I think you are missing the point. The point is really pretty simple: Buddha used a number of terms in different sutras. If you claim that the Buddha intended the son of a barren women by using the term ālayavijñāna, then you are really doing a disservice to the Buddha's teachings -- the Buddha, as stated by Candrakirti, was referring to something conventionally acceptable.
It seems that from this point of view, there are two different types of sutra- Those that propound the existence of six consciousness, such as the Prajnaparamitra sutras, and those that advocate the existence of eight consciousnesses, such as the Samdhinirmochana, Lanakvatara etc.
There are many instances of the Buddha teaching things that were nonexistent like the child of a barren woman for the benefit of those to be trained, so I do not see why it would a disservice to the Buddha's teaching overall to show that the alayavijnana- as a consciousness different from the six is nonexistent. That does not mean that the alaya is nonexistent full stop, it only means this if you accept a storehouse consciousness as the referent object of the term "alayavijnana."
Again you bring up the term term "rang rig" (svasamvedana)..... Shantideva not only does not refute ālayavijñāna, he never mentions it. ...Therefore, comparing Santideva's refutation of svasaṃvedana with Candrakirti's criticism of the Yogacara usage of ālayavijñāna is mistaken.....you cannot equate ālayavijñāna with svasaṃvedana Thus in the passage I intitially introduced there is no mention of svasaṃvedana......
I am sorry you spent the time typing that all out. I fully agree with all you have said there, I wasn't bringing up rang rig becasue I think it can be related to the alaya, etc, It was you who brought it up in your Gorampa quote
What does Gorampa actually say?
He says, quote
"This master [Candrakirti] explains the all-basis, the afflicted mind, reflexive cognition and so on from authoritative citations.
to remind you, you were saying
that passage is not about whether reflexive cognitons exist. The passage is concerned with how Candrakirti treats citations concerning conventionality.
and you concluded
for Gorampa there is no doubt that these things like ālaya-vijñāna, the afflicted mind, and so on cannot bear analysis -- but as conventions we leave them alone with all their myriad internal contradictions just as we leave the convention that lamps remove the darkness of rooms alone.
My response is based on the fact that I think Gorampa's refutation is faulty. You can read why in my previous post.
''The ālaya exists', 'the person exists',
'only these aggregates exist'...
These three are accepted conventionally, but not necessarily in the fashion in which, for example, the Pudgalavadins might acept the statement "the person exists" when they suggest that that there is an inexpressible person which is neither the same as nor different than the aggregates.
If you hold that the verse above indicates that the alaya existed conventionally, how do you explain verse 39, in which Chandrakirti says that
Since it does not inherently cease, It has ability even though there is no foundation consciouness
His own commentary to that verse states that
no matter how much time passes after karmas have ceased, they are still related to their effects without the need to conceive of a foundation consciousness....
It is clear he is not talking about emptiness here. It is a refutation of the cittamatrin position, and in those sutras mention earlier identified whith the cittamatrin point of view, the alaya is posited as an eighth consciousness. When Chandrakirti says this does not exist, he most certainly means that it does not exist in any way.
The verse you quote stating that the alaya exists is listing some examples that Buddha taught in order to benefit disciples who were not ready to hear something more profound. The Samdhinirmochana and Lankavatara require interpretation as does the abhidharama where Buddha explained the self and aggregates to exist ultimately. All three are non-existent, taught for the benefit of those who lacked the faculties to go deeper at the time.