Yesterday read Ingram's MCTB. Key features on "path" are artifacts from persistently blocked info flows seekers specifically advised to ignore
Description of 3 characteristics is clear enough for me to feel like I can articulate disagreement: 



"Suffering" is just blocked motion. A practice where sitting still in a monastery wasn't such a central case wouldn't suffer from this confusion. We're trained to imagine that we can hold onto satisfaction by freezing. Nei Gong seems like a precise functional patch here.
Impermanence of sensation conflated with nonexistence of noumena. This is just a problem of philosophical naïvete. Recommended reading: Plato's Theaetetus (I like the Sachs translation, Benardete is very precise but maybe too literal to read smoothly.)
Non-self described clearly but with too little detail to be interesting. Philosophical naïvete. Read The Opacity of Mind by Peter Carruthers, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes, Prometheus Rising by Robert Anton Wilson.
I have no reason to suspect that Dzogchen gets the wrong answer here, except that Sam Harris thinks that he is much smarter than he is. So far my exposure to Dzogchen suggests that while they don't have all the answers explicitly, they tend to avoid faking.
When I read TMI by Culadasa I felt acutely that it was a dangerous artifact in need of a clear warning label. Ingram owns his perspective much better than Culadasa, and clearly warns the reader of the risks, so MCTB did not give me that feeling at all.
Relevant to suffering/motion: In Opening the Energy Gates of Your Body, Bruce Frantzis specifically talks about Zen masters going to Nei Gong experts to help them deal with problems caused by their practice. I think my objections to MCTB/TMI explain why.
Some of my objections are explicitly albeit briefly acknowledged in the book - but the book would look very different if it reflected a model that had reconciled and integrated these objections.