user-1: In relation to the comment in this answer '... regular Buddhism is college - Dzogchen is like a PhD.' Also, Sam Harris seems to endorse Dzogchen.
I am reading online like the wiki page etc. Does not seem to be any massive difference or something out of ordinary. 
Can somebody please explain.

user43: 
Dzogchen teaches a non-dualistic state of one's own primordial nature, with nothing to reject or accept, that is pure from the beginning in the nature of a light body. -- Khenpo Palden

In simple words:
Original Buddhism introduced many new concepts to describe 1) the unenlightened state of mind, and 2) practice leading to Liberation. Theravada's approach is to preserve these teachings as closely as possible without alterations. From Theravada's perspective it is the student that must adapt to the Teaching - not the other way around. So the student is expected to learn the exact original definitions, ideally in the Pali language. However, for many students this approach makes it difficult to see the forest behind the trees.
Mahayana Buddhism prefers to stay away from repeating the rigid concepts from Pali suttas and instead tries to re-tell the same meaning in its own words. This is why Mahayana often prefered writing new texts instead of quoting original suttas. So Mahayana's approach is more focused on conveying the "point" of the Teaching, rather then the "letter". In Mahayana, the teaching adapts to the spirit of times and places, to explain Dharma in the way the students can relate to. Still, just like Theravada, Mahayana Buddhism is mostly about 1) the unenlightened state of mind, and 2) practice leading to Liberation. But this is not all there is to Dharma, it also has the third part: Result!
In Dzogchen speak, the three parts are called Ground, Path, and Fruition - and Dzogchen focuses 100% on the third. Truth be told, some parts of Mahayana like Madhyamaka do approach Fruition in their teaching about Emptiness - but they mostly try to explain it conceptually, in terms understandable to the unenlightened mind. In contrast to that, Dzogchen directly teaches how the Enlightened mind sees and acts. Dzogchen focuses directly on what it feels like to be Enlightened or to be in Nirvana. After all the teachings of Theravada and Mahayana are learned, and all the practices fulfilled - after the Raft has been used to cross over to the other side and left behind - what remains at that point? That's what Dzogchen is about.
So Dzogchen is even more "to the point" than Mahayana - in its purest form it throws away all those teachings and explanations, and goes: "here is what Enlightened mind is like, now you do it". This is what makes it so radically different from everything else.

user-1: Dzogchen is taking mind and mind only as the path. From mind, both Bodhicitta and realisation of Emptiness have to rise naturally. In standard Mahayana you are asked to develop relative Bodhicitta in tandem with developing realisation of Emptiness and then it gives Buddha nature; ultimate Bodhicitta, which is non conceptual realisation of Emptiness. You might achieve one of the other sooner but completion is when you realise both, that is how ultimate Bodhicitta (Rigpa, in Dzogchen terms) arises. In Dzogchen - it is backwards, one is asked to delve deep past conceptual realisation of Emptiness  and Bodhicitta in order to get in touch with ground of all consciousness. From Rigpa, both realisation of Emptiness and relative Bodhicitta will arise without any effort and that supposed to be a lot faster.
Moreover, it might be, a non-gradual approach. For example, all Sutric and Tantric practises can be done in tandem with Dzogchen without a very strict order or progression (but not without any progression). Approach takes every possible technique from Sūtra or Tantra that might help one in a given moment.
Techniques in Dzogchen are different and many, even Shamatha is done differently than the standard way; in Dzogchen, Shamatha is focusing on space around you non conceptually with eyes wide open rather than going for breathing. It is said that from such Shamatha technique, practitioners of greater capacity might develop realisation of Rigpa alone, and they don’t need further techniques, for they went far beyond simply realising three vajras to be of one taste which is the regular goal of Shamatha.

If I were to draw out a simile between another Buddhist tradition in Mahayana, I would choose Soto Zen. Zazen in this tradition is gazing at the space in front without focusing on breath while having eyes wide open. Technique is simply "thinking non-thinking" as what Dogen Zenji said, and so the result is pretty much the same to Dzogchen's gazing - only that Dzogchen has many more techniques coming under Atiyoga. Similarily, in Soto Zen, experience and minimalism is stressed before knowledge or conceptually intellectual approach. Major difference is in Dzogchen's utilising Tantric techniques freely - whenever necessary.

-1: <p>In relation to the comment in <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/27133/13135">this answer</a> '... regular Buddhism is college - Dzogchen is like a PhD.' Also, <a href="https://forum.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/17752/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Sam Harris seems to endorse</a> Dzogchen.</p>

<p>I am reading online like the wiki page etc. Does not seem to be any massive difference or something out of ordinary. </p>

<p>Can somebody please explain.</p>
 43: <blockquote>
  <p>Dzogchen teaches a non-dualistic state of one's own primordial nature, with nothing to reject or accept, that is pure from the beginning in the nature of a light body. <sub>-- Khenpo Palden</sub></p>
</blockquote>

<p>In simple words:</p>

<p>Original Buddhism introduced many new concepts to describe 1) the unenlightened state of mind, and 2) practice leading to Liberation. Theravada's approach is to preserve these teachings as closely as possible without alterations. From Theravada's perspective it is the student that must adapt to the Teaching - not the other way around. So the student is expected to learn the exact original definitions, ideally in the Pali language. However, for many students this approach makes it difficult to see the forest behind the trees.</p>

<p>Mahayana Buddhism prefers to stay away from repeating the rigid concepts from Pali suttas and instead tries to re-tell the same meaning in its own words. This is why Mahayana often prefered writing new texts instead of quoting original suttas. So Mahayana's approach is more focused on conveying the "point" of the Teaching, rather then the "letter". In Mahayana, the teaching adapts to the spirit of times and places, to explain Dharma in the way the students can relate to. Still, just like Theravada, Mahayana Buddhism is mostly about 1) the unenlightened state of mind, and 2) practice leading to Liberation. But this is not all there is to Dharma, it also has the third part: Result!</p>

<p>In Dzogchen speak, the three parts are called Ground, Path, and Fruition - and Dzogchen focuses 100% on the third. Truth be told, some parts of Mahayana like Madhyamaka do approach Fruition in their teaching about Emptiness - but they mostly try to explain it conceptually, in terms understandable to the unenlightened mind. In contrast to that, Dzogchen directly teaches how the Enlightened mind sees and acts. Dzogchen focuses directly on what it feels like to be Enlightened or to be in Nirvana. After all the teachings of Theravada and Mahayana are learned, and all the practices fulfilled - after the Raft has been used to cross over to the other side and left behind - what remains at that point? That's what Dzogchen is about.</p>

<p>So Dzogchen is even more "to the point" than Mahayana - in its purest form it throws away all those teachings and explanations, and goes: "here is what Enlightened mind is like, now you do it". This is what makes it so radically different from everything else.</p>
 -1: <p>Dzogchen is taking mind and mind only as the path. From mind, both Bodhicitta and realisation of Emptiness have to rise naturally. In standard Mahayana you are asked to develop relative Bodhicitta in tandem with developing realisation of Emptiness and then it gives Buddha nature; ultimate Bodhicitta, which is non conceptual realisation of Emptiness. You might achieve one of the other sooner but completion is when you realise both, that is how ultimate Bodhicitta (Rigpa, in Dzogchen terms) arises. In Dzogchen - it is backwards, one is asked to delve deep past conceptual realisation of Emptiness  and Bodhicitta in order to get in touch with ground of all consciousness. From Rigpa, both realisation of Emptiness and relative Bodhicitta will arise without any effort and that supposed to be a lot faster.</p>

<p>Moreover, it might be, a non-gradual approach. For example, all Sutric and Tantric practises can be done in tandem with Dzogchen without a very strict order or progression (but not without any progression). Approach takes every possible technique from Sūtra or Tantra that might help one in a given moment.</p>

<p>Techniques in Dzogchen are different and many, even Shamatha is done differently than the standard way; in Dzogchen, Shamatha is focusing on space around you non conceptually with eyes wide open rather than going for breathing. It is said that from such Shamatha technique, practitioners of greater capacity might develop realisation of Rigpa alone, and they don’t need further techniques, for they went far beyond simply realising three vajras to be of one taste which is the regular goal of Shamatha.</p>

<hr>

<p>If I were to draw out a simile between another Buddhist tradition in Mahayana, I would choose Soto Zen. Zazen in this tradition is gazing at the space in front without focusing on breath while having eyes wide open. Technique is simply "thinking non-thinking" as what Dogen Zenji said, and so the result is pretty much the same to Dzogchen's gazing - only that Dzogchen has many more techniques coming under Atiyoga. Similarily, in Soto Zen, experience and minimalism is stressed before knowledge or conceptually intellectual approach. Major difference is in Dzogchen's utilising Tantric techniques freely - whenever necessary.</p>
