In Tamura [Yoshirō]’s view, Nichiren ultimately arrived at a position extremely similar to Dōgen’s; however, Nichiren’s relationship to original enlightenment thought must be understood as undergoing change and development over the course of his career. Nichiren’s early writings suggest that he was at first strongly drawn to hongaku ideas, especially the identification of the pure land with the present world. His earliest extant essay, written at age twenty, reads:

When one attains the enlightenment of the Lotus Sūtra, then one realizes that one’s body and mind that arise and perish are precisely unborn and undying. And the land is also thus. Its horses, cows and the others of the six kinds of domestic animals are all Buddhas, and the grasses and trees, the sun and moon, are all their holy retinue. The sūtra states, “The dharmas dwell in a Dharma position, and the worldly aspect constantly abides.”

Nichiren ‘s early writings often employ this nondual standpoint to attack the exclusive nembutsu doctrine of Honen, which he saw as antithetical to the traditional Tendai vision of a Buddhism united in the One Vehicle of the Lotus Sūtra. However, as Nichiren himself grew more exclusivistic in his claims for the sole validity of the Lotus and more critical of other teachings, he came into conflict with the authorities. Beginning around the time of his first exile (1261-1264), Tamura says, Nichiren became less concerned with monistic hongaku thought and increasingly attentive to problems in the realm of relative distinctions, such as time and human capacity. This can be seen in his growing concern with such issues as comparative classification of the Buddhist scriptures; the age of mappō, the capacity of beings living in that age; and the karma of the specific country of Japan. Nichiren’s writings from this time also show an emerging sense of his own mission as the “votary of the Lotus” (Hokekyō no gyōja), who propagates its teachings even at the risk of his life. Especially from the time of his exile to Sado Island (1271-1274), he became critical of the nondual Taimitsu tradition that had formed the basis of his earlier thought. (Page 90-91)