Is an Abrahamic "Transtheism" possible?

[CountPeter]

I appreciate that this is an awkward question, but represents an area of Abrahic thought which could be interesting to explore if it is possible.

As the term is not well understood; first a quick summary of what "Transtheism" is.
Transtheism is a useful term that denotes positions in relation to divinity which do not fit a traditional deity model.
Asian religions have traditionally been more associated with this than western traditions, but both the stoicism of the ancient greeks and certain mesoamerican religions also had this as a principle.
Buddhism is the most easily given example of this. Whilst the overwhelming majority of Buddhist philosophical schools venerate deities in some way, the guiding principle of the universe is not a supreme deity but a combination of "divine forces" such as Emptiness and Karma which comprise Dharma.
Likewise, some Hindu sects beleive in a reality driving deity (e.g. Vaishnavites with Vishnu) whilst others beleive in many gods but beleive in divine principles from which those gods stend (Samkhya with the primal force "Prakriti").

Other examples include: Stoicism with it's Logos and Platonism; the latter being a fun example because whilst starting out as transtheistic (The form of the good isn't referred to in an inherently deity like fashion and it is completely compatible with a polytheist worldview) it's ofshoot "neoplatonism" then became theistic or monotheistic in the traditional sense as it compounded the idea that the form of the good/one/god are the same thing.
Taoism and the Tao; similar to Buddhism in it's emphasis on emptiness pervading existence with powerful deities literally springing up form the eternal Tao depending on the school.

Now I am not sure that this is neccesarily possible for an abrahamic faith without too major a POD (maybe going back to the polytheistic days of the ancient Hebrews); but think it could be interesting.
So is an Abrahamic Transtheism possible?


Edit: Transtheism is a bit of a weird concept to get your head around if you have not heard of it before. If you have not, I would reccomend reading the below.

Spoiler

Transtheism is not...
A system where the underlying fabric of creation is dependant on any form of intelligent force. It doesn't matter if that force is personal, impersonal etc. If it could hypothetically communicate with you (e.g. a Deistic god could hypothetically organise the world in such a way to say "hi" to you personally).

Transtheism is also not a system on top of a religion. "Christian Marxism" for instance would not count as such even if you beleive that Dialectical Materialism is divine (an aside, I wonder if anyone does beleive this?) because it stems from a deity.

Look at Karma as an example of a transtheist force in different contexts.

In Buddhism, Karma has no intelligence and could not communicate with you in any fashion, but is a divine force behind everything in the universe. Gods, even creator deities like Brahma are bound by Karma.
Buddhism is Transtheist.

In Hinduism (excluding Samkhya) and Sikhism, Karma is a fundamental force of the universe but is usually bound by or is a by-product of a deity (personal or impersonal).
Hinduism (excluding Samkhya) and Sikhism are not transtheist.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I would say that this occurred in both some types of gnostic groups and more famously in Manichaeism and it's derived faiths.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Sounds rather like Christian Marxism?

 

[CountPeter]

I would say that this occurred in both some types of gnostic groups and more famously in Manichaeism and it's derived faiths.

Not quite, which is why I brought up Neoplatonism. Whilst Gnosticism/Manichaeism did believe in a transcendent force, ultimately they had "prime movers" in both instances.

Sounds rather like Christian Marxism?

...I am quite intrigued as to how you came to that conclusion?

 

[Grey Wolf]

...I am quite intrigued as to how you came to that conclusion?

I understood this thread to mean a "system" that is believed in beyond the actual religion aspect. Marxism has that system, the Dialectic etc, but there are plenty of Christians who are Marxists. To me, it seems that if Christian Marxism can be said to be "a thing" (akin to Christian Democrats) it would meet the criteria

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

@CountPeter That is debatable, Manichaeism did not truly have a mover outside of some cosmic substance that is the so called uncreated. It believed that the flesh from which everyone was made of was evil as it came from a blind and angry creator, who placed a veil upon the soul of man to not see the so called cosmic reality of light. This is not anything like Christianity and Islam and resembles an odd mixture of Iraqi, Iranian, Buddhist and Christian beliefs.

Where is the mover in the Abrahamic sense in Manichaeism?

 

[CountPeter]

I understood this thread to mean a "system" that is believed in beyond the actual religion aspect.

Right, not quite.
Transtheism is a bit of weird term... I will try another way to adress it.

Monotheism
1 God
God is prime mover, either is the universe, created the universe, sustains the universe or some combination of the below.
Example: Abrahamic Faiths and Yahweh

Dualism
2 Gods.
At least 1 god is a prime mover etc. The universe came to be because of said deity.
Example: Zoroastrianism and Ahura Mazda

Polytheism
Many Gods
Not neccesarily a prime mover, although the gods usually have an acttive part in the creation of the cosmos in some fashion (Slaying Ysmir, creating Time and Space etc).
Example: Greek polytheism, Zues, Poseidon etc.

Transtheism
Any amount or no gods.
No prime mover. Reality is created/sustained by some non-intelligent primordial but metaphysical force. If God's/God exist, they are "below" that force.
Example: Buddhism, Dharma, Emptiness.

So what I am asking for is if it is possible to a unique Transtheist strand of "Abrahamism" to occur in the same fashion in which Transtheist schools existed within Hinduism.

@CountPeter That is debatable, Manichaeism did not truly have a mover outside of some cosmic substance that is the so called uncreated. It believed that the flesh from which everyone was made of was evil as it came from a blind and angry creator, who placed a veil upon the soul of man to not see the so called cosmic reality of light. This is not anything like Christianity and Islam and resembles an odd mixture of Iraqi, Iranian, Buddhist and Christian beliefs.

Where is the mover in the Abrahamic sense in Manichaeism?

The underlined is only part of the story. Mankind came as a result of conflict between Zurvan (the primordial good deity) and the primordial evil. I am unaware of any force which transcends either of them, and everything from the creation of man to the existence of light is a result of two clashing in a way that is fundamentally Dualist rather than Transtheist.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

@CountPeter Yes, it was somewhat dualistic but it often times veered from this path as evident by many Islamic accounts on the religion, including its evolutions in China. In many cases, Manichaeans were referred to by Muslim or the Abbasid period as atheists.

As well, both modern and ancient gnostic movements have seemingly become or were transtheists or at least similar.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

It believed that the flesh from which everyone was made of was evil as it came from a blind and angry creator, who placed a veil upon the soul of man to not see the so called cosmic reality of light.

It also believed that rain was caused by demons masturbating. They had some pretty wacky beliefs, did the Manichees.

No prime mover. Reality is created/sustained by some non-intelligent primordial but metaphysical force.

Lots of philosophical monotheists would hold that God is, properly speaking, beyond all description (including, obviously, the description "intelligent"), which sounds quite similar to what you're talking about here? If so, the answer to the title question is "Yes, it is possible, and it has happened IOTL."

 

[Napoleonrules]

Right, not quite.
Transtheism is a bit of weird term... I will try another way to adress it.

Monotheism
1 God
God is prime mover, either is the universe, created the universe, sustains the universe or some combination of the below.
Example: Abrahamic Faiths and Yahweh

Dualism
2 Gods.
At least 1 god is a prime mover etc. The universe came to be because of said deity.
Example: Zoroastrianism and Ahura Mazda

Polytheism
Many Gods
Not neccesarily a prime mover, although the gods usually have an acttive part in the creation of the cosmos in some fashion (Slaying Ysmir, creating Time and Space etc).
Example: Greek polytheism, Zues, Poseidon etc.

Transtheism
Any amount or no gods.
No prime mover. Reality is created/sustained by some non-intelligent primordial but metaphysical force. If God's/God exist, they are "below" that force.
Example: Buddhism, Dharma, Emptiness.

So what I am asking for is if it is possible to a unique Transtheist strand of "Abrahamism" to occur in the same fashion in which Transtheist schools existed within Hinduism.


The underlined is only part of the story. Mankind came as a result of conflict between Zurvan (the primordial good deity) and the primordial evil. I am unaware of any force which transcends either of them, and everything from the creation of man to the existence of light is a result of two clashing in a way that is fundamentally Dualist rather than Transtheist.

The Jewish religion is not a uniform belief. For those who believe in the Kabbalah, those people would be the closest to your description; perhaps a wanking ATL that solidifies those into a religion that the rabbis are forced to denounce and excommunicate (yes, that exists in Judaism). And really, a lot of old-school Reform Jews (the newest generation tends to be more religiously conservative), and almost certain the majority of Reconstructionist Jews, would fit your description of believing in a nebulous "higher power" but not an individual personal god-figure. Then there are Christians like Washington and Jefferson who believed in "Providence" but not the divinity of Christ or a personal God who intervenes in the world.

To be clear- Judaism does not state that other gods do not exist or thst other people can't have their own gods. Judaism simply states that Jews have one G-d, who is supreme, created everything, and kick other people's gods anytime and anywhere. Other people's gods exist and other people can worship them, but since G-d is a jealous god (His words, not mine) he gets pissed if Jews worship one of those other gods. So, it doesn't seem hard to tweak to allow transdeism, especially with Buddhist influences. Jews would have been visiting, and even small trading communities even at the time of Buddha's life (Bene Israel in Maratha and the Cochin Jews of southern India in particular). Also, a stronger Buddhist movement western during Hellenistic times could do it.

 

[CountPeter]

It also believed that rain was caused by demons masturbating. They had some pretty wacky beliefs, did the Manichees.

Never having read their surviving works directly, I always wondered if that was a crazy claim against them. Either way though, they certainly where an odd bunch.

Lots of philosophical monotheists would hold that God is, properly speaking, beyond all description (including, obviously, the description "intelligent"), which sounds quite similar to what you're talking about here? If so, the answer to the title question is "Yes, it is possible, and it has happened IOTL."

Intelligence is the important distinguishing factor. Karma has no intelligence despite comprising all action and becoming in the universe, whilst even a Neoplatonist conception of Yahweh/Allah still sees them as intelligent, even if it is an intelligence which cannot be understood by humans.

 

[CountPeter]

The Jewish religion is not a uniform belief. For those who believe in the Kabbalah, those people would be the closest to your description; perhaps a wanking ATL that solidifies those into a religion that the rabbis are forced to denounce and excommunicate (yes, that exists in Judaism). And really, a lot of old-school Reform Jews (the newest generation tends to be more religiously conservative), and almost certain the majority of Reconstructionist Jews, would fit your description of believing in a nebulous "higher power" but not an individual personal god-figure. Then there are Christians like Washington and Jefferson who believed in "Providence" but not the divinity of Christ or a personal God who intervenes in the world.

I think I may need to add more clarifications to the OP.
To clarify, Deists like many of the American founding fathers also do not qualify under Transtheism. Going back to Karma; whilst a deistic or impersonal god may not have a personality in the sense that humans would understand it, it is both A) the source of "power" and B) could hypothetically talk to you if it wished. Contrast this with Karma, and whilst all things are possible through Karma, it cannot have a personality and cannot communicate with you in the same way that you can't talk to honour or gravity.

I am not too familiar with Kabbalah though so I can't comment on that. Reccomend any particular sources for looking that up?

To be clear- Judaism does not state that other gods do not exist or thst other people can't have their own gods. Judaism simply states that Jews have one G-d, who is supreme, created everything,

This is the disqualifying factor.

So, it doesn't seem hard to tweak to allow transdeism

Did you mean Transtheism here? I appreciate it is confusing but the only thing I could find on Trandeism leads to a completely different beleif.,

especially with Buddhist influences. Jews would have been visiting, and even small trading communities even at the time of Buddha's life (Bene Israel in Maratha and the Cochin Jews of southern India in particular). Also, a stronger Buddhist movement western during Hellenistic times could do it.

I am listening to some audio in the background about Kabbalah, and I could see a... Kabbalah "extremist" group finding some link there... that could be a very fun religion.

@CountPeter Yes, it was somewhat dualistic but it often times veered from this path as evident by many Islamic accounts on the religion, including its evolutions in China. In many cases, Manichaeans were referred to by Muslim or the Abbasid period as atheists.

As well, both modern and ancient gnostic movements have seemingly become or were transtheists or at least similar.

Could you give a link to those sources?

 

[Practical Lobster]

As Napoleon says, Kabbalistic religion represent the closest possible thing in OTL. However, the Kabbalah also is nothing like what you want.

The Ein Sof is an ineffable force, an infinitely expanding divine thought without any form or resemblance to anything else. It doesn't seem that hard to make an ATL logical leap into something distinct from a God, but more of an unintelligent animating, creative force... However the OTL Ein Sof and Sefirot are wrapped up together as one and the same (and yet distinct) - more or less a way of defining and delineating the divine post-creation. Even if the Sefirot are divine, nobody ever questioned that the Ein Sof is. It's just so fundamental to the religion that nobody raised in it could really conceive of an alternative.

You're always gonna have to have a creator, I think. I don't think an Abrahamaic religion could do away with Creation and still be in the same family. Best you can get, I think, is perhaps a divine force that creates the God of Israel beneath it. And even then that doesn't really seem like an Abrahamaic religion anymore - more Gnostic.

Honestly, I think that what you're asking for is a contradiction in terms. Abrahamaic faiths, in my opinion, are in part defined by their shared tradition of monotheism. I'd hesitate to consider a lot of the Gnostic heresies which were inspired by them part of the same theological framework, since they usually invert the role of the creator deity and make him out to be evil. A transtheist religion is probably drawing on other religious traditions more heavily than the Jewish one, even if they've appropriated some Hebrew terms to define it.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

@CountPeter http://gnosis.org/gnintro.htm

Just a source on a modern conception of Gnosticism. In terms of the Manichaeans, it depends how you interpret the faith, just like Buddhism. Many Manichees of the past likely did interpret their religion in this manner and thus it is already done otl. The only question is would you term Manichaeism or insert Gnostic belief as Abrahamic.

 

[CountPeter]

@CountPeter http://gnosis.org/gnintro.htm

http://gnosis.org/gnintro.htm
That link does nothing but confirm my point?
"In the Gnostic view, there is a true, ultimate and transcendent God, who is beyond all created universes and who never created anything in the sense in which the word “create” is ordinarily understood. While this True God did not fashion or create anything, He (or, It) “emanated” or brought forth from within Himself the substance of all there is in all the worlds, visible and invisible. In a certain sense, it may therefore be true to say that all is God, for all consists of the substance of God. By the same token, it must also be recognized that many portions of the original divine essence have been projected so far from their source that they underwent unwholesome changes in the process. To worship the cosmos, or nature, or embodied creatures is thus tantamount to worshipping alienated and corrupt portions of the emanated divine essence."

I have read through it twice now in case I missed something, but there is nothing in there which remotely suggests anything above this "True God" and as it says, everything is the substance of that god.

Just a source on a modern conception of Gnosticism. In terms of the Manichaeans, it depends how you interpret the faith, just like Buddhism. Many Manichees of the past likely did interpret their religion in this manner and thus it is already done otl. The only question is would you term Manichaeism or insert Gnostic belief as Abrahamic.

If by "this manner", you mean the manner talked about in the source then it does not qualify for Transtheism.
Side note, for w.e. reason every time I tried writing this it came across as agressive sounding... really not my intent, I am just either being paranoid or for w.e. reason writing in an agressive style.

As Napoleon says, Kabbalistic religion represent the closest possible thing in OTL. However, the Kabbalah also is nothing like what you want.

The Ein Sof is an ineffable force, an infinitely expanding divine thought without any form or resemblance to anything else. It doesn't seem that hard to make an ATL logical leap into something distinct from a God, but more of an unintelligent animating, creative force... However the OTL Ein Sof and Sefirot are wrapped up together as one and the same (and yet distinct) - more or less a way of defining and delineating the divine post-creation. Even if the Sefirot are divine, nobody ever questioned that the Ein Sof is. It's just so fundamental to the religion that nobody raised in it could really conceive of an alternative.

You're always gonna have to have a creator, I think. I don't think an Abrahamaic religion could do away with Creation and still be in the same family. Best you can get, I think, is perhaps a divine force that creates the God of Israel beneath it. And even then that doesn't really seem like an Abrahamaic religion anymore - more Gnostic.

Honestly, I think that what you're asking for is a contradiction in terms. Abrahamaic faiths, in my opinion, are in part defined by their shared tradition of monotheism. I'd hesitate to consider a lot of the Gnostic heresies which were inspired by them part of the same theological framework, since they usually invert the role of the creator deity and make him out to be evil. A transtheist religion is probably drawing on other religious traditions more heavily than the Jewish one, even if they've appropriated some Hebrew terms to define it.

Unfortunately I think I would largely agree with your assessment (beyond going so far back that "Abrahamic" is an entirely different kettle of fish). I am not sure that it neccesarily has to be a direct contradiction; Siddartha Guatama is used by monotheists to this day as a prophet or speaking "the same truth" despite even the Pali Canon denouncing the idea of a supreme divinity as impossible and have done largely since his death.
In the same way, I could see an Abraham inspired religion (borrowing enough to be "Abrahamic" borrow him or someone from his tradition as a major figure even if there is a direct disconnect from what we would normally identify with the figure. Some Satanist movements could be argued to do this, but only to an extent and only at a stretch.

 

[Timaeus]

Transtheism
Any amount or no gods.
No prime mover. Reality is created/sustained by some non-intelligent primordial but metaphysical force. If God's/God exist, they are "below" that force.
Example: Buddhism, Dharma, Emptiness.

It's nigh impossible put this way. Like, God is literally defined as the being that sustains reality. There's really no path to getting to a truly transtheist thing from the Abrahamic route... though, hm...

A more Romanized, Stoic proto-Christianity? But that still leaves open the idea that nature is subservient ultimately to the will of God...

Maybe a dominant alt-Judaean Empire which slowly but surely assimilates the ideas of the Greeks almost wholeheartedly?

IDK. The monotheism can't really be removed without destroying the essence of the Abrahamic thing. Platonism doesn't help here.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

@CountPeter "it may be true to that all is god". This quote within your quote is an example of what I mean. There is no actor it is the worship of some cosmic reality or situation which is abive that of what is in front of our eyes because the flesh covers us in a veil.

In my opinion this is a close similarity to transtheism. To have a religion that beliefs in essence everything of the soul or not of the flesh is god, then what else could be more transtheist? Further, a lot of this comes down to interpretation, Buddhism is only perceived the way you put it forward as a post religious western society. Neoplatonism is a bit different but in some cases, it is likely that many such people were deists or similar ideologies.

 

[CountPeter]

@CountPeter "it may be true to that all is god". This quote within your quote is an example of what I mean. There is no actor it is the worship of some cosmic reality or situation which is abive that of what is in front of our eyes because the flesh covers us in a veil.

But there is the primordial deity. That disqualifies it. Remove that deity, nothing exists.

In my opinion this is a close similarity to transtheism. To have a religion that beliefs in essence everything of the soul or not of the flesh is god, then what else could be more transtheist?

A religion which doesn't have that god, or has a system above that god. Im not sure why you see that as transtheist at all... you've done the equivalent of giving me an orange and saying "What could be more of an apple than this?"

Further, a lot of this comes down to interpretation, Buddhism is only perceived the way you put it forward as a post religious western society.

There are many western misunderstandings of Buddhism. Transtheism is not one of them. Aside from it's direct links to the Samkhya school of Hinduism (which argued a creator deity was impossible), the Brahma-nimantanika Sutta very literally talks about how being a creator deity would actually be a step down from Buddhahood and how all non-enlightened beings are subject to Samsara.
The closest Buddhism gets to a non-transtheist position would be the minority adherants to the idea of the Adi-buddha, but to interpret him as a creator deity is to misunderstand emptiness of which he is seen as an emanation (if not merely a tool for teaching advanced levels of Tantra).

That might be a nice way to look at why Gnosticism really doesn't qualify. Gnosticism has a universe that is an emanation of a god, dependant upon it even if it doesn't purposefully create it. A transtheist equivalent would have all or any of it's deities being naturally emanated by a force which is specifically not a deity in the same way that gravity is not a deity.

It's nigh impossible put this way. Like, God is literally defined as the being that sustains reality. There's really no path to getting to a truly transtheist thing from the Abrahamic route... though, hm...

Unfortunately that is what I suspect... but it is an interesting exercise.

A more Romanized, Stoic proto-Christianity? But that still leaves open the idea that nature is subservient ultimately to the will of God...

This could be interesting actually... if I recall correctly, the cynics (not stoics, but stoics seemed to respect them as an extreme variant on the same theme) had a following in the palestinian region...
I am now imagining a kinda crazy polytheism where everyone can become a sage/god if they put their mind to it just like that Jesus fellow (so extreme roman mormonism... different tangent now but that would also be hilarious).

Maybe a dominant alt-Judaean Empire which slowly but surely assimilates the ideas of the Greeks almost wholeheartedly?

IDK. The monotheism can't really be removed without destroying the essence of the Abrahamic thing. Platonism doesn't help here.

Platonism is particularly a problem as, beyond Plato it kinda married itself to a deity to the point where it is hard to imagine it without one as part of any religion.

 

[Practical Lobster]

Huh, what about a religion that was at once pantheist and transtheist - everything is god and also the world was animated by a force that was greater than god.

Although I guess that probably exists and is some sect of Hinduism and I've probably written about it in White Huns without understanding it.

 

[Indicus]

Huh, what about a religion that was at once pantheist and transtheist - everything is god and also the world was animated by a force that was greater than god.

Although I guess that probably exists and is some sect of Hinduism and I've probably written about it in White Huns without understanding it.

Yeah, that sounds quite Hindu.

Anyways, you could conceivably see a breakaway from Judaism that sees "virtue" (hey, Aristotle) or some other force as the driver of the universe. It doesn't seem very hard, but you need this cult to win a sufficient amount of influence to truly exist. Is monotheism okay, as long as the force in question is what drives God and the universe?