Is it true that Candrakirti in his autocommentary to his Madhyamakavatara criticized/did not accept the Alayavijnana stuff saying something to the effect that it was similar to the atman/self of the Brahmans?
And that Candrakirti's comparison of the alaya and atman of the Brahmanical system CLEARLY exposes the flaws in Candrakirti's system although Dolpopa says that in the tantric stuff Candrakirti was different.
Candrakirti did not take the trouble to thoroughly delve into the intricacies/subtleties of the alayavijnana stuff! His superficial perspectives on the Alaya seems to be clearly exposed in his autocommentary. The cracks so to speak!
I am indeed surprised that a scholar of the calibre of Candrakirti could take such a view/stance with regard to the alayavijnana -- did Candrakirti actually read the Lankavatara,Srimaladevisimhada,Sandhinirmocana and Tathagatagarbha sutras for example?
Or should the following question be asked then -- could it be that the alayavijnana system was so deep and subtle that even Candrakirti's freedom from manifoldness or elaborations/proliferations was NOT SUBTLE AND DEEP ENOUGH to understand and appreciate it; or even worse still misunderstand/mistake it for some atman of the Brahmanical system? This includes Bhavaviveka as well.
Rendawa was anti-Dolpopa as per Gorampa's Tawai Shenjed (Freedom from Extremes English translation). Even illustrious scholars like Rongton Sheja Kunrig took texts like the Madhyanta Vibhaga and Mahayansamgraha to be sems tsam (and also that Dolpopa's system of Gzhan Stong still had some kind of subtle grasping!!).
That is why Dolpopa went to some length to explain in the Path section of his Ri Chos why the texts like Madhyantavibhaga etc. do not just teach the worldly Mind Only but also the Ultimate Mind Only(which by the way does NOT have the same meaning as Rongton's drag shos description -- it is well far beyond Rongton's semantics!!!or the Sakya semantics -- they like to label Dolpopa/certain texts Cittamatra this and that.)
And Dolpopa seems to be SPOT ON because if one were to read the translations of the five works of Maitreya/Asanga for instance-nowhere are they as superficial as the above scholars paint them out to be!that is why Dolpopa says what he says in his Ri Chos) (like "...because it would constitute a huge karma of abandoning the doctrine" refer to Hopkins translation).
In addition the statement which sounds something like "the three spheres or dhatus or triple world system is Mind only" people who denigrate the worldly Mind Only should bear in mind that it is a dharma associated with the bodhisattva of the SIXTH BHUMI (refer to the Dasabhumika Sutra).
And also perhaps the term gzhan stong needs to be clarified as exhaustively as is possible -- FROM DOLPOPA'S PERSPECTIVE because there are others who also claim to be Zhentongpas but actually hold views that differ from Dolpopas (the way the term is used etc.)
You can refer to the JIATS article on the thdl.org website.
Some even project their own interpretations onto Dolpopa's gzhan stong without first attempting in an unbiased and unprejudiced way to understand the point(s) that Dolpopa was trying to put forth in his Ri Chos.
I more than welcome constructive criticism and/or rebuttals to what has been said above. But be forewarned this is not a time to be petty. There has been so much unfair criticisms that have been hurled at the gzhan stong of the Jonangpas (Dolpopa).
see also; Yogacara