大般涅槃經義記 7.351

7.351

上來三段略辯空義，下重廣之，文亦有三：一廣顯前法、二「如世間」下廣顯前喻、三「猶如世」下廣前第三舉淺類深。就初段中，兩徵兩釋。初「何以故」徵前法說以起於後，前法說中說言無物名為虛空，復言此空名為常無，故今徵問：無物名空，何故言常？下對釋之，「如人說言除物作空」舉他異說，「而是虛空實不可作」破之顯理，以不可作故名為無。言「何以故」乘言重徵：菩薩觀解破相為空，今何以故言空叵作？下對釋之，初先正解無作之義，「若可作」下破作成無。前中初言「無所有故」正解無作，空是無法，云何可作？「以無有故，當知無空是虛空性」牒以結之，以彼虛空無所有故，當知自體無法之空是虛空性，由是叵作。破有作中，「若可作者」舉他所立，「則名無常」徵以顯過，「若無常者不名虛空」責以顯非。

The preceding three passages briefly explain the meaning of emptiness. Below, it is expounded in detail again, and the text likewise has three parts: first, extensively clarifying the preceding dharma; second, from "Just as in the world" onward, extensively clarifying the preceding analogy; third, from "Just as the world" onward, extensively clarifying the third [point] of citing the shallow to illustrate the deep. In the first part, there are two inquiries and two explanations. First, "Why is this?" questions the earlier doctrinal exposition in order to introduce what follows: in the earlier doctrinal exposition it was stated that having no things is called space, and it was further stated that this emptiness is called constantly nonexistent; therefore it now questions: if having no things is called emptiness, why is it called constant? Below, it explains in response: "Just as people say that removing things makes space" cites the divergent view of others; "yet this space truly cannot be made" refutes it to reveal the principle: because it cannot be made, it is therefore called "nonexistent". The words "Why is this?" take advantage of these words to inquire again: a bodhisattva's contemplative understanding breaks down marks to make emptiness; why then is it now said that emptiness cannot be made? Below, it explains in response: first, it correctly explains the meaning of "unmade"; from "If it could be made" onward, it refutes [the idea of] being made to establish nonexistence. In the first part, the initial words "Because it has nothing whatsoever" correctly explain "unmade": since emptiness is the absence of dharmas, how could it be made? "Because it is nonexistent, you should know that the absence of space is the nature of space" takes this up and concludes it: because that space has nothing whatsoever, you should know that the emptiness which is the absence of dharmas in its intrinsic nature is the nature of space, and therefore it cannot be made. In refuting that it is made: "If it could be made" cites what the opponent asserts; "then it would be called impermanent" questions it to reveal the fault; "if it were impermanent, it would not be called space" reproaches it to reveal the error.