I have already suggested a possible reason why the origins of Silla's monastery with twin Pagodas remain unclear, namely, that previous research has focused on the three key words of Sacheonwangsa T emple, Buddhist monk Myeonglang, and the Scriptures of Esotericism. Therefore, I decided to resolve the fundamental problem by expanding the viewpoint to China, which is the origin of a monastery with two Pagodas, and then to Silla. T o that end, I have written this report by presenting the existing issues along with three pertinent questions, and then tried to provide answers to those questions. First, regarding the question of whether Silla's monastery with two stupas originates from that of China's Sui Dynasty, my answer is yes. However, it has been found that the monastery with two stupas built during the Sui Dynasty was not influenced by the Southern dynasty, as previously claimed by academic circles, nor did it suddenly emerge as a new style of temple during the Sui Dynasty. In other words, the monastery with two stupas made its official appearance during the late fifth century with the Huifu temple of the Northern Wei, and not during the Southern dynasty. Its construction style endured until sometime before the Northern dynasty, along with Sungyangsa and Y eongcheonsa T emples, while the complete form of two-stupa monastery finally appeared during the Sui Dynasty. Second, regarding the question about the background to the emergence of the Sui Dynasty's two-stupa temple, I contend that it is closely related to the unique political background of the Sui imperial family, in which the emperor and empress were praised as “two saints” . Interestingly, this concept of 'two saints' is also found in the story of Emperor Xiaowen of Northern Wei and his grandmother, Empress Dowager Feng, who were the inspiration for the construction of the Huifu T emple in Northern Wei. It is considered that the female imperial power lasting from the Northern Wei to the Sui Dynasty had its roots in the women-led social life of the nomadic tribes, which prevailed throughout certain eastern societies at that time. Third, regarding the question of the background to the emergence of Silla's monastery with two stupas, I contend that it was probably combined with Silla's notions of patriotism and reason. I have already pointed out in the report the fact that studies on Silla's two-stupa monastery were too focused on Sacheonwangsa T emple, the Buddhist monk Myeonglang, and the Scriptures of Esotericism, making it difficult to obtain a satisfactory explanation of the origins and appearance of Silla's monastery with two stupas. Therefore, I have suggested that the viewpoint of the study should henceforth be oriented towards Sacheonwangsa T emple, Gameunsa T emple, King Munmu, and Silla patriotism. I assume that King Munmu's intentions relating to his active and principal participation in the wars of unification clearly show that the construction of Sacheonwangsa T emple, for which the king offered his prayers, and of Gameunsa T emple, are closely related to Buddhist ideas about the defense of the country, which were prevalent at that time. In addition, I have paid attention to the fact that King Munmu visited Chang'an in China, and that he tried to raise his own position and the Silla royal family's prestige by worshiping his father King T aejong Muyeol after the unification of the peninsula. It seems highly likely that when King Munmu visited China, he became aware of the idea of the “two saints” and the two-stupa monastery, and incorporated them into the construction of the two temples (Sacheonwangsa and Gameunsa), which would have accelerated the appearance of the Silla-style two-stupa monastery.