現代化客觀的佛教學術研究，易於挑戰乃至否定傳統佛教既有觀點，如不承認佛經皆佛親說（包括「大乘非佛說」），各式的「判教」在史學考證下亦難有立足之地，天台五時判教即是一例。本文試著對此作進一步探討：首先，說明信仰與學術兩種立場的對峙；其次，學術研究雖在知識層次占了上風，但僅能視為是「一種」理解而非「唯一」觀點；第三，佛法之「宗教性」重於以方便善巧引渡不同根機眾生，如「五時」的「時」除了「時間順序」外或也指「時節因緣」；第四，傳統判教仍具有意義，背有亦有一套信仰邏輯以建立自宗合理性基礎；第五，除了以正誤、真偽評斷，「權實」應是更理想的評價語彙。最後，對於佛教史理解，或可藉「多重佛史」持多元開放態度而非定於一說。如此，以「歷史之錯誤」斷言傳統判教，就客觀學術雖言之成理，但就信仰實踐而言卻是「宗教之正確」，所以即便是「錯誤」也會是「美麗的錯誤」。

It is easy for modern academic research to challenge and even reject the traditional views of Buddhism. The denial of certain sutras, and also the rejection of Mahayana Buddhism, are cases in point. Various Pan Jiao (判教, “doctrinal classifications”) are untenable under the inspection of historical and philological study; Wu Shi Jiao Pan in Tiantai Buddhism is an instance. This article attempts to present six points to further explore this. First, I argue that there is certainly a conflict between the orientation of academic research and the practice of faith. Second, in terms of level of knowledge, while the academic approach has the upper hand, it is not the sole valid perspective for understanding Buddhism. Third, the religiosity of Dharma is concerned with facilitating the extradition of different humans. In this sense, the timing in the “five-stage distinction” emphasizes causes and conditions no less than chronological order. Fourth, the traditional view toward Buddhist teachings still has its value, insofar as the logic of belief provides a rational basis for this view. Fifth, Quan (權) and Shi (實) form better evaluative standards and criteria than correctness and objectivity. Finally, this study argues that it is better to hold a pluralistic and open attitude for interpreting Buddhist history. In this way, the five-stage distinction, while a “historical distortion” for an objective scholar, is actually “religious correctness” for the Buddhist practitioner. Even if it is an error, it is a “beautiful error.”