God in heaven

[Dr Di]

please help me to understand how your conception of Amitaba Buddha in the Pureland differs from that of God in Heaven. thanks Diane
for me they are all vibrational frequencies that take us to different parts of our consciousness

[Ben Ross]

Hi Diane,

The question of the differences between the two has been on my mind a lot lately. I know that my experience of God and my experience of Amida feel very different. When I attempt to connect to God in some way, I feel as though I'm attempting to communicate with a being who controls the universe. I quickly feel angered and mistrustful, out of a sense that God's management of life contains so much unfairness. I particularly wonder how God could choose to help some people who petitioned Him with prayer, and not others who live good lives but don't worship Him. While it makes more sense for me to imagine God as pure energy or as the totality of everything that exists, it's very difficult to feel this somehow.

With Amida I have a sense that there's this kind of love in the universe that's just calling to me and is within me somehow. I never would think of Amida as controlling the universe or has having a hand in causing suffering. Which is strange too, in a way, because if Amida is everything in the world, then He (this pronoun feels stranger here than it did when talking about God) must also be suffering in some way. Yet somehow I feel Amida as separate, transcending the world. Again, I'm not really sure where this feeling comes from, or it makes total sense.

My last thought is that somehow Amida feels like a mother - accepting, nurturing, loving unconditionally, while God feels like a father - judging, controlling, needing to be appealed to for forgiveness. Where does this come from?

Thanks for starting this discussion - hope my thoughts haven't been too long-winded!

[Dr Di]

hi Ben. thanks for your thoughts. I agree that the god of the old testament is awe- and fear- inspiring and that is probably why gentle, spiritual people like us reject the idea of him. Jesus is gentler, but too closely linked to the other `guy`. whereas the Buddhas Sakyamuni and Amitaba are associated with equanimity and kindness. as a psychologist, however, I get concerned when we take the universal mind and put it in a place and form. fond regards. Diane

[Ben Ross]

Thanks for responding to my associative runaway train of thoughts! I too feel uncomfortable assigning God a particular place and form. I find, however, that in my most despairing moments, there's someone or something who I want to appeal to for justice, and somehow this is spontaneously expreesed as a prayer to God. Have you had a similar experience? What do you do when the energy seems to have abandoned you?

[Dr Di]

This is why I love the Buddhas teachings! as the energy is you. on your highest level of mind, you are buddha. watch out for your dependency needs and turn them back towards yourself.
David Brazier believes in `other power` but this is what I am debating, as although we are interconnected and one in truth, on the level of body in the nirmanakaya realm, we have only 1 brain and body to control and rely on. Diane
PS have a look at the Lankavatara Sutra

[Dr Di]

thank you so much for your thoughts. Diane

[Lisa Winett]

I think this is interesting...from a Jewish standpoint, since that is the origins of the monotheistic "God" figure, I've found that the more subtle understanding of God and his intentions for us or his mysteries can only come about through true practice.

While I can't say that the Jewish community is the most gentle or compassionate, I think within the faith there is an ideal. Similar to the reality of the Buddhist community with it's issues of gender inequality and the other flaws found in any given faith.

The componants of the Jewish faith, the mitzvahs (which are the laws or commandments that offer humanity a guidebook on how to conduct oneself in the world), prayers, thought, study, and constant questioning and discourse are all compassionate quiet endevors. In Judaism, being scholarly is being like God.

This idea of a punishing or angry or condeming God is a little out of place for me in terms of a Jewish God since the only way for children to excell is through grace, patience, and complete nuturing from their parents. Likewise, for humanity to excell, God too must be gracious, patient, and nuturing. He must provide for us what we need for success.


I think there can be more similarities than differences if we look to the end goals of each religion, that being peace or an end to suffering. I think the specific practices of each faith are varied, but in each faith I find similar elements, meditation, movements, prayer, chanting, social compassion and community involvement. It strikes me as interesting how humans might create the differences and God might be trying to create the similarities.

As I learn more about the specifics of Pureland Buddhism, I'm sure I'll learn more.

[Dr Di]

quite right, we are all emanations of the same source. Diane

[Tan Jit Kiat]

Hi Diane,

Assuming you are talking about the All Mighthy God (Creator), not the Heavenly beings in Buddhism...
Here are some differences between Amitabha and God:

1. Amitabha is not the Creator.
2. The existence of Amitabha follows law of causation (due to his vows and accumulation of merits in the past) whereas God is absolute (i.e. God is of no cause, God is the first cause).
3. God is All Mighty, Amitabha is not.

Pls note I have nothing against people who believe in God. I have many friends who believe in God and I admire their compassion and devotion in spreading God's love.

Namo Amituofo

Jit Kiat

[Dr Di]

thank you so much for your insight. my concern is with the need for us to see salvation as coming from an external source and the role of this power as a rescuer or protector. this seems to me to be a hindrance to one`s own growth and awakening. if however we take the Buddha`s teachings less literally , will we not overcome past karma and rise above nirmanakaya conditioning quicker? Diane

[Tan Jit Kiat]

Hi Diane,

It is indeed an age-old debate between self-power-centred and other-power-centred approaches. My belief is heavily influenced by Nagajurna and Kumarajiva that both approaches are feasible depending on conditions.

Nagajurna (150-250AD), one of the most influential Mahayana Indian Mahayana practitioners, was an expert in the self-power-centred prajna paramita (Mahyamaka tradition) but he was open to pureland approaches too. Although he encouraged his students to stay in the Saha World to practise the challenging bodhisattva way, he also described pureland as the easy path to achieve non-regressional status of bodhisattva before returning to the Saha World.

Hundred of years later, Kumarajiva translated the important prajna paramita sutras like Diamond Sutra, Heart Sutra and Madyamaka work into Chinese. However, he also translated the Amitabha Sutra. Kumarajiva was also a friend with Master Hui Yuan (the 1st patriach of chinese pureland buddhism). This proved that Kumarajiva was also open to pureland other-power-centred approach.

Although both approaches are feasible at the time of Nagajurna and Kumarajiva, the conditions for self-power-centred approach are much worse now in the age of dharma decline. To give a few examples:

1. Self-power-centred approach requires a Master to guide you. It is difficult right now to ascertain whether someone is qualified at all.
2. Self-power-centred approach requires a lot of time but most people need to work in order to survive.
3. Difficulty in translation of Sutras and commentaries into English as most people do not understand Pali, Chinese or Japanese.

I hope this helps. Namo Amituofo.

Jit Kiat