All very simple.
Just the definition for god should not be just like our christian "one and only and everything view" (because that simply does not fit) on a question like the initial one, but it should be seen through other eyes as well. I may not have made this clear enough, but can only repeat it.
Be this a mostly english spoken forum or not, its still also Japanese, thus should be tried to be translated in both ways, not just the english (which I also mean with western) way.
That was my main point.
I do know very well even, that Shinto to be the original and shamanistic based "method" of Japan, as well as I know Korean, Siberian and native indian Shamanism (and according shamans personally myself!), in short, many forrunners of later methods, religions.
I also know about the history and ways, Shinto was kind of "adapted" by later Buddhism, yet still mostly as alive beside, at times in front once more, right (see my "but" further down then)
What is important here, that the Christians, for example in Korea, tend to call those former parts "Aberglaube", not the "right" belief/way, and in Korea some christian Taxi-drivers even refused to drive us to some temples, until we heftily insisted. They were simply disgustingly narrowminded.
This can as well happen in Japan and makes me feel worried. No such reactions are known to me about or between Shintoists or Buddhists, which I indeed consider to be more advanced and open.
It has to do with this one and only view of whatever god is, and it will disturb our discussion heavily, if we see it from "our" god-definition. It will simply not work.
Also, what I meant in my statement about the japanese emperor, which was the inition to make this thread, that this kind of one and only does not fit nor give anyone the right to do what ever he wants, for example ruling under the false name of "uniting" the world, which is already known from Dschingis Khan or several Chinese emperors or whosoever (incl. Bush!) claims to act in the name of "god" (and I insist in writing it small, because I deny any human emperor or ruler to be enough "only one god" to have this right over all humans, particularly when wars are involved).
Whereas I do like and accept the experience of really being "in tune" with everything, like having a buddha-nature or being in charge for different parts thus as a kami, which would be more easily to be understood for us as a wise spirit, thus close to a boddhisattva, a said before.
I have no problem in seeing these as different and reaccuring manifestations of certain aspects, and accept also the Dalai Lama as being such a boddhisattva, particularly this Avalokiteshvara, which he obviously is, but so would any Guanyin/Kannon-manifestation be, since it has the very same base, only changed into a woman in the long run to the east.
We also have the green Tara (fem. companion of Avalokiteshvara, actually) in tibetan buddhism as the female form, it also is exactly this one. To see Canon as green Tara is in fact very interesting, because all those aspects are very positively nature and creation supporting related and even close to. . .Amaterasu. By which you can see, how flux the understanding of positive "powers" (if I may use this word here, please) is. Non of them likes wars, any war, in fact.
Thus any honest relation to an Amaterasu- or Canon-image cannot be agressive or overpowering, nor against nature, any which way.
And how I wish, the Japanese would come back to this kind of thinking. . .but many men seem to have forgotten, that the red circle on their flag means a peacefull wise woman!!. . . that will hide in her cave, when wrongly opposed. . .no sun thus, how very right!
I would too.
Making wars with this sign is a hit right into the face of the very goddess and image therefor and will have according consequences. This also applies to unnecessary agressions and killings in general. . .nature will indeed strike back.
I therefor do not consider the Japanese emperor dynasty to be wise at all, still not.
I do consider Greenpeace to be in the name of the green Tara etc. though. That fits very well.
Protect natural balance and human rights as well is also a job for. . .Athene, who supported as long, as humans were peacefull, but very well, but rarely, asked for arms, when that balance was disturbed and had to be reastablished (she was never into any kind of imperialism or egotrip!). Then, and only then, she became armed (and also changed into a man at times), often opposed by a jealous mars, that was accordingly ruled out, because he was only into agression and warmaking, although needed as a helper at times.
These are all projections of general inside human nature onto outside images, to make such principles more clear. And if you compare these, then you may well say, yes, a human can be such a manifested god, but not THE overall God.
As such, christianisations fails heavily in relation to such archetypes and it accordingly far too often leads to war. Same with wrong understandings of the original meanings of Islam.
In this case, two wrongs still don't make one right, nor does a misinterpreted Shinotism, misused for nationalism, by the way. . .
Thats as much a misuse. And any misuse is fatal.
Yes, a human can be a manifestation of god images, that he makes himself, but never the one and only above all. Thats nonsense. Only we all together in all aspects can be this, including all else thats around us, including all times.
Some have this knowledge, thus are a door to this, but never it alone nor only. But being a fine door is a fine goal.
Therefore:
A god, yes, but The GOD, no.
