One has heard it maintained that the current verbal chaos in metaphysical terminology is inevitable, and that we shall never be able to know what anyone means by any technical term until we have become familiar with this manner of thinking. Even if this should be so, one can at least try to put one's own house in order.
The words 'I', 'we', and the verbs 'I am', 'we are', as long as they remain unconditioned can only refer to reality. Referred to, the clearest term would appear to be 'the I-reality'.
The word 'me', being accusative, can never refer to reality - for that cannot be the object of anything. Therefore 'me' must always refer to the concept through which we imagine ourselves to be individuals. Referred to, the clearest term for that illusory entity would seem to be 'the I-concept'. If one of the numerous terms in current use should be necessary, such as ego, personality, individuality, self, the indefinite article is preferable, since 'the' ego implies something that exists, whereas 'an' ego does not necessarily imply more than something that might exist, i.e. that, erroneously, is assumed to exist.
The only difficulty would seem to be the necessity for the inexperienced to distinguish between 'I' unconditioned, implying reality, and 'I' conditioned as in 'I am John Smith', implying the supposed entity so called.
Note: However fully we may realise our inexistence, our unreality as entities, we are still obliged to refer to ourselves as such. The Buddha, it is true, is often recorded as referring to himself as 'the Tathagata', and I think the Maharshi may occasionally have spoken of himself as 'baghavan', though that may have been playful or as a child may refer to himself as 'Tommy', but such a procedure, if it were deliberate, would seem to defeat its own object - for there should be no object. Ramakrishna at one period referred to himself as 'this'. In our world any such evasion would be merely pretentious. Rather let us freely say 'I' (conditioned) and 'me', fully savouring the absurdity of such a nonsensical statement, and with a twinkle in our voice only perceptible to, or explicable by, those who can understand.
