There are obvious disparities between the titles and their corresponding contents in the Kōfukuji Sōjō drafted by Jōkei貞慶 （1155-1213）, especially in Articles 8 and 9.

The title of Article 8 reads ‘negligence that damages the Buddhist sect due to breaking or rejecting the Buddhist precepts.’ The actual content, however, describes the problem of ‘intentionally breaking’ them.

The title of Article 9 reads ‘criticising senshu nenbutsu 専修念仏 （devoting oneself to chanting Buddhist prayers）,’ which does not carry the idea of the state’s spiritual protection. The actual content states, however, that there is a risk of the attitude of senshu nenbutsu leading to established Buddhist sects being prosecuted and expelled in the future.

In submitting the Kōfukuji Sōjō, Jōkei used the content written in the petition to suppress acts that could lead to the destruction of Buddhism, the fate implied in a part of senshu nenbutsu. Concurrently, he tried to placate the anger of the disciples and the sangō goshi 三綱五師 （three monks in charge of the management of a temple and five monks in charge of office works in a temple） of the Kōfukuji Temple with misleading titles and to resolve the issue legally in the form of submitting a petition.

It has been thought that Shōkū 證空 (1177–1247) recognized the value of various practices (諸行) other than nembutsu 念仏 and relaxed insistence on the idea of the exclusive practice of nembutsu (senju nembutsu 専修念仏). Here, a dichotomy between the idea of the exclusive practice of nembutsu and the recognition of the value of other practices has been assumed. However, the present study shows that the ideology of Shōkū does not fit into such a dichotomous scheme. He criticized the idea of practice of his time from the standpoint of the exclusive practice of nembutsu. This study also shows that the introduction of the three disciplines (三学) is helpful in situating Shōkū in the history of thought.