I think the best way to see 'moral teachings' of religions is to try to see them as a way to cultivate our own nature. While a 'legalistic' way of seeing them has perhaps its purpose, the deepest way to see them is IMO to see them as aiming to our education and assist our (spiritual) growth.

Very much so. Presumably that is why we are here, to educate us in our spiritual growth?

I mean, any concept of 'moral responsibility' that I find coherent assumes that the agent of an action and the bearer of moral responsibility of that action is the same person.

This is where my thinking differs from Buddhist theology and I move back to the Hindu tradition. I find the dissolution of the individual upon death as incoherent in the way it is generally presented. I am aware of the explanation for it, but see it as part of an apology for the wholesale rejection of atman and a presence of the divine world in our world.
I am unsure about the identity of the Bodhisattvas and enlightened beings. Also there does seem to be some equivocation around this point. There is a universal consciousness, but each individual is one drop of water in an ocean of water drops. There is a denial of a permanent self, or identity, but a permanent self, a universal self is smuggled in and plays the same role.

Hinduism is saying the same thing, but in atman the individual retains some individuation ( not the Jungian definition) while similarly being a drop of atman in the sea of atman.

There seems to be equivocation around Karma too, that it shapes one’s next life, while denying that the individual remains after death. And how can the karmic debt be repaid, when the agent who took out the karmic debt does not any more exist. Again, I understand there is a explanation given, but it comes across as apologetics again.

In Hinduism, the divine world is here with us, walking alongside, interacting with us and the theology delineates it’s presence.

Very much so. Presumably that is why we are here, to educate us in our spiritual growth? — Punshhh

Yes, I hope and tend to think this is the case.

Interestingly, I believe that it is a somewhat classical teaching in Christianity that the 'spiritual life' is a process of growth and the state of the 'blessed' in Heaven is the ultimate realization of human nature. IIRC, Gregory of Nyssa in his book 'On the Making of Man' distinguishes three types of aspects of the 'soul': vegetative, animal (perceptive) and rational and saw the process of physical growth both in the womb and in the physical growth process as a gradual fulfillment of the first two aspects. The third is cultivated through virtue. However, this process is completed in the afterlife.

Also, in Christianity, in a similar way to Buddhism and Hinduism, you find reference that the fulfillment of spiritual life entails some kind of 'death' (even in the New Testament passages like: John 12:24, Galatians 2:20, Ephesians 4:22-24; also the metaphor of the 'sown seed' is used to describe the relation between the earthly body and the 'spiritual' body in 1 Corinthians 15:42-44). This to me makes sense even from a purely 'religious neutral' point of view: when we, say, grow from childhood to adolescense and then adulthood we might conceptualize the process of growth as a succession of metaphorical 'deaths' and 'rebirths' and resisting to these 'deaths' is actually detrimental to our spiritual health even if they can be quite scary. I'm not surprised therefore that 'dying to oneself' or similar expressions are used as a positive sign for spiritual development.

This is where my thinking differs from Buddhist theology and I move back to the Hindu tradition. I find the dissolution of the individual upon death as incoherent in the way it is generally presented. I am aware of the explanation for it, but see it as part of an apology for the wholesale rejection of atman and a presence of the divine world in our world. — Punshhh

Buddhists would argue that the termination of a particular lifetime is just a more evident instance of change that also happens during a lifetime. They would argue that if there is an atman, change would be impossible. I can see why they say that but IMO their rejection of atman assumes that their opponents think that selves like concepts are changeless. I don't know how one can 'remain the same' while also 'changing' but to be honest it's not that the rejecton of atman isn't free of conceptual difficulties like that of moral responsability.

I am unsure about the identity of the Bodhisattvas and enlightened beings. Also there does seem to be some equivocation around this point. There is a universal consciousness, but each individual is one drop of water in an ocean of water drops. There is a denial of a permanent self, or identity, but a permanent self, a universal self is smuggled in and plays the same role. — Punshhh

I believe that generally Buddhists would assert that all the enlightened minds share the same nature of mind but not the same mind. Just like, say, all fires are instance of 'fire' doesn't imply that all fires are manifestation of a cosmic fire.

Hinduism is saying the same thing, but in atman the individual retains some individuation ( not the Jungian definition) while similarly being a drop of atman in the sea of atman. — Punshhh

Or even something like a wave (a mode of existence) in the sea. I don't think the part-whole language should be taken too literally.

There seems to be equivocation around Karma too, that it shapes one’s next life, while denying that the individual remains after death. And how can the karmic debt be repaid, when the agent who took out the karmic debt does not any more exist. Again, I understand there is a explanation given, but it comes across as apologetics again. — Punshhh

Perhaps a traditional Buddhist answer would frame the problem in the distinction between the 'provisional/conventional' and the 'ultimate' truth. In the ultimate truth, there is no karmic continuity even in the same lifetime. In the provosional truth, individuals persist from life to life. However the provisional is ultimately illusory. So, again, the problem perhaps even worsens: not only there is a problem to explain how karma works from life to life. But there is a problem of how to explain it even within a lifetime once one questions the existence of the atman.
So, to be honest, I was never convinced of Buddhist defenses that I read.

Interestingly there was an ancient Buddhist school (the Pudgalavada) that affirmed the existence of 'indeterminate selves' perhaps to explain karma and compassion.

In Hinduism, the divine world is here with us, walking alongside, interacting with us and the theology delineates it’s presence. — Punshhh