This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Vasubandhu, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
I appreciate one contributor's change from "consciousness only" to "representation only". Thich Nhat Hanh uses the term "manifestation only" (see for example pp2-4 of Transformation at the Base). I have not cracked the code yet, but several writers insist that Vasubandhu and the western idealists had rather different intentions.
On "mind" vs. "consciousness" vs. "manifestion" vs. "representation", there is an article I haven't read with the tantalizing title "The Meaning of vijnapti in Vasubandhu's Conception of Mind," Bruce Cameron Hall, Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, v9, 1986, pp7-23
Also according to Nhat Hahn (ibid p6n11), Sylvain Levi discovered Sanskrit originals of Vasubandu in the 1920s. Which, if any, English translations are from the Sanskrit? From Tibetan? From Chinese?
FWIW, according to the bibliography oflink The Magic of Consciousness by Lin Chen-Kuo, Kizo Inazu's Bonkanwa Taiso Sechin Yuishikiron Genten reproduces Sanskrit originals of the Twenty Verses and Thirty Verses.
Somebody has changed "representation" to "consciousness". Popular though the latter is, it is not the meaning of Sanskrit vijñapti. See the above comments.--Stephen Hodge 17:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The terms cittamatra & vijnaptimatra both exist, & some scholars say they are different in meaning, & apply them to different philosophers/ies. Which is/are relevant here? Peter jackson (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Can someone have a go at editing this article better to reflect differences among scholars as to whether V was 1 person or 2? Peter jackson (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)