Lute, Sword, Snake, and Parasol—The Formation of the Standard Iconography of the Four Heavenly Kings in Chinese Buddhist Art

Abstract

The Four Heavenly Kings, Sida Tianwang 四大天王, are the guardians of the four quarters of the world in Buddhism. They are among the most frequently represented protective deities in Buddhist art across different traditions. In their standard iconographies developed in China popular during the Ming and Qing dynasties (1368–1911), they wear full armor, and each holds exclusive attributes—lute (pipa 琵琶), sword, snake, and parasol—from the east, south, west, to the north respectively. There is no direct textual base in the Chinese cannon for such iconographies. Neither can we find prototypes in India or central Asia. Indeed, how did this iconographic group develop in China? In the past, since the standard iconographies of the Four Heavenly Kings are clear, and identification is no problem, comprehensive in-depth study on this is lacking. Actually, those attributes came from a Tantric tradition related to Tibetan Buddhism filtered through the Xi Xia (1036–1227) and Yuan (1206–1368). What revealed in the development of this iconography is the complex relationship among the Tibetan, Tanguts, Mongols, and Chinese Buddhism.

The Four Heavenly Kings, called Sida Tianwang 四大天王 in Chinese, are the guardians of the four quarters of the world in Buddhism. They are Dhṛtaraṣtra of the East, Virūḍhaka of the South, Virūpākṣa of the West, and Vaiśravaṇa of the North; In Sanskrit, they are referred to as Dikpāla “Guardians of Directions”, Lokapāla “Guardians of the World”, or Cāturmahārāja the “Four Great Kings.” Each of these terms describes their nature and function. As a group, they are among the most frequently represented protective deities in Buddhist art across different traditions. In their standard iconography prevalent in China during the Ming (1368–1644) and Qing (1644–1911) dynasties, they wear full armor with blowing scarves, and they hold exclusive attributes—a lute (pipa 琵琶), a sword, a snake + jewel, and a parasol (zhuang 幢) + stupa—pertaining to the East, South, West, and North, respectively, as shown in in the ritual paintings (ca. 1460) called shuilu 水陆, or the “water and land” paintings in the Baoning Temple (Figure 1). However, such iconographies of the four deities have been absent in Indian Buddhist art, and they were not full-fledged in Chinese Buddhist art as standard until the Yuan dynasty (1206–1368). In the long history of Buddhist art in China since the sixth century, the Four Great Kings developed their costumes of armor and scarf, and the Heavenly King of the North came to hold a stupa, but all held only various generic weapons. In fact, it was not the Chinese tradition of the time for such high-ranking deities to hold things such as the lute, snake, and parasol, which would be regarded either powerful or graceful. In addition, there is no direct textual base in the scripture of the Chinese canon for such imagery. The closest texts that scholars have frequently cited are two Tibetan liturgies on Bhaiṣajyaguru translated into Chinese in the Yuan and Qing dynasties, respectively, the Bhaiṣajyaguru Rites 藥師琉璃光王七佛本願功德經念誦儀軌供養法 (T. 19.926)1 and the Bhaiṣajyaguru Maṇḍala 修藥師儀軌布壇法 (T. 19.928)2. As a result, scholars have long interpreted the formation of this iconography in China to have been influenced from Tibet (E. Matsumoto 1937, pp. 570–71; Murata 1954, pp. 86–67; Fisher 1995, pp. 17–24; Lin 2009, pp. 269–79). In extant Tibetan Buddhist art, images of the Four Heavenly Kings mostly follow the style and iconographies that were developed in China and are generally regarded as having been influenced by the Chinese tradition. Indeed, how did this iconographic group really develop? Because the iconography and respective attributes of the Four Heavenly Kings in both China and Tibet are clear and scholarly identification of them is not in question, comprehensive in-depth studies of these standard iconographies have been lacking. Additionally, since the attributes as a set cannot be matched with Buddhist texts, scholars have tended to study individual attributes separately and their focus has been on early periods up to the tenth century (Dainobu 1991, pp. 8–92; Song Li 2002, pp. 105–41; Shim 2013; Shumin Li 2019). The current study is the first to concentrate on the formation of the entire set of attributes that has become the standard iconography the Four Heavenly Kings in China, and it pieces together its development by considering images and texts that have been previously overlooked. The attributes of the Four Heavenly Kings came from a Tantric tradition related to Tibetan Buddhism as filtered through the Xi Xia (1036–1227) and Yuan dynasties. Revealed in the development of this iconography is the complex relationship among Tibetan, Tangut, Mongol, and Chinese traditions of Buddhism, as well as the intricate match and mismatch between visual representations and texts.

1. Xi Xia Images: A New Set of Four Attributes of the Four Heavenly Kings

The four main attributes in the standard iconography of the Four Heavenly Kings in China—the lute, a sword, a snake, and a parasol—first appeared all together in Buddhist art in the Xi Xia/Tangut period in the twelfth century. Abundant Xi Xia paintings and sculptures were found at Dunhuang, Khara Khoto, and in pagodas at Baisikou 拜寺口 and Hongfo 宏佛. They manifest the syncretic and multifaceted nature of Xi Xia Buddhism, predominately the Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhist tradition and the Himalayan Tantric tradition (Kychanov 1993, pp. 55–57), with the focus shifting more toward Tibetan Buddhism from the middle of the twelfth century onwards, as shown in the Tibetan Buddhist canon translation project3. Accordingly, in Xi Xia Buddhist art there are two types of Four Heavenly King images, the Chinese style and the Tibetan style which came from the style of the Pāla (750–1161) period of India. In the Chinese style, the four gods wear armor and hold normal regular weapons which were common in China at the time4. It is in the Tibetan style that a new set of attributes was established. In addition, it is also during the Xi Xia period that this set of attributes and the armors and scarfs from the Chinese tradition began to coalesce.

These new attributes are evident in the following four paintings of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries excavated from Khara Khoto, now in the collection of The State Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg.

Figure 2 Bhaiṣajyaguru, late 12th–early 13th c. Khara Khoto, x-23325.

Figure 3 Bhaiṣajyaguru, late 12th–early 13th c. Khara Khoto, x-23356.

Figure 4 Eleven-headed Eight-armed Avalokiteśvara, 12th c. Khara Khoto, x-23557.

Figure 5 Śākyamuni Preaching the Prajñapāramitā, 13th c. Khara Khoto, x-23378.

The images of the four deities in these paintings are consistent in their overall appearance. They all wear Indian costume traditional for deities: a bare torso, a dhoti for the lower part of the body, and ornaments on a headdress and all over the body. Each deity can be distinguished by the color of the body and the specific object held… Dhṛtaraṣtra of the East in white plays a lute, Virūḍhaka of the South in blue upholds a sword, Virūpākṣa of the West in red has a snake in his hands but no jewel yet, and Vaiśravaṇa of the North in green holds a small pointed-shaped parasol. Vaiśravaṇa does not carry the stupa, the only fixed attribute of a Heavenly King, which had been established in Chinese Buddhist art by this time. There seems to be no particular order in their arrangement. In Figure 4 when the four deities are not in one row, they were not arranged according to the directions either.

The format and style of these paintings are thangkas in Tibetan Buddhist art. The cloth and headdresses of the Four Heavenly Kings are in Indian style and resemble closely the deity images in contemporaneous Buddhist art of the Pāla dynasty in India. The two different sets of iconographies and styles of the Four Heavenly King images in Xi Xia Buddhist art, Chinese and Tibetan, reflect the dual orientation of the Tangut rulers who simultaneously interacted politically, economically, and culturally with the Chinese and Sinicized states such as Liao and Jin in the East, and with the Tibetans and Inner Asians to the South, West and North. The extant Buddhist text repertoire of Xi Xia reflects a conscious effort to reproduce the entire corpus of Tibetan Buddhism available to the Tanguts in the mid-twelfth century. These comprise the doctrinal teachings associated with Atiśa (982–1052, Dīpaṃkara), and a textual tradition based on the Kagyupa conglomerate, combined with liturgies and meditation manuals of various origins (Solonin 2015, pp. 425–51; Solonin 2016, pp. 1–25). However, no images of the Four Heavenly Kings in Indian cloth holding four such attributes earlier than those in the Xi Xia paintings can be found in Tibet nor can they be found in extant art in India.

In the four Xi Xia paintings, the headdresses and clothes of the four deities all appear in Indian style. However, I also found two examples that show the merging of the Chinese and Tibetan tradition of the Four Heavenly King figures: painting on the twelfth–thirteenth century wooden stupa (Figure 6) (Auboyer and Béguin 1977, no. 32; Piotrovsky 1993, fig. 16, p. 137) and a frontispiece of Dao ming boruo boluomiduo jing (Piotrovsky 1993, fig. 73), which were both excavated from Khara Khoto.

On the stupa, Four Heavenly Kings are painted on the surface of the main body of the stupa. They are standing and wear armor. I cannot see their attributes clearly in the published photo. According to Kira Samosyuk’s description, the Heavenly King of the East is playing a lute, the Heavenly King of the South is holding a sword and a noose, the Heavenly King of the West has a jewel and snake, while the Heavenly King of the North is holding a trident in one hand and a stupa in the other (Piotrovsky 1993, p. 136). A snake pairing with a jewel is a standard combination in the iconography of the Heavenly King of the West in later Chinese Buddhist art. This is perhaps the earliest extant example of this combination. Trident and stupa have been the most common attributes of the Heavenly King of the North in China since the six century, as seen in Mogao Cave 285 (Figure 7). Here he is not holding the parasol.

In the frontispiece, the Four Heavenly Kings with armor are depicted at the four corners of an assembly of three Buddhas. The two figures on the front carry a parasol–mongoose and a sword, respectively. Unfortunately, the attributes of the two kings in the back are blocked by the crowds. The two examples from Xi Xia are all slightly different from the standard iconography of these deities in China as shown in Figure 1. The merging of the Chinese tradition with a new set of four attributes was complete by the Yuan dynasty.

2. Developed from the Tantric Tradition of Tibet

What is the direct source of the new iconography of the Four Heavenly Kings in Xi Xia Buddhist art? The four attributes in this new iconography are likely to be the result of combining two traditions, a tantric tradition of attributing the lute–sword–snake to the Heavenly Kings and an independent iconography of Vaiśravaṇa holding an umbrella. Both came to Xi Xia from Tibetan Buddhism. Among the four attributes, the sword has been one of the most common weapons held by the Heavenly King figures since the Sui (581–618) and Tang (618–907) periods in China. What distinguishes this new iconographic set is the lute, snake and pointed-shaped parasol, which eventually developed into a cylinder-shaped parasol. Individually, traces of the three can be seen in various tantric liturgies translated into Chinese in the Tang, and their separated representations occasionally appear in Buddhist art before the Xi Xia.

In the formation of the new set of four attributes, the lute, sword, and snake came together first during the ninth and tenth centuries before the parasol was included as of the twelfth century in Xi Xia Buddhist art. This is a tantric tradition through Tibetan transmission that was present in the northwest of China as evident in both images and manuscripts. Three examples can be found reflecting the lute–sword–snake stage of the attributes of the Heavenly Kings, two drawings on paper from the Dunhuang Library cave, now in the British Museum, and the ceiling painting in Mogao Cave 146. The two drawings are the Uṣṇīṣa Maṇḍala (Figure 8) of the end of the Tang (ca. the tenth century) and the Four-seal 四印 Maṇḍala (Figure 9) of the Five dynasties (907–960). The former is damaged on one corner, where the Heavenly King of the South is missing9. The latter is intact. In these two maṇḍalas, the Four Heavenly Kings are painted at the four corners. They wear armor in the Chinese style. The two paintings are identical in their Heavenly Kings’ attributes. The Heavenly King of the East holds a lute, the Heavenly King of the South holds a sword, the Heavenly King of the West holds a snake, and the Heavenly King of the North holds a club. These paintings have three of the four attributes of the later standard iconography in China. In the Chinese tradition, the image of the Heavenly King of the North has always been depicted holding up a stupa since the sixth century; however, again the stupa is absent in these paintings. The lute and sword attributes also appear in Heavenly King images depicted on the four corners of the ceiling in Mogao Cave 146 at Dunhuang of the Five Dynasties (Dainobu 1991, figs. 57, 58, 59, 60; Mi 2012, pp. 85–86). In this cave the Heavenly King of the West holds a noose, a length of coiled rope, which as I will discuss later is closely related to a snake. Depicting the Heavenly Kings at the four corners of the ceiling is a convention of cave paintings of this period at Dunhuang. They guard the space of the cave temple in the same manner as in a maṇḍala. Although these three are exceptional examples of Heavenly King images of this time, they demonstrate the presence of the lute–sword–noose arrangement in the northwest area before the four attributes came together in Xi Xia paintings.

The combination of the four attributes in the two maṇḍalas, lute–sword–noose with a club, although only in rare cases at the time, coincidently echoes a Tibetan tantric text, Sarvadurgatipariśodhana Tantra, or Elimination of all Evil Destinies10, which was translated into Tibetan from Sanskrit by the Indian teacher Śāntigarbha 寂藏 and Tibetan Lo tsa ba Jayarakṣita 胜护 in the late eighth century and revised by Rin chen mchog 仁钦乔 before 863. The text was translated again in the twelfth century11. Various Sanskrit manuscripts of this text were found in Nepal with the earliest dated to the seventeenth century. For the part including the description of the maṇḍala of the Four Heavenly Kings, the two Tibetan translations are similar.12 According to Skorupski’s careful comparison, the Tibetan versions are rather reliable translations of the Sanskrit text. The Sanskrit version matches with the second Tibetan translation (Skorupski 1983, pp. xvii–xxviii). The text describes 11 or 12 maṇḍalas, including the maṇḍala of the four Lokapāla, which is articulated in the following passage, translated from the twelfth-century Tibetan version and the Sanskrit version.

Vaiśravaṇa, holding in his hands a mace and a mongoose, adorned with jewel ornaments seated firmly on a lion seat, golden in colour and looking splendid… In front of the Lord he should draw Dhṛtarāṣṭra intent on playing a vīṇā (Indian lute). He is beautiful, dark green in colour and adorned with all ornaments. The right he should draw the Hero Virūḑhaka hold a sword, and to the west Virūpākṣa holding the best Vajra-noose, conspicuous for his red eyes and having seven snake hoods.

(Skorupski 1983, pp. 46–48)

Dhṛtarāṣṭra of the East plays a lute. Virūḑhaka of the South holds a sword. Virūpākṣa of the West is crowned with seven snake hoods and holds a noose, and Vaiśravaṇa of the North holds a mace. Such a description is very close to the images in the Uṣṇīṣa Vijayā Maṇḍala and Four-seal Maṇḍala. The eighth-century Tibetan translation describes the same attributes with only a minor variant that the Northern King holds a jewel-club instead of a mace (Derge Kangyur No. 483.85.1.116). In Indian art, the jewel-generating mongoose is the attribute of Kubera, whose alternative name is Vaiśravaṇa in Buddhism. Furthermore, the color association with the Heavenly Kings, which was absent in the eighth century Tibetan translation, appears in the later translation. Correspondingly, color did not become important to the Heavenly King images in China until the twelfth century in the Xi Xia paintings.

The Sarvadurgatipariśodhana Tantra is a liturgical text that describes homa, or a fire ritual, used as death rites to ensure a satisfactory rebirth. The ritual can also tranquilize evil influences, secure prosperity and overcome foes of all kinds. Since it is associated with a death rite, the text is of great importance and was widely used; it is regarded as the second and the third chapter of the Vajraśekhara Tantra 金剛頂經 (Tanaka 1987, p. 251; Shiro 1978, pp. 1–2) or Sarvatathāgata Tattvasaṃgraha Tantra 金剛頂一切如來真實攝大乘現證大教王經 in full title and is a fundamental Tantra text. Because of its importance, the text has been well studied in Tibetan Buddhist scholarship, but it has not drawn much attention in studies of the Chinese Four Heavenly Kings images.

Both the Uṣṇīṣa Maṇḍala and Four-seal Maṇḍala are encompassed in the Sarvadurgatipariśodhana Tantra. In the old Tibetan translation, the Vairocana Maṇḍala is the first maṇḍala of the Sarvadurgatipariśodhana Tantra; whereas the Nine Uṣṇīṣa Maṇḍala (or Pariśodhana Maṇḍala) was inserted as the first maṇḍala in the later translation (Skorupski 1983, pp. 1–10; Tanaka 2000, p. 95). The Four seals are described in part I of the text. Thus it is no surprise that the Heavenly Kings in the aforementioned paper drawings of these two maṇḍalas were painted with the iconography described in the Sarvadurgatipariśodhana Tantra. The primary purpose of the Uṣṇīṣa Maṇḍala is to eliminate all bad karma and bad rebirths, and it was quite popular throughout the Chinese, Tibetan, Mongolian and Nepalese traditions. The Four-seal Maṇḍala was also essential and became the fifth of the nine mandalas of the Vajradhātu Maṇḍala.

The Sarvadurgatipariśodhana Tantra must have been well circulated in the Dunhuang area. Manuscripts of the text (Stain No. 579, P.T.37) and two related maṇḍala drawings (Pelliot Chinois No. 3937 and Pelliot Tibetan No. 389) were found in Dunhuang. These manuscripts and maṇḍala drawings are very close to the two Tibetan translations in the Tibetan canon (Wang 2014, pp. 84–85). In addition, the Nine Uṣṇīṣa Maṇḍala in the Sarvadurgatipariśodhana Tantra system was painted in Yulin Cave 3 (Xi Xia) in Dunhuang (Tanaka 2012, pp. 155–60).

Clearly, such iconographies of the Four Heavenly Kings described in the Sarvadurgatipariśodhana Tantra came from a tantric tradition in India. The importance and prevalence of the text in India is reflected by the presence of a great number of commentaries on the text by Indian masters such as Buddhaguhya (eighth century), Ānadagarbha (d. 936), and his teacher Vajravarman (Skorupski 1983, pp. 6–9). It is essential to call forth deities to guard the ritual ground in different directions in the Vedic ritual tradition. As guardians of the four cardinal directions, the Four Heavenly Kings are common to all rites or comprehensive maṇḍalas. In liturgies, descriptions of the Heavenly Kings vary greatly from text to text,13 since they never had exclusively definitive attributes from the start. It is in the Sarvadurgatipariśodhana Tantra that the lute, sword, and noose/snake come together. The lute and noose also occasionally appear independently in other tantric ritual texts. Mirroring such phenomena in the textual tradition, a few images of the Heavenly King in Dunhuang cave paintings hold the lute or noose/snake, especially after Tibetans occupied the area.

The convention of Dhṛtarāṣṭra holding a lute appears in a tantric text translated into Chinese as early as the early eighth century in the Uṣṇīṣa Vijaya Yoga Rites 尊勝佛頂脩瑜伽法軌儀, whose Chinese translation was attributed to Śubhakarasiṃha 善無畏 (717–735). In this manual, the guardian of the East in the gods of the ten directions is Dhṛtarāṣṭra,14 and he holds a lute15. The earliest extant representation of the lute-playing Dhṛtarāṣṭra is in the painting of the Thousand-armed Avalokiteśvara in Dunhuang Mogao Cave 361 (Figure 10) (Dunhuang Yanjiuyuan 1999–2005, vol. 10, fig. 46), which was completed in the first half of the ninth century when Dunhuang was under the occupation of Tibetans (Guo 2009, pp. 143–74). In at least two instances, the lute was held by the Heavenly King of the East, in the ceiling painting at Dunhuang during the tenth century, e.g., Mogao Caves 146 and 55 (Dainobu 1991, fig. 57; Mi 2012, pp. 85–86).

Occasionally, the noose is mentioned as an attribute of the Heavenly King of the West in Buddhist liturgies, such as the Dhāraṇīsaṃgrabha Sutras 佛說陀羅尼集經 (634–635)16 and Step-by-step Ritual Procedures of Thousand-armed Avalokiteśvara 千手觀音造次第法儀軌 (seventh-eighth centuries)17. A noose is a standard attribute of Hindu gods and figures in Tantra Buddhism, but not in Chinese culture. Although it was introduced into China in the Dhāraṇīsaṃgrabha Sutras as early as the seventh century, it did not become a common attribute of the Heavenly King images. Only a very small number of images of a Heavenly King holding a noose are found in Chinese Buddhist art before the Yuan dynasty. The earliest is the painting in Mogao Cave 285 (538) at Dunhuang (Figure 7)18 (Lin 2009, p. 271). A few other examples are Dunhuang paintings of the tenth century and the painting of the Thousand-armed Avalokiteśvara (MG17775) dated to 943 of the Five Dynasties from the Dunhuang library cave (Figure 11) (W. Zhang 2000, p. 147).

Why suddenly the inclusion of an unconventional lute and snake/noose? As discussed below, a noose is closely associated with a snake. All these attributes, even including the mace in the Sarvadurgatipariśodhana Tantra, make sense in the tradition of assigning gods to guard different directions that dates back to Indian religious traditions with long histories associated with Vedic rituals. The Buddhist idea of the Four Heavenly Kings is only one branch of this tradition (Wessels-Mevissen 2001, pp. 4–17). In Hinduism, Indra normally guards the East, Yama guards the South, Varuṇa guards the West and Kubera guards the North. The gods of the ten directions that often appear in Buddhist ritual texts reflect the set of such directional gods in Hinduism.

Indra, as the god of all gods, has Gandharvas serve as his musicians in his heaven; and in Buddhist texts, Dhṛtarāṣṭra of the East is defined as the lord of Gandharvas. In the ritual text descriptions and visual depictions, the guardians of directions are often attended by their subjects, and Gandharvas with musical instruments, among which the lute is commonly included, follow Dhṛtarāṣṭra. Dhṛtarāṣṭra’s lute is likely derived from his subject Gandharvas (Murata 1954, p. 67).

The Hindu counterpart of the Buddhist Heavenly King of the West is Varuṇa, god of water. Nāga is a serpent god associated with water in Indian mythology. In the Buddhist tradition, the Heavenly King of the West, Virūpākṣa, is defined as the lord of Nāgas. In Hindu tradition, Varuṇa’s attribute is a noose, or pāśa in Sanskrit (Mahābhārata, 2.8–11; Agniuurāṇa, 51.14–15, 56.17–31, 260.65–261.23; Viṣṇudharmottara-purāṇa, 2.104.42b-50a; Bṛhatsaṃhitā, 58.42:57). In images and Buddhist texts, Virūpākṣa’s noose appeared earlier than the snake. Due to his correlation with Nāga, the Western Heavenly King’s noose was transformed into a snake in some iconographic traditions (Murata 1954, p. 67). When held in a hand, the shapes of a snake and noose also resemble each other.

In Chinese translations of ritual texts, two texts are found in which the term snake appears, all in combination with the noose. In the description of the ten-directional gods in the Uṣṇīṣa Vijaya Yoga Rites 尊勝佛頂脩瑜伽法軌儀 (eighth century) (T. 973: 379b), Varuṇa of the West holds longsuo 龍索, or a dragon-noose. “Long” 龍, or dragon, is used in the Chinese translation for the term Nāga. Finally in the Tibetan ritual text Bhaiṣajiaguru Maṇḍala 修藥師儀軌布壇法, translated into Chinese by ngag-dbang grag-pa 阿旺扎什 in 1824, Virūpākṣa’s attribute became a snake–noose, or she suo 蛇索19. According to these texts, Virūpākṣa’s attribute is not simply a snake, but snake–noose or dragon–noose, a term that encompasses both concepts, Nāga and noose.

The snake-hood mentioned in the Sarvadurgatipariśodhana Tantra is the typical appearance of Nāga. The snake-hood is not a normal part of the iconography of the Heavenly Kings in Buddhism. I can find one such image of the Heavenly King of the West, in the previously mentioned painting, the Thousand-armed Avalokiteśvara in Dunhuang Mogao Cave 361 (Figure 10). The Heavenly King in the lower left corner has seven snakes about his head in the halo20. He sits on a Makara, a mythical animal in water. Makara is the most common vehicle of Varuṇa, the guardian of the West in Hinduism.

In the twelfth-century Sarvadurgatipariśodhana Tantra, Vaiśravaṇa holds in his hands a mace, or gadā, which is the most common attribute of Kubera in Hindu tradition (Agniuurāṇa, 51.14–15, 56.17–31, 260.65–261.23; Matsyapurāṇa 260.65–261.23; Viṣṇudharmottara-purāṇa, 2.104.42b-50a). The term is sometimes translated into club. In the eighth-century Sarvadurgatipariśodhana Tantra (140-1-8~140–3-8), Vaiśravaṇa is described holding a club (བེ་ཅོན) (Derge Kangyur No. 483.85-1-116b). In shape, Indian gadā/mace is close to a club. In the Chinese translation, Vaiśravaṇa’s gadā is called bao chu 寶杵, or bejeweled club. Image of a club with one end big and decorated with jewels was invented in Chinese Buddhist art. Like the other weapons commonly used as attributes, it indicates fierce protection.

How to explain the parasol? In the liturgies on the Four Heavenly Kings translated into the Chinese canon, there is no mention of the parasol as an attribute of the Heavenly King of the North. Even in the two liturgies on Bhaiṣajyaguru Buddha, Bhaiṣajyaguru Rites and Bhaiṣajyaguru Maṇḍala, which scholars cite as the closest textual references for the lute–sword–noose–parasol attribute set, Vaiśravaṇa holds a trident in the former21 and a jewel-spouting mongoose in the latter22. In the Chinese Buddhist texts solely on Vaiśravaṇa, which include the Vaiśravaṇa Heavenly King Sutra 毗沙門天王經 (tr. Amoghavajra, T. 1245) and four ritual texts on Vaiśravaṇa all attributed to Amoghavajra,23 the parasol is also absent. In the Tibetan canon however there are ten ritual texts on Vaiśravaṇa (Tanaka 1990, p. 226), and among them, parasol-holding Vaiśravaṇa appears in Accomplishing Method of Vaiśravaṇa 毗沙門天王成就法 (Beijing Tibetan Canon no. 4556).24 A more direct reference to the Xi Xia paintings would be the Duowentian shishi yigui 多聞天王施食儀軌 Vaiśravaṇa Rites for Offering Food, a tantric manuscript from Khara Khoto. The text describes a maṇḍala of Vaiśravaṇa with eight protective deities called horse kings. In this text, Vaiśravaṇa is described as holding a bejeweled parasol and riding a blue–green lion.

當尊天王, 黃色一面二臂, 右手持七寶幢, 左手鼠狼袋，乘青師子，請在蓮花心中。

The honored Heavenly King is yellow [in] color, one-faced, and two-armed. He holds a parasol decorated with seven jewels in his right hand and mongoose bag in his left hand. He rides on a blue lion. Please invite him to the center of the lotus flower.

(Shi et al. 1996–2011, vol. 4, p. 282)

Two paintings of Vaiśravaṇa maṇḍala with eight horse kings are extant from Khara Khoto (Piotrovsky 1993, pp. 220–27, figs. 55 & 56). A Vaiśravaṇa maṇḍala is also painted in Dongqianfodong 東千佛洞 Cave 5 (C. Zhang 2014, p. 42, fig. 5-2-2; Cang 2011, p. 41, fig. 2-20) at Guazhou near Dunhuang, dating from the Xi Xia period, and this cave painting follows closely the iconography described in the Vaiśravaṇa Rites for Offering Food (Cang 2011, pp. 40–44). The imagery of riding on a lion and holding a parasol is one of the iconographies of Vaiśravaṇa in Tibetan Buddhist art that is known for encompassing both Central Asian and Chinese traditions (Xie 2001, p. 149). Khara Khoto has also yielded an independent painting of Vaiśravaṇa (X-22461) (Piotrovsky 1993, pp. 218–19, fig. 54). In all these Xi Xia paintings, Vaiśravaṇa holds a parasol. Unlike other Heavenly Kings, Vaiśravaṇa has had an independent cult, and separate images of him apart from the group of Heavenly Kings were developed in Khotan, Tibet, and China. It appears that the parasol of Vaiśravaṇa was first established in this independent rite and iconographies of Vaiśravaṇa derived from Tibetan tantric tradition were then incorporated into the grouped images of the Four Heavenly Kings in Xi Xia Buddhist art.

The Buddhist liturgies do not provide any explanation as to why Vaiśravaṇa holds a parasol.25 Nonetheless, we can see how this attribute was developed in both the visual representations and textual traditions. In visual representations, Vaiśravaṇa’s attribute went through a series of changes—from a trident, banner, and then to the parasol. In Dunhuang, a new iconography of independent images of Vaiśravaṇa transmitted from Khotan, called the Douba 兜跋 Vaiśravaṇa image in Japan, became popular since the Tibetan occupation period (786–848). According to some Japanese scholars, the word douba comes from tubbat, the ancient Turkic language, meaning Khotan; and other scholars regard the word as a transliteration of tobo 吐蕃, the ancient Chinese term for Tibet (E. Matsumoto 1937, p. 445). During this time period the Tibetans also occupied Khotan, from 790 to the mid-ninth century. In short, this is a Tibetan-style Vaiśravaṇa image from Khotan and it was introduced into China and Japan.26 Shown in the wall painting in Mogao Cave 154 (mid-Tang) (E. Matsumoto 1937, vol. II, fig. 119b; Dunhuang Yanjiuyuan 1999–2005, vol. 2, p. 225, fig. 227), in this new iconography, Vaiśravaṇa wears a five-paneled crown,27 a new type of armor, and he stands on the earth goddess. As one of the new elements, a banner was added to Vaiśravaṇa’s pole weapon (Figure 12). It can be a triangle- or rectangle-shaped flag, or a long overhanging banner with sashes. This is called fan 幡 in Chinese, or banner. Both banner and parasol are ceremonial objects often used in Buddhist rites. In those Xi Xia paintings and images of the Yuan period, a pointed-shaped parasol replaced the banner. Finally in the Ming dynasty, the parasol was transformed into a cylinder shape with a flat top (Figure 1).

In early liturgies in the Chinese canon, a generic term zhang 仗, or ceremonial pole, which can include the banner and parasol, appears in the Amoghapāśa lokeśvara Dharani 不空羂索多羅尼自在王呪經. The text describes that Vaiśravaṇa and Vajrapaṇī shall hold an object (qi 器) and a ceremonial pole (zhang 仗).28 The text was translated into Chinese by Ratnacinta 寶思惟 after he came to China from Kaśmīra in 693. Perhaps some form of ceremonial pole came into the iconography of Vaiśravaṇa in India from a place such as Kaśmīra in the seventh century. The banner in independent paintings of Vaiśravaṇa in Dunhuang since the eighth century reflects such movement. The ceremonial pole specifically became a parasol in certain ritual traditions, as seen in the translations into Tibetan of Accomplishing Method of Vaiśravaṇa 毗沙門天王成就法 and Tangut Vaiśravaṇa Rites for Offering Food 多聞天王施食儀軌.

The Sarvadurgatipariśodhana Tantra does not specify the costumes worn by the Heavenly King figures. In the three aforementioned pre-Xi Xia paintings, they wear armor as in the Chinese style of the Heavenly King images. Finally in the Yuan dynasty, all the elements in the standard iconography of the four deities were coming together.

3. Yuan Images: A New Iconography in China and Tibet

Xi Xia was a state located in the northwest of China. It is in the Yuan dynasty that the new iconography of the Heavenly Kings, which combined the new set of attributes with the Chinese style armor and scarf, became the established iconographic standard for this subject in China. This new iconography of the Four Heavenly Kings, in turn, exerted great impact on Tibetan Buddhist art. In China and with further Sinicization, the new set of attributes came to be well accepted by the Ming dynasty and replaced the previous ones in visual representations of the Heavenly Kings.

The extant images of the full-fledged and now standard iconography of the Four Heavenly Kings of the Yuan include the well-cited reliefs on the stupa at the Juyongguan 居庸關 Pass (Figure 13) (Murata 1954, figs. 25, 26, 27 & 28), and a number of lesser-known frontispieces for Buddhist texts. All are related to Tibetan Buddhist tradition during the Yuan.

The well-known Juyongguan Stupa was commissioned by the emperor Yuan Shundi (1320–1370) of the Yuan dynasty in 1342. Juyongguan Pass is one of the three most strategic mountain passes of the Great Wall in China. Located over 50 km northwest of Beijing, it connects the inner land with the Mongolian steppe. The stupa project was led by two Prime Ministers, and Tibetan masters were involved in its sophisticated design. The Buddhist images on the stupa have long been recognized for their Tibetan style by modern scholars (Murata 1954, pp. 28, 55–70; Su 1996, pp. 338–64). As part of the whole iconographic program, the Four Heavenly Kings are depicted on the walls, two on each side, in exactly the same arrangement as in the Hall of Heavenly Kings of a Chinese Buddhist temple.

These are very animated and powerful images of these gods that, by their general appearance and attributes, are very close to the Baoningsi paintings shown Figure 1; they represent the now-standard way of presenting Chinese Heavenly King images that has persisted to the present day. The Heavenly Kings are shown sitting on Yakṣas and flanked by attendants. They wear full armor, with full-blown scarves. They have their signature wrathful expressions on their faces. Such overall appearance of the deities and the format of the full entourage resemble those at the ceiling corners of Dunhuang of the tenth century which can be traced back to the images on the gilt silver reliquary (dated to 838) excavated from Famensi Temple near Xi’an, the capital of the Tang (Famensi Bowuguan 1994, p. 131). As we have seen, it is a format of the Heavenly King images that emerged in central China in the mid-Tang period (781–847) and was once popular at Dunhuang. Each figure wears the Buddha-crown, which is another important feature that appeared in many later images of the Heavenly Kings under Tibetan influence. In various instances, the crown can be in either five panels or in the shape of a mountain such as the mountains at the Juyongguan Pass. The mountain-shaped crown also first appeared in Chinese Buddhist art in the mid-Tang, especially in the new iconography of Variśravaṇa from Khotan or Tibet. In the Tang and Five Dynasties, this crown has no Buddha image on it; from the Yuan dynasty onward, Buddha images are sometimes depicted on the crown, a convention from Tibetan Buddhist art.

As previously discussed, the attributes carried by the Four Heavenly Kings follow the Tibetan tradition shown in the Xi Xia paintings. Kings of the East, South, West and North hold a lute, sword, snake + jewel, and parasol + mongoose, respectively. It is commonly acknowledged in Buddhist texts that Vaiśravaṇa of the North is Kubera, the god of wealth in Indian mythology. A jewel-generating mongoose on his lap is his standard attribute. Mongoose is mentioned in the Sarvadurgatipariśodhana Tantra cited above (Xie 2014, p. 73). Images of Vaiśravaṇa in Tibetan Buddhist art are well-known for absorbing iconographic attributes from Kubera. A wall painting of the mongoose-carrying Vaiśravaṇa is in the antechamber near the doorway of Yulin Cave 15 at Dunhuang. The cave was carved in the mid-Tang, the period of the Tibetan occupation at Dunhuang. The Vaiśravaṇa image in this cave is an early example of Vaiśravaṇa in the iconography of Kubera in Tibetan art that has survived in the northwest of China (Xie 2008, pp. 54–59).

A number of the frontispieces of the Buddhist canon printed in the Yuan dynasty show the Heavenly King images in the new iconography, and some are dated earlier than images at Juyongguan such as in the Puning Canon 普甯藏 (1277–1290)29, Qisha Canon磧砂藏 (1216–ca. 1322)30, and Xi Xia Canon 西夏文藏 (completed in 1302)31, the Official Canon the Yuan (Yuanguanzang 元官藏). Represented by one frontispiece (Figure 14) (dated to 1239) used in the Qisha Canon, the Four Heavenly Kings images in the aforementioned examples in the Puning, Qisha, and Xi Xia canons are consistent in appearance and attributes. They hold a lute, sword, snake, and umbrella + mongoose, respectively. As in the Xi Xia thangka paintings excavated from Khara Khoto, no jewel is held by Virūpākṣa of the West and no stupa by Vaiśravaṇa of the North and the four figures are not arranged on the page according to their associated directions. Conversely, in the frontispiece of the Avataṃsaka Sutra (1330–1336) in the Official Canon of the Yuan, Virūpākṣa holds a snake in one hand and a jewel in the other hand, and Vaiśravaṇa holds a stupa in addition to an umbrella (Zhongguo Banhua Quanji Bianji Weiyuanhui 2008, fig. 159). Furthermore, the four are arranged in line with the cardinal directions, their standard placement in Heavenly Kings Halls in Chinese Buddhist temples, although variations very often occur. Finally the standard iconography of the Chinese Four Heavenly Kings has been formulized.

These frontispiece prints are distinct by their Tibetan style (Chia 2016, pp. 193–204). These canon printing projects involved not only Tibetan monks, such as the Imperial Preceptor ’Phags-pa (Ch. Basiba 八思巴, 1225–1280), but also Tangut monks such as Shaluoba 沙囉巴 (1259–1314), Yang Lianzhenjia 楊璉真佳 (late thirteenth century), as well as Guan Zhuba 管主八. All three held official positions supervising Buddhist institutions in the Jiangnan area.

It is not a coincidence that Vaiśravaṇa’s mongoose and the other Heavenly Kings’ attributes on the stupa at the Juyongguan Pass are related to the Sarvadurgatipariśodhana Tantra, and all four attributes of the Heavenly Kings here can be linked to the Xi Xia tradition. According to Xie Jisheng’s analysis, the entire decoration of the stupa is a very complex iconographic program that incorporates both Mahāyāna iconographies popular in China at the time and Tantric iconographies from the Xi Xia and Tibetan traditions. Relating to the current topic here, the five maṇḍalas32 on the ceiling of the stupa include two maṇḍalas described in the two Tibetan translations of the Sarvadurgatipariśodhana Tantra: the Vairocana Maṇḍala in the early translation at the southern end and the Nine Uṣṇīṣa Maṇḍala in the later translation on the northern end of the ceiling. The Buddha images on the crowns of the Four Heavenly Kings are Buddhas of the four directions. They join Vairocana in the Three-Buddha group on the top of the stupa and the Five-Buddha group on the ceiling to form a five-Buddha maṇḍala in the Vajradhātu system. In addition, various protective formulae (dharaṇī) such as the Uṣṇīṣa Vijayā Dharaṇī and Tathāgatahṛdaya Dhāraṇī were inscribed on wall of the stupa in six different languages33. All these explicitly express the functions of the stupa: protecting all people who pass through the stupa and all sentient beings, freeing them from bad rebirths and being reborn in the Buddha’s world34 (Xie 2014, pp. 49–80). The Sarvadurgatipariśodhana Tantra is a popular text for just such a purpose.

It should be noted that the people who were in charge of the stupa construction project at Juyongguan Pass and the canon printing were related to the people of Xi Xia. In fact, a number of such big projects of the Yuan were constructed by Xi Xia descendants (Xie 2014, pp. 50–51). After the Mongol conquest of the Tanguts many Tangut officials were employed by the Yuan court and worked throughout China because of their knowledge of both the Chinese and Tibetan cultures and languages (Kychanov 1968, p. 326). They were regarded as the privileged caste of semu people (Central Asians or those from further West) by Mongol rulers during the Yuan dynasty. By the late Yuan dynasty the strong cultural affinities between Mongols and Tanguts were explicitly recognized.

Yuan Buddhism is distinct for its adoption of Tibetan Buddhism, which has traditionally been ascribed almost solely to the missionary activities of Tibetan clerics, and there was a dominating Nepalese-style-based tradition in Yuan Buddhist art allegedly established within the Yuan Imperial workshops by Anige 阿尼哥 (also known as Aniko and Arniko/Araniko) (1245–1306)35. Recent scholarship has revealed the Xi Xia background of Tibetan Buddhism in Mongolia and Yuan China.36 The Mongols’ patronage of Tibetan Buddhism started in the former Xi Xia territories decades before 1271, the formal establishment of the Yuan Dynasty. Xi Xia state patronage offered a powerful precedent for Yuan Dynasty Buddhist art. Xi Xia art contributed a well-developed pictorial and thematic vocabulary that was then employed by the Mongols, at the Juyongguan Pass, Wutai Mountains, Feilaifeng Mountain, and at the Dunhuang Buddhist cave site. What was absorbed into Buddhist art of the Yuan was a largely Pāla Indian style as filtered through the Xi Xia people. Stylistic studies demonstrate that Yuan and early Ming Sino-Tibetan art are an evolution of this artistic tradition developed in northwest area under the Xi Xia rule and are not directly derived from the art of Nepal and Tibet (Linrothe 1995, pp. 250–51, 255–57, 261–62; Xie 2014, p. 51; Khokhlov 2016).

Following the Xi Xia example, the Mongols became great patrons who bestowed enormous expenditures on religious paraphernalia and art. Such objects flooded to Tibetan lamas as donations for performing rituals and teachings. Eventually Yuan aesthetics became popular even in Tibetan art, and an increasing presence of Chinese stylistic elements is seen in Tibet from the fourteenth century onwards (Khokhlov 2016). With such a trend, the new iconography of the Four Heavenly Kings, as seen at Juyongguan Pass, flourished in Tibet as part of the Chinese influence and it also became the standard iconography with which to depict the Heavenly Kings in Tibet. In Tibet, the Heavenly Kings are commonly painted as protective deities in thangkas and at the entrances of Buddhist temples in ways similar to Chinese temples.

Chinese Buddhist art arrived in Tibet with the Wencheng Princess (born 620) in the year 641. As recorded in textual references and following the convention of Chinese temples, sculptures of the Four Heavenly Kings were established in the corridor near the doorway to the main hall at the Jokhang Temple in Lhasa patronized by Songtsen Gampo (reign: ca. 618–650) and the Wencheng Princess. The Samye temple, built in 775, also has the Four Heavenly King images in the Chinese style (Xie 2001, p. 147, fn. 33). Theoretically, the old weapon-holding Chinese iconography of the Four Heavenly Kings and the new iconography with Indian-style dhoti cloth as in the Xi Xia paintings should both be present in early Tibetan Buddhist art. However, no such early images have survived. Two thangka paintings that preserved early iconographic features of the Four Heavenly Kings can be found. A thangka of Śākyamuni Buddha (Figure 15) from a Kagyu monastery in central Tibet and dated to the early thirteenth century, now in a private collection, has the Four Heavenly Kings wearing armor and holding standard weapons, sword, bow and arrow, and trident (Kossak and Singer 1999, p. 87, fig. 16); and a thangka of the Sarvavid Vairochana Mandala of the Sakya order from central Tibet dated to the late fifteen and early sixteen centuries (Figure 16) shows the Four Heavenly Kings with Indian style headdresses, and armor is in an obscure, non-standard style (Rhie et al. 1999, p. 434, fig. 172). They carry a lute, sword, snake, and parasol, respectively. However, they also wear scarves which is a typical Chinese element in Buddhist art, as is the stupa carried by the Heavenly King of the West, not the North. The scarf and stupa motifs clearly indicate Chinese influence, although the stupa was assigned to a wrong figure. These two paintings are perhaps representative of other iconographic combinations before the Chinese-style lute–sword–snake–parasol iteration became predominant in Tibet.

Although the full-fledged iconography of the Heavenly Kings appeared in the Yuan, extant examples of the Four Heavenly Kings of the time are scarce, and the old iconographic tradition of these deities still continued during this period. For instance, the Huguosi 護國寺 temple in Hangzhou used to have a set of hanging scrolls of twenty Various Deities (or zhutian 諸天), which includes the Four Heavenly Kings. The original paintings did not survive; however, the essay praising this set of scrolls, Huguosi Yuanren Zhutian Huaxiang Zan 護國寺元人諸天畫像贊, describes the appearance of the deities in the paintings. As described in the praise, the Heavenly Kings of the East, South, West, and North hold a sword, bow and arrows, axe, and stupa, respectively.37 These were all common attributes in the depictions of the Four Heavenly Kings in China for centuries, during the Tang and Song (960–1279) dynasties.

Holding a lute, snake, or parasol is normal in Indian art, but it was not common in the Chinese culture of this time period for mighty armored generals to carry such objects. The Chinese reinterpreted them to make them meaningful. Finally, with the new symbolism, this new iconographic convention of the Heavenly Kings became widely prevalent in China in the Ming and Qing dynasties.

In Chinese popular culture, the attributes of the Four Heavenly Kings have come to symbolize feng tiao yu shun 風調雨順, or ‘good climate’. The Heavenly Kings of the South, East, North, and West, are said to be in charge of feng 風, tiao 調, yu 雨, and shun 順, respectively (Lu and Luan 2001, p. 810). Literally, feng means wind; tiao means harmonious; yu means rain; shun means soothing. Together feng tiao yu shun can be translated as the wind is harmonious and the rain is soothing, meaning a good climate. The Heavenly Kings are associated with feng tiao yu shun via their attributes. The sword has a blade, which can be called feng 锋 in Chinese, homophonic to the character feng 風, which means wind. The movement of playing a lute can be called tiao 調, a different meaning of the same character of tiao in the idiom feng tiao yu shun. The parasol is replaced by a related object, umbrella, which can be linked to the rain or yu. Absurdly, the snake/mongoose represents the character shun 順, or soothing. These inadequate, inexact connotations demonstrate that the symbolic meaning of feng tiao yu shun is a later fabrication imposed on the four attributes.

This idea is reflected in two extremely popular novels compiled in the middle-Ming, the sixteenth century, Investiture of the Gods 封神演義 and Journey to the West 西遊記, as well as in dramas (Bai 1984, pp. 77–80; Ma 2005, pp. 192–96). In the Investiture of the Gods, the identities of the Four Heavenly Kings are transformed from Indian deities into Chinese with Chinese names. They are described as four brothers called Mo Liqing 魔禮青, Mo Lihong 魔禮紅, Mo Lihai 魔禮海, and Mo Lishou 魔禮壽 of a demon family at the Jiamengguan 佳夢關 Pass. After they were defeated and died, in the end they were appointed by Jiang Ziya as the Buddhist Four Heavenly Kings.

Jiang Ziya said, “Now following the edict from the Highest Elder Lord and Lord of Primordial Beginning, … you are appointed with the positions of the Four Heavenly Kings to assist the teachings from the west, enable the earth, water, fire and wind manifest in form, protect the state and people in peace, and have the power to moderate the wind and soothe the rain (or fengtiao yushun 風調雨順)…

Virūḑhaka Heavenly King Mo Liqing, holds a blue-light sword, in charge of feng 風 (wind)

Dhṛtaraṣtra Heavenly King Mo Lihong, holds a green-jade lute, in charge of tiao 調

Vaiśravaṇa Heavenly King Mo Lihai, holds a Hunyuan pearl umbrella, in charge of yu 雨

Virūpākṣa Heavenly King Mo Lishou 魔禮壽, holds a purple-golden dragon-patterned mink, in charge of shun 順.”38

Through popular novels and dramas, the Four Heavenly Kings and their distinct attributes and their symbolic meaning of representing feng tiao yu shun became common knowledge in popular culture.

In the idiom feng tiao yu shun, the characters feng and yu (wind and rain) are nouns; whereas tiao and shun (harmonious and soothing) are adjectives. Logically, they are not four independent concepts that can be in charged by four figures respectively. Regardless how unconvincing of matching the Four Heavenly Kings with the four characters in the term feng tiao yu shun, the new meaning and function of this group of deities became widely spread in China. It adds understandable and desirable meanings to the Heavenly Kings’ attributes in Chinese culture. Good weather is critical to agriculture. In principle, the Heavenly Kings guard the world, which would include ensuring good weather. The Sutra of Four Heavenly Kings 佛說四天王經 states that when human beings are doing good deeds, and gods are happy, the stars and constellations move regularly (xingxu youchang 星宿有常), and winds and rains change properly according to the proper time, or in Chinese, fengyu shunshi 風雨順時 (T. 15: 590.118). The term fengyu shunshi is just an alternative expression of feng tiao yu shun for good weather. Therefore, in a way, the symbolism of “good weather” as developed in Chinese popular culture fits with the original role of the Four Heavenly Kings and does not radically alter the original descriptions of their functions in Buddhist texts.

4. Conclusions

In the standard iconography of the Four Heavenly Kings in China, the armor, the blowing scarf, and the stupa held by the Heavenly King of the North are old conventions established in China since the sixth century; whereas their specific attributes, the lute, sword, snake + jewel and parasol as a set, as well as the mountain-shaped or five-paneled crown—came from Tantric traditions. Although generally attributed to Tibetan Buddhism, this Tantric tradition became the state style in the Yuan dynasty through the Xi Xia people and was a combination of Tibetan tradition with local tradition in the northwest of China. According to Kirill J. Solonin, Tantric Buddhism was a strong component of popular Buddhism in northern China; it incorporated both Tibetan and Chinese elements, yet was partially independent from its Tibetan counterpart (Solonin 2008, p. 69). A new iconography of the Four Heavenly Kings developed in Yuan China, and this was in turn adopted into Tibetan Buddhist art as a Chinese influence. This process of transmission and change reveals an important aspect of late Chinese Buddhist art: The Tantric or Tibetan elements in Chinese images may not come directly from Nepal or even Tibet. Similar to recent refinements in the study of early Chinese Buddhist art, scholars had previously attributed origins of Chinese Buddhist images in early centuries more or less directly to Gandhāra or Mathura styles, but have since realized that the transmission is much more complicated and variants can extend in multiple directions back and forth.

This same dynamic is true of the complex relations that change over time between images and texts and the relative powers of image and word that work to create symbolic and spiritual content. A number of liturgies describe the iconographies of the Four Heavenly Kings; however, there is no direct match between the texts and the images of the four deities. The Tibetan translations of the Sarvadurgatipariśodhana Tantra and Accomplishing Method of Vaiśravaṇa, and the Tangut Vairiśravana Rites for Offering Food are essential to consider. Yet, there are also crucial steps in the formation of this iconographic set that are results of the merging of different image traditions. This inexactness is a common pattern in the history of Buddhist images.

The formation and transmission of the new iconography of the Four Heavenly Kings was not just about images and imaginations of several specific attributes. These processes were intimately tied to Buddhist practice, Buddhist history, and political history. The lute and the noose of the Four Heavenly Kings was once a very minor tradition in Buddhist art of the Tang and Five dynasties. However, due to the fact that the Sarvadurgatipariśodhana Tantra was used in death rites, this text and its Tantric imagery, including the iconography of the Four Heavenly Kings, became well spread along with the death rite. As one type of the iconography of the Four Heavenly Kings from the Xi Xia Tantric system, this iconography was adopted in the Yuan dynasty because of the Tanguts’ role at the Yuan court and Yuan’s embracing of Tibetan Tantric Buddhism. The Chinese reinterpretation of the four attributes that appear in this iconography are just part of the story of the general movement of the Sinification of Buddhism in China. The development of this iconography mirrors the histories and relationships between and among Tibetan, Tangut, Mongol, and Chinese Buddhism, and its eventual widespread acceptance as a standard reflects the outcome of the complex historical interaction of the arts and texts, the words and images, of their practitioners.