if we try to establish objects or experiences and follow after them as 'i' or 'other', even though we understand intellectualy they are empty
Who in this conversation was ever doing such a thing?
You can get an idea of the importance of the practices of subtle body here. They are profound methods. They bring about natural confidence. They are not ends in themselves. Or objects in themselves. .
Who was positing otherwise?
I think you my friend, are chasing rainbows yourself. . .
From Motova the original poster: '' After a few sessions of mindfulness meditation and concentrating on an eye between my two physical eyes, I started seeing orbs (of various colours and sizes), masses (coloured clouds or smoke), auras, and visual snow. Moreover, I noticed the frequency of psychic happenings increased dramatically and my ability to see what I visualize had increased.'' and ''Does an opened third eye mean some kind of spiritual attainment? Or can someone on any level of spiritual development open it?''
From Adamantine: 'Hi Motova, I am not sure what Andrew's view is but in my experience and according to the authentic traditional lineage teachings I have received there is certainly a basis for what you could label the "third eye". ''
From Jeff: ''Experiences like yours are very common. In some traditions, what you describe would be described as the beginning of astral perceptions.''
From Tobes: ''If the heart and the third eye awaken, wholesome things follow ~ Motova, of course you should investigate this, and it is great that you feel a natural curiosity about it.''
Again from Tobes: ''Clearing the third eye with white light or aum is bread and butter stuff - in many practices it does not require initiation etc; and as I said before, it is far more dangerous to have a blocked third eye than to have a clear one.''
From Karma Dondrup Tashi: ''Since the avadhuti begins at the third eye, this location is important to completion stage practice. For those not doing such practice, not so important.''
From Adamantine: ''Clearly wisdom beings are portrayed with "third eyes" for a reason. Substantiating anything as real and solid, whether gross level or subtle level it is problematic. But denying it's relative condition doesn't help.''
From Tobes: ''I'm not asserting the third-eye to be a biological phenomena. My analogy with the body was that both the course and subtle body are equally empty, which does not mean non-existent.''
All of these quotes are establishing 'third eye' as a phenomenon. Could be that you are saying it is only a relative phenomenon. But you still think that there is action to be done with it. The point is that the 'third eye' has no relevance or existance even as a concept by itself.
Tsalung Tigle meanwhile should be understood as a system of teachings that vajrayana practitioners use in order gain experiential knowledge of the nature of appearances. If the practices are not used within this context then they are meaningless.