introduced in Japan in the Kamakura period through the import of paintings from the Chinese port city Ningbo. He can alternatively be depicted holding a bow and white-feathered arrows. He is described as armed with them in an account of a dream vision of emperor Go-Sanjō. According to Bernard Faure, these attributes are intended to give him a “threatening, martial” appearance, which might have originally developed during the conflict between Sanmon and Jimon which involved temporary occupation of his temple. Descriptions of Sekizan Myōjin as a figure clad in armor are also known. On ema (絵馬; votive tablets), he can be accompanied by a monkey holding a gohei, an animal symbol of Mount Hiei, regarded as a messenger of Sannō. The oldest surviving depictions of Sekizan Myōjin only date back to the Edo period. One example is known from the Ichigami Shrine. The University Art Museum of the Kyoto City University of Arts also has an Edo period drawing of him in its collection (BZS 4061). Associations with other figures Sekizan Myōjin is particularly strongly identified with (Taishan Fujun), a god associated with destiny. This connection might have already developed in China, possibly due to the proximity between Chishan, the mountain associated with Sekizan Myōjin, and Mount Tai, associated with Taizan. The two are described as two names of the same deity in Genpei Jōsuiki: Bernard Faure additionally suggests that it is possible the name of the temple of Sekizan Myōjin, (赤山禅院), might be derived not from Zen meditation as often argued, but from a type of Chinese sacrifice known as shan (禅), a part of feng shan (封禅) rites, sacrifices to heaven and earth, which according to him might constitute a reference to Taizan Fukun. Faure also assumes the fact Sekizan Myōjin's honji is the bodhisattva Jizō might also be tied to his association with the god of mount Tai. This connection is documented both in Genpei Jōsuiki and in another text, Shintōshū. Shinra Myōjin and Sekizan Myōjin have been described as similar deities. Faure refers to the latter as the “Hieizan counterpart” of the former. Sujung Kim outright argues that they were originally two names of the same deity. However, Faure maintains that despite the connection between them, they likely had distinct origins and ultimately developed into distinct deities. They were regarded as protectors of two rival branches of Tendai, Sanmon and Jimon. It is a matter of