▁became ▁an ▁important ▁aspect ▁of ▁the ▁T end ai ▁school , ▁which ▁was ▁primarily ▁focused ▁on ▁the ▁Lot us ▁S ut ra . ▁Paul ▁G ron er ▁states , ▁ ▁T end ai ▁and ▁Es oter ic ▁practices , ▁he ▁felt , ▁provided ▁a ▁direct ▁path ▁( j ik id ō ) ▁to ▁en light en ment , ▁whereas ▁the ▁teach ings ▁of ▁the ▁N ara ▁schools ▁required ▁a e ons ▁to ▁bring ▁the ▁pract ition er ▁to ▁en light en ment . ▁ ▁However , ▁ ▁Moreover , ▁Sa ich ō ▁began ▁to ▁realize ▁that ▁his ▁own ▁idea ▁of ▁" en m its u ▁it chi " ▁was ▁not ▁exactly ▁shared ▁by ▁the ▁es oter ic ▁Sh ing on ▁school , ▁and ▁especially ▁its ▁founder ▁K ū ka i ▁( K ō b ō ▁Da ishi ). ▁ ▁Ry u ichi ▁A be ▁writes , ▁ ▁Sa ich ō ' s ▁late ▁life ▁critic isms ▁were ▁ignored ▁by ▁his ▁own ▁leading ▁dis ci ples , ▁and ▁the ▁T end ai ▁would ▁continue ▁to ▁teach ▁Mik ky ō ▁and ▁Sh ik ang ō ▁( ś am ath a - v ip a ś yan ā ). ▁Sa ich ō ' s ▁public ▁condem n ation ▁of ▁K ū ka i ▁would ▁later ▁form ▁the ▁se eds ▁for ▁some ▁of ▁the ▁critic isms ▁le ve led ▁by ▁the ▁founder ▁of ▁the ▁Nich ir en ▁S ect , ▁Nich ir en , ▁who ▁would ▁c ite ▁that ▁work ▁in ▁his ▁own ▁deb ates . ▁