大般涅槃經義記 8.136

8.136

就初段中，「所言空者」標別愚人。愚謂二乘，二乘唯見生死法空，故言空者，亦得說言若無常者及無我者，就始言耳。下言「不見空與不空」彰其所迷，二乘之人但能見空、不能見空及與不空，故言不見空與不空，非全不見。此言略少，若具，應言不見苦、樂，乃至不見我及無我，類初可知，略不具論。人言：空者牒前理空，云言不見空、不空者，導前空理非智慧故，不能見空及與不空。麁看似是，細窮則非，空理不見，何待言論？

Within the first section, "that which is called empty" marks and distinguishes the foolish person. The foolish refers to the two vehicles; the two vehicles only see the emptiness of the dharmas of saṃsāra, hence it says "the empty"; one may also say "that which is impermanent" and "that which is non-self," speaking merely in terms of the beginning. Below, saying "not seeing the empty and the non-empty" makes evident what they are deluded about: persons of the two vehicles are only able to see emptiness, but are not able to see both emptiness and non-emptiness; therefore it says "not seeing the empty and the non-empty," not that they see nothing at all. These words are abbreviated; if complete, they should say "not seeing suffering and bliss," up to "not seeing self and non-self"; by analogizing with the beginning, this may be understood, so it is briefly not discussed in full. Someone says: "The empty" takes up the preceding emptiness of principle; saying "not seeing the empty and the non-empty" is because that which leads to the preceding emptiness of principle is not wisdom, so it cannot see the empty and the non-empty. On a coarse reading it seems right, but when scrutinized closely it is wrong: if the principle of emptiness is not seen, what need is there to speak of it?