As for pratītyasamutpāda modern Buddhists don't really get it.
What do you mean by the term "modern Buddhists"? Do you mean Buddhists living in the modern age (this includes you)? Do you mean people purposefully taking apart key Buddhists concepets in order to "modernise" it (eg Steve Batchelor)? What do you mean?
They have turned it into some kind of absolute when it is nothing of the kind. Things that are dependently originated are empty and barren because, at bottom, they are illusory, being merely phenomenalizations of Mind. These phenomenalizatons bewitch us into believing illusion is real, and ultimate reality (the One Mind) is illusory! Things (illusions) can only be interdependent (parasparapeksa) through the absolute substance or, the same, essence of Mind. The idea of illusions all the way down is, frankly, absurd.
Are you aware of the Buddhist concept of the two truths? What of the Dzogchen concept of the unity of the two truths?
Even in these concepts there is no mention of an essence of mind, beyond pure awareness. But pure awareness is again not an eternal phenomenon because its movement is what causes dependently arisen phenomena to project.
Things cannot arise interdependently via an absolute. It is impossible. If mind has an absolute essence then how would it comprehend dependently arisen phenomena of mind? Being immutable it would be incapble of reacting. Absolute=unchanging. Pure awareness is beyond the four extremes so...
Even a Dharmakaya is not immutable. It can manifest as Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya, it radiates qualities like compassion, love, wisdom, etc...
So where/what is this essence of Mind
And what's with the capital "M"? It reminds me of your use of the capital "S" in "True Self". Is this where you are going again?