Vasubandhu made in his `Vimstika` (Twenty Verses on Mere Consciousness) the assertion that merely consciousness is real，not the outer objects. He refuted the real existence of the outside world as propounded by the philosophers of the `Hinayana` schools and by non-Buddhists, thus establishing the basic doctrines of the Mere Consciousness School. In order to further clarify the truth of the mere consciousness philosophy，Vasubandhu at the same time also composed the `Trimsatika karikas` (Thirty Stanzas on Mere Consciousness)，however he passed away without being able to write a prose commentary. According to tradition，ten exegetes later propounded their respective interpretations of the Thirty Stanzas on Mere Consciousness. T'ang master Hsuan-tsang collated their works, writing a treatise known today under the title `Vijnapti-matratasiddhi` (Establishing the Doctrine of Mere Consciousness). However，though it is said that he collated their works. The Japanese scholar Katsumata `Shunkyo` pointed out in his Buddhist Theories of Mind and Consciousness, that Hsuan-tsang accepted the views of `Dharmapala` as the correct explication, and consulted the interpretations of the other masters only partially.
The most important dichotomy between the views of `Dharmapala` and Sthiramati concerns the question of presence or absence of images in consciousness. According to Hsuan-tsang's `Vijnaptimatratasiddhi` and it's commentaries, Sthiramati asserts that the manifesting and manifested components of knowledge are not present in the outside illusionary nature [`abhuta` parikalpa]，and thus emphasizes the unconditionally pure nature of consciousness, propounding the theory of unadulterated original mind，free from all images. `Dharmapala's` view on this point differs. He not only inherits `Dignaga's`epistemology，clearly developing the theory of images within the philosophy of mere consciousness, but also establishes an interpretation of two truths in the framework of the mere consciousness theory, by adopting the method through which `Dignaga` interpreted the different processes of knowing within the structure of conventional and absolute truths. Therefore，`Dharmapala` upholds in the beginning the view，based on the level of dealing with relative truth, propounding existence of images within conciousness, though denying the existence of outside world. He persistently criticizes Sthiramati for the assertion of absence of images within the consciousness which ignores the importance of relative truth, and rejects as erroneous the view of `Madhyamika` scholars like `Bhavaviveka, who propound unreality of consciousness within the doctrine of emptiness of all the dharmas. On the level of dealing with relative truth, he emphasizes that both manifesting and manifested components of knowing are based on the nature dependent on other (paratantra)，that mind and it's concomitants have a different essence，that the essence(ti) and function(yung) of consciousness have both their own innate natures, that knowledge free from it's function and from objects is not the knowledge of the Buddhas, etc. However，`Dharmapala` does not stop at thi
