本文分析「自通之法」的定義、經教依據、印證方式、心理基礎、普遍性與差異性、關懷對象及其功效。 「自通之法」是主體與客體交融互會的產物。這種與他者之間的心靈感通力，幾乎人皆有之；但依然順乎因緣，而出現相當紛歧的差異。其差異之原因有二：一、就情境而言，不同的情境會觸動淺深不一的道德感情。越是面對親密的人，心靈感通力就愈發強盛；越是面對疏遠乃至怨仇的人，感通力也就愈發微弱。二、就個人的涵養而言，道德自覺會隨著個人的道德培養，而變得越來越敏銳、強大。聖者因為無我( 超越自我的藩籬)，所以其「自通之法」徹底開展，卒形成穿透人我障隔而無遠弗屆的「無緣大慈」與「同體大悲」。 「自通之法」不等於「真常心」，它是「緣起」法則下心行運轉的法則，與一切緣起法相同，並不具足「恆常、獨立、真實」的自性；但「自通之法」亦有與「色法」相異之處，厥為「緣慮、了別」之特質，以及諸種心所展現的知、情、意功能。因此佛教倫理學的基本原理，依然是「緣起」，而不必訴諸真常心。 但也不宜將非有情類的因緣生法，完全等同於有情，忽略了「是法住法位」的差異性，而純就其「法性真如」的共同性，過度推論成「無情可以覺證法性」的「無情有性論」。

This article tries to analyse the definition of ‘putting oneself in others’ shoes’, its theoretical evidence, ways of proving and psychological basis. The study also includes the universal applications of this practice and its differences, its objects of concern and effectiveness. The practice of ‘putting one self in others’ shoes’ is a resulting product of communication between the object and subject. Almost everyone possesses this ability of sharing the feelings of others. However, the ability may differ vastly depending on the causes and conditions encountered. There are two reasons for these differences: 1. The Circumstances/Objects: under different circumstances, one may develop different levels of ethical sentiments. The closer/dearerone’s relationship to the person (object), the stronger one’s ability in understanding and sharing the feelings of the person. On the other hand, the further one’s relationship with the object - right to the extreme state where the object is one's enemy - the weaker one’s ability is in sharing the feeling of the object. 2. Personal Cultivation: Our moral awareness Can become stronger and more acute with the development of our moral cultivation. The noble ones have transcended self-atlachment and realised non-self. Thus, their ability of ‘putting one self in others’ shoes’ has thoroughly developed. They have broken through the barriers/obstructions of individuals and are able ‘to have great loving kindness to all unconditionally’, and ‘to see all sentient beings as part of themselves and have compassion for all’. The practice of ‘putting one self in other’s shoes’ is not equivalent to the teaching of the ‘true and eternal mind’. This practice is the rule on how the mind acts in accordance to the Law of Dependent Origination. This is the same as all dependent-originated phenomena. It does not possess a self-nature that is permanent, independent or real. However, the practice of ‘putting one self in others’ shoes’ also differs from the ‘dharma of form’. Unlike the ‘dharma of form’, this practice has the unique characteristic of cogitating and distinguishing, as well as the functions of perceptions, emotions and thoughts that the mind attributes have. Thus, it is not necessary to seek explanation from the teaching of the ‘true and eternal mind’. The fundamental principle of the study of Buddhist ethics is still founded on the teaching of Dependent Origination. On the other hand, it is also inappropriate for us to regards the dependent-originated phenomena among non-sentient beings as equivalent to that of sentient beings. We should not hold onto the common characteristic of dharma-nature alone and neglect the differences in the unique characteristics of each individual dharma/phenomenon. It is unwise to excessively deduce that non-sentient beings can also realise dharma-nature and advocate the theory that ‘non-sentient beings possess inherent (buddha) nature’.