大乘起信論廣釋卷第三．四．五 4.119

4.119

論。云何對治至體無不空　釋曰。下明對治。於中有二。初明虛空非常遍有。後顯法身非有遍常。前中有三。初立。次釋。後結。三文皆顯情有理無。此初立也。明虛空等者。此初明情有。故唯識云。謂曾聞說虛空等亦隨分別有。虛空等相數習力故。心等生時變似如是虛空相現體無不變者。此後顯理無也。如彼空花都無有相。據情雖有據理無故。

[Treatise:] How is this countered? [... its substance is not other than empty].
[Commentary:] The following clarifies the counteraction. Here there are two parts: first, clarifying that empty space is not permanently and omnipresently existing; second, revealing that the dharmakāya is not an existing, omnipresent permanence. The former has three parts: first, stating the thesis; second, explaining it; third, concluding. All three texts reveal that it exists in conception but is non-existent in principle. This is the initial thesis. 'Clarifying empty space and so forth': this first clarifies that it exists in conception. Therefore the *Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi* says: "Having heard it spoken, empty space and so forth also exist according to conceptualization; through the power of repeated habituation to the marks of empty space and so forth, when mind and so forth arise, they manifest transformed into a semblance of such marks of empty space." 'Its substance is not other than empty': this subsequently reveals that it is non-existent in principle. Like sky-flowers having no marks whatsoever, based on conception it exists, but based on principle it does not exist.