[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Ground

I am talking from a prasangika madhyamaka perspective when commenting on the applicability of the label 'truth' and in the context of direct perception of emptiness.

It doesn't seem like you are.

Prāsaṅgika is a subschool of Madhyamaka, which asserts that all concrete and mental phenomena, although existing conventionally, are empty of any type of inherent identity or self-characterizing essence.

From a dzogchen perspective it isn't possible to miss awareness.

It is possible to not realize Buddha Nature after the introduction... Which is exactly what I said you have not realized... A big difference

In the context of applying prasangika madhyamaka I can. See I can say 'I am tasting sweet sugar.' But saying this is not the experience of sweetness. understand?

That experience is not emptiness... you still don't get that..

Just consult Tsongkhapa, he uses the expression 'direct perception of emptiness' all the time. Of course in prasangika madhyamaka there is no difference between 'perception' and 'imputation' but I thought that goes without saying.

Please share some examples.

Emptiness in prasangika madhyamaka is the absence of inherent existence. Where is it absent from? From all objects/phenomena including oneself.
So there is an appearance and what seems to appear is actually absent. The appearance is emptiness because it is empty of what seems to appear.
That is quite straightfoward and consistent.

That is the conventional view.. emptiness is not something perceived, nor something viewed because of the absence of appearances

You are stuck on the conventional, intellectual understanding and trying to apply that to a realization you haven't experienced.. which is why you keep saying things which are not correct.

Maybe you are not familiar with Tsongkhapa's supreme presentation. It actually takes some time to graps how to linguistically express the philosophy consistently.

Or you could post some relevant points to help with the understanding.