首楞嚴義疏注經 3.173

3.173

此色空相傾無識破也。初一句牒，空無下四句立理正破。既從色生，空現色亡，識應隨滅，誰了虛空？若色下五句據理質破也。色若遷變，汝能了變識元不遷，既無色相，從何界立？

This is a refutation based on forms and empty space negating each other so that consciousness is absent. The first sentence cites [the thesis], and the four sentences from 'when empty space is devoid' onward establish reasoning to directly refute it. Since it arises from forms, when empty space appears and forms vanish, consciousness should be extinguished along with them; who then could cognize empty space? The five sentences from 'When forms undergo change' onward pose a direct refutation based on reasoning. If forms shift and change, while that which enables you to cognize change—consciousness—originally does not shift, then since the characteristics of forms are absent, from what is the realm established?