So then the question becomes not so much about the this consciousness, the ālayavijñāna, but paratantra, dependent nature.
pass. It's the two truths fro me, you an keep your three natures. I find the explanation produces more problems than it solves
As to your first question -- definitely this is Jayananda's interpretation. Given the way Candrakirti cites the Lanka to this effect, it is probable that this is Candra's point of view as well, though I would not swear to it. Given that the Budddha of the Lanka also treats the Ālaya as an interpretable doctrine, the Buddha (as presented in this sutra) seems to have presented ālayavijn̄āna to just a consciousness that apprehends emptiness, but it is not so clearly stated. All the Buddha really says there is that "know that only emptiness is indicated by the [the term] ālayavijñāna".
I find all this very interesting. It is novel (to me), intriguing and, as long as we are not positing the old eighth storehouse consciouness, satisfying.
I am sorry but I will have to spend some serious amount of time with these things before I really can respond any further. But I will. Jayananda has an exhaustive presentation of his perspective on Yogacara that fills his commentary.
Well, we will look forward to it.
It will be a different world when more of the classical Indian texts get translated.
I personally find it bizarre that no-one has translated Prasannapada or the Avatarabhyasya or the Catuhsatakatika. I suppose patience is the order of the day.