從佛教思想的傳衍與開展而觀，相應於佛教的教義與修證，存在著許多不同的觀點建立與義理詮釋。基于如此的思想脈絡與不同詮釋，本文之省思主要是環繞著天臺哲學是否為形上學的詮釋 ? 又此種形上學詮釋是否為實體的存有論 ? 論文主要是從兩方面進行探討，亦即籍由日本「批判佛教」以及文那內學院對於中國大乘佛學中有關如來藏或本覺思想之批判，針對智者大師依「一念三千」所建構的圓教系統，與牟宗三先生所提出的「天臺國教存有論」之佛教詮釋作一省察，其體地檢討此兩種佛教詮釋究竟是客觀而相應的理解與詮釋 ? 抑或是令佛教之義理又復歸為根本佛教或日本批判佛教所批判的形上學或本體論 ? 希冀經由如此的探討，對於上述兩種佛教詮釋系統之分位與義涵有所釐清與辨正。

　　　　　Accord with the Buddhist doctrines and practices, people in different historical periods constructed lots of different perceptions and interpretations on Buddhism. Based on its intellectual contexts and different interpretations, the author in this paper tries to argue whether T' ien-t' ai philosophy is a metaphysical interpretation or not. If the answer is "yes", is it a certain kind of substantial ontology? Both Japanese "Critical Buddhism" and 支那內學院 criticized Chinese Buddhism on the subject of ju-lai tsang or original bodhi. The author stands on the interpretations constructed both by Master Chih-I's system of yuan-tun chiao-chung which was constituted by the notion of "i-nien san chian" and the interpretations of the "Buddhist Ontology of the perfect teaching of T' ien t' ai Buddhism" brought up by Mo-tsung-san, in order to evaluate these two interpretations, to see if they were objective and correspondent understanding, or were it went back to the Metaphysics criticized by fundamental Buddhism or Japanese critical Buddhism. After re-examining all these, we can make clear and clarify these two buddhistic interpretative systems.