I find the kid interesting. Yes, he's young, but that in itself is neither here nor there. The question is what is he discussing? A lot of his talk of "awareness" could be taken as simple shes pa, but I ran across this passage in his online book, and I believe this shows that his understanding is deeper than that:
“My sense of self arises... I feel I am here, I am someone, I am present, I
am cognizant...” But if "I" can notice that this sense of self is arising, than
that implies two very important things:
1) That there is some subtler "space‟ for this sense to arise in, just like
everything else needs some sort of 'space' wider, subtler and more open
than itself to exist in, and;
2) That this deeper space is awareness itself: the awareness through
which I can say that "I am aware of this sense of self‟. There is something
beyond "me‟. Something that is free from, unaffected by, yet present in
the experience of my most basic sense of being here.
Because who is the I that can notice the sense of "me,‟ the sense of "being
someone‟ and the sense of "being present‟?
Both points refer to the same space/openness of awareness: That in which
all sensations arise and dissolve, is the same as that which is aware of
these senses.
All that arises in this space of self-knowing awareness, is ultimately one
with that aware space. Just like reflections in a mirror are nothing but
mirror.
when he says "the awareness through which I can say that "I am aware of this sense of self'" this is basically a knowledge of the basis, and therefore, rigpa. (IMO)
His case and others like it raise very interesting questions, such as does Dzogchen claim a kind of "no one comes to the father except through me" exclusivism, or is our real nature there for anyone to discover, regardless of their background? Of course, Dzogchen triumphalists will insist that you have to a "Buddhist" and then receive "introduction" from a Dzogchen lineage holder, in order to have any possibility of recognizing your own nature, but does such an attitude really have any basis in reality? If, as the Buddha is represented as saying "regardless whether Tathagatas arise or not, the dharma is the dharma", then it is claiming an objective status for truth and therefore it should be accessible to anyone who can discern it. Like a scientific truth, say, the earth revolving around the sun, does it make any sense to say that you have to learn this from Copernicus, and thats the only way you can legitimately discover this? No, he may have been the first to realize it, but now that knowledge is available to anyone through any number of avenues. For most people, it may take someone drawing their attention to their awareness that is always there anyway for them to notice it, but what difference does it make who it is who draws their attention to it? And if, then, one can take the further step and enter contemplation of that which is the ground beyond that awareness, then again, who cares who it was who first pointed it out to them?
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
