大般涅槃經義記 2.125

2.125

下廣辯之。先廣無異，次廣第二無無常義，後廣無變。此三段中文有隱顯，廣無異中單反無順，無無常中反順雙舉，解無變中唯順無反，互從皆得。辯無異中，「於三修異，清淨三歸則無依處」，明無初始歸趣之心，清淨三歸非是其人所趣向處，名無歸處。「禁戒不具」，明無中間正修之行，趣真行闕，所以不具。諸行皆闕，離惡在初，故但云戒。「終不能得聲聞、緣覺菩提果」者，明無究竟所成之果，三乘之果並皆不成，故云不得聲聞等果。不得菩提義則可爾，云何不得聲聞、緣覺？解言：若人一向不聞一體三歸作別異想，容得聲聞、緣覺之果；若曾聞說一體三歸，誹謗不受，作別異想，此即是其謗方等人，罪過五逆，人天之報尚不可階，況能證得二乘道果？

Below, he elaborates them. First he elaborates non-differentiation, next he elaborates the second meaning of non-impermanence, and afterwards he elaborates non-alteration. In these three sections, the text has implicit and explicit parts: in elaborating non-differentiation, there is solely the reverse and no direct; in non-impermanence, both the reverse and direct are presented together; in explaining non-alteration, there is solely the direct and no reverse—following each other, both are permissible. In distinguishing non-differentiation, "If one cultivates difference regarding the three, the pure three refuges will have nowhere to rely" clarifies that there is no initial mind of taking refuge; the pure three refuges are not what that person takes refuge in, which is called having nowhere to rely. "The prohibitive precepts are incomplete" clarifies that there is no intermediate practice of correct cultivation; the practice directed toward the true is lacking, which is why they are incomplete. All practices are lacking, but abandoning evil comes first, which is why he only mentions precepts. "He will ultimately never be able to attain the bodhi fruit of a śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha" clarifies that there is no ultimate achieved fruit; the fruits of the three vehicles all remain unachieved, which is why it says he does not attain the fruits of śrāvakas and so forth. That one does not attain bodhi is quite reasonable, but why does one not attain [the fruits of] a śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha? The explanation states: if a person has never at all heard of the single-essence three refuges and conceives a thought of difference, he might possibly attain the fruit of a śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha; if he has once heard the teaching of the single-essence three refuges, yet slanders and does not accept it, conceiving a thought of difference, then this is a person who slanders the Vaipulya teachings, whose sin exceeds the five heinous acts, so that even the retribution of humans and gods cannot be attained, let alone being able to realize and attain the path and fruits of the two vehicles.