. . . is the absolute end of something. In Buddhist thought, the "self" is little more than a collection of desires and tendencies. There's debate, depending of the school of Buddhist thought and the degree of literalism in interpreting various sutras, as to whether this collection transcends the body or is dependent on it. To the best of my capacity to guess, I'd say that it's dependent on a molecular level, transcendent to the organic one. That is to say, there isn't necessarily a "soul" separate from the body so much as there is cellular "memory" that can continue after the body is no longer alive.
So on the physical level, there are aspects of the "self" that can't be measured that are imprinted on the matter of the body as it decomposes and dissipates. Therefore, the scattering of ashes has real as well as symbolic significance; on the flipside, ancient traditions wherein one is sealed with one's possessions and servants probably ALSO served the purpose of keeping these aspects of self tied intimately to ones belongings and culture. It's certainly part of why I'd like to get a "green" burial--no embalming, no sealed casket, a lowering into the earth by the hands of loved ones. It seems the purest way to make sure my various particles, so far as they contain any imprint of me, become part of what Bruno called the "eternal corporeal," the ongoing manifestation of the eternal incorporeal--of "God." Bruno was more a panpsychic or a panentheist than a materialist/pantheist, but much in his vocabulary is useful.
I think there are aspects of the mind and personality that can carry on in memory, in works, in the change one has wrought in life. But beyond that, and beyond whatever mark of experience we leave, through our physical body, to the earth itself, I'm not sure I believe that there is a transcendent, individual soul, separate from the body. If I had to make a posit, I'd suggest that there's a universal soul, of which any individual is a temporary, subjective expression, an emergent function of the universes emergent consciousness (or capacity for consciousness).
And there are no ghosts either, no poltergeists, spirits, fairies,
goblins, paranormalities, no presences of any kind that don't have an
organic explanation.
Oh, I wouldn't say that. I think of ghosts and the like as a sort of subatomic imprint, a cellular "memory" of events and personalities. Goblins and faeries, if such things are about, speak more to our facile notions of what kinds of life might exist--what elements truly govern being, the limitations of our petty taxonomies, etc. To gnostic alchemists like John Dee, for instance, magic and the occult was mere science, an attempt to break existence down into its fibres.
You seem to express a discomfort I've heard a lot, regarding the similarity of fate for the evil and monstrous in the world and the good or minimally harmful. I'm disinclined to think that the fates for both are really so similar; insofar as a "self" exists in the cells post-mortem, or in the ideas as they live on, the Hitlers and Mussolini's of the world have found neither rest nor vindication. The trouble is, once you posit a notion so facile as heaven and hell, you aren't really in any position to separate the beastly from the common sinner; to the Lutheran or the Calvinist, say, anyone who doesn't truly believe in the resurrection is fucked, while to the works-based (or sin-avoidance-obsessed) theology, chronic maturbator, say, is as bound for hell as the genocidal maniac. Of course, whether we see that as "fair" or not is moot if any of these theological presuppositions are actually true, but that's where we get into evidence.
Is there evidence of spirit, of transcendence? Well, not conclusive evidence, but I'd say, on balance, yes. That is to say, there are evidences that being is not entirely explained by our empirical sciences. But there are also evidences that call into question any one explanation of the nature of that transcendence, particularly any of those that suggest an anthropomorphic god, self-evident moral truths, etc. The only axioms I accept are that one should be wary of axioms and that one should be willing to accept paradox (which allows me to accept the first axiom).
Fun discussion. I'd be interested to hear what it is you're looking for.
