As long as there is identification with consciousness ( an inherently self), what is mostly without aware of that, there will be solid phenomena. And even the important examination that these only depends upon their parts, can possible not be enough to stop our grasping/clinging to our experience as phenomena. Conventional and absolute are not separated "natures".
Therefore Buddha looked into his mind to come to know the dependence on "his" consciousness.
I for example should climb in a tree out of fear for a dangerous dog, while you could pass this dog and surprised look at me: oh well, what she is doing?!
Perhaps it helps to examine no things do exists on themselves, are not permanently.
Any experience of consciousness—from the most mundane to the most elevated—has a certain coherence and, at the same time, a high degree of privacy, which means that it always exists from a particular point of view. The experience of consciousness is entirely subjective. The paradox, however, is that despite the indubitable reality of our subjectivity and thousands of years of philosophical examination, there is little consensus on what consciousness is.
And perhaps Chandrakirti seven fold reasoning.