Among the controversies surrounding Nichiren Shōshū, the rupture with Soka Gakkai stands out as the most far‑reaching. Over time, tensions grew around questions of doctrinal authority, the proper role of lay leadership, and the degree of independence appropriate for a lay movement closely tied to a traditional priesthood. These tensions culminated in the excommunication of Soka Gakkai and its members, bringing a long period of cooperation to an abrupt end. The “resolution,” if it can be called that, took the form of complete institutional separation: Nichiren Shōshū retained its temples and priestly structures, while Soka Gakkai continued independently, each side maintaining its own understanding of Nichiren’s teaching and of legitimate religious authority.

Closely related to this were disputes over sacred objects, temple properties, and access to sites of pilgrimage. After the split, questions arose about control of temple facilities that had been built with lay support, and about the status of Gohonzon and other objects of worship associated with Soka Gakkai. Nichiren Shōshū asserted its prerogative to regulate these matters according to its own doctrinal and institutional standards, while former affiliates pursued their own paths and facilities. In practice, these conflicts were settled not by reconciliation but by legal ownership on the one hand and the creation of parallel centers of practice on the other, with clear boundaries drawn around temple access and affiliation.

A further area of contention has been Nichiren Shōshū’s strong doctrinal exclusivism and its claims regarding legitimate succession. The sect presents itself as the sole orthodox bearer of Nichiren’s lineage, and this stance has generated ongoing theological disputes with other Nichiren schools. These disagreements concern the correct interpretation of Nichiren’s writings and the legitimacy of different institutional lineages, and they have not been harmonized. Instead, each school maintains its own institutions and practices, coexisting in a kind of uneasy pluralism while continuing to regard its own position as uniquely authentic.

Taken together, these controversies reveal a tradition deeply concerned with the preservation of what it understands as pure doctrine and proper transmission. Resolution has rarely meant mutual compromise; rather, it has tended to involve consolidation of authority within Nichiren Shōshū and the emergence of separate, self‑contained communities for those who differ. For practitioners and observers alike, this history invites reflection on how questions of authority, lineage, and form intersect with the search for authentic spiritual practice, and how different communities respond when those questions can no longer be held in common.