Reddit mentions of Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations (The Library of Religious Beliefs and Practices)

Well, for mahayana the book I have is this one. However, I don't remember how good it is. What I did for buddhism was simply go through various online resources. The reason being that western misconceptions about the connotations of buddhism are so deep that the only way to balance them out is by reading a lot of different sources, and trying to ignore the obviously interpretive parts. The main misconceptions revolve around ignoring or hand-waving that the Buddha post enlightenment was seen as divine, and that this and the system in general were meant to be very literal.

> I also wanted to ask, do you know of any theistic views that are different to classical and personalist theism that you consider intelligible and consistent?

Well, if you want a book on tillich, this one is good.

You already know about process theism, but I can give you some good reads. The iep page for whitehead is a good place to get the basics down. The important ting to note about process theists is that some of them hold to some of the general points, but not others. And so its a good general basis to explore a general idea that can be taken in different ways. For instance, whitehead's specific ontology of events is obviously a little more specific than someone today would be likely to profess. But the general format of the system is still top of the line. I would also say to read this book written by the first big process theist after whithead who turned it into a distinctly theological project instead of just a philosophical system.

Note that (well, obviously after you'll read them you can note that) the idea of a social conception of god is compatible also with tillich. Both tillich and some of the process theists explore the idea that the living aspects of god should be seen as a collective / social organism by nature of the summation of all the values of individual entities relating together through the absolute. Another way they tie them together is that john b cobb who you mention points out that the process theological concept of "creativity" parallels closely tillich's concept of the power of being. Process theism has a bit more metaphysics than tillich's minimalistic form, but they are very compatible ideas.

Another important person to look into is Carl Jung (yes, the psychologist carl jung). Because interestingly for his profession he actually provides a pretty substantial idea of a pantheist system. Which in short has to do with the idea that gods have a kind of quasi existence since they exist as abstract archetypes in the world at large, and are given form by human consciousness. But that once you properly frame into context what human consciousness even is you begin to see why that despite them being psychological images that they are also real. (its not easy to describe how, but basically it has to do with the fact that people aren't discrete, and the images are images of things external to the mind to begin with, so the mediated form exists as a submind encoded across multiple beings, and the world at large). Its a bit hard to get how it work until you intuitively grasp it, and it helps to know some relevant philosophy of mind that would make it seem more real. But a good book for seeing jung in a religious light is this one. It starts off a little slow, but in the middle it has a metaphorical religious text written by jung itself, and then it picks up in analysis of his real beliefs from it. As a psychologist he talked about the collective uconscious as a human psychological phenomenon, but it seems he really thought it was a kind of world soul relation between entities and the world itself.

Now, I must admit that tillich, the process theists, and jung are the three best modern things to look into. But there's a few more notable things to look at.

this book by the physicist schrodinger is about an idea called open individualism, which is basically a modern secularization of the hindu idea of brahman. He points out at the beginning that he is not a philosopher himself, but merely expressing the idea in an easy to read way. (Which is fortunate, since the actual philosophy textbook I want on the idea is $110). The gist of the idea is that there are no actual metaphysical borders between people, and so all people are abstractions of a super-identity that you can identify with god.

this book by fechner is a quasi religious book that argues for a secular reason to think life exists in a sense after death. The book is 150 years old, so it might have parts that seem overly idealistic, but the general idea and its arguments are something that's relevant even today. There's pantheistic elements in it too, but they are sidelined.

The kyoto school in japan blends modern metaphysics, zen metaphysics, and pantheism into a modern system. I haven't read anything from it, but hear that this anthology is good.

Here is a well-rated anthology of panentheistic writings from many authors in general. Including many I haven't read. You can look into it to see if any of them look like interesting areas of interest to branch off into.

Also, of course there's any number of old traditions one could look into even if one doesn't consider them totally literal to frame into context ways of looking at things that could carry over to a more transtheistic system. Kabbalah and stoicism are good places to look. here Is a book written by a psychologist and stoicism scholar that details their beliefs and how to engage in the practice in modern day. (Though obviously one can disagree with the virtue ethic framework). And here is one of the best kabbalah books. Obviously kabbalah is way too specific for me to consider literal, but it does have beautiful work and ways of looking at things to frame religious experience into context.

---

For a few closing remarks, I'd point out to remember that these ideas are not necessarily all competing. Many of them (perhaps all at once depending on how strict you are) are compatible. You'll probably also notice that they all have similar tones of panentheism. That's because that's my general area of interest. The reason for this being that ultimately I think tillich is correct. There may be sentient godlike distinct beings out there, but we need to make religious experience revolve around things we have more of a definite concrete justification for. And the values of the religious experience pervade our world anyways, and so we don't need to rely on the literal existence of these independently sentient beings. Via jungian ideals we can even abstract the idea of gods to positive useful archetypes, and if they exist as concrete instantiations as well, all the better. If you ask me, the universe is likely tremendous in size. Bigger than we can even dream. There's probably more complex segments of it somewhere that very much have tangible sentient entities we would consider godlike. But there doesn't seem to be evidence of them interacting directly with us. So like epicurus says, belief in gods isn't an excuse for belief in superstition. They exist "elsewhere." Its better to focus on the transtheistic absolute.