肇論新疏 2.390

2.390

前四句，各一句縱前，各一句奪而出過。若唯色非空，何故經云「色不異空，色即是空」？唯空例同。然則下，正明其違。本，謂經也，亦本旨也。若空色殊觀，豈不違經空色相即之旨、二而不二文乎？

In the first four sentences, one sentence in each concedes the previous point, and one sentence in each refutes it to show the flaw. If it is solely form and not empty, why does the sūtra say "Form is not different from emptiness; form is emptiness"? Being solely empty is likewise the same. From "Then..." onward directly clarifies its contradiction. "Source" refers to the sūtra, and also to the fundamental purport. If emptiness and form are contemplated separately, does this not contradict the sūtra's purport of the mutual identity of emptiness and form, and the text stating that the two are non-dual?