Some modern Tendai scholars such as Fukuda Gyōei and Kimura Shūshō have suggested that Saichō’s proposal that the Ssu fen lü ordination be used as an expedient was primarily a conciliatory gesture to the Nara monks. They have argued that once circumstances changed, the Tendai School could abandon provisional Hinayāna ordinations without violating Saichō’s proposals.

Their position ignored an important aspect of Saichō’s thought. In making his proposals, Saichō may also have been trying to reconcile some differences between his plan and the position of the Chinese Tien t’ai School. Chih-i and Chan-jan had maintained that if a candidate received the Hinayāna precepts with a Mahāyāna mind, he could observe those precepts as a Mahāyāna practitioner. Since the Ssu fen lü precepts ultimately were devised to lead people to Buddhahood, they potentially revealed that final goal. This explanation was called the kaie (revealing and harmonizing) interpretation of the precepts.

The term kaie refers to the One-vehicle teaching of the Lotus Sūtra. According to this teaching the Buddha’s statements about the Three Vehicles in other sūtras can all be revealed to be in harmony with the teaching of the one ultimate vehicle which leads to Buddhahood. Chih-i used the principle of kaie as a basic mode in his classifications of the Buddha’s teachings. All of the Buddha’s teachings, even Hinayāna doctrines, pointed towards and could be shown to potentially contain the Buddha’s final teaching, which was fully revealed in the Lotus Sūtra. When this teaching was applied to the precepts, it resulted in a rationale that enabled monks who considered themselves to be Mahāyāna Buddhists to observe the Ssu fen lü precepts. Although the precepts had Hinayāna origins, they could still be observed by Mahāyāna monks because they ultimately pointed towards Buddhahood.

In the Shijōshiki Saichō proposed that Tendai monks be ordained with the Fan wang precepts at the beginning of their twelve-year training period. He also asked that they be allowed to receive Ssufen lü ordinations at Tōdaiji after they had completed their training on Mount Hiei. Thus while the Fan wang ordination qualified the candidate to be a Tendai monk, the Ssufen lü ordination was taken only as an expedient measure to benefit other sentient beings, not for any spiritual qualification it might bestow on the Tendai monk. The Ssu fen lü ordination would enable Tendai monks to live in harmony with the monks of Nara and to avoid disputes over monastic discipline, seniority, or the procedures for holding assemblies. Because the Ssufen lü ordination did not qualify a person to be a Tendai monk and was taken primarily to smooth relations with other sentient beings, Saichö called it a ‘provisional Hinayäna ordination’ (keju shōkai).

Saichō died before the court had agreed to his proposals and thus never saw them put into effect. Administering Ssufen lü ordinations to Tendai monks proved to be unworkable and was quickly abandoned by his successors. After the bitter debates which had occurred between Saichō and the Nara schools, the monks of the two sides could not forget their differences so readily. The very concept of a provisional Ssufen lü ordination provoked heated arguments between the Tendai and Nara monks. The terms ‘provisional’ and ‘Hinayāna’ implied that the Ssu fen lü ordination was inferior.

If Saichō’s proposal for provisional Hinayāna ordinations had been adopted, it would have placed Tendai monks at a disadvantage in their relations with Nara monks.