大般涅槃經集解 68.62

68.62

案僧亮曰：外道說虛空是色，有對可見。佛說非色無對，不可見也。寶亮曰：第三文，破外道所執。正義明虛空是無，而外家計有，是故須破。汝若言虛空是光明，復計之為住處者，即是色法。若是色法，便有方所，即三世所攝，是無常住法也。夫虛空不離三法者，佛更作相來破。夫萬法有無不離此三，汝計虛空在何法中？空者，直取無物處名空也。實者，如色法柱木等是也。空實者，是有無之際也。若言虛空住空法中，便應無常。何以故？此虛空不遍實處，與空實即是分數。若是分數，復不免無常。餘實與空實，二法更相踐，破意如前，同有不遍之過也。

Sengliang comments: Non-Buddhists say that space is form, possesses resistance, and is visible. The Buddha says it is non-form, without resistance, and invisible. Baoliang says: The third passage refutes the attachments of non-Buddhists. The orthodox doctrine clarifies that space is nonexistent, yet non-Buddhists reckon it as existent; therefore it must be refuted. If you say that space is light and further reckon it to be an abode, then it is a phenomenon of form. If it is a phenomenon of form, it has a spatial location, which means it is subsumed under the three times and is an impermanent, abiding phenomenon. 'Space does not depart from the three phenomena'—the Buddha further posits characteristics to refute it. The myriad phenomena, existent or nonexistent, do not depart from these three; in which phenomenon do you reckon space to be? 'Empty' simply refers to a place devoid of things being called empty. 'Solid' refers to phenomena of form such as pillars and timber. 'Empty and solid' is the boundary between existence and nonexistence. If one says that space abides within the empty phenomenon, it must then be impermanent. Why? This space does not pervade the solid place, forming parts and divisions with the empty and solid. If it has parts and divisions, it again does not escape impermanence. The other two phenomena, solid and empty-solid, mutually impinge on each other; the intent of the refutation is as before, sharing the fault of non-pervasiveness.