In pure land it is Amitābha Buddha Himself who is deified. Amitābha is also called "The Buddha of Immeasurable Light and Life".
Deity is such a freeform idea... I don't think that saying that
anything is deified tells us anything beyond that there is someone (at least one person) willing to call that a deity.
Amitabha is certainly treated as a deity by some. But that does not make it a deity in the Abrahamic sense, and instead indicates how inspiration, as opposed to that fabled claim of uncaused causation, is the proper role for practice "deities".
I wouldn't describe Buddhism as either agnostic or ignostic. I wonder if apophatic is more apt.
Apophatic theology - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology#Indian_parallels
Gosh, I sure hope not. We need more ignosticism and more apatheism in our religions.
Far as I can tell, Buddhism is a literal stranger to theology. It just isn't something that exists in the doctrine, not even as a bad idea to be repealed.
Buddha openly avoided the question of God or gods. The most likely reason was due to the state of the Hindu religion at the time and the fruitless discussions of a theistic nature.
I don't think so. The most likely reason was that Gautama probably had a healthy tendency towards apatheism himself. He was, after all, a pratical and wise man.
I suspect it was reminiscent of the types of discussions that can occur within Christianity about the trinity. He left his followers free to decide for themselves.
If they saw fit to even lend the matter any significance at all, which they had little incentive and less reason to do.
I suspect that's why Buddhism lends itself so well to syncretism as evidenced by its close association with Shintoism for mealy a thousand years.
Buddhism is not so much given to syncretism (which is probably not even the proper word to use here) as it is suitable to rediscovery and redefinition according to specific cultural circunstances - precisely because its subject matter is not theological in nature, but rather focused on the nature of reality in general and of the human mind specifically.
Shintoism, it should be noted, has certain unique qualities that make its coexistence with Buddhism remarkable. To a considerable extent they are not even interested in much of the same subject matter of each other. They do not so much syncretize with each other as they occur together without too much conflict or even interest in mutual dialogue.
The supreme goddess in Shinto is Amaterasu. It was widely believed the Japanese imperial family were descended from this sun god. In that sense the Japanese Emperor was often deified.
Amaterasu - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaterasu
Are we talking about actual beliefs here, however? Or is it more accurate to call it tradition instead?
The tradition is certainly that the imperial family descends from Amaterasu. I would think that most Japanese do not literally believe that she was a deity in the supernatural sense and that the Emperor happens to be biologically descended from her. That would be neither necessary nor particularly believable, after all.
If I had to guess, I would assume that very little effort is even put into gauging how the Japanese people feel on this specific matter. Such an effort would be perceived as rude and pointless. I for one would agree with that perception.
Japan's defeat to the Americas was the only time they were defeated in war. The emperor Hirohito was required to relinquish his divinity.
Hirohito - Wikipedia
And we all know how relative both of those facts end up being.
