大般涅槃經義記 10.87

10.87

次破第二空住物中，先牒直非，「何以故」下釋以顯非。於中先就無器時破，「如是虛空先無器時住在何處」責其住處。「若有住」下，明有住處，虛空即多。彼空住處先有虛空，如有器中所盛虛空在彼住，是以言多。「如其多」下，以多破常。有多有少，「云何名常」？「云何言遍」以多破遍，此處遍多，何得言遍？下復就其有器時破。「若使虛空離空有住」舉其處破。器中之空未有器時，餘空處住；器起之時，捨本空處來器中住，是故名為離空有住。「有物亦應離虛空住」將有類破。世間有物先依空住，餘物起時亦應捨空餘有中住。世間有物無有能得離虛空住，虛空亦爾，云何而得捨本空處來有中住？「是故當知無有虛空」結空為無。

Next, it refutes the second [approach], space residing in objects. It first restates and directly negates it; from 'Why is this?' downward, it explains to reveal the error. Therein, it first refutes it in terms of the time when there is no vessel: 'Where did such space reside previously when there was no vessel?' reproaches its abiding place. From 'If it has an abiding...' downward, it clarifies that if it has an abiding place, space is multiple. In the place where that space abides, space previously existed; as there is the space contained within the vessel abiding there, it is therefore said to be multiple. From 'If it is multiple' downward, it refutes permanence through multiplicity. Having much and little, 'how can it be called permanent?' 'How can it be called pervasive?' refutes pervasiveness through multiplicity: this place has much pervading it, so how can it be called pervasive? Below, it further refutes it in terms of the time when there is a vessel. 'If space had an abiding apart from space' cites its location to refute it. Before the vessel exists, the space in the vessel abides in other spaces; when the vessel arises, it abandons its original space and comes to abide within the vessel, hence it is called having an abiding apart from space. 'Existing objects should also abide apart from space' uses existence to refute it by analogy. Existing objects in the world previously abide relying on space; when other objects arise, they should also abandon space and abide in other existing things. No existing object in the world can abide apart from space; space is likewise, so how could it abandon its original space and come to abide within an existing thing? 'Therefore, one should know that space does not exist' concludes that space is non-existent.