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.

The small amount of reliable information that survives about Saichō’s teacher Hsing-man is found in Saichō’s Kechimyakufu. Hsing-man, a native of Su-chou (in modern Kiangsu), was initiated when he was twenty and ordained as a monk when he was twenty-five. He studied the Ssu fen lü precepts for five years. In 768 he met Chan-jan and attended a number of his lectures on Chih-i’s major works (Tendai sandaibu). At the time of Saichō’s arrival in China, he was the head of the Fo-lung temple on Mount T’ien-t’ai. Hsing-man encouraged Saichō in his studies, giving him eighty-two fascicles of T’ien-t’ai works. He also told Saichō that Chih-i had predicted that a foreign monk would come to China in order to propagate T’ien-t’ai teachings in a country to the east of China. Predictions such as this one probably helped foreign monks such as Saichō and Kūkai gain ready acceptance by Chinese monks. Hsing-man assiduously practiced religious austerities and authored a number of works. He died around the year 823 when he was over eighty years old.

In his petition asking that students be sent to China, Saichō claimed that the Tendai texts transmitted to Japan contained many copyist errors. In addition, a direct transmission from Chinese teachers to Japanese students was needed to insure the orthodoxy of the Tendai School in Japan. Saichō criticized both the Hossō and Sanron schools for being based on Sāstra (commentaries), not on sūtras (the Buddha’s words). Hossō and Sanron monks considered only the branches of the Buddha’s doctrines and neglected the roots. Tendai teachings, because they valued the Lotus Sūtra above all other authorities, were not subject to this criticism. Thus even before he went to China, Saichō declared his intention to establish the Tendai School in Japan.

The Lotus Sūtra (Tno. 262) in its translation by Kumārajīva done in 406 was the most popular single sūtra during the Nara period. It was required that all yearly ordinands be able to read it. It is the most commonly mentioned sūtra in documents recommending laymen for ordination as monks. … The Lotus Sūtra was also frequently recited at the request of the court in order to protect the state. It does not have any specific passage which guarantees protection of the state, as did most of the other sūtras used for this purpose. Rather, this use of the sūtra stems from its claim that it is the most authoritative of all sūtras and from stories that those with faith in the sūtra were protected from harm. In addition, it was a very popular sūtra among the common people, being the sūtra most often mentioned in the Nihon ryōiki.

One of the distinguishing characteristics of Buddhism during the Nara period (710-784) was the lavish expenditure of money by the state for temples, Buddhist images, and the copying of Buddhist texts. The merit from such activities was often devoted to the protection of the state and its ruler from various catastrophes. Records of Buddhist activities during the Nara period reveal that the ceremonies performed and the sūtras chanted were often directly related to state Buddhism. The establishment of a nationwide system of provincial temples (kokubunji) with the Tōdaiji temple at Nara as its center is one of the crowning achievements of state Buddhism at this time. Buddhism was thus used to integrate the provinces and the capital.

Qualified monks were required to keep the system functioning. The monks had to be able to chant the sūtras which would protect the state. They also were expected to have led a chaste life so that they could accumulate the powers for the ceremonies to be effective. In order to ensure that the men who joined the Buddhist order were able to perform these ceremonies, the court established requirements which candidates for initiation as novices or ordination as monks had to meet. According to an edict issued in 734, a candidate for initiation was required to be able to chant the Lotus Sūtra (Fa hua Ching, Skt. Saddharmapuṇḍrikasūtra) or the Sūtra of Golden Light (Chin kuang ming Ching, Skt. Suvarṇaprabhāsasūtra), to know how to perform ceremonies worshiping the Buddha, and to have led a chaste life for at least three years. The requirements were designed to ensure that the candidate would be able to effectively perform religious ceremonies. Little attention was paid to the candidate’s ability to explain Buddhist doctrine. If a candidate met the requirements, he would be initiated at the court at the beginning of the year, with the merit resulting from his initiation devoted to the welfare of the state. Successful candidates were called “yearly ordinands.”