法華經義記 4.51

4.51

覈明索車義第三有七問答，索以求取為義，車以運載為能，今言所索是車，故言索車。昔日斷正結盡時出三界外得無為涅槃，既隨佛教修行斷結，正結既盡成無學果。然羅漢、辟支有三明之智，用天眼之智誡觀未來猶有生死，自覺死後不得便入涅槃。佛昔勸導但修行斷三界煩惱，盡時得無生智得入無餘涅槃，正言照生因盡是盡智具足，照我生果亡是無生智具足。而今日覺生因未盡，盡智未具；尚有生果，無生智未具。如來言斷正使得盡智、無生智具足，是何處耶？此即是索義。于時即有以理惑教、以教惑理，若以理惑教則有索義，若以教惑理則無索義。今現見生死未盡，云何得入涅槃？生死既未盡，佛教何故言斷正使盡得入涅槃？今二智究竟是何處耶？此即以理惑教有索義也。然佛是至人，誠言無二，既說斷正結盡得入涅槃，佛語不虛，云何不信？如今所見生死，何必是生死耶？便言我生已盡，所作已辦，自言二智究竟得入無餘，此則以教惑理無索義也。今明索義正取以理惑教，不取以教惑理，是故三無學人並以理惑教皆有索義。昔見道諦思惟是生死因義，兩宗餘習非生死因，義同無記，此就教為論，非是理談。

Third, examining and clarifying the meaning of demanding the carts has seven questions and answers. 'Demanding' takes seeking and obtaining as its meaning; 'cart' takes transporting as its capability. Here, that which is demanded is a cart; hence it is called 'demanding the carts'. In the past, when the primary fetters were exhausted and severed, one exited outside the three realms and attained unconditioned nirvāṇa. Having cultivated and severed the fetters according to the Buddha's teaching, when the primary fetters were exhausted, one achieved the fruition of a non-learner. However, arhats and pratyekabuddhas possess the wisdom of the three clarities: using the wisdom of the divine eye, they attentively observe the future, where there is still birth and death, and realize for themselves that after death they cannot immediately enter nirvāṇa. Formerly, the Buddha exhorted and guided them merely to cultivate the severance of the afflictions of the three realms, [promising that] when they are exhausted, one attains the knowledge of non-arising and enters nirvāṇa without remainder; [the teaching] precisely stated that illuminating the exhaustion of the causes of birth is the perfection of the knowledge of exhaustion, and illuminating the demise of the effects of one's own birth is the perfection of the knowledge of non-arising. Yet today they realize that the causes of birth are not yet exhausted, so the knowledge of exhaustion is not yet complete; and effects of birth still remain, so the knowledge of non-arising is not yet complete. Where is that which the Tathāgata spoke of—that severing the primary propensities results in the perfection of the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising? This is precisely the meaning of demanding. At that time, there were those who doubted the teaching on the basis of principle, and those who doubted principle on the basis of the teaching: if one doubts the teaching on the basis of principle, then there is the meaning of demanding; if one doubts principle on the basis of the teaching, then there is no meaning of demanding. Now, seeing directly that birth and death are not yet exhausted, how could one enter nirvāṇa? Since birth and death are not yet exhausted, why did the Buddha's teaching state that severing the primary propensities completely enables one to enter nirvāṇa? Where, ultimately, are these two knowledges now? This is doubting the teaching on the basis of principle, in which there is the meaning of demanding. However, the Buddha is the ultimate person, whose truthful words are not twofold: since he spoke of entering nirvāṇa upon exhausting and severing the primary fetters, the Buddha's words are not false, so how could one not believe them? As for the birth and death seen now, why must it be birth and death? Thus they say, 'My births are exhausted, what was to be done has been accomplished,' claiming for themselves that the two knowledges are ultimate and that they have attained entry into [nirvāṇa] without remainder; this is doubting principle on the basis of the teaching, in which there is no meaning of demanding. Now, clarifying the meaning of demanding takes specifically doubting the teaching on the basis of principle, and does not take doubting principle on the basis of the teaching. Therefore, the three kinds of non-learners, all doubting the teaching on the basis of principle, all have the meaning of demanding. In the past, the path of seeing and cultivation [identified] the cause of birth and death, while the remaining propensities of the two traditions were not causes of birth and death, their meaning being equivalent to the indeterminate; this is a discussion with respect to the teaching, not a discourse on principle.