Annotations, note kha, page 132

Meditation on Emptiness, 626; Jam-yang-shay-ba's Great Exposition of Tenets, 59; Annotations, page 132.

It follows that space, also, is name-only and lacks inherent existence because its object of negation, something that is an obstructive form, is exhausted as name only.132kha1

Qualm: Obstructive form is inherently existent.

Reply: How could form be inherently established? [That is,] it follows that it is not inherently established because the elements [that forms are composed of] are not inherently established. 132kha2

Name-only itself also lacks inherent establishment, because name possessors lack inherent establishment.

Without the causes (1) a conceptual consciousness which is an improper mental application and (2) imputation by a conceptual consciousness, as in the case of imputing a snake to a rope132kha4--you will not find the existence of the thorough afflictions, desire and so forth. If this is so, then the existence [of those afflictions] is exhausted as only dependently existent and lack establishment by way of their own entity. Who with intelligence would hold that if something were established by way of its own entity it would be imputed by thought, this being contradictory with being an object established as its own reality. This is because imputed by thought and established by way of own entity are contradictory.

If it is the case that we can assert something exists if a conceptual consciousness imputing it exists, and yet cannot find the existence of it if a conceptual consciousness imputing it does not exist, then it is necessarily the case that that thing is not established by way of its own entity. For example, it is like imputing a snake on a rope. Desire and so forth are also like that.

That also should be understood as follows:

Dzong-ka-ba's text also says: