大般涅槃經義記 10.84

10.84

就下約常破合之中，「若言空常，與動物合，是義不然」舉以總非。「何以故」下，釋以顯非。「若空是常，物亦應常」，明物有其同空之過。「物若無常，空亦無常」，明空有其同物之過。「若言虛空亦常無常」遮其並立。前人被徵，喜立兩義，故舉以非。虛空一法，云何是常復名無常？以有此過，是故不得說空合物。

Under the subsequent section refuting conjunction in terms of permanence: 'If one says space is permanent, its conjunction with moving objects is incorrect' cites it to generally negate it. From 'Why is this?' downward, it explains to reveal the error. 'If space is permanent, objects should also be permanent' clarifies that objects have the fault of conforming to space. 'If objects are impermanent, space is also impermanent' clarifies that space has the fault of conforming to objects. 'If one says space is both permanent and impermanent' precludes positing both together. When the opponent was challenged, he was inclined to establish both meanings, hence this is cited to negate it. How could the single dharma of space be permanent and also be called impermanent? Since this fault exists, one cannot say that space conjoins with objects.