肇論新疏 2.376

2.376

且徵經中非有非無而釋之。初句牒經，據《起信論》釋，皆遮過之義。因執般若是有，故言非有。反執云是非有，下復破云，非謂是非有。無亦例然。後二句重遮。由聞前說不住有無，却住於非有非無，故今遣云非非有，拂却非有；非非無，拂却非無。雖曰不有不無，豈住於不有不無哉？

Now he inquires into the sūtra's "neither existent nor non-existent" and explains it. The first sentence quotes the sūtra; explained according to the Awakening of Faith, these are all senses of warding off errors. Because of clinging to prajñā as existent, it is said to be "not existent." If one reversely clings and says it is "non-existence," it is subsequently refuted below by saying that it does not mean it is "non-existence." Non-existence follows the same pattern. The last two sentences reinforce the negation. Because upon hearing the previous explanation of not abiding in existence or non-existence one instead abides in neither existence nor non-existence, now he dispels this by saying "nor non-existent," sweeping away non-existence; "nor non-non-existent," sweeping away non-non-existence. Though it is called neither existent nor non-existent, how could one abide in neither existent nor non-existent?