觀音玄義 1.47

1.47

料簡真應者，亦有四句之殊，非真非應、應而非真、真而非應、亦真亦應。若非真非應，此就理可解，又就凡夫不見理故，非真無用故非應，此亦可解。應而非真者，外道亦得五通，同他施化，通論亦得，是應而不得名真。真而非應者，二乘人入真斷結，灰身滅智不能起應，此亦是通論其真爾。亦真亦應者，此則別顯中道為真，即真而論用為應，真應不二，不二而二者，故言真應爾。今依文互舉，一往言其真應，前番問答明真身常益，後番問答明應身間益，常間不得相離，二鳥俱游，二往為論，真身亦恒、亦不恒，應身亦間、亦不間。若小乘明義，例如善吉石窟觀空見佛法身，蓮華尼則不見，此豈非小乘中真身恒益、不恒益義？丈六之應亦有見、不見，此豈非應身有間、有不間義？大乘法身亦爾，於理為恒益、於情為不恒益；應身亦爾，此緣滅、彼緣興，無有斷絕是不間義，同質異見是其間義。而今分別，一往前問答屬恒益，後問答屬不恒益也。

In distinguishing the true and the responsive, there is also the distinction of four propositions: neither true nor responsive, responsive but not true, true but not responsive, and both true and responsive. 'Neither true nor responsive' can be understood in terms of principle; furthermore, it can also be understood in terms of ordinary beings, who do not see principle and thus have no true [nature manifested], and having no function, have no responsive [manifestation]. 'Responsive but not true': non-Buddhists also attain the five supernormal powers and transform others alongside them; in general terms this may also be called 'responsive', but it cannot be called 'true'. 'True but not responsive': when practitioners of the two vehicles enter the true and sever the fetters, reducing their bodies to ashes and annihilating wisdom, they cannot give rise to responses; this is also merely discussing their 'truth' in a general sense. 'Both true and responsive': this specifically reveals the middle way as true, and discusses function as the responsive based upon the true; the true and the responsive are non-dual, and while non-dual they are two, and are therefore called the true and the responsive. Now, based on the text, both are mentioned interchangeably: in an initial sense, speaking of their true and responsive aspects, the former question-and-answer explains the constant benefit of the true body, while the latter question-and-answer explains the intermittent benefit of the response body; the constant and the intermittent cannot be separated from each other, just as two birds fly together. In a secondary discussion, the true body is also constant and inconstant, and the response body is also intermittent and non-intermittent. If we explain the meaning according to the Hīnayāna, it is like Subhūti in the stone cave contemplating emptiness and seeing the Buddha's dharma-kāya, whereas the nun Utpalavarṇā did not see it. Is this not the meaning of the true body having constant benefit and inconstant benefit in the Hīnayāna? The sixteen-foot response body also has instances of being seen and not being seen; is this not the meaning of the response body being intermittent and non-intermittent? The Mahāyāna dharma-kāya is also like this: in terms of principle it is constant benefit, but in terms of [beings'] sentiments it is inconstant benefit. The response body is also like this: when this condition ceases, that condition arises, without interruption, which is the meaning of non-intermittent; having the same physical reality yet different perceptions is the meaning of intermittent. Now, in making the distinction, tentatively speaking, the former question-and-answer pertains to constant benefit, while the latter question-and-answer pertains to inconstant benefit.