himself. In
proportion as man advances, making explicit what is implicit in his
inner nature, is he said to grow in personality. A man thus both
possesses personality and grows in personality. He could not grow in
it did he not already actually possess it. In such growth both
elements of his being, the individual and the universal, develop
simultaneously. A person of inferior personal development is at once
less individual and less universal. This is a matter, however, not of
endowment but of development. We thus distinguish between the original
personal endowment, which we may call intrinsic or inherent
personality, and the various forms in which this personality has
manifested and expressed itself, which we may call extrinsic or
acquired personality. Inherent personality is that which
differentiates man from animal. It constitutes the original involution
which explains and even necessitates man's entire evolution. There may
be, nay, must be, varying degrees of expression of the inherent
personality, just as there may be and must be varying degrees of
consciousness of personality. These depend on the degree of evolution
attained by the race and by the individuals of the race.

It is no part of our plan to justify this conception of the nature of
personality, or to defend these brief summary statements as to its
inherent nature. It is enough if we have gained a clear idea of this
conception on which the present chapter, and indeed this entire work,
rests. In discussing the question as to personality in the Orient, it
is important for us ever to bear in mind the distinctions between the
inherent endowment that constitutes personal beings, the explicit and
external expression of that endowment, and the possession of the
consciousness of that endowment. For these are three things quite
distinct, though intimately related.

The term "impersonality" demands special attention, being the most
misused and abused term of all. The first and natural signification of
the word is the mere negation of personality; as a stone, for
instance, is strictly "impersonal." This is the meaning given by the
dictionaries. But in this sense, of course, it is inapplicable to
human beings. What, then, is the meaning when applied to them? When
Mr. Lowell says, "If with us [of the West] the 'I' seems to be of the
very essence of the soul, then the soul of the Far East may be said to
be 'impersonal,'" what does he mean? He certainly does not mean t