In view of his uncompromising attitude, it is no wonder that Nichiren earned the reputation of being intolerant. His vehemence against other sects cannot be questioned. And yet, it seems that he has been somewhat misrepresented.

In the Risshó-ankokuron there is an argument between the Visitor and the Master of the House, who represents Nichiren, which turns on the question of whether or not the Government should suppress by force such heresies as taught by Hōnen. …

The Master, that is, Nichiren, consequently takes the stand: In the fight against blasphemy, only the sin, not the person, must be killed, by depriving the blasphemers of the gifts they receive from the State and communities, i.e. by cutting them off from their livelihood. This will induce the false prophets to give up priesthood and thus be silenced and unable to commit their sin.

This was not exactly the method of the Inquisition, and [Arthur] Lloyd [who translated Risshó-ankokuron] is therefore wrong in drawing a parallel between this treatise by Nichiren, written in 1258-60, and the revision of the measures of Innocent III for “the detection and punishment of heretics” brought about by the Council of Toulouse in 1229. As is evident from the preceding quotations, Nichiren had no inclination to engage in the edifying sport of roasting heretics at the stake. Instead, he insisted on rendering the “enemies of Buddhism” harmless by boycotting them. The application of this method he considered not only as right, but as his duty, in pointing to the “Mahā-Pari-Nirvāṇa-Sūtra” that says: “However virtuous a priest may be, if he neglects to eject transgressors, to make them repent or renounce their sins, hearken! he is wicked and hostile to Buddhist Law. If he casts them out to make them be repentant and amend their negligence, he is worthy to be my disciple and truly virtuous.” (Satomi, p. 100)