I practice Nichiren Buddhism, and this is my humble opinion. Nichiren Shonin did not look favorably of practicing any other school but that of his as for practices go. So, in his view, a practitioner cannot devote himself to Amida as he would to the Lotus/Gohonzon/Daimoku.
On the other hand, the morals and beliefs I don't think he had a problem with (didn't mention). It was just the practices.
To the core of the matter, the Lotus Sutra is a summary of all the Suttas and Sutras Pure Land included. So, if you prefer not to directly focus on Nichiren's view, then I don't see a problem with doing both. If you prefer Nichiren's view, in my opinion, there is a confliction.
That is just my opinion.
I wasn't sure whether to post here or over on the Pure Land thread,
Sometimes it's hard to tell. As it developed, East Asian Buddhism seemed like the most logical place for it, since it crosses sectarian lines but the sects all developed in that area. I have moved it to the more appropriate forum and split an off-topic discussion off to Open Dharma. - Kim
but here goes ...
I've often wondered why a form of lay Buddhism hasn't emerged that seeks to blend Pure Land with the Lotus Sutra. There's an old saying - the origin of which I can't recall - that "one recites the Lotus Sutra in the morning and the Nembutsu in the evening" - that, to me, perfectly encapsulates the potential for such a practice. The Lotus Sutra is world-embracing, "extroverted" and powerfully directed towards Buddha-nature in this life. The Pure Land Sutras can provide peace and assurance about Amida Buddha's unlimited compassion, which in many ways is a perfect end to the day. Depending on the situation, both the Lotus Sutra and Amida Buddha's grace provide beautiful paths of either strength or peace as we go about our days. I know I'm stumbling into deeply historical and bitterly contested territory here. I don't know much about Rissho Kosei-Kai but they perhaps come close to what I'm alluding to. Has anyone else had similar thoughts? I'm really not trying tell anyone that either Nichiren or Honen / Shinran are right or wrong - part of my reflection here is that, somewhat heretically, I actually really enjoy both Japanese Pure Land and Nichiren traditions. In a way it's a shame that we're still living these divisions, and I see a lot of potential in this life for a type of "ekayana" Buddhism led by lay people, focused on the problems of daily life and yet open enough to the "ineffable" beyond this life.
First post so go easy!