Chapter 6: Mental factors and association¶

Mind is one; mental factors are a group. Fascicle 42 of the Vibhāṣā arranges that group into seven classes: universal factors, universal defiled factors, minor defiled factors, universal wholesome factors, universal unwholesome factors, universal factors of obscured indeterminate states, and universal factors of unobscured indeterminate states. The familiar scheme of five classes plus undetermined factors is the later arrangement settled in the Kośa. It removes the last two classes and reduces the universal unwholesome factors from five to two. This classification is the finest exhibit of the Vibhāṣā's classificatory powers and the most systematic part of the doctrine for which Essay 15 had no room. This chapter examines the lists themselves, then the relation binding their members together, association. It closes with a glance at the fifty-two mental factors of the Southern tradition discussed in Essay 14.

The seven lists and their origins. The class names are already familiar terms in the two hundred fascicles. 大地法, "universal factors," occurs sixty-four times; 十大地法, "ten universal factors," eight; 大善地法, "universal wholesome factors," thirty; 大煩惱地法, "universal defiled factors," fourteen; 大不善地法, "universal unwholesome factors," four; and 小煩惱地法, "minor defiled factors," six.¹ The "ground" in these Chinese class names is mind. Feeling, perception, volition, contact, desire, attention, resolve, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom necessarily accompany every arising of mind. They are therefore called the universal factors, the ten present in every mind. Fascicle 16 offers an exceedingly brief question and answer about the name's origin. "Why are they called mental factors? Because they belong to mind."¹ Mental factors are things that mind has. The name points back only one step. This causes no difficulty in classification, where the classes are clearly divided. But by the approach established in Chapter 1, the procedure is already visible here. First come the cells. A circular sentence disposes of the question of what their names mean.

Four classes come from the Prakaraṇapāda. The Prakaraṇapāda's chapter on seven matters first sets out four classes of ten items each. The universal factors are feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention, desire, resolve, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom. The universal wholesome factors are faith, diligence, shame, moral regard, nongreed, nonhatred, pliancy, equanimity, heedfulness, and nonharming. The universal defiled factors are lack of faith, laziness, loss of mindfulness, mental distraction, ignorance, lack of clear comprehension, unwise attention, wrong resolve, agitation, and heedlessness. The minor defiled factors are anger, resentment, concealment, vexation, envy, avarice, deception, flattery, intoxication, and harm.² Compared item by item with fascicle 42 of the Vibhāṣā, the four classes have exactly the same members. The only differences are in Chinese renderings: 定 and 三摩地 both mean concentration, 勤 and 精進 both mean diligence, and 失念 and 忘念 both mean loss of mindfulness. The order has changed, however. The ten universal wholesome factors have not moved at all. Among the universal factors, attention and desire exchange places. Five positions change among the minor defiled factors and seven among the universal defiled factors. The purpose of the last change is stated in the sentence that follows it. The Vibhāṣā moves lack of faith, laziness, heedlessness, agitation, and ignorance into the first five places. It puts loss of mindfulness, lack of clear comprehension, mental distraction, unwise attention, and wrong resolve in the last five. It then declares, "These two kinds of universal factors have twenty names but only fifteen substances." Each of the last five is a defiled aspect of a universal factor. Loss of mindfulness is mindfulness; lack of clear comprehension is wisdom; mental distraction is concentration; unwise attention is attention; wrong resolve is resolve.¹ The names are retained and the order rearranged. The rearrangement makes precisely the space this subtraction requires.

The Vibhāṣā adds three classes and supplies their names. The last three classes appear nowhere in the eighteen fascicles of the Prakaraṇapāda. The three names, universal unwholesome factors, universal factors of obscured indeterminate states, and universal factors of unobscured indeterminate states, appear only in fascicle 42 of the Vibhāṣā. Shamelessness and lack of moral regard do not form a class in the Prakaraṇapāda. They share a five-dharma list with initial application, sustained application, and consciousness.² The Vibhāṣā establishes the universal unwholesome class and expands it to five items. Torpor and agitation enter because of their powerful obstruction of calm and insight. Ignorance enters because it is universally associated with every unwholesome mind.¹ The relation of inheritance can thus be stated firmly: four groups retained, one with two items exchanged and two with more extensive reordering, and three new groups added. A layer further back, the twenty fascicles of the root treatise that the Vibhāṣā explains, the Jñānaprasthāna, contain not a single occurrence of the two characters 地法, "ground factors." Under the cause of association in fascicle 1's account of the six causes, it merely lists the ten items individually, feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention, desire, resolve, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom, without a collective name.³ The four characters 十大地法, "ten universal factors," are supplied when fascicle 16 of the Vibhāṣā explains this passage.¹ The three layers each perform one operation. The Jñānaprasthāna supplies the items, the Prakaraṇapāda supplies the class names, and the Vibhāṣā adds classes and consolidates substances.

The meanings of association. The relation binding mind and mental factors together is called association. Fascicle 16 asks why mind and mental factors serve as causes of association for one another. The answer repeats "one another" six times. They are causes of one another, arise through one another's power, draw one another forth, nourish one another, increase one another, and depend on one another. Then comes the famous set of similes. Two bundles of reeds stand by leaning on each other. Many ropes together can pull a large log. Many people joining hands can cross a great river. The passage concludes that conditioned dharmas are weak by nature and can accomplish their tasks only by depending on one another.¹ The same passage asks feeling, "Without perception, could you receive an object?" It answers, "No." "The same applies when mind and the other mental factors are questioned."¹ Each mental factor is called up and asked whether it can do its work without the others. Every answer is no, and one "The same applies" stamps the entire list. These lines state the substance of association in full. Dharmas are too weak to accomplish anything singly. They must arise together in groups and take the same object. Notice that the Sarvāstivādins establish a cause of association, a kind of cause, without making association itself a dharma on the list. The relation is put into the drawer marked "causes." Chapter 5 of Essay 15 addressed this move directly. The burden of connection shifts from the entries to time. This chapter adds only the original form of the Vibhāṣā's account.

Combination in fascicle 197, a functional definition of relation. Chapter 6 of Essay 15 noted that fascicle 197 gives two meanings of combination. Coarising without separation is called combination. Not conflicting and jointly accomplishing one task is called combination.¹ The second meaning is precisely what the three similes of association describe, not conflicting and jointly accomplishing one task. The Vibhāṣā thus has a purely functional concept of relation available. Several things come together and accomplish one task without requiring another entity to be established. It uses this concept smoothly when discussing contact and combination. Yet with mind and mental factors, "jointly accomplishing one task" becomes a cause of association, while with acquisition, "belonging to" becomes a real dharma. A functional account has been created but is not used at the crucial points. This is another example of making instruments and leaving them unused, discussed in Section 14 of Chapter 2.

Comparison with the Southern tradition. The Southern tradition counts fifty-two mental factors. The settled Sarvāstivāda count is forty-six, fixed in the Kośa. On the Vibhāṣā side, all seven class names are present, but the total is not closed.⁴ The two lists use different principles of grouping. The Southern tradition asks whether factors occur in every mind and whether they are beautiful. The Sarvāstivādins group by ground, whether wholesome, defiled, or unwholesome. Yet each has one group that corresponds exactly in purpose. The Southern tradition's seven universal mental factors and the Sarvāstivādins' ten universal factors both ask which mental factors necessarily accompany every mind. Seven names stand against ten. The shared core includes feeling, perception, volition, contact, and attention. The additions and omissions each have their history. An item-by-item comparison is the work of a table; this chapter takes only the framework. Essay 14 already established the real difference. Southern classification serves the recording of insight practice. Sarvāstivāda classification serves the completeness of doctrinal sets. The two use the same tool for different work.

On to Chapter 7. Having arranged the mental factors, we turn to their most important family. In this system, defilements are called underlying tendencies. Whether underlying tendencies are associated or unassociated with mind is a major disagreement between the Vibhāṣā and the Vibhajyavādins.

References¶