I don't think "self" is the right term in English for the sort of quality I want to ask about.
So, regardless of its ontological status, or that of what it relates to (objects), do (any) Mahayana Buddhists teach subjectivity?
Buddhism Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people practicing or interested in Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
Some person got wet in the rain, and so he feels wet. Some other person didn't walk in the rain, and so he feels dry.
Thus feelings of people standing side by side in the same room can be very different.
Likewise, their thoughts can be very different. Likewise, their actions can be very different.
To explain that, it's enough to have understanding of causes and effects. Thus the explanation doesn't need notions like "subjectivity" or "self".
Investigating our experiences from the point of view of causality, we can discover illusoriness of "self" and "subjectivity".
Imagine such ideas - "self" and "subjectivity" - as opaque spots which taint our field of vision. When we realize that such ideas are illusory, it's like the spots became transparent. If we focus on them, we still might see them, but they don't hinder our sight anymore. We just look through.
Then we don't need to rely on such ideas anymore. Thus they will not lead to attachments.
That's what Mahayana (and Buddhism in general) teaches. "Self" and "subjectivity" are opaque spots where actually everything is transparent. Likewise, all the other ideas are like opaque spots, if we don't see through them.