Scholars have called attention to the Shoshin kangaku shō (Encouraging beginners in study), a Muromachi period introductory text written and studied at the Senba dangisho. Under the heading “Oneness of the true and provisional teachings,” it reads:

Right at hand we have the transmissions passed down from virtuous teachers of the past, who have said, “The Lotus Sūtra itself has no essence. It takes as its essence the teachings expounded before it.” Nonetheless, in the present age, the followers of Nichiren profoundly revere only the Lotus and deeply reject the teachings expounded before it. This is a grave error. While the Lotus is indeed to be revered, to slander other sutras in fact destroys the intent of the Lotus. …

Question: In their repudiation of the provisional teachings, we find that the Nichiren followers cite as their proof texts these passages from [the “Skillful Means” chapter] of the Lotus: “Honestly discarding skillful means, I will expound only the unexcelled Way” and “[There is the Dharma of only one vehicle, there are not two or three,] excepting the Buddha’s preaching of skillful means.” How do you respond?

Answer: When one reads the character for “to discard” (sha) in “hon estly discarding skillful means” as “to place” (oku), then it means that the skillful means of the provisional teachings, just as they are, are placed within the Lotus. This being the case, the fact that the “Skillful Means” chapter is placed among the [sūtra’s] twenty-eight chapters expresses the meaning of skillful means being precisely true reality. As for “excepting the Buddha’s preaching of skillful means,” this is interpreted to mean that attachment to these teachings is to be removed, not the dharma-teachings themselves. In other words, one is simply to remove emotional attachment to the [notion of] skillful means expounded before the Lotus as provisional teachings.

The Kantō Tendai of Senba and Hokke positions on this issue can be seen as representing two poles in the interpretation of the notion of kaie, or the “opening and integration” of all other teachings into the one vehicle of the Lotus Sūtra. The Senba side, as represented in the above passage from the Shoshin kangaku shō, took this to mean that since all teachings are encompassed by the one vehicle, to practice other teachings is in effect to practice the Lotus Sūtra. This interpretation is sometimes termed “absolute integration” (or zettai kaie) and has enjoyed a prominent place in the history of Japanese Tendai thought. The Hokke side, on the other hand, maintained that Lotus is, quite simply, superior to all other teachings; when integrated into it, they lose their separate identity. This is the interpretation of “relative integration” (sōtai kaie) that Nichiren had emphasized. The idea that all practices may be understood as aspects of the one vehicle and are thus the practice of the Lotus Sūtra had been well established in Tendai circles since Heian times. The invocation “Namu-Amida-butsu,” for example, was often referred to as the “six-character Lotus Sūtra.” The fact that the scholars of Senba felt compelled to argue this already well established position in such detail suggests that they were being hard pressed by their Hokke counterparts. (Page 307-308)

Nichiren … grounded his concept of the single thought-moment comprising three thousand realms in actuality in the origin teaching or latter fourteen chapters of the Lotus Sūtra. Only the origin teaching, in his view, revealed the mutual inclusion of “original cause” (the nine realms) and “original effect” (the realm of Buddhahood). However, his later followers found it necessary to elaborate, on the basis he had established, the precise relationship that obtained between the dharmas of the origin teaching and of the trace teaching (honjaku ron). No debate over this issue appears in any authenticatable writing by the first generation of Nichiren’s followers, who were chiefly concerned with establishing the superiority of the Lotus Sūtra itself over other teachings. The controversy took shape in the Muromachi period and quickly became crucial to the self-definition of rival Hokke lineages. On this issue, the Hokkeshū divided broadly into two positions. Those who stressed the superiority of the origin teaching over the trace teaching were said to occupy the shōretsu (“superior versus inferior”) position, while those who emphasized the essential unity of the two represented the itchi (“unified”) position. Each comprised a number of variations. 9 Those who upheld the shōretsu position differed among themselves as to how the superiority of the origin teaching should be understood. Some said that its superiority lay in all fourteen chapters of the origin teaching; others held that it resided in the eight chapters that represent the assembly in open space presided over by Śākyamuni and Many Jewels seated side by side in the jeweled stūpa; or in the “Fathoming the Lifespan” chapter alone; or in the “Fathoming the Lifespan” chapter plus the latter part of the preceding “Emerging from the Earth” chapter and the first half of the subsequent “Discrimination of Merits” chapter (“one chapter and two halves”); or in the daimoku alone, and so forth. The itchi position was also variously argued. Some maintained that the origin and trace teachings were essentially one (ittai), arguing, for example, that, while a distinction exists between origin and trace teachings with respect to the capacity of the people for whom they were expounded, they are one in the Buddha’s intent; or that they are essentially one in being subsumed within the daimoku. Others held that the two teachings, while essentially different, were nonetheless inseparable (itchi), for example, in representing the inherent nature of enlightenment and its realization in the act of practice; or that the two are unified when the trace teaching is read in light of understanding of the origin teaching. Since very few scholars upholding the shōretsu position went so far as to reject the trace teaching entirely, and since most itchi proponents acknowledged the doctrinal superiority of the origin teaching, the two positions tended to shade off into one another, rather than remaining in absolute confrontation. On the whole, however, those holding the itchi position tended also to be more accommodating in their dealings with other religious traditions, while those committed to the shōretsu position were frequently uncompromising in upholding the exclusive devotion to the Lotus Sūtra through shakulmku and the rebuking of “slander of the Dharma.” (Page 304-305)

BEN AJARI NISSHŌ (1221-1323), the eldest of the six, was sixty-two at the time of Nichiren’s death. He was based at the Hokkeji, a temple he had established at Hamado in Kamakura, and, together with Daikoku Ajari Nichiro, headed the community of Nichiren’s followers in Kamakura. His lineage became known as the Nisshō or Hama monryū.

DAIKOKU AJARI NICHIRŌ (1245-1320) was based at the Myōhonji, which he had founded, in Hikigayatsu in Kamakura, and also headed the Honmonji in Ikegami. He is additionally regarded as the founder of the Hondoji at Hiraga in Shimösa. His followers were known as the Hikigayatsu or Nichirō monryū. Among his many talented disciples, Higo Ajari Nichizō (1269-1342) was the first monk of the Hokkeshū to preach Nichiren’s doctrine in Kyoto.

MINBU AJARI NIKŌ (1253-1314) was based in Mobara in Kazusa and later became the second chief abbot of Minobu (Nichiren is regarded as the first).

BYAKUREN AJARI NIKKO (1246-1333) was active in Suruga, Kai, and Izu. A disagreement between him and the aforementioned Nikō led in 1289 to the first schism among Nichiren’s followers. Nikkō established himself at Omosu near Fuji, and his line is called the Fuji monryū or Nikko monryū.

IYO AJARI NITCHŌ (1252-1317) was based at Mama and Wakamiya in Shimōsa, where he assisted the efforts of Nichijō (Toki Jōnin), originally a prominent lay supporter of Nichiren who had taken clerical vows after his death. Nitchō was Toki Jōnin’s adopted son. However, for reasons that are not clear, there was a break between the two, and Nitchō left the area around 1292, retiring to Omosu, where he joined Nikko. Nichijō’s line came to be known as the Nakayama lineage, after Nakayama in Shimōsa, where its main temple was located.

RENGE AJARI NICHIJI (1250-?) was based at Matsuno in Suruga. However, in 1295, he embarked on a journey, determined to spread Nichiren’s teaching beyond the confines of Japan, and is said to have traveled north to Hokkaido, crossing over into northern China and Manchuria. It has been argued that he did in fact reach Mongolia, but the evidence is inconclusive. (Page 302)