太虛大師揭櫫「人生佛教」，印順導師提倡「人間佛教」，聖嚴法師則以「人間淨土」為標誌。三位大德為當代佛教人間化運動不同世代的重要代表。承先啟後，聖嚴法師對於前代大德所承繼的是什麼？另有開展的又是什麼？相關討論範圍應涵括：思想立場、修學歷程、發展根據……等議題。本文先就聖嚴法師在思想立場上對如來藏與性空的抉擇作討論。為方便了解三位大德思想異同，本文提出「苦、集、滅、道」的觀察框架。從對當前佛教所處困局的感受（苦）與問題癥結的判斷（集），以及對佛教發展方向、基本精神與宗旨的指導（滅），和具體實踐方法的安排（道）這四個方面來觀察。同為佛教人間化運動健將的太虛、印順、聖嚴三位大德，彼此間的相同處明顯地要比其相異處來得多。此係由於對佛教發展方向、基本精神與宗旨的指導大致相同。這一個相同點也是人間佛教和其他佛教發展路線差異最大的地方。因此，對比著佛教界其他大德，三位大德思想實為「大同」而「小異」。其「小異」處則可從思想根據與立場之抉擇而得進一步的理解。

Master Tai Xu（太虛）proclaimed “Buddhist Humanism” （人生佛教）; Master Ying Shun（印順）advocated “Buddhism for Humans”（人間佛教）; and Master Sheng Yen（聖嚴） advocated “A Pure Land on Earth for Humanity.”（人間淨土） The teachings of these three masters represent the development of Chinese Buddhist reform for different generations. What did Master Sheng Yen inherit from his predecessors? What did he contribute to the discourse of humanistic Buddhism? These are the main questions for discussion in the article. In order to appreciate the differences and similarities among the three masters, I use the Four Noble Truths of Suffering, Cause of Suffering, Cessation of Suffering, and the Path as a model or lens to examine their teachings. “Suffering” represents the crisis and perceived decline in Chinese Buddhism to which these masters were responding to. “Cause of Suffering” refers to the analysis of this crisis by these masters. “Cessation” refers to the direction of the developments and the guidance of these master’s teachings. “The Path” refers to their projects that aim to actualize their teachings. Differences existed among the three masters. However, their teachings exhibit more similarities because they share the same approach to advancing Buddhism in modern times; they also share a basic spirit and aim of Chinese Buddhism. From this perspective,they do not deviate from other Buddhist leaders during their time. I argue that their difference lies mainly in their theoretical foundations in Buddhism, attitudes toward epistemology, and the importance of Chan (or meditation) experience in their teachings.