First, the mandala is interpreted from an immanentalist view. It is seen not as representing the enlightenment of an individual transcendent Buddha, but as a ritual object that enables the practitioner to discern and actualize a realm of enlightenment already innate within oneself. Since the ten realms are depicted by the names of their representatives on the mandala, this innate realm of enlightenment is usually discussed in terms of the mutual inclusion of the ten realms:

The ultimate teaching of the Lotus Sūtra is the original inherence of the ten realms. When you face this object of worship, the realm of oneself, the realm of the Buddha, and the realm of living beings are all the essence of the Wonderful Dharma, the suchness which is original enlightenment. …

Now [in our school, we] do not establish contemplation [as the method of realizing the three thousand realms in one thought-moment]. We display it on a sheet of paper, so that one can directly see, in a single thought-moment, three thousand realms.

What is the true mutual inclusion of the ten realms? The teacher [Nichiren] said: “The seven characters that are chanted are the Buddha realm. We who chant them are the nine realms. When the cause and effect of the four teachings are demolished, the true cause and effect of the ten realms is revealed.” At that time, we are the unproduced triple-bodied [Tathāgata], the true Buddha (jitsubutsu), who dwells in the Land of Tranquil Light. The Buddha who appeared in this world was a manifested trace (suijaku), a provisional Buddha who benefits the beings through provisional teachings. Keep this secret! Keep this secret!

Such readings are on the one hand rooted in Nichiren’s treatise Kanjin honzon shō, which discusses the object of worship as embodying the mutual inclusion of the ten dharma realms and the importance of believing that one’s own deluded thought-moment contains the Buddha realm. (Page 330)

It should also be noted that Nitchō’s* strong doctrinal emphasis on the original enlightenment of ordinary worldlings was modified by the presence of other elements in the context of practice. For example:

[Question]: By upholding the truth and not abandoning it, one eventually arrives at the fruit of Buddhahood–if this is the case, then whether or not Buddhahood is realized depends solely on the mind. The power of the sūtra, it would appear, is not involved. How should this be understood?

Answer: This is an essential matter. When it is said that one who maintains one’s resolve without abandoning it will achieve great merit, in reliance upon what do we understand that great merit to be achieved? By relying for one’s good roots upon the Lotus Sūtra and not losing one’s resolve, any merit can be achieved. Thus, even the slightest good roots can result in the fruit of Buddhahood. But should one not rely upon the Lotus Sūtra, no matter how vast one’s good roots may be, one will not arrive at the fruit of Buddhahood.

Or again:

All persons, by receiving the Wonderful Dharma transmitted by Bodhisattva Superior Conduct and having faith in it, will eradicate within this lifetime the delusions of the three poisons of greed, hatred, and folly [accumulated] since beginningless vast kalpas and, when this life is ended, with their final breath, shall at once realize the cherished desire of going to [the Pure Land of] Eagle Peak.

Side by side with his discussion of realizing enlightenment in the moment of chanting the daimoku are notions of realizing Buddhahood at the moment of death or going at death to the Pure Land of Eagle Peak. Nitchō’s case thus supports the suggestion, offered earlier in the context of medieval Tendai, that original enlightenment discourse was a rhetorical strategy rooted in commitment to a philosophical position of nonduality; in actual practice, it often existed side by side and was constrained by ideas that did not necessarily cohere with it logically, including the need to rely on superior powers (such as Buddhas or sūtras), the importance of cultivating lifelong faith, and birth after death in a pure land. (Page 324-325)

*Gyōgakuin Nitchō (1422-1500), eleventh kanju of Minobu and the leading scholar among the itchi faction of the Hokkeshūand studied under the ninth kanju of Minobu, Nichigaku.

Scholars have called attention to the Shoshin kangaku shō (Encouraging beginners in study), a Muromachi period introductory text written and studied at the Senba dangisho. Under the heading “Oneness of the true and provisional teachings,” it reads:

Right at hand we have the transmissions passed down from virtuous teachers of the past, who have said, “The Lotus Sūtra itself has no essence. It takes as its essence the teachings expounded before it.” Nonetheless, in the present age, the followers of Nichiren profoundly revere only the Lotus and deeply reject the teachings expounded before it. This is a grave error. While the Lotus is indeed to be revered, to slander other sutras in fact destroys the intent of the Lotus. …

Question: In their repudiation of the provisional teachings, we find that the Nichiren followers cite as their proof texts these passages from [the “Skillful Means” chapter] of the Lotus: “Honestly discarding skillful means, I will expound only the unexcelled Way” and “[There is the Dharma of only one vehicle, there are not two or three,] excepting the Buddha’s preaching of skillful means.” How do you respond?

Answer: When one reads the character for “to discard” (sha) in “hon estly discarding skillful means” as “to place” (oku), then it means that the skillful means of the provisional teachings, just as they are, are placed within the Lotus. This being the case, the fact that the “Skillful Means” chapter is placed among the [sūtra’s] twenty-eight chapters expresses the meaning of skillful means being precisely true reality. As for “excepting the Buddha’s preaching of skillful means,” this is interpreted to mean that attachment to these teachings is to be removed, not the dharma-teachings themselves. In other words, one is simply to remove emotional attachment to the [notion of] skillful means expounded before the Lotus as provisional teachings.

The Kantō Tendai of Senba and Hokke positions on this issue can be seen as representing two poles in the interpretation of the notion of kaie, or the “opening and integration” of all other teachings into the one vehicle of the Lotus Sūtra. The Senba side, as represented in the above passage from the Shoshin kangaku shō, took this to mean that since all teachings are encompassed by the one vehicle, to practice other teachings is in effect to practice the Lotus Sūtra. This interpretation is sometimes termed “absolute integration” (or zettai kaie) and has enjoyed a prominent place in the history of Japanese Tendai thought. The Hokke side, on the other hand, maintained that Lotus is, quite simply, superior to all other teachings; when integrated into it, they lose their separate identity. This is the interpretation of “relative integration” (sōtai kaie) that Nichiren had emphasized. The idea that all practices may be understood as aspects of the one vehicle and are thus the practice of the Lotus Sūtra had been well established in Tendai circles since Heian times. The invocation “Namu-Amida-butsu,” for example, was often referred to as the “six-character Lotus Sūtra.” The fact that the scholars of Senba felt compelled to argue this already well established position in such detail suggests that they were being hard pressed by their Hokke counterparts. (Page 307-308)

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)