What makes different institutions, beliefs and so on all religions is not that they have the same essence, but that they share what Wittgenstein called a "family resemblance".
In fact, the same empirical reality (or essence) that is a universal is also an individual, but the forms connoted by the subject term and by the predicate term differ from each other.
This is not to imply absolutely that they may have the same essence, but only that the causal relationship between them, as opposed to that between God and ourselves, does not itself prohibit this.
The epochē has done its work, however, as soon as consciousness has been made manifest to his inner perception, for only then can consciousness be subjected to the same generalizing abstraction and examination of essence that had been applied to its objects.
("Analogous to," because the relevant property would explain distinction but not indivisibility, on the grounds that the persons are exemplifications of an indivisible essence — of an essence that is numerically the same in each of them.
In essence, that requires two big changes.
Worse yet, if two distinct individuals may have the same essence, then IId2 would imply that any two individuals that share the same essence must co-endure, i.e., must exist determinately at precisely the same times, since if one of them exists, its essence does, and that essence cannot exist without that of which it is the essence existing.
Like human beings, all music boils down to the same essence, and we should celebrate that commonality and harmony, not enforce the dissonance.
And a human mind is an intellectual whole that expresses this same essence under the attribute of thinking.
