大般涅槃經疏 13.27

13.27

枝本者，有人言：病是根本，從病開四。是義不然。彼見病行其文在前而言是本。此是讀文，何關推義。何者？病同他惡乃是枝末，云何以末而為本耶？文云「菩薩住於大般涅槃，專心修習五種之行。」則涅槃為本，言涅槃者即是天行。緣於涅槃自修名聖行，緣於涅槃化他名梵行，涅槃理顯乘理自進名天行，乘理化物同善名嬰兒行，同惡名病行。豈不以天行為本，而棄本從末？有師言：五行通是病行，引文云「是五種人有病行處，唯佛無病。」是義不然。五人有病，修於聖行以治自病，何能病行？唯佛無病，能作病行。若五行次第從淺至深，則病行居後。若論一行即是五行，則一病行備於五行。迦葉推佛，佛因無病，即是聖行。推果無病，即是天行。大悲熏心，即是梵行。如彼小兒，即嬰兒行。及常患者，即是病行。一即具五名為圓行，是如來行。餘之四行亦復如是。若判通別，亦以天行為通，餘行則別。雖作此釋，不可一向（云云）。有師言：五行為因，一行為果。是義不然。俱稱為行，云何偏判？有師言：五行別、一行總，一五五一束散之異。其理乃爾，其行不然。諸佛境界非是二乘菩薩所知，上能束散於下，下不能卷舒於上（云云）。

Regarding branches and root: some say that illness is the root, and from illness the four unfold. This meaning is incorrect. They see that the text on practice with illness appears earlier, and so claim it is the root. This is merely reading the text; what does it have to do with deducing the meaning? Why? Illness, being identical to the evil of others, is a branch and twig; how can one take a branch to be the root? The text says: "The bodhisattva abides in the great parinirvāṇa and single-mindedly cultivates the five kinds of practice." Thus nirvāṇa is the root; speaking of nirvāṇa, it is precisely heavenly practice. Directing toward nirvāṇa to cultivate oneself is called noble practice; directing toward nirvāṇa to transform others is called pure practice; when the principle of nirvāṇa becomes manifest and one mounts the principle to advance oneself, it is called heavenly practice; mounting the principle to transform beings, identifying with good is called infant-like practice, and identifying with evil is called practice with illness. How can one not take heavenly practice as the root, and instead abandon the root to follow the branches? Some masters say: the five practices are collectively practice with illness, citing the text which says, "These five kinds of people have the domain of practice with illness; only the Buddha is without illness." This meaning is incorrect. The five persons have illness, and cultivate the noble practice to cure their own illness; how could they perform practice with illness? Only the Buddha is free from illness and can perform practice with illness. If the five practices are sequential from shallow to deep, then practice with illness comes last. If one speaks of the one practice being the five practices, then the one practice with illness is complete with the five practices. When Kāśyapa praised the Buddha: that the Buddha's cause was free from illness is noble practice; praising that his fruit is free from illness is heavenly practice; that great compassion perfumed his mind is pure practice; "like that small child" is infant-like practice; and "as for the one constantly afflicted" is practice with illness. One possessing five is called round practice, which is the Tathāgata's practice. The remaining four practices are also like this. If we determine them as general and specific, heavenly practice is also general, and the other practices are specific. Although this explanation is given, it should not be taken exclusively (and so forth). Some masters say: the five practices are the cause, and the one practice is the fruit. This meaning is incorrect. Since both are called practice, how can one determine them one-sidedly? Some masters say: the five practices are specific, and the one practice is general—the difference between bundling and dispersing one and five. The principle may be so, but the practice is not. The realm of the Buddhas is not what the two vehicles and bodhisattvas can know; the higher can bundle and disperse the lower, but the lower cannot contract and expand the higher (and so forth).