摩訶止觀 2.38

2.38

諸數無量，何故對意論覺？窮諸法源，皆由意造，故以意為言端。對境覺知，異乎木石，名為「心」；次心籌量，名為「意」；了了別知，名為「識」。如是分別，墮心想見倒中，豈名為「覺」？「覺」者，了知心中非有意，亦非不有意；心中非有識，亦非不有識；意中非有心，亦非不有心；意中非有識，亦非不有識；識中非有意，亦非不有意；識中非有心，亦非不有心。心、意、識非一，故立三名；非三，故說一性。若知名非名，則性亦非性。非名故不三，非性故不一；非三故不散，非一故不合；不合故不空，不散故不有；非有故不常，非空故不斷。若不見常、斷，終不見一、異。若觀意者，則攝心、識，一切法亦爾。若破意，無明則壞，餘使皆去。故諸法雖多，但舉意以明三昧。觀則調直，故言「覺意三昧」也。「隨自意」、「非行非坐」準此可解。

Mental factors are immeasurable; why discuss awakening in reference to 'intent' (manas)? In probing the source of all dharmas, they are all created by intent; therefore, intent is taken as the starting point of discourse. Being consciously aware in confronting objects, differing from wood and stone, is called 'mind' (citta); subsequently weighing and measuring is called 'intent' (manas); clearly distinguishing is called 'consciousness' (vijñāna). Discriminating in this way falls into the inversions of mental conception and view; how could it be called 'awakening'? 'Awakening' means clearly knowing that within mind there is neither intent, nor is there no intent; within mind there is neither consciousness, nor is there no consciousness; within intent there is neither mind, nor is there no mind; within intent there is neither consciousness, nor is there no consciousness; within consciousness there is neither intent, nor is there no intent; within consciousness there is neither mind, nor is there no mind. Mind, intent, and consciousness are not one, therefore three names are established; they are not three, therefore a single nature is spoken of. If one knows that names are non-names, then nature is also non-nature. Because they are non-names, they are not three; because it is non-nature, it is not one. Because they are not three, they are not dispersed; because it is not one, they are not united. Because they are not united, they are not empty; because they are not dispersed, they are not existent. Because they are not existent, they are not eternal; because they are not empty, they are not annihilated. If one does not see eternalism or annihilationism, in the end one sees neither oneness nor difference. If one contemplates intent, it encompasses mind and consciousness; all dharmas are likewise. If one shatters intent, avidyā is destroyed, and the remaining proclivities are all removed. Therefore, although dharmas are many, we only raise intent to elucidate samādhi. When contemplation occurs, it becomes regulated and straight; hence it is called 'the samādhi of awakening to mental states'. 'Following one's own intent' and 'neither walking nor sitting' can be understood according to this.