Bentinho Massaro's realization is actually common outside among non-Buddhists, Advaitins, etc. It is Thusness Stage 4 but not the realization of anatta/emptiness: Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment
. It is what I call substantialist non-dualism. i.e. Bentinho Massaro teaches a truly independently existing Awareness which is inseparable from all forms/experiences. It is no different from the teaching of the Atman/Brahman.
If you want to compare Bentinho Massaro with Dzogchen, you might as well also compare with all the other neo-Advaitins and Advaitins of this age which are countless. (example: Tony Parsons, Jeff Foster, Adyashanti, Greg Goode, Scott Kiloby, Rupert Spira, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Ramana Maharshi, Ramesh Balsekar, Atmananda Krishna Menon and countless others)
p.s. I really like what Namdrol has to say here:http://www.atikosha.org/
The most important word in the intimate instruction section (man ngag sde) of the teaching of the great perfection is "rig pa". It is a word that has no effective equivalence in English, and within the last few years many translators have ceased to try and translate it at all when it is used as a noun in great perfection teachings and not as a verb (where it means "to know").
Today while translating a section from the Self-originated Self-arisen Original Purity revelations of Rigzin Godem (1337-1409), I came across a definition given by Padmasambhava that I feel is instructive for those with some doubts as to what "rig pa" is. He states:
“Rig pa” does not follow delusion after deluded appearances are consciously known (shes par rig) to be false
The operative term here is "consciously known" or "shes par rig". Rig pa is in fact a specific type of knowledge. Nevertheless, the word "knowledge", like the word "awareness", is a word too fraught with other connotations to be used to accurately translate the term "rig pa" in this context.
These days there is a real danger of people conflating Dzogchen teachings with the teachings of other so-called "non-dual" traditions such as Advaita, Kashmir Shaivism and so on. It is important to understand that "rig pa" is not some sort of over-arching uber-consciousness like the cit of sat cit ananda in Vedantic teachings.
Instead, rigpa is just the accurate knowledge of our own state, that deepens as we become more accustomed to the Dzogchen view.
One can have many misunderstandings about rigpa. For example, on the internet the other day, I saw a definition of rigpa that is very strange indeed:
I'm defining rigpa as consciousness without dualistic thought.
This sort of idea is very prevalent among those with no training in Dzogchen, in the "tradition" of those who conflate the so-called non-dualist traditions together, based on mere reading of texts in translation.
Now, depending on whether this consciousness without dualistic thought is defined as fundamental and over-arching, or unique and personal, we have the distinction between Hindu Vedanta and the mind-only position of Indian Buddhist Cittamatrins. It could even be the svasamvedana of the Buddhist logicians, the non-conceptual self-knowing mind.
Such definitions of vidyā above bear no resemblance to the definitions of vidyā stated by Indian masters such as Vimalamitra. He defines vidyā very simply:
...acute because of moving, subtle, and apparent, vidyā is knowing, clear and unchanging
Further, in another text Vimalamitra writes:
The nature of the mind is not free from traces, so it is called “mind”. That knowledge of the dharmakāya as empty is called “vidyā". That also gives rise to recognition of great clear emptiness. Remaining in that stage is called “wisdom”. Remaining without concepts, free from the errors of lethargy, agitation and so on, is called “dharmakāya”.
Reflect on these five sentences. By reflecting on them, one will have a clearer idea of what one's vidyā is.
And in his comments reply to me:
This person has confused the Trika non-dual view with Dzogchen.
The mind that is the all-creating king, as Norbu Rinpoche makes clear, is the mind that does not recognize itself, and so enters into samsara, creating its own experience of samsara.
All conditioned phenomena are a product of ignorance, according to Dzogchen view, and so therefore, everything is not real. The basis of that ignorance is the basis, which is also not established as real.
In Dzogchen, everything is unreal, from top to bottom. The basis, in Dzogchen, is described as being "empty not established in any way at all". If the basis is not real, then whatever arises from that basis is not real.
In Dzoghen, dependent origination begins from the non-recognition of the state of the basis, when this happens, one enters into grasping self and other, and then the chain of dependent origination begins.