to be manifestations of Shinra Myōjin, or servants who came with him from Silla. Shinra Myōjin at some point came to be identified with Susanoo. This connection was already well established among the monks from Onjō-ji in 1210. It is an example of the phenomenon of shinbutsu shūgō (神仏習合). It developed through the theological speculation of Tendai monks and Shintō scholars from the . However, while the connection is well documented in sources related to the Jimon tradition, it is absent from texts pertaining to Saimon, and Susanoo was instead linked with Matarajin in a similar capacity in the latter context. Most likely identification between Shinra Myōjin and Susanoo was facilitated by the existence of a tradition according to which the latter at some point traveled through the Korean Peninsula. A shared connection with waka was likely another factor. The fact that Shinra Myōjin received swords as offerings during festivals likely was related to the connection between him and Susanoo too, though it is possible this custom was initially derived from a tradition from Silla. The connection between him and Susanoo was promoted during festivals held in Onjō-ji. Multiple variant names of Shinra Myōjin enumerated in the Onjōji denki (園城寺伝記) are phonetic variants of Susanoo. They include Sūgoku (崧嶽), Sūshisu (菘崧), Shusan’ō (朱山王), Shitenfujin (四天夫人 or 天夫人), and Suhatsu Hoshikashi (素髮ホシカシ; according to Sujung Kim “possibly a misspelling of hoshikami 星神, meaning ‘star deity’”). Jimon denki horoku (寺門伝記補録), a fifteenth century supplement to the earlier Onjōji denki, affirms that Shinra Myōjin is identical with Susanoo, describes Izanami as his mother, and states that he traveled through Silla with his son . It also identifies both Shinra Myōjin and Susanoo as Somin Shōrai. Shinra Myōjin also belonged to the network of deities associated with Gozu Tennō. The fact that both Gozu Tennō and Susanoo could be identified with him was also one of the factors leading to the identification between the former two of these deities. Bernard Faure argues that Sekizan Myōjin can be considered Shinra Myōjin’s “Hieizan counterpart”. Sujung Kim outright suggests the two might have originally been the same deity. They were regarded as the protective deities of two rival branches of Tendai, respectively Jimon and Sanmon. The rivalry between the schools was also transferred to corresponding deities: disagreements existed over whether one of them was a servant on the other, while in a narrative about emperor Go-Sanjō both