大般涅槃經義記 10.89

10.89

下第九番破彼虛空為物所依。於中有三：第一汎明依他住法悉是無常，舉此為顯所依之法是無常矣。二「譬如」下舉本顯末，明其所依是無常故，能依無常。於中四對：一草木依地、二地依於水、三水依於風、四風依虛空。為顯第四，舉餘類之。一一對中皆初明其末來依本，後就本中辨明無常類顯於末。是中宣說「虛空無常令風無常」，從他意說，非佛自義。論佛自義，虛空無法不為物依。三「若無常」下，以空無常破常破遍。此乃反難，非顯正義。若論正義，空是常遍則非無常，非無常故非物所依。

Below, the ninth section refutes that space is that upon which objects rely. In this there are three points: first, it generally clarifies that dharmas that abide relying on others are all impermanent, citing this to show that the relied-upon dharma is impermanent. Second, from 'For example' downward, it cites the fundamental to show the derivative, clarifying that because the relied-upon is impermanent, that which relies is impermanent. In this there are four pairs: first, grass and trees rely on earth; second, earth relies on water; third, water relies on wind; fourth, wind relies on space. In order to show the fourth, it cites the others by analogy. In each pair, it first clarifies that the derivative comes to rely on the fundamental, and then distinguishes and clarifies impermanence in the fundamental to analogize and show it in the derivative. What is declared here—that 'space being impermanent makes wind impermanent'—is spoken according to the other's perspective, not the Buddha's own teaching. In terms of the Buddha's own teaching, space is a non-existent dharma and is not that upon which objects rely. Third, from 'If it is impermanent' downward, it refutes permanence and pervasiveness by means of space being impermanent. This is a counter-objection, not the presentation of the correct doctrine. If one discusses the correct doctrine, space is permanent and pervasive, and therefore not impermanent; because it is not impermanent, it is not that upon which objects rely.