Nichiren … grounded his concept of the single thought-moment comprising three thousand realms in actuality in the origin teaching or latter fourteen chapters of the Lotus Sūtra. Only the origin teaching, in his view, revealed the mutual inclusion of “original cause” (the nine realms) and “original effect” (the realm of Buddhahood). However, his later followers found it necessary to elaborate, on the basis he had established, the precise relationship that obtained between the dharmas of the origin teaching and of the trace teaching (honjaku ron). No debate over this issue appears in any authenticatable writing by the first generation of Nichiren’s followers, who were chiefly concerned with establishing the superiority of the Lotus Sūtra itself over other teachings. The controversy took shape in the Muromachi period and quickly became crucial to the self-definition of rival Hokke lineages. On this issue, the Hokkeshū divided broadly into two positions. Those who stressed the superiority of the origin teaching over the trace teaching were said to occupy the shōretsu (“superior versus inferior”) position, while those who emphasized the essential unity of the two represented the itchi (“unified”) position. Each comprised a number of variations. 9 Those who upheld the shōretsu position differed among themselves as to how the superiority of the origin teaching should be understood. Some said that its superiority lay in all fourteen chapters of the origin teaching; others held that it resided in the eight chapters that represent the assembly in open space presided over by Śākyamuni and Many Jewels seated side by side in the jeweled stūpa; or in the “Fathoming the Lifespan” chapter alone; or in the “Fathoming the Lifespan” chapter plus the latter part of the preceding “Emerging from the Earth” chapter and the first half of the subsequent “Discrimination of Merits” chapter (“one chapter and two halves”); or in the daimoku alone, and so forth. The itchi position was also variously argued. Some maintained that the origin and trace teachings were essentially one (ittai), arguing, for example, that, while a distinction exists between origin and trace teachings with respect to the capacity of the people for whom they were expounded, they are one in the Buddha’s intent; or that they are essentially one in being subsumed within the daimoku. Others held that the two teachings, while essentially different, were nonetheless inseparable (itchi), for example, in representing the inherent nature of enlightenment and its realization in the act of practice; or that the two are unified when the trace teaching is read in light of understanding of the origin teaching. Since very few scholars upholding the shōretsu position went so far as to reject the trace teaching entirely, and since most itchi proponents acknowledged the doctrinal superiority of the origin teaching, the two positions tended to shade off into one another, rather than remaining in absolute confrontation. On the whole, however, those holding the itchi position tended also to be more accommodating in their dealings with other religious traditions, while those committed to the shōretsu position were frequently uncompromising in upholding the exclusive devotion to the Lotus Sūtra through shakulmku and the rebuking of “slander of the Dharma.” (Page 304-305)