成唯識論述記 4.542

4.542

述曰：下違理中有四比量，此第一也。彼若答言：無五識故名為無心，非無第六。今牒之云：若如是者應立量云：汝應一切定皆名無心；諸定皆說無前五識身故；如汝許滅定。若不言定中，無五識身故，即不定過。以無心、悶絕等亦無五識，彼此共許非無心定。今應助難，滅定無五識說名無心定，此位亦無五識相應受、想等法，名為心行滅。然有心所無心所家，皆須名無第六受想，以有心行滅言等故。

The Commentary states: Below, within the contradiction with reasoning, there are four inferences; this is the first. If they answer: "Because the five consciousnesses are absent it is called mindless, not because the sixth is absent." Now taking this up, it says: If it were so, one should state the inference: for you, all attainments should be called mindless; because all attainments are said to lack the collection of the first five consciousnesses; just like your accepted attainment of cessation. If one does not say "in attainments, because they lack the collection of the five consciousnesses," there would be the fault of inconclusiveness (anaikāntika). For states of mindlessness, fainting, etc., also lack the five consciousnesses, yet both schools agree they are not mindless attainments. Now we should add an objection: if the attainment of cessation lacking the five consciousnesses is called a mindless attainment, then in this state the sensation, perception, etc., associated with the five consciousnesses are also absent, which is called "the cessation of mental activities." However, whether maintaining mental factors exist or do not exist, both parties must call it the absence of sensation and perception of the sixth consciousness, because of the statement "mental activities are extinguished," etc.