What is the difference, by the way, between the ego and the soul ... 

You say, I as ego, me as soul. Is there and what’s the difference between I and me?

Richard, I’m understanding what you are saying and I find little confusion with the exception of the ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul. The way I understand the self is that it is all that I am, and then you come along and divide the self into an ego and a soul. What is the problem, Richard? Is it not the self? Please don’t try to divide that self into ego and soul. It just doesn’t work for me – unless you can come up with some real concrete evidence that there is a soul to die. It is still this one self that concludes that there are two selves (identities) that must die. You are challenging something that never existed in the first place ... two separated selves.

I would like to ask you what do you mean when saying ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul? What is the difference between ‘I’ and ‘me’ and between ego and soul? I cannot understand what you are trying to convey. By which way the first ‘I’ (ego or self) can expand and create the second ‘I’ (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’ as ‘me’)? I understand that the first ‘I’ (ego or self) can expand and create the second ‘I’ (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’ as ‘me’), and this second ‘I’ can extricating itself from the first ‘I’ or individuality, whereupon there is mystical liberation (Moksha). Is this what you mean? If both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul have become extinct, does something remain when physical death comes?