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)

BEN AJARI NISSHŌ (1221-1323), the eldest of the six, was sixty-two at the time of Nichiren’s death. He was based at the Hokkeji, a temple he had established at Hamado in Kamakura, and, together with Daikoku Ajari Nichiro, headed the community of Nichiren’s followers in Kamakura. His lineage became known as the Nisshō or Hama monryū.

DAIKOKU AJARI NICHIRŌ (1245-1320) was based at the Myōhonji, which he had founded, in Hikigayatsu in Kamakura, and also headed the Honmonji in Ikegami. He is additionally regarded as the founder of the Hondoji at Hiraga in Shimösa. His followers were known as the Hikigayatsu or Nichirō monryū. Among his many talented disciples, Higo Ajari Nichizō (1269-1342) was the first monk of the Hokkeshū to preach Nichiren’s doctrine in Kyoto.

MINBU AJARI NIKŌ (1253-1314) was based in Mobara in Kazusa and later became the second chief abbot of Minobu (Nichiren is regarded as the first).

BYAKUREN AJARI NIKKO (1246-1333) was active in Suruga, Kai, and Izu. A disagreement between him and the aforementioned Nikō led in 1289 to the first schism among Nichiren’s followers. Nikkō established himself at Omosu near Fuji, and his line is called the Fuji monryū or Nikko monryū.

IYO AJARI NITCHŌ (1252-1317) was based at Mama and Wakamiya in Shimōsa, where he assisted the efforts of Nichijō (Toki Jōnin), originally a prominent lay supporter of Nichiren who had taken clerical vows after his death. Nitchō was Toki Jōnin’s adopted son. However, for reasons that are not clear, there was a break between the two, and Nitchō left the area around 1292, retiring to Omosu, where he joined Nikko. Nichijō’s line came to be known as the Nakayama lineage, after Nakayama in Shimōsa, where its main temple was located.

RENGE AJARI NICHIJI (1250-?) was based at Matsuno in Suruga. However, in 1295, he embarked on a journey, determined to spread Nichiren’s teaching beyond the confines of Japan, and is said to have traveled north to Hokkaido, crossing over into northern China and Manchuria. It has been argued that he did in fact reach Mongolia, but the evidence is inconclusive. (Page 302)

In Nichiren’s case, the single-practice orientation was connected at least in part with the social composition of his following. He himself was a person of common origins, from a remote part of eastern Japan, without powerful backers, and whose followers were chiefly middle- and lower-ranking samurai – persons on the periphery, if not altogether outside, the “influential parties system” or kenmon taisei. At the same time, Nichiren’s criticisms of leading religious figures and institutions, and of the rulers and officials who were their patrons, resulted in sanctions and suppressions that further marginalized him and his followers and prompted increasing self-definition in opposition to existing religious and political authority. In this process, Nichiren’s assimilation of the new paradigm of enlightenment to an exclusive practice became, in effect, a challenge to the establishment. In his reading of the paradigm, direct access to enlightenment was possible only by the teaching of which he and his disciples were the bearers – a Dharma received directly from Śākyamuni Buddha for the Final Dharma age and alone capable of saving the country from disaster. Thus, in his reading, the locus of authority and legitimacy was made to shift, and it was not the court, nor the bakufu, nor the clerics of the leading shrines and temples, but Nichiren and his disciples who held the center stage of their historical moment. (Page 298-299)

As in much of medieval Tendai thought and various schools of Kamakura Pure Land, Zen, and other traditions, no direct causal connection is drawn in Nichiren’s thought between good deeds or the cultivation of virtue and the realization of enlightenment. … Nichiren did not stress observance of the precepts as necessary to liberation: the merit of keeping precepts is already contained within the daimoku. Moreover, he claimed that one who chants the daimoku cannot be drawn by evil acts into the lower realms of transmigration. Nichiren also participated in the discourse of the “realization of Buddhahood by evil persons” (akunin jōbutsu), usually in teachings to his warrior followers:

Whether or not evil persons (akunin) of the last age attain Buddhahood does not depend on whether their sins are light or heavy but rests solely upon whether or not they have faith in this sūtra. You are a person of a warrior house, an evil man involved day and night in killing. Up until now you have not abandoned the household life [to become a monk], so by what means will you escape the three evil paths? You should consider this well. The heart of the Lotus Sūtra is that [all dharmas] in their present status are precisely the Wonderful [Dharma], without change of original status. Thus, without abandoning sinful karma, one attains the Buddha Way.

This does not mean that Nichiren’s teaching legitimates evildoing, or that his community lacked for moral guidelines. His letters and other writings show that, in making personal decisions or advising his followers, Nichiren drew on a variety of ethical sources. Prominent among these is Confucian social morality, with its emphasis on the virtues of benevolence, righteousness, good faith, loyalty, and filial piety. Other ethical sources for Nichiren were generic Buddhist morality, including the virtues of almsgiving, forbearance, and equanimity; and the emerging warrior ethos, with its emphasis on courage and personal honor. However, such values are not central to Nichiren’s formal doctrine, which does not explicitly articulate a set of ethical principles. Only faith in the Lotus Sūtra and the rebuking of “slander of the Dharma” are specifically enjoined as necessary to salvation.