Overview of the Vaibhashika Presentation of Ignorance

Vasubandhu lived in the late fourth century and codified the Vaibhashika teachings in A Treasure Trove of Special Topics of Knowledge (Chos mngon-pa’i mdzod, Skt. Abhidharmakośa). According to his presentation, anti-knowing is one of the ten disturbing mental factors (nyon-mongs, Skt. kleśa). Most translators render the ten into English as “afflictions” or “mental afflictions,” and I have usually translated them as “disturbing emotions and attitudes.” Both ways of translating have shortcomings: 

• “Afflictions” include physical afflictions, such as polio
• “Mental afflictions” include Downs syndrome
• “Emotional afflictions” include bipolar disorder
• Indecisive wavering and anti-knowing are disturbing but are neither emotions nor attitudes.

Therefore, I have concluded that the term with the least shortcomings is “disturbing mental factors.” It conforms to the definition: a cognizing of something that, when it arises, causes the mind to be disturbed and to lose behavioral self-control. The mind is disturbed because whenever a disturbing mental factor arises in a cognition, anti-knowing always arises congruent (mtshungs-ldan, Skt. saṃprayukta) with not only it but also with the consciousness and all the other mental factors in the cognition. They are congruent in the sense that they share the same: 

• Focal object (dmigs-pa, Skt. ālambana) – a nonstatic or static phenomenon that exists the moment before it is cognized and that performs the function of being the focal object of the cognition
• Cognitive sensor (dbang-po, Skt. indriya) – such as the photosensitive cells of the eyes
• Cognizable aspect (rnam-pa, Skt. ākāra) – the impression or reflection of the focal object on the cognitive sensor
• Time (dus, Skt. kāla) – the consciousness and all congruent mental factors arising simultaneously in the same moment
• Substantial entity (rdzas, Skt. dravya) – each member of the cognition is the only substantial entity in the cognition from its homogenous class (ris-mthun, Skt. sajāti). A homogenous class is the class of all items that share the same self-nature. For example, from the homogenous class of all feelings, there can only be one feeling in a cognition.

The ten disturbing mental factors are divided into two groups of five. One group of five cognizes its object with a disturbed view and the other group of five cognizes it without one. 

• A view (lta-ba, Skt. dṛṣṭi) is a set of assertions concerning the topics of the four noble truths.
• A disturbed view (lta-ba nyon-mongs-can, Skt. kliṣṭadṛṣṭi) is one that is accompanied and disturbed by the disturbing mental factor anti-knowing.

Anti-knowing and the following four disturbing mental factors cognize their object without a disturbed view. They cognize their objects with: 

• Longing desire (‘dod-chags, Skt. rāga)
• Anger (khong-khro, Skt. pratigha)
• Arrogance (nga-rgyal, Skt. māna)
• Indecisive wavering (the-tshom, Skt. vicikitsā) – specifically, uncertainty about the four noble truths, wavering toward an incorrect understanding of them.

The other five cognize their object with a disturbed view. The sixteen distorted ways of embracing the sixteen aspects of the four noble truths are condensed into these five: 

• Cognizing with a disturbed view toward a transitory network (‘jig-tshogs lta-ba, Skt. satkāyadṛṣṭi) – taking a member of one of the aggregates as being “me” or “mine” as asserted by one of the non-Buddhist Indian tenet systems. The Cārvaka school asserts it as “me,” while the Sāmkhya and Nyāya schools assert it as “mine.”

• Taking (a transitory network) to exist as one of two extremes (mthar-‘dzin-pa, Skt. antagrahadṛṣṭi) – when a member of one of the aggregates is identified as being identical with “me,” regarding that “me” as being static and unchanging during this lifetime and totally ending at death, with no rebirth. Or, when a member of one of the aggregates is identified as being “mine,” regarding that “me” that possesses it as being static and unchanging not only during this lifetime but also continuing as such into a next rebirth. 
• Taking a disturbed view to be supreme (lta-ba mchog-tu ‘dzin-pa, Skt. dṛṣṭiparāmarśa) – regarding as the supreme view the cognizing of a transitory network with a disturbed view, cognizing something taking it to exist as one of two extremes, or cognizing something with a distorted view.
• Cognizing with a distorted view (log-lta, Skt. mithyādṛṣṭi) – regarding what are not the four noble truths as being the actual four noble truths.
• Taking disturbed morality or conduct to be supreme (tshul-khrims-dang brtul-zhugs mchog-tu ‘dzin-pa, Skt. śīlavṛtaparāmarśa) – regarding what is not the cause of the world or of liberation as being the cause, or the practices and disciplines that do not bring liberation, such as attaining one of the four levels of mental constancy as bringing liberation.

Anti-knowing may or may not occur mixed (‘dres-pa, Skt. veṇika) with any of the other ten disturbing mental factors. When anti-knowing occurs mixed with one of them, which means congruent with it, it takes on the valence of that factor – either (1) destructive in the case of the disturbing mental factors that cognize without a view and the last three of those that do cognize with a view or (2) obscured unspecified (bsgribs-pa’i lung ma-bstan, Skt. nivṛtāvyākṛta) in the case of the first two disturbing mental factors that cognize with a disturbed view. 

• An obscured unspecified phenomenon is one that is obscured by anti-knowing and that was not specified by Buddha to be either destructive or constructive. 

Anti-knowing does not occur either mixed with constructive mental factors or in unobscured unspecified mental states, such as when sitting down or just looking at the wall. Vaibhashika is unique, then, in asserting that anti-knowing arises only intermittingly. 

When anti-knowing occurs mixed with one of the five disturbing mental factors that cognize with an incorrect view, it shares, besides the five congruent features, its reversed cognitive grip (‘dzin-stangs, Skt. muṣṭibandha) on its object. It is reversed in the sense that it cognitively takes its object to exist in accord with its incorrect view, which is a manner of existing that is reversed from how it actually exists. Anti-knowing adopts this reversed grip   by the force of that disturbing mental factor and not by its own force. 

Consider the example of when anti-knowing arises in a cognition mixed with the disturbing mental factor of cognizing with a disturbed view toward a transitory network. The disturbed view is that a member of the transitory network of aggregate factors that make up each moment of our experience – for instance, the body – is either identical with an atman and existing as “me” or that it is the possession and habitat of an atman and existing as “mine.” 

The mental factor of discriminating (shes-rab, Skt. prajñā) always accompanies this disturbing mental factor that cognizes with an incorrect view. It differentiates between two opposite alternatives concerning its object, the body – for instance, whether or not is it the possession of an atman – and assesses which is correct. In this case, it assesses incorrectly and discriminates that it is the possession of such a self. This is a distorted way of embracing the body as an example of true suffering. The discriminating mental factor cognizes incorrectly because the anti-knowing mental factor congruent with it stupefies it, debilitating it from apprehending its object, the body. 

To round out the picture of what a state of mind containing anti-knowing is like, let us look at some of the other mental factors that always accompany it. It is one of the six “great mental factors grounded in all disturbing cognizing minds” (nyon-mongs chen-po’i sa, Skt. kleśamahābhūmika). Vasubandhu lists the six in A Treasure Trove (II.26a-c) (Gretil ed., Derge Tengyur vol. 140, 5A). In this list, a “stupefying mental factor” (rmongs-pa, Skt. moha) is a synonym for anti-knowing.

A stupefying mental factor and cognizing without caring (about our behavior) and with laziness, disbelieving what is fact, foggy-mindedness, and agitation always come together with a disturbed (cognizing of something). 

(Skt.) mohaḥ pramādaḥ kauśīdyamāśraddhayaṃ styānamuddhavaḥ / kliṣṭe sadaiva 

(Tib.) rmongs dang bag med le lo dang/ ma dad pa dang rmugs dang rgod/ nyon mongs can la rtag tu ‘byung/

When an anti-knowing mental factor is present in a cognition, it is stupefying and therefore intelligence-debilitating. Disabled and therefore disoriented, such a mind is agitated (rgod-pa, Skt. muddha), it never stays still. Being stupefied, it is also foggy (rmugs-pa, Skt. styāna). Disbelieving in what is fact (ma-dad-pa, Skt. aśraddha) and being naive (rmongs-pa, Skt. moha), it readily accepts misinformation as being true. Being lazy (le-lo, Skt. kauśīdya) and not caring (bag-med, Skt. pramāda) about attaining constructive states, it leads to and accompanies compulsively speaking and acting in destructive ways. 

Note that the Sanskrit term “moha,” translated here in Tibetan in this passage as “rmongs-pa,” is usually translated into Tibetan as “gti-mug,” the more common term for cognizing something with naivety. 

When anti-knowing is a component of a destructive state of mind, it is also congruent with the two “great mental factors grounded in all destructive cognizing minds” (mi-dge-ba’i sa chen-po, Skt. akuśalamahābhūmika). These are: 

• Having no sense of values (khrel-med, Skt. ahrī) – having no respect for good qualities and those who possess them
• Having no scruples (ngo-tsha med-pa, Skt. amanapatrapā) – not regarding destructive cognizing minds and behavior as things to fear.

In A Treasure Trove (V.32cd-33) (Gretil ed., Derge 17A), Vasubandhu explains that the destructive mental states of attachment, arrogance and anger arise from the anti-knowing mental factor through the sequence of the other disturbing mental states: 

From the anti-knowing mental factor, cognizing it with indecisive wavering (arises); from that, cognizing it with a distorted view; from that, cognizing a transitory network with a disturbed view. From that, cognizing something, taking it (to exist with one of two) extreme views; from that, cognizing deluded morality or conduct (and taking it to exist as supreme); from that, (cognizing a disturbed) view (and taking it to exist as supreme); (from that), attachment and arrogance in cognizing something with a view toward oneself and knowing it with anger toward others – the sequence is like that. 

(Skt.) mohākāṅkṣā tato mithyādṛṣṭiḥ satkāyadṛktataḥ // tato 'ntagrahaṇaṃ tasmācchīlāmarśaḥ tato dṛśaḥ / rāgaḥ svadṛṣṭau mānaśca dveṣo 'nyatra ityanukramaḥ // 

(Tib.) rmongs las the tshom de nas ni/ log lta de nas ‘jig tshogs lta// de nas mthar ‘dzin de nas ni/ tshul khrims mchog ‘dzin de nas lta/ rang gi lta la nga rgyal chags/ gzhan la zhe sdang de ltar rim//

The sequence begins with our intelligence-debilitating, uncritical way of knowing or cognizing things. It is intelligence-debilitating because our way of thinking is foggy. It is lazy and we disbelieve in fact. Being agitated as well, we don’t care about how we act or speak. This state of mind is stupefying and bewildering, and so not understanding what we are cognizing, we become indecisive about what we experience in terms of the four noble truths (that it is suffering, and so on) and waver toward an incorrect understanding of them.  Being uncritical, we accept the distorted views about the four noble truths of one of the non-Buddhist tenet systems. Such views are based on grasping for an atman (bdag-‘dzin, Skt. ātmagraha; self-grasping) – a static, solid partless whole that can exist independently of a body and mind. 

That leads to viewing the transitory network of our aggregates (for instance, our body) with the disturbed view that it is the possession of such an atman – it is “mine.” That gives rise, when cognizing our body, to thinking with the extreme view that such an atman will remain unchanging as it takes rebirth and takes possession of another body as “mine.” That leads to cognizing a deluded type of discipline, such as bathing each day in a holy river, as the supreme conduct that will lead to the liberation of such an atman from repeated rebirth. That leads to cognizing these previous disturbed views about the atman as being supreme. That leads to cognizing our body with the attachment and arrogance of a disturbed view toward ourselves – for example, “I, an atman, possess this body as “‘mine’” – and to cognizing it with hostility toward others who try to harm it. This is the sequence with which these disturbing mental factors arise. 

To unpack the connotations and facets of ignorance that the early Chinese translators had incorporated in the term 無明 (without brightening), Vasubandhu explains several synonyms for ignorance as an anti-knowing mental factor. These include:

• A stupefying mental factor (rmongs-pa, Skt. moha)
• A mental factor of cognizing with naivety (gti-mug, Skt. moha)
• A deluminating mental factor (mi-shes-pa, Skt. ajñāna)
• A “counter-clarifying” (obfuscating) mental factor (mi-gsal-ba, Skt. asaṃprakhyāna). 

Vasubandhu lists these synonyms in Autocommentary to “A Treasure Trove of Special Topics of Knowledge” (Chos mngon-pa’i mdzod-kyi bshad-pa, Skt. Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣyā) (Gretil ed. 56.06, Derge Tengyur vol. 140, 65B): 

There, what is named as a “stupefying mental factor” is an anti-knowing mental factor – [Tib.: in other words,] a deluminating mental factor, a “counter-clarifying” (obfuscating) mental factor.

(Skt.) tatra moho nāmāvidyā 'jñānamasaṃprakhyānam

(Tib.) de la rmongs pa zhes bya ba ni ma rig pa ste, mi shes pa dang mi gsal ba'o,

The sixth-century Indian master Sthiramati (Blo-gros brtan-pa) explains the term counter-clarifying (obfuscating) mental factor (mi-gsal-ba, Skt. asaṃprakhyāna) in The Meaning of the Facts, An Annotated Subcommentary to (Vasubandhu’s) “Autocommentary to ‘A Treasure Trove of Special Topics of Knowledge’” (Chos mngon-pa mdzod-kyi bshad-pa’i rgya-cher ’grel-pa don-gyi de-kho-na-nyid, Skt. Abhidharmakoṣa-bhāṣyā-ṭīkā-tattvārtha) (Derge Tengyur vol. 209, 187A). It is opposed to a “clarifying mental factor” (gsal-ba, Skt. saṃprakhyāna): 

Suppose you ask what this “counter-clarifying” (obfuscating) mental factor is. A clarifying mental factor is a discriminating mental factor. Therefore, a phenomenon having the defining characteristic of a “counter-clarifying” (obfuscating) mental factor – one that creates an obstacle to apprehending how knowable phenomena actually exist – is called a “stupefying mental factor.” 

(Tib.) mi gsal ba 'di yang ci zhig ce na, gsal ba ni shes rab yin te, de'i phyir shes bya dag la ji lta ba bzhin rtogs pa'i gegs su gyur pa'i mi gsal ba'i mtshan nyid can chos ni rmongs pa zhes bya'o,

The sixth-century Indian master Jinaputra Yashomitra (rGyal-sras Grags-pa bshes-gnyen) adds in The Clarified Meaning, An Explanatory Commentary on (Vasubandhu’s) “Treasure Trove of Special Topics of Knowledge” (Chos mngon-pa’i mdzod kyi ‘grel-bshad don-gsal-ba, Skt. Sphuṭārtha Abhidharmakośa-vyākhyā), (Gretil ed. 302, Derge Tengyur vol. 143, 292A):

A clarifying mental factor, a discriminating mental factor and a deeply luminating mental factor (all) have one meaning. Any fault that (arises in any of them occurs) likewise in an anti-knowing mental factor. 

(Skt.) saṃprakhyānaṃ prajñā jñānam ity eko 'rthaḥ. tathaiva dośo yathāvidyāyām iti. 

(Tib.) /gsal ba dang shes rab dang ye shes zhes bya ba ni don gcig go/ /ma rig pa la ji lta ba de kho na bzhin du skyon du 'gyur ro zhes bya ba 

In this passage, the Sanskrit term “jñānam” is translated into Tibetan not merely as “shes-pa” (a luminating mental factor), but as “ye-shes” (a deeply luminating mental factor). To understand the significance of translating it in this way, let us look at the explanation of its opposing mental factor, a deluminating mental factor. 

Vasubandhu refers to the deluminating mental factor as a “blinder mental factor” (andakāra) in Sanskrit. This mental factor functions as a blinder, obscuring the mind’s ability to cognize phenomena accurately and decisively. The Tibetan translators rendered andakāra as mun-pa, a “darkener mental factor.” 

Vaibhashika, as well as Sautrantika, Chittamatra and Svatantrika, assert two types of deluminating mental factor – a disturbed one (nyon-mongs-can, Skt. kliṣṭa) and a non-disturbed one (nyon-mongs-can ma-yin-pa, Skt. akliṣṭa). “Disturbed” means congruent with a disturbing mental factor. 

• Only the disturbed variety is the anti-knowing mental factor that is the first link of dependent arising. 
• The non-disturbed variety obstructs the mind from knowing the true facts (yang-dag-pa’i don, Skt. bhūtārtha) about all phenomena and thus prevents omniscience. Chittamatra Followers of Reasoning and Svatantrika identify this deluminating mental factor with the misknowing (ma-rig-pa, Skt. avidyā) that arises with grasping for an impossible self (an atman) of phenomena (chos-kyi bdag-‘dzin, Skt. dharmātmagraha). 

Vasubandhu explains the two types of deluminating mental factor in his Autocommentary (Gretil 01.10-15, Derge 26B) to the first verse of the first chapter of A Treasure Trove, where he praises the Buddha:

He is the one with his blinder/darkener mental factor (cognizing) everything demolished by all means, the one with his blinder/darkener mental factor completely demolished in every way. The deluminating mental factor is what is responsible for impeding seeing the true facts (about all things. But it is) by means of the Bhagavan Buddha’s acquiring the counter-items [Tib.: opponents] that (his non-disturbing, deluminating mental factor) has been completely and absolutely demolished in every way and everywhere with respect to what can be known. (This is) due to its state of never arising again (because of its true cessation). Therefore, because of that, that (Buddha) is the one with his blinder/darkener mental factor completely demolished in every way.

Pratyekabuddha and shravaka (arhats) also certainly have their blinder/darkener mental factors demolished at all times. (This is) because of their definite removal of their disturbing, befuddling mental factor. But it is not complete because, like that, a non-disturbing, deluminating mental factor still exists in them (when cognizing) the Buddhist Dharma, far-removed places and times, and the unending division among things.

(Skt.) sarveṇa prakāreṇa sarvasmin hatāndhakāraḥ sarvathāsarvahatāndhakāraḥ / ajñānaṃ hi bhūtārthadarśanapratibandhādhakāram / tacca bhagavato buddhasya pratipakṣalābhenātyantaṃ sarvathā sarvatra jñeye punaranutpattidharmatvāddhatam / ato 'sau sarvathāsarvahatāndhakāraḥ / pratyaikabuddhaśrāvakā api kāmaṃ sarvatra hatāndhakārāḥ / kliṣṭasaṃmohātyantavigamāt / na tu sarvathā / tatha hyeṣāṃ buddhadharmeṣvativiprakṛṣṭadeśakāleṣu artheṣu cānantaprabhedeṣu bhavatyevākliṣṭamajñānam /

(Tib.) thams cad la mun pa rnam pa thams cad du bcom pas kun la mun pa gtan bcom pa'o, mi shes pa ni yang dag pa'i don mthong ba la bgegs su gyur pa'i phyir mun pa ste, de yang sangs rgyas bcom ldan 'das kyis gnyen po brnyes nas shes bya thams cad la phyis mi skye ba'i chos can du gyur pa'i phyir gtan nas ye bcom pa ste, de'i phyir 'di'i ni kun la mun pa gtan bcom pa'o, de rang sangs rgyas dang nyan thos rnams kyang nyon mongs pa can gyi rmongs pa dang bral ba'i phyir kun la mun pa bcom par ni 'dod mod kyi gtan nas ni ma yin te, 'di ltar de dag la sangs rgyas kyi chos dang, yul dang, dus shin tu bskal pa dang, don rab tu dbye ba mtha' yas pa rnams la nyon mongs pa can ma yin pa'i mi shes pa yod pa nyid do.

“A befuddling mental factor” (Skt. saṃmoha), rendered into Tibetan as kun-la mun-pa (an all-darkener mental factor), is another synonym for a disturbed, deluminating cognizing of phenomena. 

A counter-item (Skt. pratipakṣa) is something that is both the opposite of and the opponent of something else – for instance, something that luminates the mind is the counter-item of something that deluminates the mind. Here, the Tibetan translation renders the term as “gnyen-po,” opponent. 

Pratyekabuddha arhats and shravaka arhats have acquired a true cessation of their disturbed, deluminating mental factors but are still left with the second type of deluminating mental factor. This is the non-disturbing, deluminating mental factor that only a Buddha has totally rid himself of. A blinder/darkener mental factor cognizing everything obstructs cognizing in full the true facts about all phenomena of the three times, including the past and future lives of all sentient beings, the Dharma methods for each of them to implement for achieving liberation, and so on. Unlike disturbed, deluminating cognizing of phenomena, non-disturbing, deluminating cognizing of phenomena is not a disturbing mental factor. Unlike Chittamatra Followers of Reasoning and Svatantrika, Vaibhashika does not call non-disturbing, deluminating cognizing of phenomena a “cognitive obscuration” (shes-sgrib, Skt. jñeyāvaraṇa).

In The Clarified Meaning (Gretil 4, Derge 3B-4B), Jinaputra Yashomitra explains the praise to the Buddha cited above. As it is too long to quote in its entirety, the main points are that a deluminating mental factor cognizing everything impedes seeing the four noble truths and their sixteen aspects. It is likened to the “blinder/darkener” of the night, but unlike nighttime darkness, it still allows for cognizing its object. 

The counter-items to a deluminating mental factor are the true pathway minds (true paths). Counter-items also called “heterogenous items” (mi-mthun phyogs, Skt. vipakṣa) – items that are incompatible with the homogenous items (thun-phyogs, Skt. sapakṣa). In this case, the homogenous items that are compatible with a deluminating mental factor are the nine other disturbing mental factors, such as longing desire and anger. The true pathway minds are the types of discriminating mental factor (shes-rab, Sk. prajñā) that bring about the acquiring of a true cessation of these disturbing mental factors, including anti-knowing. By translating the Sanskrit jñānam, a luminating mental factor, into Tibetan as “ye-shes,” a deeply luminating mental factor, rather than as the more usual “shes-pa,” the translators are indicating that only the true pathway minds are the types of luminating minds that bring about the acquiring of a true cessation of true sufferings and their true origins.

Just as a deluminating mental factor is heterogenous with and opposite to a luminating mental factor, so too are an anti-knowing mental factor and a knowing mental factor. Thus, both (1) deluminating and luminating mental factors and (2) anti-knowing and knowing mental factors constitute counter-members of a pair (mi-mthun-par gyur-pa, Skt. pratidvandva). Vasubandhu indicates this in A Treasure Trove (I.41cd) (Gretil ed., Derge Tengyur, vol. 140, 8A): 

Heterogenous with a knowing mental factor it is another factor (distinct from it), an anti-knowing mental factor like an antagonist, misinformation, and so on. 

(Skt.) vidyāvipakṣo dharmo 'nyo 'vidyāmitrānṛtādivat // 

(Tib.) rig pa’i mi mthun phyogs chos gzhan/ ma rig mi mdza‘ rdzun sogs bzhin// 

Vasubandhu explains in Autocommentary (Gretil 141.01-05, Derge 131B):

By being the opposite of a friend, someone becomes something that is heterogenous (to one, an antagonist). Yet someone who is simply (other) than a friend or (who) does not exist as a friend is not (necessarily the opposite of a friend). Also, truth is spoken of as correct information, (while) speech that is a heterogenous item (to that) is misinformation (the opposite of correct information). And disorder, nonsense, dysfunction and so on are items that are the counter-members of a pair with order and so on. Similarly, like that, an anti-knowing mental factor is an item that is the counter-member of a pair with a knowing mental factor and is to be viewed as another factor (distinct from it). 

(Skt.) yathā mitraviparyayeṇa tadvipakṣabhūtaḥ kaścidamitro bhavati na tu yaḥ kaścidanyo mitrānnāpi mitrābhāvaḥ / ṛtaṃ cocyate satyam / tadvipakṣabhūtaṃ vākyamanṛtaṃ bhavati / adharmānarthākāryādayaśca dharmādipratidvandvabhūtāḥ / evamavidyā 'pi vidyāyāḥ pratidvandvabhūtadharmāntaramiti draṣṭavyam /

(Tib.) ji ltar mdza’ bo zhes bzlog na de mi mthun pa’i sa phyogs su gyur pa mi mdza’ ba ‘ga’ zhig yod kyi/ mdza’ bo las gzhan pa gang yin pa yang ma yin la/ mdza bo med pa yang ma yin dang/ bden pa zhes bya ba ni bden pa’o/ de mi mthun pa’i phyogs su gyur pa’i tshig ni mi bden pa yin pa dang/ chos ma yin pa dang/ don ma yin pa dang/ bya ba ma yin pa la sogs pa yang chos la sogs pa’i mi mthun par gyur pa de bzhin du ma rig pa yang rig pa’i mi mthun par gyur pa chos gzhan zhig to blta bar bya’o// 

In a pair of opposites, the two items are members of opposite classes of phenomena, which is the meaning here of them being separate, distinct items. An example in English is the pair of proton and anti-proton as members of the opposite classes of matter and anti-matter. An electron is other than a proton, and a neutron does not exist as a proton, but neither an electron nor a neutron is the opposite of a proton.

The mental factor of anti-knowing is a separate, distinct item from not only the mental factor of knowing but also from its synonyms mentioned in the quote from Jinaputra Yashomitra, The Clear Meaning, cited above – namely, the mental factors of discriminating and deeply luminating. Vasubandhu emphasizes this in order to refute that anti-knowing is a faulty type of discriminating. In other words, although anti-knowing leads to distorted discriminating of the four noble truths and knowing leads to accurate and decisive discriminating of them, that does not mean that anti-knowing is a distorted type of discriminating. It is another, distinct mental factor. 

To understand this point more deeply, let us examine the Vaibhashika presentation of a discriminating mental factor.