I have understood it to be axiomatic to Yogachara that both perceing consciousnesses and the perceived objects are mind, or just mind, Cittamatra.
That statement is fairly axiomatic for the later period, around Dharmapala and others. (This is the default position for much of East Asian Faxiang / Vijnaptimatra due to Kuiji et al, and also for the Tibetans due to the lateness of their sources.) But strictly, this is probably best called "Vijnaptimatra", and not "Yogacara" (or even "Cittamatra").
But, how about the Maulibhumi of the Yogacarabhumi sastra? Can't get much more axiomatic Yogacara than that, no? It doesn't yet have the position that "both perceiving consciousness and the perceived objects are mind". This is what may be best called "Yogacara", it is eponymous after all.
It is of course difficult to break through one's ingrained habitual tendencies that believe in the existence of an outer world. Therefore one has to read the yogachara texts, like Lankavatara sutra, several times, or tens of times, before you actually understand what they say.
Well, for most of the Yogacara tradition, such as that through Maitreyanatha, Asanga and Vasubandhu to begin with, the Lankavatara is not a main text.
In fact, many would clearly point out that the Lankavatara is a kind of Tathagatagarbha synthesis with Alayavijnana thought. So, usually not considered as very "representative".
I have never heard of a Yogachara that believes in the objective existence of matter & material objects! That sounds quite fantastic to me.
Have you read the Maulibhumi?
If you insist I will naturally find quotations to support my understanding.
And this is my point. If one wants to make a claim to support an understanding, that is not a problem. The problem is when one extends the range of this claim beyond the text that is quoted, and into the "Yogacara" in general. When it is well known that there are a number of streams of Yogacara thought, even in the early and classical period, when many different theses are given.
I'm not saying one quotation here negates another quotation here. I'm saying that the first quotation cannot be extended into a range that includes the second, eg. "The Yogacara states that <insert pet theory here>".
When I read through the Pali suttas some thirty years ago, I found several instances indicative of mind only views, one of the more famous is when Tathagata Shakyamuni says: " Bhikkhus, the whole universe is contained within this small body". I think it is certain that mind only view belongs to the original teachings of Shakyamuni.
Dharma is both words and meaning, or words and experience. After intellectual understanding come the levels of one's personal experience. Much of the cittamatra views are unnecessary when you are still on the level of a beginner, we do not wish to cause unnecessary strife, it is alright to practice generosity, meditation and morality and to refrain from disputes.
When you do attain dhyana and samadhi there are different realisations that become natural, like the Maya-like, or Illusory-samadhi, Shunyata-samadhi, etc...
The general thrust of the whole Mahayana is that matter is without self, this is also said in the Pali suttas for that matter.
If you insist in grasping at material existence you will most likely continue on that same path, and you will interpret the sutras and shastras in that manner. You will find new translations and new editions of the suttas/sutras that we have seen springing up now adays, and in the course of history also. I wonder why this question assumes so much importance ?