The article examines the development of approaches to the category of sobornost (spiritual community of people), stated in the works of V. Solovyov, in the works of P. Florensky, S. Bulgakov, N. Berdyaev. This essay traces the evolvement of sobornost from abstraction to definition by means of Hegel’s dialectic. The process of dialectic development is projected onto modern life through philosophic polylogue that includes symbolic interpretation of the language of Russian religious philosophy of the 19th–20th centuries. Sobornost is interpreted as a specific ontology of culture enfolding itself in religious, secular, and religious-secular communality. Thus, with Hegel’s triads in mind we can build on the unity and self-identity of sobornost at the level of religious communality. For secular communality with its duality, sobornost is mediated and reversed. Though duality of sobornost is not substantial and it unites general and particular into religious-secular communality as the most concrete form of its actualization. Each communality type means a specific form of presentation of sobornost in language and shows itself in the texts through religious philosophemes (symbols). For example, wandering (S. N. Bulgakov) and self-sacrifice (P. Florensky, N. A. Berdyaev) indicate religious communality. They are characterized by religious hyper-asceticism, mono-ideism, atemporality, martyrdom, and chosenness. Whereas heroism (S. N. Bulgakov, P. Florensky) implies maximalism of causes and means, individualism, chosenness, collectivity, political mono-ideism, martyrdom and points to secular communality. All three symbols of religious and secular communalities have common features: atemporality, eschatologism, the idea of chosenness, mono-ideism, martyrdom and Messianism with different actualization in each of the communalities. The third type of communality combining both religious and secular demonstrates all three symbols of sobornost . Herein these symbols are associated with humility, personal maximalism of actions, religious conscience, historicity, and freedom. In this way an individual is always placed in the dimension of sobornost and cannot be regarded out of it. The establishment of sobornost leads to spiritual totality of the divine-humanity.