肇論新疏 1.298

1.298

初二句論云應有，明緣起故假有也。次一句論云不應有，明從緣故非有也。事一下，緣生事一，有無名二。四句之文似乖，若解其不有不無之同，豈有無之異能違？

In the first two sentences, the treatise says they "ought to be", clarifying that because of dependent origination they are provisionally existent. In the next sentence, the treatise says they "ought not to be", clarifying that because they derive from conditions they are not [truly] existent. From "the fact is one" onward: conditioned production is one fact, while being and non-being are two names. The text of the four sentences seems contrary, but if one understands their identity of neither being nor non-being, how could the difference of being and non-being conflict?