成唯識論演祕 6.141

6.141

悶有二種：一者悶觸；二、悶心所，由悶觸故引生心悶。《疏取》前義；有義取後，所以者何？既言悶觸起時唯有意識，明知即是意識，心聚名不共也；亦不可說雖觸引生非悶即心，眼由緣引尚別有體，悶由觸引心等不明名悶何失？下，無心悶不言由引及似彼者，一云，識聚不明之時名之為悶，非如眠有別心所法，故不言之；二云，義准知故，所以不說。

There are two kinds of fainting: first, fainting contact; second, the caitasika of fainting; due to fainting contact, fainting of the mind is induced. The Commentary adopts the former meaning; another opinion adopts the latter. Why is this? Since it says that when fainting contact arises there is only mental consciousness, we know that it is precisely mental consciousness, and the mind-aggregate is called unshared; nor can it be said that although induced by contact, fainting is not the mind itself. The eye, though induced by conditions, still has a distinct entity; what fault is there if fainting, induced by contact, is called fainting because the mind and so forth are not clear? Below, regarding mindless fainting, it does not speak of being induced or resembling it: one [opinion] says that when the consciousness-aggregate is unclear it is called fainting, unlike sleep which has a distinct caitasika dharma, so it is not spoken of; another says that because it is known by semantic implication, it is not stated.