but rather that the strife, the struggle, is the object, as a moment, however, of the Divinity itself.
This transition to spiritual religion contains, it is true, concrete subjectivity within itself; it is, however, the free, unregulated play of this simple subjectivity; it is the development of it, yet a development which is still, as it were, in a wild and effervescent state, and has not as yet arrived at a state of tranquillity, at the true spirituality which is essentially free.
As in India the parts of this development were seen in an isolated state, so here the determinateness is in its detached state, but in such wise that these elementary powers of the Spiritual and the Natural are essentially related to subjectivity, and so related that it is one single subject which passes through these moments.
In the Indian religions, also, we had origination and passing away, but not subjectivity, return into the One, not One which itself passes through these forms and differences, and in them and from out of them returns into itself. It is this higher Power of subjectivity which, when developed, lets the element of difference go out of itself, but when enclosed within itself holds fast, or rather overpowers the difference.
The one-sidedness of this form consists in the absence of this pure unity of the Good, of the state of return, of self-contained Being. This freedom which we have here merely goes forth, merely impels itself forwards, but is not as yet, so to speak, complete, perfect, is not as yet such a beginning as would bring forth the end, the result. It is, therefore, subjectivity in its reality, not as yet, however, in true, actual freedom, but in a state of fermentation going in and out of this reality.
The dualism of light and darkness begins to come to unity here, and in such a way that this dark, this negative element, which, when intensified, even becomes evil, is included within subjectivity itself. It is the essential nature of subjectivity to unite opposite principles within
