THEO. What I mean is that though our teachings insist upon the identity of spirit and matter, and though we say that spirit is _potential_ matter, and matter simply crystallized spirit (_e.g._, as ice is solidified steam), yet since the original and eternal condition of _all_ is not spirit but _meta_-spirit, so to speak, (visible and solid matter being simply its periodical manifestation,) we maintain that the term spirit can only be applied to the _true_ individuality. ENQ. But what is the distinction between this “true individuality” and the “I” or “Ego” of which we are all conscious? THEO. Before I can answer you, we must argue upon what you mean by “I” or “Ego.” We distinguish between the simple fact of self-consciousness, the simple feeling that “I am I,” and the complex thought that “I am Mr. Smith” or “Mrs. Brown.” Believing as we do in a series of births for the same Ego, or re-incarnation, this distinction is the fundamental pivot of the whole idea. You see “Mr. Smith” really means a long series of daily experiences strung together by the thread of memory, and forming what Mr. Smith calls “himself.” But none of these “experiences” are really the “I” or the Ego, nor do they give “Mr. Smith” the feeling that he is himself, for he forgets the greater part of his daily experiences, and they produce the feeling of _Egoity_ in him only while they last. We Theosophists, therefore, distinguish between this bundle of “experiences,” which we call the _false_ (because so finite and evanescent) _personality_, and that element in man to which the feeling of “I am I” is due. It is this “I am I” which we call the _true_ individuality; and we say that this “Ego” or individuality plays, like an actor, many parts on the stage of life.[8] Let us call every new life on earth of the same _Ego_ a _night_ on the stage of a theatre. One night the actor, or “Ego,” appears as “Macbeth,” the next as “Shylock,” the third as “Romeo,” the fourth as “Hamlet” or “King Lear,” and so on, until he has run through the whole cycle of incarnations. The Ego begins his life-pilgrimage as a sprite, an “Ariel,” or a “Puck”; he plays the part of a _super_, is a soldier, a servant, one of the chorus; rises then to “speaking parts,” plays leading _rôles_, interspersed with insignificant parts, till he finally retires from the stage as “Prospero,” the _magician_. ENQ. I understand. You say, then, that this true _Ego_ cannot return to earth after death. But surely the actor is at liberty, if he has preserved the sense of his individuality, to return if he likes to the scene of his former actions?