本論文旨在探討牟宗三先生《佛性與般若》一書中，對華嚴宗學所作的批判是否合理。牟先生以為《大乘起信論》的如來藏思想是華嚴圓教的中心義理，而以為無盡緣起只是緣起性空義之展轉引申，故無理論之客觀必要性。本論文以為如來藏思想與緣起性空說共同為華嚴宗的主伴圓融說所整合，故華嚴宗思想不應以如來藏思想為中心義理；而無盡緣起說亦滲入了真如隨緣思想，已不是緣起性空思想的一義展轉引申，有其自身的意義與價值。故牟先生對華嚴宗圓教的理論描述，是個很大的誤解，因此不但如來藏思想是否為華嚴宗圓教的中心義理這點需要再商榷，牟先生判天台與華嚴孰為最後最圓滿的圓教之說，勢必要再重新衡定。

This paper evaluates Mou Tsung-san's Buddha Nature and Prajna, his criticism of the Hua-yen school. Mou believes that Tathāgatagarbha Thoughts in The Awakening of Faith in Mahayana embody the main doctrine of the Complete Teaching of the Hua-yen school. Mou also postulates that the Theory of Unlimited Cause of Dharma is has no objective significance since it is only an extension of the Theory of Dependant Origination and Emptiness. In this paper, I argue that Tathāgatagarbha thoughts and the Theory of Dependant Origination and Emptiness are integrated in the Main and the Associate Theory of the Hua-yen school, and that as a result Tathāgatagarbha Thoughts should not be viewed as the only main doctrine of the Hua-yen school. Moreover I claim that the Theory of Unlimited Cause of Dharma possesses its independent value since it contains the Theory of Truth As Connected with Everything, and that therefore it can not be viewed as the extension of the Theory of Dependant Origination and Emptiness. In conclusion, Mou's theoretical description of the Complete Teaching of the Hua-yen school is in fact a serious misinterpretation.