On second thought, since I can't make sense of the notion of an individual soul (I see that as an extension of the delusion of ego-self) , I can't make sense of its transmigration (in the context of Buddhist or Hindu reincarnation) or its supernatural afterlife (in the context of the Christian heaven and hell).
These are your statements in accord with what the Buddha taught:
since I can't make sense of the notion of an individual soul (I see that as an extension of the delusion of ego-self) , I can't make sense of its transmigration…(in the context of Hindu reincarnation) or its supernatural afterlife (in the context of the Christian heaven and hell).
Buddhists are not Hindu or Christian precisely because there is no evidence for a soul or a truly existent ego or self. The Buddha taught that ignorance of this is a cause of suffering. So in this respect Buddha’s teachings are the opposite of the teachings of Hindus and Christians and theists in general. This is one of the reasons that Buddhism is non-theistic.
It (soul transmigration) may be used to introduce the idea of reincarnation to those who come to Buddhism having brought with them the concept of Hindu reincarnation or Christian souls but the teachings on ‘Buddhist Ultimate Truth’ show this view of reincarnation to be philosophically untenable.
The ‘Ultimate Truth’ teachings are more to do with not being able to find any characteristics that can describe reality such as it starting and having duration and given this reality, it cannot cease.
Buddhists shouldn’t become Buddhists because they want to survive death but because given that reality cannot cease they must find a way to put an end to the cycle of suffering which becomes necessary due to the realization that reality cannot end.
So given that you are a Buddhist (and in addition to this, the apparent meaning of your statement above) are you saying that you believe the Buddha taught that the soul or an ego-self transmigrates (to me it seems to be saying that and that’s why I’m puzzled)?