法華義疏 5.15

5.15

若前品是法、今譬上法者，則先法後譬，謂後喻也。若就此品而言，未有法說，前明於譬，是前喻也。又今火宅喻是遍喻也。八種喻中可含三也。但法譬二名其義不定，人多謂譬但為事、法定是理，此實不然。《大經》云「譬如涅槃」，則涅槃為譬；「喻如金剛」，則金剛為譬，故知法譬之名義無定也。以不定故，可得法以為譬、譬以為法，以譬為法則法非定法，以法為譬則譬非定譬，當知非法非譬強名法譬。故因此法譬為令眾生了悟正道非法非譬，故上文言「是法不可示言辭相寂滅」，寄言題品令悟無言，故云「譬喻品」也。立品名應從「爾時舍利弗白佛言，我今無復疑悔」文安之。而卷初身子領解如來述成及與授記，此之三章未是譬喻。而忽在此立品名者，有人言：上根人領解，望下立「信解品」，應別立品名，但文少不足別題，故寄〈譬喻品〉初說也。今明身子要由解前法說方能請後譬喻，故後譬由前領法，所以立譬喻品在領解之初也。

If the preceding chapter is the Dharma and this [chapter] illustrates the preceding Dharma with a parable, then it places the Dharma first and the parable after, which is called a subsequent parable. If we speak in terms of this chapter itself, where there has not yet been an exposition of Dharma and the parable is explained beforehand, it is an antecedent parable. Moreover, the present parable of the burning house is an all-inclusive parable. Thus, among the eight kinds of parables, it can subsume three. However, the meanings of the two names 'Dharma' and 'parable' are not fixed. People mostly think that parables pertain only to phenomena and that Dharma must be principle, but this is truly not so. The Great Sūtra says, 'Just as nirvāṇa...', wherein nirvāṇa serves as the parable; and 'Illustrating like a vajra...', wherein the vajra serves as the parable. Thus we know that the names and meanings of Dharma and parable are not fixed. Because they are not fixed, it is possible to use Dharma as a parable and a parable as Dharma. When taking a parable as Dharma, Dharma is not definitively Dharma; when taking Dharma as a parable, a parable is not definitively a parable. One should know that it is neither Dharma nor parable, and is forcibly named 'Dharma' and 'parable'. Therefore, relying on this Dharma and parable, [the Buddha] causes sentient beings to fully awaken to the right path that is neither Dharma nor parable. Thus the preceding text says: 'This Dharma cannot be demonstrated; the characteristics of words are extinguished.' Relying on words to title the chapter causes them to awaken to wordlessness; hence it is called the 'Parable Chapter'. The establishment of the chapter title should properly be placed from the passage: 'At that time Śāriputra addressed the Buddha, saying: "I now no longer have doubts or regrets..."' However, at the beginning of the fascicle, the three sections—Śāriputra's expression of understanding, the Tathāgata's endorsement, and the conferment of prophecy—are not yet the parable. As for why the chapter title is suddenly established here, someone says: when the person of superior capacity expressed understanding, looking forward to the establishment of the 'Belief and Understanding Chapter' below, a separate chapter title should have been established; but because the text was brief and insufficient for a separate title, it was temporarily placed at the beginning of the 'Parable Chapter'. Now I explain: it was essential that Śāriputra understood the preceding exposition of Dharma before he could request the subsequent parable; thus the subsequent parable stemmed from his preceding grasp of the Dharma. That is why the Parable Chapter was established at the beginning of his expression of understanding.