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.