in and for itself; it is consciousness of the One in this essence, consciousness of one’s unity with it. The second relation here is that of consciousness to these very manifold objects. The many deities constitute these objects.
Brahma has no divine service, no temple, and no altars; the unity of Brahma is not put in relation to the Real, to active self-consciousness. From what has been stated, namely, that the consciousness of the One is isolated, it follows that nothing is determined by means of reason here in the relation to the Divine; for this would mean that particular actions, symbols, &c., are determined by means of unity. Here, however, the region of the Particular is not determined by this unity, and has thus the character of irrationality, of unfreedom. What we have is merely a relation to particular deities, which represent nature as detached or free. They are, it is true, the most abstract possible moments implicitly determined through the notion, but not taken back into unity in such a manner that the Trimurti would become Spirit. Their whole significance therefore is merely that of a mode of some particular natural element. The leading characteristic is vital energy or life force, that which produces and which passes away, what returns to life and is self-transformation, and to this natural objects, animals, &c., are linked on as objects of reverence. Thus worship is here a relation to those particular things which are cut off in a one-sided manner from what is essential, and is therefore a relation to unessential things in natural form. Religious action, that is to say, action that is essential, a universal mode of life, is conceived of and carried out in accordance with this, and is known and realised here in this fashion. And here religious action is a content which is unessential and without reason.
Since this element, considered generally, is partly objective, namely, the perception of God, and partly subjective, namely, that which it is essential to do, and
