大般涅槃經義記 5.10

5.10

問曰：若彼是病行者，何故文中不標、不結？釋言：辨義大例有二：一當法直論，須標須結；第二寄人寄事，表法直爾舉人舉事便罷，諸經多爾。然下文中寄人表法，寄彼世王懺悔，滅除害父之逆，以顯菩薩懺悔，滅除一切罪障以為病行，不唯將彼世王懺悔害父之逆以為菩薩一切病行，故無標結。亦可彼文義有兩兼，懺悔滅罪是王病行，為救一切逆罪眾生兼令多人發菩提心，是王梵行，以有兩兼，是故不得偏就一義標舉以結。

Question: If that is illness practice, why does the text neither introduce it with a heading nor conclude it? Answer: General conventions for explaining meaning are twofold: First, directly discussing the dharma in itself requires an introduction and a conclusion. Second, relying on persons and events: directly presenting persons and events to express the dharma and leaving it at that; this is frequently the case in the sūtras. Thus, in the text below, it relies on persons to express the dharma: relying on King Ajātaśatru's repentance to eradicate the heinous crime of patricide, in order to reveal that the bodhisattva's repentance eradicates all karmic obstacles as illness practice. It is not merely taking that king's repentance of patricide as the bodhisattva's entire illness practice, and hence there is no heading or conclusion. Alternatively, that passage has a twofold meaning: repenting and eradicating transgressions is the king's illness practice; while rescuing all sentient beings guilty of heinous crimes and concurrently causing many people to generate the mind of awakening is the king's brahmacaryā practice. Because it has this twofold nature, it cannot be designated and concluded with reference to only one meaning.