I liked your post, Philemon, because it resonates somewhat with things I've been thinking. Whether in the realm of what is viewed as ordinary, or in any putative extraordinary realm, some process seems interposed between perceived phenomena and what is perceiving them.
If one considers reports of someone having been in a state of pure awareness, evidently there is something able to make those reports after the fact (and by inference, present during the perception). This something, whatever it is, seems to be the most fundamental aspect of a sense of individuality, and it forever evades explanation or description: it's axiomatic, the taken-as-given water in which the fish swims, as it were. I wonder whether it is "individual" in the usual sense of the word, though. It may be just the one thing, which is the same for everyone: it may be the awareness of the beingness of the one and only Source Consciousness, which simply
is.
Over and above this axiomatic, underlying sense of individuality (personally, I tend to think it's One rather than many), there's the appearance of a realm in which processes can occur. The most basic of these processes would be what is ordinarily thought of as consciousness: without it, nothing could ever be perceived or conceived, and it's this with which we ordinarily identify: it's idiosyncratic, one amongst many. We think of
this as individuality, and sure enough, it appears free to place whatever interpretations it likes on processes, including itself. I'm not implying that processes don't actually occur and that each one of us is capable of creating a unique and equally valid reality. Sure, in certain mental states we may experience illusionary processes, but I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about actual processes: we may think of them as arising from "universal laws".
Although they actually occur, however, the experience of them is mediated by idiosyncratic consciousnesses, each of which is free to interpret them according to external or internal conditioning. If for example NDEs are actual processes, it's very evident that how they're perceived and interpreted varies. Some of that may be due to internal conditioning (arising from particular life experiences), and some to external conditioning (societal factors including such things as religion or inculcated scientific world view). The most significant thing about NDE reports isn't the particular descriptive details of what was perceived (one person met Jesus, another God, another angels or relatives, there were tunnels or rooms or stars and galaxies, different modes of transport, or whatever), so much as the emotions experienced. There seems to be more concordance about those: they are sometimes pleasant, and sometimes not, or may be both in the one NDE. In any event, the experience is often life-changing.
I very recently watched a video about an NDE experienced by a formerly lapsed Jew (full version on his site at
http://www.alonanava.com/):
His NDE changed his life, all right, and interestingly, it made a very orthodox Jew of him. It was experienced by him in the context of Judaic lore, which latter includes esoteric Cabbalistic elements. He also claims experiencing the life of the girl he was with in the taxi whilst having his NDE. If we are to believe him, and I tend to, he was later able to relate to the girl things about herself that she could verify. Are we to conclude from this verified episode that the rest of the NDE was also literally true? That we should all be strict observing Jews if we are to ensure our place in heaven? That God is the Abrahamic one, who deals in punishment and reward? (To be fair, he does state elsewhere that hell is something
we create and come to deserve, but still, God's universe is one in which it is possible to create hell and in which the principle of punishment and reward applies, even if we are the authors of it).
I wouldn't be surprised if one could find examples of NDEers in other faiths, e.g. Christianity, who have become equally convinced in the literal veracity of aspects of their faith, and who equally might have had verifiable experiences; it wouldn't be unnatural for them to think that the whole NDE was literally veridical. But as an onlooker, I make the simple observation that this Jew and perhaps someone else who was Christian couldn't both be right unless each one of us is capable of creating our own reality, both before and after death. I find myself having to conclude that NDEs contain both experiences that can later be verified, and those that can't, and that the latter are much more about the influence of conditioned, idiosyncratic consciousness in interpreting processes occurring during NDEs. To me, that's more parsimonious than positing each of us creates and lives in an idiosyncratic universe.
If NDEs are experiences of genuine processes, albeit at least in part interpreted, and people genuinely are for a time dead, is it possible that when irrecoverably dead, the element of interpretation continues? And if so, does it ever end, notwithstanding the possibility of reincarnation? If it does end, what happens then? What would we be then? What would we experience then? If we experience anything at all, doesn't that imply continued identification with a personal sense of consciousness? Is this what we call the soul?
They do say that the soul is eternal. If so, it's an eternal manifestation of the Source of all. A source that is claimed to be infinite and unlimited. And if so, there is no "end". There's no limit to how far its manifestations can evolve. But all its manifestations are capable in one way or another of intercommunicating. They are capable of experiencing the same actual processes, and capable of reaching various degrees of concordance about what those are, ranging from complete disagreement to almost, though theoretically never, complete agreement. As long as we continue existence as souls and there remains identification with a self (ranging from ego to higher essences), then there would be no end to the discoveries/inventions we could make.
We'd never become Source, but through us, Source, that ever present unity/individuality, would continue finding ways to realise its potential to manifest. If so, I have no idea why it should be that way. One could venture that's just the way that the water inevitably behaves. Linking in with Bernardo Kastrup's metaphor, the stream forms whirlpools because that's what a stream does.