We are always already radically unique, for we are historical beings with each their own historically formed understanding of one’s self, historical situation and responsibilities.

But this uniqueness gets snowed under under the many ways of understanding and its accompanying concepts that we appropriate inauthentically from our teachers and peers in the phenomenon of “mass consciousness” or “the they.”

On top of that we as Westerners, with our insufficiently questioned tendency towards philosophical, scientific and theological “objectiviation” and control, might even be more prone to overlook the radical unique historical nature of the selves that we are, for this objectifying tendency, as a matter of its intrinsic nature, can never understand this uniqueness, let alone letting it be.

Even theosophy succumbs to that tendency.

I was talking using Christian symbolism and imagery. But if we want analyze more deeply this subject we have to use the Theosophical terminology, which I find the most accurate and clarifying one (granted you know the meaning of the terms).
I’ll send a new post to deal with it.

A bit of psychological terminology may clarify things a bit here, perhaps. In psychological parlance our personality is that in us which lasts throughout this lifetime. For instance: however much I may have conquered my shyness (everyone seems to say I have, so its probably true), I’m still an introvert. Being an introvert is part of my personality. That is just one of the tools I have to work with. It says something about how I am in crowds, what kind of parties I like, how I process information and so on. It is one of those limits you talked about above.

I think we usually don’t use the word personality that strictly. When we talk about transcending the personality, we often mean transcending our conditionings - which is one of the things Krishnamurti talked about a lot. For instance:

We are so conditioned, so heavily burdened with the past, with all our knowledge, information how can the mind be spontaneous? Can the mind observe its activity without prejudice, which means without images?