觀音玄義 2.46

2.46

問：聖人是所感，凡夫是能感；聖人是能應，凡夫是所應。所感非是感，所應非是應，云何言感應道交？答：所感實無感，從感名所感，言聖人是所感；所應實無應，從應名所應，言凡夫是所應。還是感所為應能、應能為感所，亦是應所為感能、感能為應所。既無感應之實，亦無感應之異，不異而異者，聖沒所感，目為能應，凡沒所應，目為能感，故言感應道交。私難此語：若實無感應之異，今聖沒能感、凡沒能應，何不聖沒能應、凡沒能感？若如此，則無凡、聖之殊。若不如此，感、應便異，何言不異？又感能無感能之實而名感能者，何不名應能？若應所無實，何不名感所？若爾，則無凡聖感應；若不爾，則是異，云何不異？又難：若以感能為應所、感所為應能，此是自生義。若能應只是所應、能感只是所感，還是自生義。若應能生應所、感能生感所，能感生所感、所感生能感，能應生所應、所應生能應，皆是從他生，豈非他性義？若共生則二過，若離二，墮無因過。

Question: The sage is the object of stimulus, while the ordinary being is the subject of stimulus; the sage is the subject of response, while the ordinary being is the object of response. The object of stimulus is not stimulus itself, and the object of response is not response itself; how then can one speak of 'the mutual communion of the path of stimulus and response'? Answer: The object of stimulus in reality has no stimulus; it is called the object of stimulus in dependence on stimulus, meaning the sage is the object of stimulus. The object of response in reality has no response; it is called the object of response in dependence on response, meaning the ordinary being is the object of response. It is simply that the object of stimulus is the subject of response, and the subject of response is the object of stimulus; it is also that the object of response is the subject of stimulus, and the subject of stimulus is the object of response. Since there is no reality to stimulus and response, neither is there any difference between stimulus and response. That they differ without being different is because: when the sage submerges the object of stimulus, [the sage] is designated the subject of response; when the ordinary being submerges the object of response, [the ordinary being] is designated the subject of stimulus. Therefore it is said that 'the path of stimulus and response mutually communes.' I privately challenge this statement: If there is truly no difference between stimulus and response, and now the sage submerges the subject of stimulus while the ordinary being submerges the subject of response, why could not the sage submerge the subject of response and the ordinary being submerge the subject of stimulus? If it were so, then there would be no distinction between ordinary and sage. If it were not so, stimulus and response would differ; how could one say they are not different? Furthermore, if the subject of stimulus has no reality as the subject of stimulus and is yet named the subject of stimulus, why is it not named the subject of response? If the object of response lacks reality, why is it not named the object of stimulus? If so, there would be no stimulus and response between ordinary and sage; if not so, then they differ, so how can they be not different? Another challenge: If the subject of stimulus is taken as the object of response, and the object of stimulus is taken as the subject of response, this is the doctrine of arising from self. If the subject of response is merely the object of response, and the subject of stimulus is merely the object of stimulus, this is also the doctrine of arising from self. If the subject of response gives rise to the object of response, and the subject of stimulus gives rise to the object of stimulus; if the subject of stimulus gives rise to the object of stimulus, and the object of stimulus gives rise to the subject of stimulus; if the subject of response gives rise to the object of response, and the object of response gives rise to the subject of response—these are all arising from another; how could this not be the doctrine of an intrinsic other nature? If they arise jointly, there are two faults; if apart from both, one falls into the fault of being without cause.