the Religion of Nature, one is sometimes at a loss to find Spirit unfolded. This is the case, for instance, with the idea of the Incarnation, the Trinity, in the religion of India. Moments or elements will indeed be found which pertain to Spirit, but these are so disposed that they at the same time do not pertain to it. The determinations or characteristics are isolated, and present themselves as mutually exclusive. Thus the triad in Indian religion does not become Trinity, for absolute Spirit alone is the power which rules over its moments.
The general conception of the religion of nature presents great difficulties in this respect; it is everywhere inconsistent, and is inherently contradictory. Thus, on the one hand, the spiritual, which is essentially free, is posited, made dependent on something else; and then, on the other, that element is represented in the determinateness belonging to nature, in a condition of individuality, with a content which has fixed particularity, and which is therefore wholly inadequate to Spirit, since the latter is true Spirit only as free Spirit.
