The Bommō-kyō [or Brahmajāla-sūtra, the most important of the Mahāyāna Vinaya texts,] is a sūtra of the “open doctrine,” and by the Tendai School intimately associated with the Hoke-kyō. The most renowned commentary on it is written by Tendai Daishi. But Nichiren, as we have seen from his criticism of the Kai Ritsu Sect, rejected not only the two hundred and fifty Hinayāna precepts, but also the fifty-eight Mahāyāna precepts of the Bommō kai, and the interpretation of the Hinayāna śīlas in a Mahāyāna spirit. Moreover, he refused to acknowledge the ten precepts of the Yōraku-kyō that were approved of, together with the Bommō kai and the Hinayāna kai, by Tendai Daishi. Neither did Nichiren recognize the ten infinite precepts of the Kegongyō. For Nichiren, the only true and real kai or “the king of the śīlas,” was that of the Hoke-kyō, in which he distinguished the kai of the shakumon and the kai of the hommon, placing the latter over the former. He considered the ten heavy precepts taught in the Juryō hon of the hommon part of the Hoke-kyō as the acme of morality and as the only kai suitable for the Mappō time of “non-śīla.” He also made use of the promises referring to the attainment of buddhahood, contained in the Hōben hon in the Shakumon part.

In this context, the question arises of whether the intolerance of Nichiren is not in large measure a direct reflection of the spirit of the Hoke-kyō itself. This text is generally considered to be a mere didactic writing, impregnated with a serene mysticism that rises again and again to apocalyptic exuberance. However, there is also intermingled with it a decided polemic tendency, that in some places finds even passionate expression. Therefore the Hoke-kyō, this “book of peace and divine love,” can also be considered as an apocalyptic work, and as such it was apt to inflame the mind of a man like Nichiren, who by natural disposition was inclined to go to extremes. Moreover, we ought to remember that already in the early time of the Mahāyāna creed, the opinion was advanced by its propagandists that anybody who caused a schism in the community and infringed upon the foundations of belief might be killed, if the religion could not be saved otherwise. The interests of Buddhism as a whole are thereby placed higher than the life of the individuals; and the Mahāyāna teaching was advised not to shrink back from taking an individual life at a time when the existence of religion itself was at stake, and thus invalidating for a while the first and most important of the five precepts.