In the discourses of Shakyamuni Buddha and the writings of Nichiren Shonin, the presence of transcendent buddhas, bodhisattvas, gods, demons, devils and other supernatural creatures reminds us that many inner forces are working within the subconscious and unconscious mind that may either help or hinder us. Memories, good and bad associations, built-up prejudices, unaddressed traumas, habits, or predispositions – all serve to darken our vision or dampen our aspirations. On the other hand, we also have leaps of intuition or bursts of enthusiasm. In times of crisis, many of us may also discover hidden reserves of courage, compassion, and determination that we didn’t even know we had. There may even be actual spiritual entities at work. In The Varieties of Religious Experience, William James points out that if there are spiritual forces at work in our lives, then it would be through just such subconscious phenomena that they would make themselves felt.
But just as our primary wide-awake consciousness throws open our senses to the touch of things material, so it is logically conceivable that if there be higher spiritual agencies that can directly touch us, the psychological condition of their doing so might be our possession of a subconscious region which alone should yield access to them.
James 1961, p. 198.
In addition, outside events and opportunities seem to have an uncanny way of corresponding to the necessities of our inner life, providing us with the needed catalysts to facilitate our growth as human beings. C.G. Jung called such a meaningful coincidence a “synchronicity.” These spiritual entities could also be understood as our human capacity and bias for pattern recognition. We are constantly processing and mapping our inner and outer experiences and cultivating an intuition that our lives are interwoven with the forces and beings of the natural world in ways that surpass our conscious understanding. Whatever the name or explanation for these internal and external forces, they are a factor in many people’s lives, especially those who are perceptive or sensitive enough to realize it. The gods, demons, and other supernatural phenomena of the six paths serve to remind us that there is more at work in our lives than just our conscious decisions and the seeming randomness of outside events.
The above paragraphs are taken (with a little modification) from my manuscript of Dharma Flower. Some might say that it is a concession to “magical thinking” or outworn pre-scientific worldviews that were rife with superstition. I do not believe, however, that the above expresses magical thinking but rather a non-dogmatic and humble outlook on life and its possibilities. I think it is not scientific but "scientism" that dismisses the possibility that there are other forms of life or entities other than the biological ones we are familiar with. Is this likely? Doesn't seem to be given our current knowledge of how life works based on what we can currently measure and quantify, but then in the past, it was not thought possible to travel to the moon or split atoms. As one friend of mine put it (who is a computer programmer and a ceremonial magician): "We have tamed the lightning and taught sand to think."
Here are some other things to consider about the references to supernatural beings in Buddhism: The discourses in the Pali canon are the closest we can get to what the historical Shakyamuni Buddha taught (and even that has strata of development over time). If we dismiss the Pali canon then we also have to dismiss the very foundations of Buddhism such as the teaching of the four noble truths and so on. So, even here the Buddha teaches supramundane right view (the four noble truths for example) and worldly right view (dealing with the world of causes and conditions). In terms of the latter, he insisted that right view consists of: "There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have realized for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’" (See Middle Length Discourses 117.7) By all this, the Buddha was insisting upon the law of cause and effect by which moral (or immoral) actions have repercussions beyond a single lifespan, that there are heavens and hells (among the six realms), and so on. This is the traditional teaching of Buddhism and apparently what the historical Buddha himself taught. For those of us who are actually educated and thoughtful, we find it hard to believe in anything beyond scientific materialism. So we must either reject Buddhism altogether or bracket the fact that Buddhists in the past (beginning with the Buddha himself) not only believed in the six realms metaphorically but also as literal existences (though only provisionally existent and empty). We must, for ourselves, demythologize these teachings and relate to them as, at least, psychological and existential states of being and work with them in that manner.
It is good to be skeptical but I do believe we should keep an open mind and not blindly accept scientific materialism either. As Shakespeare put it:
Horatio:
O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!
Hamlet:
And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Some people who come to Buddhism are disturbed to find that it also has teachings that refer to gods and devils, heavens and hells. They had hoped to escape such things that do not harmonize with a more rationalistic and even materialistic worldview. Lately, I have been finding myself saying that many Buddhists are trying so hard not to be Christians that they are making it very difficult to be Buddhists. You are right to perceive that there isn't that much difference between the world views of medieval people across the planet no matter what religion they happen to be. This is why Carl Jung talked about archetypes - humans as a species seem to be predisposed to subjectively experience things and imaginatively interpret them in similar ways with only very superficial differences in terminology, organization, and expression as determined by culture and environment.
Frequently, Shakyamuni Buddha taught what is called a "graduated discourse" to his contemporaries to prepare them for the teachings that were unique to him. This graduated discourse was in line with what he termed "mundane right view" and only addressed commonly held assumptions about wholesome spiritual cultivation. The graduated discourse is as follows:
"Then the Blessed One gave the householder ... progressive instruction, that is, talk on giving, talk on virtue, talk on the heavens; he explained the danger, degradation, and defilement in sensual pleasures and the blessing of renunciation. When he knew that the householder['s] ... mind was ready, receptive, free from hindrances, elated, and confident, he expounded to him the teaching special to the Buddhas: suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path." (Middle Length Discourse 56.18)
So here we have a presentation of the benefits of generosity that carries over from one lifetime to another, the following of basic moral precepts to safeguard against rebirth in lower realms, and contemplation of the heavenly realms as a mundane karmic reward for generosity and virtue. This really does seem to be baseline spirituality 101 for most people no matter what religion they are. In some monotheistic religions, and even polytheistic ones, it goes no further than this. In Christianity, there is an assumption that one cannot possibly overcome one's sinful nature on one's own and must vicariously atone through Jesus and accept God's special dispensation through his Son.
In Buddhism, it has traditionally been understood that heaven is not permanent and that self-efforts at virtue to overcome the self-attachment that binds one to rebirth within the six realms is self-defeating and that something must break through self for there to be a realization of non-self. Sometimes this is presented as a breakthrough in insight that is brought about through cultivation that brings one to the limits of self-effort and introspection of what the self that is making the effort really is (or isn't). Other times, it is spoken in a more mythic and poetic way as a breaking in of "Other-power" by a transcendent buddha (such as the Eternal Shakyamuni Buddha or Amitabha Buddha) which happens when one gets to the limits of one's earnest self-effort and introspection. Which of these routes is taken appears to be a matter of temperament but you might notice they both accomplish the same function - self-effort and introspection to get to the limit of self until there is a breakthrough and the nature of what the self really is (or isn't) is seen at last and liberation (or at least a major step in that direction) occurs naturally.
All this talk of gods and devils and transcendent buddhas and bodhisattvas then can be taken as mere window dressing, a poetic way of describing an interior process. This is how some Theravadins and most Zen Buddhists approach things. Or it can be taken quite literally and seen as a necessary way of approaching the Buddha Dharma as is the case with most (if not all) Pure Land Buddhists and many (though certainly not all) Nichiren Buddhists (of whatever school).
I find that in terms of Nichiren Buddhism, we can hardly avoid or ever totally downplay the role of such entities. After all, our Gohonzon is nothing but a list of names of buddhas, bodhisattvas, gods, spirits, etc... Nichiren refers to them casually in his writings as actual beings who can help or hinder. The Lotus Sutra is of course full of supernatural beings and transcendent buddhas and bodhisattvas from other worlds. There are many clergy and lay people even in Nichiren Shu who believe these are references to actual beings and take them very seriously, but then there are many who just relate to it as elaborate metaphors. Nichiren Shu is a big enough tent to accommodate both approaches. In any case, what Nichiren stressed was not the literal existence of supernatural entities (which he just took for granted) but the mutual possession of the ten realms which he ALSO related to as metaphors of our actual human condition here and now (as he does at the beginning of Kanjin Honzon-sho).
Now the bottom line though is that in Buddhism generally, and particularly in Nichiren Buddhism, we do not rely upon or worship or even need to believe in the literal existence of any of these entities as other religions supposedly do. Well, this might be argued that we do rely upon, worship, and probably should believe in the literal existence of the Eternal Shakyamuni Buddha but then when you start delving into what the Eternal Shakyamuni Buddha is really about you get into the teaching of the threefold truth of emptiness, provisional existence, and the middle way and the doctrine of the mutual possession of the ten realms and so discover that the literal existence and assistance of the Eternal Buddha is not the issue and misses the point.
Some might wonder if this opens the door to believing in the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy. Where do you draw the line? I believe there is a difference between the beings of the six realms (aside from humans and animals) and transcendent buddhas and bodhisattvas and the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and so on. The difference is that these latter are products of whimsy or even commercialism and/or entertainment for children, whereas the beings of the ten realms are meant to portray in graphic form aspects of the human condition. Then again, maybe there is not that much difference. Haven't you ever read the essay, "Yes, Virginia there is a Santa Claus"?
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Is_There_a_Santa_Claus%3F_(New_York_Sun)
In particular, I agree with this part of it:
"You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, Virginia, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding."
This is how I look at what is written in the verse of chapter 16:
"When living beings see great fires burning at the time of the end of a kalpa, this land of mine is tranquil and calm, always filled with heavenly beings and humans."
Now all of these entities, buddhas and bodhisattvas may be nothing more than metaphors or functions of the unconscious mind, but I believe there are times, particularly when we are engaging in Buddhist ceremonies, to suspend our disbelief and treat them/approach them as though they were as real as you or I. We can restore our skepticism when we return to our prosaic life but hopefully with a perspective that is wiser and more compassionate from having taken time out to engage in Buddhist practice.
Most importantly, Buddhism is really asking us not to believe or disbelieve in the existence of supernatural entities but rather to really look into and question the true nature of our own existence. Are we really as real as we think we are? And in what way? And what difference does that make?