856 anna andreeva
We can certainly see the confirmation of this theory during the late
Heian and Kamakura periods, when honji suijaku theories concerning
the origins of the Ōbie deity (also referred to as ‘the Deity of the Great
Shrine’, Ōmiya began circulating both in the temples of Hiezan
and at the Hie shrines. Several entries describing the cult of Sannō in
the Yōtenki (ca. 1223) maintain that the Ōbie/Ōmiya deity was
actually the Great Deity of Miwa, who descended to earth in the time
of Emperor Kimmei and was transferred to the new capital at
Ōtsu during the reign of Emperor Tenchi ( , 626–672).^4 This
deity had manifested itself on Hieizan as the protective deity of Ōmi,
and also as a Buddhist saint, Hōshuku bosatsu. Another
account stated that the Ōmiwa deity was none other than the Buddha
Śākyamuni who, in Emperor Kinmei’s time, when Buddhism was first
introduced to Japan, descended to earth in the form of the Ōmiwa
deity and was later enshrined at the foot of the mountain by Saichō.^5
In both cases, these accounts emphasize the essentially Buddhist
nature of the kami of Miwa, its pivotal position on Hieizan, and its
central role in the propagation of the Lotus Sūtra (Hokkekyō ).
The fact that the kami of Miwa was perceived as a manifestation of
Śākyamuni, and thus as the most perfect embodiment of the teach-
ing of skillful means (hōben ), linked it to the central scripture
and doctrine of Tendai. This association became a trademark theory
of Tendai esoteric tradition dedicated to kami worship and was fur-
ther employed in many rituals of esoteric Shinto that developed both
on Hieizan and at Miwa during the medieval period. However, the
question remains of how exactly such appropriation of a kami from a
distant area of Miwa by Tendai became possible. Why was the deity of
Miwa deemed so important for the monks of Hieizan?
Saichō
It is not known whether Saichō personally worshiped the kami of
Miwa. Documents written soon after Saichō’s death, such as the Eizan
daishiden , the Dengyō daishi gyōgōki ,
and the Dengyō daishi gyōjō , do not support the idea
of Saichō’s involvement, nor do they mention any journeys he may
(^4) ST 29: 44 p. 62 , ¢ Õ, p. 68 ¢ Õ.
(^5) ST 29: 81, 85; Yōtenki, ¢ Õ, pp. 81, 85. It is thought that this section was
accomplished at least by the end of the Heian period.