Candrakirti's Madhyamakavatarabhasya (Huntington Jr.), Buddhist Philosophy: Essential Readings

Candrakirti's Madhyamakavatarabhasya (Huntington Jr.), Buddhist Philosophy: Essential Readings
Subject Matter:
This section concerns a portion of Candrakirti's seminal 6-7th CE work, called the Entry into the Middle Way and it's commentary, or the Madhyamakavatarabhasya.  In chapter 6, he deals with philosophical concerns regarding various views on the self. His two main 'opponents,' if they can be called that, are the Indian and Buddhist monists/idealists and the Indian dualists.  These are the Advaita Vedanta (to name one), the Vijnanavada, and the Upanisads. Candrakirti undermines the monism/dualism debate by coming to a middle way, so to speak.
Both idealism and dualism are forms of reification.  It is not possible to attribute real inherent existence (svabhava) to either mind, matter or both.  Consciousness can only be defined in relation to subjective (mental) and objective (material) others.  In this way, both observer and observed are ultimately merely provisional, lacking any objective existence.
Primary Argument:
How does Candrakiriti come to this conclusion?  His arguments are quintessentially Madhyamaka.  He is refuting the position of his primary opponents, the Vijnanavadas, or "mind-only" school, by criticizing them of reifying a provisional teaching of the Buddha into something that is objectively and inherently true, or "ultimate."
The argument comes down to the fact that Candrakirti holds the teaching that only mind exists is a provisional one, while the Yogacara school believes it to be an ultimate teaching.  He believes that the mind-only teaching is meant to be delivered to those who grasp onto views that the material world is objectively true, but it actually is merely conventionally true.  On the other hand, the Yogacara holds the position to be ultimately true.  Candrakirti says that with a higher level of understanding, the mind is not even objectively/inherently "real", but only provisionally or relatively real based on the fact that it exists only in relation to other entities such as material form (rupa).  In this sense, both mind and matter are merely relatively or conventionally true, with Candrakirti saying, "...none of the five (aggregates) appears to a yogi who pursues illuminating knowledge of reality," and "If form does not exist, then do not cling to the existence of mind."
Another argument stems from a statement of the Buddha, in which he purportedly said that the mind is "produced from delusion (moha) and volitional action (karman) so it could not be objectively true.
Method:
I'm not quite sure what method Huntington uses, but likely he translated the Madhyamakavataraabhasya from its Sanskrit original and then summarized the main points.  What is that? A historical reconstruction?
Key Points/Free Write:
How does this relate to the contemporary study of the self in America today?  Key is the way in which Candrakirti relegates the teachings of the Yogacara school to the status of merely "provisional," something to which they would likely take offense.  Is that what we are doing in the context of MBSR and mindfulness based psychotherapies?  If the teachings are ultimately founded in the teachings of the Buddha, that ultimately, there is no self, how can we understand the way in which the self has been appropriated for the self-help cause with regard to its usage in mindfulness?  I think it is safe to say that Buddhist philosophers would say that, "Sure, this teaching is useful in the West, especially insofar as it alleviates suffering.  But ultimately, once the practitioners have advanced to a certain level, they have to let go of the reified belief in the self.  Much as he felt that the idea that material form (rupa) is non-existent should be taught to those who cling to the inherent existence of the "objective world," because it would serve as an antidote (to use the metaphor of the Buddha as teacher), he would say that the idea that the self exists conventionally can be emphasized to a group of Buddhist practitioners in the West who are so ingrained in the culture that a teaching about the emptiness of self would actually be detrimental on the path to alleviating human suffering.  So...MBSR = a provisional teaching?