sad and moody. You have all heard of Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde—the same man, a combination of good and evil propensities. This is a good example of a 'split personality.'
"But this is not 'Split-I' or 'Split-Ego.' Just as there is 'split personality,' there is also 'Split-Ego' or 'Split-I.' All do not have 'split personality,' but all do have `split ego.'
"The real 'I' of all is ONE. Simultaneously, there is also the false 'I' of each and every individual, which gives rise to separative existence. This means that the Infinite Real 'I' which is One and in all is apparently split into innumerable finite false 'I's, thus giving rise to a separative individualistic existence in the shape of beings and things―animate and inanimate. The fun is that the very same ONE REAL 'I' plays the part of innumerable false 'I’s in different ways, giving rise to as many separative beings and things begotten of the One Eternal and Real Existence. In short, it is the ONE REAL 'I' that plays the part of innumerable finite false I’s in multifarious ways and in varying degrees. The main support of the false 'I's' is IGNORANCE, and it utilizes 3 channels or means for its expression, namely, (a) Gross body—the physical body; (b) Subtle body―energy, and (c) Mental body—the mind.
"In other words, with the support of Ignorance, the Real ‘I’ takes itself as the false 'I' and tries to derive fun out of the situation. While continuing to derive fun, it continually gets setbacks also, and has to endure much suffering. Eventually, the Real 'I' gets fed up and disgusted and winds up its hobby of playing the part of false ‘I’. It stops the play eventually, and as soon as the Real 'I' stops the play of acting the part of the false ‘I’, it spontaneously becomes conscious of its (Real) pristine state. This Consciousness eternal remains eternal and continual; and also realizes that, being eternally happy and entitled to remain happy, its experience of having been 'fed up' was due to sheer and nonsensical Ignorance.
"The ‘I’ is Real. Its separation is not real, and yet we see the various divisions. What need is there to explain the 'Split-I'—that this One Real 'I' is apparently split into innumerable false 'I's'? What should we expect from the false 'I'? In reality, there is ONE 'I.' This Real 'I' is so uncompromising. All this play is only that of the One Real ‘I,' which can never be divided and can never be separated. How has the division come? The ‘I’ is real and this division is not real and yet we see divisions. But for the divisions, what need is there to explain the 'I'?