If canonical texts assign saṃjñā and vijñāna to distinct ontological categories with different causal roles, treating them as synonyms misreads technical terminological precision as ambiguity.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

canonical texts(referring to important Buddhist texts): The most authoritative and widely accepted writings in a religious or philosophical tradition—in this case, the foundational Buddhist scriptures.
causal roles(in discussing what makes properties similar or different): The specific effects or changes something causes in the world, or how it acts on other things.
ontological categories(Thomasson's system; used to address mutual exclusiveness and exhaustiveness requirements): Classifications of purported entities distinguished by the relations of dependence they have or lack — specifically dependence on mental states and dependence on spatio-temporally located objects.
saṃjñā(Early Buddhist canonical literature; contrasted with wisdom (prajñā)): Apperception understood as empirical apprehension of phenomena; the awareness that bears upon sensory activity rather than sensory activity itself. Treated in canonical literature as synonymous with vijñāna.

Based on where you are in your exploration