Dualism or idealist monism as the best model for survival after death data

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but here's my shot at it:

While beginningless time is incoherent (because it entails an infinite regress), time with a beginning is difficult to make sense of too, given that it seems to entail a cause from outside of time ("Eternity"), and it's not clear how Eternity - a domain not subject to time - could cause anything in a domain subject to time, let alone time itself.

Yeah it also isn't clear to me that Eternity, as a domain not subject to time, has any real meaning save perhaps in reference to Mathematical/Logical truths. Even then we might better describe those as Universals that are "context-less" in their truths?

Fair enough. It might, though, be analogous to free will, in that there is by no causal explanation; the explanation is meta-causal and holistic: all we can say is that free will exists because we exercise it as whole, conscious persons. Similarly, there might be no causal explanation of God's creative agency; the explanation might simply be meta-causal and holistic: God simply exercises those powers as a whole, conscious, divine Being.
(Again, just rough thoughts, subject to critique and revision).

I would say there are no causal explanations that are adequate for any observed change or lack of change save for those that involve mental causation. 

But then this is one of my issues with Physicalism in general, that the "physical" cannot have any causal relations that are Mind-less.

If souls are eternal, then they have always existed, only changing form. But perhaps souls can create new souls from their own essence, which doesn't seem impossible, given that we can create thoughtforms that have some level of autonomy. New souls would therefore be the extreme of that

I have to admit I don't really see a mechanism for this either, at least because I am not sure what "create thoughtforms" means?

Admittedly I've begun to lean toward multiple personalities and even tulpas being Persons that already exist but take on roles rather than newly created entities.

I also admit "eternal" is a word with heavy connotation. Does it mean existing all the back to the supposed Beginning of a linear temporal progression? Or does it mean something existing "outside Time"?

Maybe it best signifies that our understanding of Time is limited in some way, without making a definite claim about what the true understanding of Time could be....

I have to admit I don't really see a mechanism for this either, at least because I am not sure what "create thoughtforms" means?

Well, I guess it's the imbuing of a concept or idea with life and will through intense focus. It's sort of in the name ~ a thought given form, or perhaps more accurately, a semi-independent existence. The spiritual experiences people can have of deities might be an example of this. I've encountered Jesus, Zeus, Buddha, maybe Lao Tzu. All of them I've met precisely once each, though.

Admittedly I've begun to lean toward multiple personalities and even tulpas being Persons that already exist but take on roles rather than newly created entities.

Multiple personality I see as just fractured aspects of the psyche, generally ~ considering that the majority of, if not all, cases are correlated trauma in some way. There is possession and walk-ins, but those don't appear to be the same thing, qualitatively.

I do think that there are the possibility for newly created entities ~ because we incarnate beings are examples of such. We are aspects of our souls, but we identify so closely with our physical forms that we more or less become that during the entirety of incarnation. We imbue form with life, with our peculiar personalities. So why could we not do something similar with thoughtforms / tulpas? It's just a microcosm of that higher power to create.

In a grander sense... is this incarnate reality itself not a thoughtform, in some sense, with the majority of forms within it animated by souls.

We can even be captured by powerful ideas that exert a pull over our psyche ~ a sort of groupthink that drives us, compels us, an intensity of emotion.

The spirit of Ayahuasca doesn't seem to be a thoughtform / tulpa, though... she has too much presence and power ~ especially if she is the personification of the Earth itself. She may even take on other forms, depending on the culture. The Sun may also be a "Person", though as shown to me by Ayahuasca, was so alien to my perception. I think that "Person" might be more confusing a term than not, unless by it you mean an entity with will, life, personality. What Jung would have called "the Self". What spirituality and religion calls "Soul".

But even they could be microcosms... reality is very mysterious, overall.

I also admit "eternal" is a word with heavy connotation. Does it mean existing all the back to the supposed Beginning of a linear temporal progression? Or does it mean something existing "outside Time"?

I guess something that exists outside of time as we perceive it. The physical reality seems to be within its own... time-bubble, though I have yet to comprehend what that means... as according to my loong spirit at least, time flows much differently in the astral, especially the further from this layer of reality one goes, though proximity to me seems to pull their perception of time to be the same as mine. I cannot say I understand much of it, perhaps because it is not something that can be explained or described beyond direct and extended experience of such a thing.

Maybe it best signifies that our understanding of Time is limited in some way, without making a definite claim about what the true understanding of Time could be....

I agree. We are locked into a very human comprehension and perception of Time, one further defined by physical incarnation.

[Laird]

Responding first to your questions of Valmar, Sci:

I also admit "eternal" is a word with heavy connotation. Does it mean existing all the back to the supposed Beginning of a linear temporal progression? Or does it mean something existing "outside Time"?

In my view, these are two distinct meanings, and it's important to distinguish between them. In my previous post, I tried to make it explicit that I interpreted your usage according to the second meaning: that of a domain beyond (outside of; not subject to) time.

Also, I think it's worth noting that according to the first meaning time is in general of infinite duration, which could be back into the past, forward into the future, or both.

Yeah it also isn't clear to me that Eternity, as a domain not subject to time, has any real meaning

I agree that it's difficult to find meaning in it. It seems to be necessary given that beginningless time is actually incoherent, and a beginning to time with no cause seems like the creation ex nihilo that you abhor, but I too resist it given its apparent senselessness: in addition to the reasons already shared, I don't know what it could possibly mean to be conscious outside of time.

Various people who've had various mystical experiences like NDEs do describe timelessness, but, again, I've not been able to make sense of this given that they seem to describe events occurring, which seems to entail time.

I don't know whether it's even possible for us to make sense of time(lessness) from within the flow of time. It's all very puzzling.

save perhaps in reference to Mathematical/Logical truths. Even then we might better describe those as Universals that are "context-less" in their truths

"Contextless truths" sounds like a good description to me. While they definitely exist eternally (second meaning) - in the sense in which not only are they true at every given moment in time, but they would be (are) true even in the absence of time - they don't exist in any tangible sort of sense in which a person could, say, travel out of body to a timeless, Platonic realm and exclaim in delight, "Oh, wow, here's the perfect form of the triangle, and - look over there! - there's the law of non-contradiction!"

At least, that's my view.

I would say there are no causal explanations that are adequate for any observed change or lack of change save for those that involve mental causation.

Yes, you've been very clear over time that that's your view. I was getting at something perhaps(?) a little different though: that free will (and, by analogy, God's creative agency) can't be reduced to operating within a causal chain of "event A necessitates event B, then event B necessitates event C, etc", and that it's rather that they (free will and divine creative agency) are meta-causal, operating in a sense on the causal chain as a whole, beyond supposed necessitation. That's not to deny that they are causally efficacious though, it's just - it seems to me - a more productive way to frame their causal role. Perhaps it's not perfect or ideal though.

Yes, you've been very clear over time that that's your view. I was getting at something perhaps(?) a little different though: that free will (and, by analogy, God's creative agency) can't be reduced to operating within a causal chain of "event A necessitates event B, then event B necessitates event C, etc", and that it's rather that they (free will and divine creative agency) are meta-causal, operating in a sense on the causal chain as a whole, beyond supposed necessitation. That's not to deny that they are causally efficacious though, it's just - it seems to me - a more productive way to frame their causal role. Perhaps it's not perfect or ideal though.

Ah that is an interesting framing, I have seen an argument that the Big Bang is best thought of as a creative act by a freely acting Mind as otherwise such a beginning runs into the problems you mention regarding Eternity and infinite regression.

Causality will always be somewhat tricky, and I don't pretend simply saying all causation is mental is a complete solution. I just don't know how else to even begin to make sense of how of all possible things that could happen only one possibility does happen.