After reading Shandao's Commentary on the Amitāyus Contemplation Sūtra, Hōnen devoted himself to attaining birth in the pure land of Amitābha through the practice of "recitation of the Buddha's name" (Jp: nembutsu) and to spreading this teaching among all classes and people.

[6] During this time, Hōnen was deeply affected by the contrast between the suffering of the common people and the lives of elite Buddhist monks and their ornate temples.

[8][7] This commentary persuaded Hōnen to believe that nembutsu (ch: nianfo, the faithful recitation of Amida Buddha's name), was all one needed to enter Amitābha's pure land and attain Buddhahood.

[9][10] Hōnen relocated to the district of Ōtani in Kyoto (the capital of Japan at the time), where he began to teach the simple recitation of the nembutsu to crowds of laymen and women, establishing a considerable following.

[2] Hōnen's teaching attracted all sorts of people, from samurai like Kumagai Naozane, to merchants, prostitutes, robbers, and other elements of society normally excluded from Buddhist practice.

[13] The increasing popularity of his teachings drew criticism from noted contemporaries as Chikai, Myōe and Jōkei among others, who argued against Hōnen's sole reliance on nembutsu as a means of rebirth in a pure land.

[14] In 1190, Hōnen was granted the great honor of being invited to give a series of lectures on the Pure Land sutras at the national temple of Tōdai-ji in Nara.

[26] The Japanese Jodo Shu Research Institute describes Hōnen's personality as a "strict" but "bold innovator" who was "introspective and self-critical" and "concerned with solving the problems of daily life rather than worrying about doctrinal matters".

In teaching them, regardless of social status (from aristocracy to prostitutes), he particularly rejected the significance of menstruation; which wider Japanese religious culture considered to cause spiritual defilement.

In contrast to the traditional Buddhist emphasis on achieving nirvana through individual effort or "self-power" (jiriki), Hōnen focuses on reciting Amida’s name (nembutsu), a simple faith based practice that offers liberation to all types of people.

[35] This attitude of reliance on other power also served to dissolve our attachments to our sense of self and its capacities, something which Hōnen saw as an element found in all those who took up the paths that rely on self-power and individual effort.

This is because he believed that the world had entered the age of Dharma decline (Jp: mappo) in which traditional self-power methods were no longer effective for most people.

Reciting the nembutsu and believing in birth in the Pure Land naturally gives rise to the three minds (sanjin) and the four modes of practice (shishu).

However, was it not [the aim of Amida's] Fundamental Vow (hongan) to abandon the difficult and take up the easy [practices] in order to enable all sentient beings to attain birth in equality.

[40] Thus, the main reason that the Buddha chose the nembutsu as the supreme practice was that most people were poor, uneducated, unwise and forced by circumstances to violate the precepts (for example, for fishermen and so on).

[2] Thus, while other schools of Buddhism organized their doctrinal classifications based on which sutra or teaching they believed was the most profound, Hōnen focused on the universal ease and accessibility of the nembutsu as the criterion for it being the highest practice.

[35] According to Hōnen, this was all possible through the Buddha's power and “great compassion of equality” (byōdō no daihi) which embraces and accommodates all human capabilities and conditions.

For example, Hōnen replied to a prostitute that if she could not give up her current work, "then keep reciting nembutsu just as you are...In fact, women like you are the most welcome guests of Amida’s Vow".

"[40] This indicates the radically universal and democratic nature of Hōnen's teaching, which threatened the influence and power of the other schools and the basic idea of the monastic and priestly hierarchy.

Hōnen cautioned against the mistaken belief that birth in the pure land depends on the sheer number of times one recites the nembutsu or other self efforts.

[45] Hōnen described this essential faith using Shandao's concept of the triple mind (sanjin), which are necessary for attaining birth in the pure land.

[38] Another important reason for Hōnen's promotion of extensive repetition of nembutsu was his belief that this practice established a strong devotional bond between the practitioner and Amida Buddha.

[52] However, Hōnen still practiced meditation, kept the bodhisattva precepts, shunned meat and alcohol, and continued to perform rituals, monastic ordinations and study texts.

[38] As noted by scholars like James Foard, Hōnen’s devotional movement eliminated the need for the mediation of a priestly class and made complete Buddhahood easily available to all laypersons.

[48] Among his most direct successors was Shinran (1173–1263), the founder of Jōdo Shinshū (True Pure Land School), who emphasized absolute reliance on Amida’s grace, rejecting the necessity of repeated nembutsu recitation as a self-powered practice.

[54] Ippen (1239–1289), another Pure Land reformer, took Hōnen’s teachings in a different direction, promoting ecstatic recitation and proselytizing through the Ji-shū movement.

Critics also argued that Hōnen’s teaching of salvation through nembutsu alone might lead to moral laxity and some feared that laypeople and monks alike would neglect proper conduct.

[60][61] In response these concerns, Hōnen clarified in various writings, including the Seven Point Pledge (Shichikajō seikai) he and his students signed together, that he did not reject morality and other Buddhist practices, even if his teaching entailed a focus on the nembutsu.

[60] Hōnen also explicitly rejected a misinterpretation of his teaching called “encouragement of evil conduct” (zōaku muge), which was the idea that one can abandon and violate the Buddhist precepts without concern, since Amida will save us anyways.

[60] Dōgen, the founder of Sōtō Zen, likewise criticized Hōnen's teaching as "completely wrong", claiming that repetition of the nembutsu was "worthless-like a frog in a spring field croaking night and day.