起信論疏筆削記 10.40

10.40

後、別釋，四：初、空鏡，三：初、標名。疏　本無等者，以從本已來不相應故，非同隨相之說。未斷則有，斷已始無，故名本無。亦非推之使無，故名本無。

Later, the specific explanation, which has four parts: first, the empty mirror, having three parts: first, indicating the name. The Commentary states: "Fundamentally without, etc.": because from the beginningless past it has not been associated, it is not identical to the explanation that conforms to marks. Being existent when not yet severed, and only non-existent after being severed—this is called "fundamentally without." Nor is it made non-existent by deduction; hence it is called "fundamentally without."