唐代華嚴宗四祖澄觀（738-839）利用隋代吉藏（549-623）的「根本法輪」與「攝末歸本法輪」詮釋《法華經》與《華嚴經》的關係。澄觀認為《華嚴經》是「根本法輪」，而《法華經》扮演「攝末歸本」的角色，所歸之本正是《華嚴經》。然而，澄觀似未說明《法華經》是如何「攝末歸本」於《華嚴經》。寥寥數語， 引來宋代天台師從義（1042-1091）與處元（1030-1119?）的嚴厲批判。二師言論可上溯唐代湛然（711-782）的《法華文句記》。湛然是否批判澄觀，難以彖定，但從義與處元認為吉藏後來服膺智顗（539-598），是故「三種法輪」須廢；另外，以「乳喻」而言，《華嚴經》只是「乳教」，豈可以「醍醐教」歸本「乳教」。日本華嚴宗僧人凝然（1240-1321）的《華嚴宗要義》認為：澄觀提出「《法華經》攝末歸本於《華嚴經》」，背後蘊藏藉由「同教一乘」之《法華經》迴入「別教一乘」之《華嚴經》的理路。其中路徑有三：第一、二乘人信解大乘，成為「迴心菩薩」，再經由「同教一乘」進入「別教一乘」。第二、若「直進菩薩」執二乘實有因果，亦須經由「同教一乘」入「別教一乘」。第三、「直進菩薩」若不執二乘實有因果，則可於登地時進入「別教一乘」。

Chengguan (澄觀, 738-839), the fourth patriarch of the Huayan School during the Tang Dynasty, used the Sui Dynasty Jizang's (吉藏, 549-623) theories of the fundamental dharma wheel (根本法輪) and the dharma wheel of assimilating the derivative into the origin (攝末歸本法輪) to expound the relationship between the Lotus Sūtra (法華經) and the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (華嚴經, also known as Flower Adornment Sūtra or Huayan Sūtra). Chengguan believed that the Avataṃsaka Sūtra was the fundamental dharma wheel, while the Lotus Sūtra was the dharma wheel that assimilated the derivative into the origin, in which the ＂origin＂ referred to the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. However, Chengguan did not provide any explanation on how the Lotus Sūtra was assimilating the derivative into the origin, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. Yet, Chengguan's viewpoints had drawn severe criticism from Tientai (天台) masters Congyi (從義, 1042-1091) and Chuyuan (處元, 1030-1119?). The discourses of these two masters could be traced back to the Tang-Dynasty Zhanran's (湛然, 711-782) The Words and Phrases of the Lotus Sūtra (法華文句記). It is difficult to conclude that whether Zhanran was criticizing Chengguan or not, but Congyi and Chuyuan had disagreed about Chengguan's viewpoint certainly. For they thought Jizang had then turned to believe in Zhiyi (智顗, 539-598), and thus the three turnings of the dharma wheel had to be abolished. In addition, by applying the ＂milk metaphor＂ (乳喻) of the five flavors to advocate his viewpoint in different time periods, which are fresh milk (乳), cream (酪), curdled milk (生酥), butter (熟酥) and ghee (醍醐), could he explain how the Avataṃsaka Sūtra surpass a teaching regarded as the flavor of ghee since it is only compared to the flavor of fresh milk? In The Essential Meaning of the Huayan School (華嚴宗要義), Japanese monk Ningran (凝然, 1240-1321) of the Huayan School wrote that he considered that Chengguan's proposal of ＂Lotus Sūtra's Assimilating the Derivative into the Origin, Avataṃsaka Sūtra＂ actually implied that there were theoretic paths leading to the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, the Special Teaching of the One Vehicle (別教一乘) through the Lotus Sūtra, the Common Teaching of the One Vehicle (同教一乘). These paths consisted of three courses: (1) The adherents of the Two Vehicles believed in the Mahāyāna (大乘) and became the ＂Detour-path Bodhisattvas,＂ (迴心菩薩) detouring into the Special Teaching of the One Vehicle through the Common Teaching of the One Vehicle; (2) If the ＂Straight-path Bodhisattvas＂ (直進菩薩) believed the causes and effects theory of the Two Vehicles, they also needed to detour into the Special Teaching of the One Vehicle through the Common Teaching of the One Vehicle; (3) As for the ＂Straight-path Bodhisattvas＂ who did not believe the causes and effects theory of the Two Vehicles, they could approach straight into the Special Teaching of the One Vehicle when advancing to the bodhisattva grounds.