[I]n the fifth month of 818, Saichō authored the first of a series of petitions to the court, the Rokujōshiki (Regulations in Six Articles):

Regulations For Tendai-Hokke Annually Allotted Students

What is the treasure of the nation? It is our religious nature. Thus those who have this religious nature are the treasures of the nation. Long ago a man said, “Ten large pearls do not constitute the nation’s treasure, but he who sheds his light over a corner of the country is the nation’s treasure.” A philosopher of old said, “He who can speak but not act is a teacher to the nation. He who can act but not speak is an asset to the nation. He who can both act and speak is a treasure to the nation. Aside from these three, he who can neither speak nor act is a traitor to the nation.”

Buddhists with religious minds are called bodhisattvas in the West, and gentlemen (chün tzu) in the East. They take the bad upon themselves in order to benefit others. This is the height of compassion.³⁴

Two types of Buddhist monks exist, the Hinayāna and the Mahāyāna. Buddhists with a religious nature are of the latter type. Today in Japan only Hinayāna monks are found ; Mahāyāna monks have not yet appeared. Mahāyāna teachings have not yet spread (in Japan); thus it is difficult for Mahāyāna practitioners to arise. I sincerely ask that in accordance with the late emperor’s wish, Tendai yearly ordinands be forever designated Mahāyāna practitioners and bodhisattva monks. Thus the nine (bad) monkeys of King Kṛki’s dream shall be chased away. Of the five vehicles specified by Mañjuśrī, (the numbers of) those who follow the latter three (the Mahāyāna ones) will increase. With this attitude and desire we shall strive to benefit those who live now and those who come after us throughout the endless eons.

Note 34: This phrase can be found in the seventh major precept of the Fan wang Ching which concerns praising oneself and slandering others or teaching another person to do so. ‘Taking the bad upon himself and turning the good towards others’ is the positive side of the precept. It describes the bodhisattva way.

According to the Eizan Daishiden, Saichō had decided to abandon the Ssufen lü precepts by 818. In late spring of that year Saichō assembled the teachers and students on Mount Hiei and declared:

I have researched the origins of the Perfect School of the Lotus Sūtra. (The Dharma) was preached, studied, and understood in the mountains: first on Vulture’s Peak, next on Ta-su, and finally on T’ien-t’ai. Students of my (Tendai) school should, therefore, practice and study in the mountains during the first part of their studies. They should do this for the sake of the nation and its people, in order to benefit sentient beings, and so that the Buddha’s teaching will flourish. By living in the mountains they shall escape from the criticisms of the mundane world, and the Buddha’s teaching will surely grow and prosper.

From now on we will not follow Śrāvaka ways. We will turn away forever from Hinayāna (strictures on maintaining) dignity. I vow that I will henceforth abandon the two-hundred fifty (Hinayāna) precepts.

The great teachers of Nan-yüeh and T’ien-t’ai both heard the Lotus Sūtra preached and received the three-fold bodhisattva precepts on Vulture’s Peak. Since then, these precepts have been transmitted from teacher to teacher. Chih-i conferred them on Kuan-ting. Kuan-ting conferred them on Chih-wei. Chih-wei conferred them on Hsüan-lang. Hsüan-lang conferred them on Chan-jan. Chan-jan conferred them on Tao-sui. Tao-sui conferred them on Saichō and then on Gishin.

I have read the Buddha’s teachings. I know that there are (strictures on) dignity for both the bosatsusō (bodhisattva monk) and the bosatsu (the lay bodhisattva), and that there are pure Mahāyāna and pure Hinayāna (teachings). Now, the students of my school shall study Mahāyāna precepts, meditation, and wisdom. They shall abandon inferior Hinayāna practices forever.

Scholars disagree about when the dispute over the precepts began. One scholar has suggested that Saichō may have been influenced by some of Dōchū’s disciples who, following Chien-chen’s teachings, called for a more open Buddhist order. Others have suggested that on his trips to Kyushu and Tōgoku, Saichō may have gone to see the kaidan (precepts platforms) in these two areas, and thus may have been considering reforms as early as 814. Neither of these theories has been proven.

The dispute began in earnest with Saichō’s efforts to have the court designate his monastery, Hieizanji, a Mahāyāna temple. On the seventh day of the second month of Konin 9 (late 817) Kōjō reports that Saichö told him that he wanted “to establish a Mahāyāna temple in order to propagate the (Tendai) School.” Kōjō seems to have been surprised by Saichō’s statement. According to Kōjō’s Denjutsu isshinkaimon, the following conversation took place:

The disciple (Kōjō) said, “There are no Mahāyāna temples in Japan. Why must we now suddenly establish a One-vehicle temple (ichijōji)?”

Our late teacher (Saichō) said, “I will bestow on you the title ‘One-vehicle (ichijō)’.”

His disciple (Kōjō) said, “Since there are no Mahāyāna temples in Japan yet, I will not take the One-vehicle title. Please bestow it on me after we establish a Mahāyāna temple.”

Our late teacher said, “In India there are purely Mahāyāna temples, purely Hinayāna temples and mixed (Mahāyāna and Hinayāna) temples.”

His disciple said, “If these three types of temples exist, then I ought to take the title. Temples are, after all, only places where monks reside.”

At this time, no mention was made of precepts. Exactly what the term ‘Mahāyāna temple’ or ‘One-vehicle temple’ designated and how such an institution would differ from the temples in Japan at that time is not specified in the conversation. Probably it was the beginning of an attempt by Saichō to develop a monastic institution which would embody, in a practical way, the issues being debated with Tokuitsu. If the court had recognized Saichō’s claim that Hieizanji was a Mahāyāna temple, it certainly would have enhanced the reputation of the Tendai School at the expense of the Hossō and Sanron schools by implying that they did not have purely Mahāyāna temples.

The Buddha-nature was a controversial topic in India, China and Japan. In his classic study of the long history of these disputes, Tokiwa Daijō (1870-1945) argued that the debate between Saichō and Tokuitsu represented the culmination of the disputes over the Buddha nature. The issues were probably more clearly demarcated and discussed by both men than at any other time in East Asian Buddhist history. Many new issues were introduced into the debate and their relation to the subject of the Buddha-nature investigated. Saichō displayed considerable ingenuity and an impressive command of Buddhist literature in drawing upon a variety of sources to formulate and defend his position. At the same time, the debate with Tokuitsu prepared the ground for the controversy over the bodhisattva precepts (bosatsukai) by indicating that the Tendai and Hossō positions were irreconcilable. Saichō’s petitions concerning the bodhisattva precepts … represent his attempt to formulate practices which would reflect the more theoretical statements which he had advanced in his works criticizing Tokuitsu.

[Page 90-91] The turning point in Saichō’s career began with a trip to Tōgoku (Eastern provinces) in 817. … During his travels in Tōgoku, Saichō probably heard about the Hossō Monk Takuitsu. … [Page 96] The dispute between Saichō and Takuitsu covered a wide range of problems, including the proper method of classifying the Buddha’s teachings, the evaluation of Tendai methods of exegesis of the Lotus Sūtra, and the criticism of various Tendai doctrines and meditations. Both men offered detailed and penetrating arguments in support of their positions. …

[Page 105-106] In its later stages, the debate focused on the exegesis of the Lotus Sūtra, the most authoritative scripture for the Tendai School.

Saichō often referred to his own school as the Tendai Hokkeshū, the Tendai School of Lotus Sūtra interpretation. It was not the only school which interpreted the Lotus Sūtra, since both the Hossō and Sanron schools had long traditions of exegesis of the Lotus Sūtra. Thus Saichō’s task was to show that the Tendai interpretation was the most authoritative one.

Tokuitsu followed the orthodox Hossō interpretation, as it was presented in Tz’u-en’s (632-682) commentary, the Fa hua hsüan tsan. According to Tz’u-en’s writings, the Buddha had a hidden purpose in preaching the Lotus Sūtra. He wanted to encourage people of undetermined nature to strive to become bodhisattvas, rather than being content with merely becoming or striving to become arhats or pratyekabuddhas. The One-vehicle doctrine was an expedient teaching (gonkyō) directed toward those of undetermined nature. The claims of the Lotus Sūtra that it was the ultimate teaching (jitsukyō) were an expedient designed to encourage this particular class of practitioner and were not to be considered as teachings which were universally valid. Predictions in sūtras that certain people would attain Buddhahood were said to refer to the individual’s possession of the gyōbusshō and to not have any general significance. Statements that all beings had the Buddha nature, such as that by the bodhisattva Jōbukyō (Never-disparaging), were said to refer only to the inactive ribusshō.

In contrast to the Hossō position presented above, Saichō believed that the Lotus Sūtra was the Buddha’s ultimate teaching, a direct revelation of the Buddha’s enlightenment, which was valid for all men and not just intended for one particular group. Saichō supported his arguments by referring to passages in the Lotus Sūtra that stated that the sūtra was indeed the Buddha’s ultimate teaching, by defending the Tendai classification of Buddhist doctrine, and by attacking the Hossō classification of Buddhist doctrine. The defense and exegesis of the The teachings of the One-vehicle, the universality of salvation, and the speedy realization of salvation were eventually accepted as standard Buddhist teachings throughout Japan. The new schools of the Kamakura reformation developed out of the Tendai School and adopted the positions that Saichō had defended, though not without changes. Even some Hossō monks such as Ryōhen (1194-1252) tried to reconcile the differences between Hossō and Tendai by devising positions which allowed for universal salvation and the quick attainment of salvation.

The Tendai School had a more optimistic view of human potential than did the Hossō School. Tendai monks followed the Lotus Sūtra in arguing that all sentient beings could eventually attain Buddhahood. No beings were permanently denied Buddhahood. They also argued that the three vehicles did not lead to three separate ultimate goals. Rather, all sentient beings had only one ultimate spiritual goal, Buddhahood. Teachings leading the practitioner to arhathood or pratyekabuddhahood were only provisional teachings designed to encourage those with lesser faculties and lead them onward towards the single ultimate goal for all sentient beings, Buddhahood.

On the basis of these Tendai teachings, Saichō argued that only sūtras which presented provisional teachings contained claims that some people could attain Hinayāna goals but could never attain Buddhahood. The five types of human nature which the Hossō School had presented did not refer to seeds from the beginningless past, but to stages which a practitioner might attain and then transcend as he moved onward to higher goals. The five types of human nature were not determined by seeds which sentient beings possessed from the beginningless past, but by the obstacles which men had to overcome on their way to Buddhahood.

The Hossō School’s position was that two categories of Buddha nature could be identified: the ribusshō, which all men possessed, and the gyōbusshō, which only a few possessed. The first was the Buddha-nature as absolute. Since the absolute was the basis of all phenomena, and since all sentient beings were ultimately dependent on the absolute, all were said to possess the ribusshō. However, Hossō scholars argued that the absolute was static; it did not actively participate in the phenomenal realm. Consequently, the ribusshō did not enable a practitioner to attain Buddhahood. When a sūtra stated that all sentient beings possessed the Buddha-nature, it indicated only that all had the ribusshō, not that all could attain Buddhahood.

The potential of some sentient beings to attain Buddhahood was explained by postulating a second type of Buddha-nature, the gyōbusshō or Buddha-nature of practice. The gyōbusshō consisted of untainted seeds (muro shuji) which were stored in the eight or basic consciousness (arayashiki, Skt. ālaya-vijn͂ana). These seeds were said to have existed from the beginningless past. If a person possessed them, he could attain Buddhahood. However, if he lacked untainted seeds, he could not create them no matter how diligently he practiced or studied. A person without the gyōbusshō could therefore never attain Buddhahood. Hossō School monks interpreted statements in the sūtras that only certain people could attain Buddhahood as referring to the possession of gyōbusshō by those people. Since not everyone had the gyōbusshō, some sūtras contained statements that not everyone could attain Buddhahood.