...
He was wearing clothes, but many of these lingering souls may not realize that they have passed on. At least that's what my Grandmother said.
I don't know if such beings as "ghosts" really "exist" but if they do this theory would fit quite well with the theory of the selflessness or "vacuity" (emptiness) of being. In other words it might be a matter of identity and self-consciousness.
Here goes the theory, as I understand it (
for those who have never heard of this theory ; the others may skip this boring development and go directly to my conclusion) :
We, as human beings, are composite organisms. We cannot be reduced to any part of our body. We are not our hands. We are not our feet. We are this fragile conjunction of everything.
Yet, this thing we regard as our body is not stable. It undergoes endless changes : our looks change (
I was far cuter when I was a 10 year old boy than now), and the basic components of our bodies change all the same (
at each instant some of our cells die, and some are born). Therefore, if we seek something "material" to define what we are "in essence", we cannot find any stable, eternal substance. Even worse, this physical body of ours is not really ours since it is made of "external material". My impressive physique
did not pop up out of nowhere ! Without the T-bone steak I ate yesterday, I would not have these robust fibers proudly contracting within my biceps ! To sum up, the matter composing what I regard as "my" body has already lived in a cow some time ago. And before then, it was part of a daisy in the fields. So how can I speak of myself as external and independant of the rest of the world when my muscles come from cows and chicken, my hairs from fish and chips and when the tiny pieces of skin I discarded a few days ago are already the bread and butter of small mites ? Physically, there is thus no eternal self, nor eternal "other". We belong to a larger picture, like water is part of the sea, or better, like a wave, although displaying a definite shape, is never different from the water of the sea it belongs to.
So, if our essential self is not to be found in our body, perhaps should we seek it in the "immaterial" sphere ? Could we be defined by our thought or "spirit" ? That's a common idea. But does it stand analysis ? The stream of our thoughts is no more stable than our physical bodies. Our feelings, such as likes and dislikes, do change over time. What we delighted in when we were children is often different than what we enjoy now. What mattered then is different from what matters now. And most of us have no clue about what we will feel two or three years from now. Will we be happy, or sad ? And yet, we feel different from this nasty neighbour or colleague. He likes strawberries, while I hate plums. Since we are different, isn't it proof that we exist as different entities ?
The issue is that whatever we think of doesn't really belong to us. Would we be able to read if nobody ever taught us the alphabet ? Would we believe in Karl Marx, Jesus, Donald Trump, if we had never heard of them ? What would we think of the word "red" if we were born blind in a world of darkness ? Whatever we think has an external origin. What would our thoughts be like if nobody had ever taught us any language ? So, our thought might very well be limited to what we have learned througout our lives. Although, in the way they manifest, they are unique to us, we owe the rest of the world for them. We inherited them from the "outside". So the consciousness we take as our ego, is also largely interdependant with the rest of the world. It is not an island, untainted by the world. It's part of it. Again, like the wave on the ocean is a single wave, but essentially made of simple, "basic", water, common to the rest of the sea.
Basically, those who follow this way of thinking conclude that what we take for our ego is perfectly void of essential, everlasting nature. Although it does "exist", it is only a transitory phenomenon. What makes it tangible is our own belief that it exists, our own faith and sense of purpose.
Hence my conclusion:
If what we are is simply a projection of what we believe we are, why should a "ghost" be naked ? Would anybody ever project himself as a naked person (
I mean, outside the specific context of weird or erotic dreams) ? Especially since nowadays, we rarely ramble naked.
On the contrary, looking at ancient art and portraits, notice how the artist often took pains at displaying fine silks and ribbons, at showing off the medals and jewellery sported by his models. Most people then, wanted to be remembered with their clothes on, because these clothes precisely told a message about who they were and how important and precious they were.
So, if ghost do exist, wouldn't they try to exist as how they envisionned themselves ? And if they exist, isn't it because they keep believing in themselves ?
