成唯識論演祕 6.142

6.142

詳曰：觀乎有義引證為理，理恐未可。論但說云「悶觸起時唯有意識」；不言「意聚而是悶攝」，何以得證心聚為悶？以眠例者亦為不齊，如緣引眠，眠不引眠；如緣引悶，如何今悶更引心悶？又眠緣引立心所眠，緣引心悶亦應別立悶為心所；既不別立，何以得眠而為其例？不相似故。然《疏》本意顯悶不同眠，別有體，云悶非心，不障依於意識總聚而假立彼名心悶也。

I examine [this and say]: Observing the citation of proof as reasoning by this other position, the reasoning is, I fear, not yet acceptable. The Treatise merely says, "When swooning touch arises, there is only mental consciousness"; it does not say that "the mental assembly is subsumed under swooning." How can one thereby prove that the assembly of mind is swooning? Taking sleep as an analogy is also uneven: just as conditions induce sleep, but sleep does not induce sleep; here conditions induce swooning, so how can this swoon further induce a mental swoon? Furthermore, when conditions induce sleep, sleep is established as a distinct mental factor; when conditions induce a mental swoon, swooning should likewise be established separately as a mental factor. Since it is not separately established, how can sleep be taken as its analogy? They are not similar. However, the Commentary's original intention was to show that swooning differs from sleep in not having a distinct substantial entity, saying that swooning is not citta; this does not preclude designating it nominally as "mental swoon" based on the overall assembly of mental consciousness.