首楞嚴義疏注經 3.173

3.173

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?