大般涅槃經義記 10.83

10.83

第七番中，先舉他說總非不然。「說空無礙與有共合」是一門也，「復言在物如器中果」是二門也。此二皆非，故曰「不然」。「何以故」下，釋以顯非。先破初門，「若言並合即有三種」徵定所立，「異」等列名。「空靜物動」兩聚一處，名「異業合」。「如鳥集樹」類以顯之，鳥喻物業，樹喻空業。空物俱動，兩聚一處，名「共業合」。「如羊相觸」類以顯之。物前空縮，物退空進，故說如似兩羊相觸。有說：此物先與空合，彼物亦先與空共合，兩合同聚，已合共合。是義云何？如樹先與虛空共合，鳥復先與虛空共合，鳥來上樹則得名為已合共合，如是一切。「如二雙指合在一處」類以顯之。下就破遣。「若異業合」牒舉初門，「則有二分」定其二業，「初業空業」列其二名。下就破之，於中有二：一以合破常、二「若言虛空是常」已下約常破合。前中，初言「若空合物，空即無常」是一破也。同物無常方名為合，不同無常不名合故。「若物合空物即不遍，如其不遍是亦無常」是二破也。此義云何？物業不遍，將不遍物與空共合，空隨有物亦應不遍，以不遍故空應無常。

In the seventh section, it first cites what others say and generally negates it as incorrect. 'Saying that unobstructed space conjoins with existing things' is the first approach; 'further saying that it resides in objects like fruit in a vessel' is the second approach. Both of these are incorrect; hence it says 'it is not so'. From 'Why is this?' downward, it explains to reveal the error. It first refutes the first approach: 'If one says that they conjoin, there are three kinds' interrogates and defines what is posited; 'different...' and so forth lists their names. 'Space is still while objects move', two coming together in one place, is called 'conjunction through different actions'. 'Like birds gathering in a tree' illustrates it by analogy: the bird analogizes the action of objects, and the tree analogizes the action of space. When both space and objects move and the two come together in one place, it is called 'conjunction through shared action'. 'Like rams butting each other' illustrates it by analogy: as an object advances space contracts, and as an object retreats space advances; hence it is said to be like two rams butting each other. Some say: this object was previously conjoined with space, and that object was also previously conjoined with space; the two conjoined [objects] gather together, which is conjunction of the already conjoined. What does this mean? It is like a tree being previously conjoined with space, and a bird also being previously conjoined with space; when the bird comes onto the tree, it is termed conjunction of the already conjoined, and so on for all things. 'Like two pairs of fingers coming together in one place' illustrates it by analogy. Below, it proceeds to refute and dismiss [these]. 'If it is conjunction through different actions' restates the first approach. 'Then there are two parts' determines its two actions; 'the initial action and the action of space' lists their two names. Below, it proceeds to refute it, wherein there are two points: first, refuting permanence by means of conjunction; second, from 'If one says that space is permanent' downward, refuting conjunction in terms of permanence. In the former, first saying 'If space conjoins with objects, space is impermanent' is the first refutation: only by sharing the impermanence of objects can it be called conjunction, for if it does not share their impermanence it cannot be called conjunction. 'If objects conjoin with space, objects would not be pervasive; if they are not pervasive, this too is impermanent' is the second refutation. What does this mean? The action of objects is not pervasive; if one brings non-pervasive objects into conjunction with space, space would also have to be non-pervasive conforming to existing objects, and because it is not pervasive, space must be impermanent.