Menachem, when someone makes a claim that’s against the mesorah and uses chasidus as a means to do so, I’m sorry but I’m just not interested. You can use kabalah to make claims of all sorts of things, which is why the Lubavitcher rebbe would have benefitted from not studying it until the age of 40 after mastering shas and poskim, as proscribed by the poskim. His errors are largely due to premature exposure to kabalah, and not just tanya etc..
It’s all over rishonim and achronim that we have no nevuah now. If the only way you can prove something is with kabalah, then likely you’re running the risk of, in the words of the tzemach tzedek, burning nigleh with nistar. He said that hisnagdus prevented chasidishe rebbes from veering off the derech due to that chashash, which we see manifested in the Lubavitcher rebbe’s hashkofos, which were unprecedented and novel….to put it nicely.
Quoting a gemara is not lime quoting one line of a sefer out of context; it’s a naamar chazal. Maamarei chazal are independently significant, but here it’s not out of any context, it’s just stama d’shmaatsa. It’s not a chidush to say that there’s no nevuah, since no one has ever claimed to be a navi since chaggai zecharya and malachi – not one tanna, amora, gaon, rishon, or acharon.
Nom – i don’t know what you consider to be a “real” chasidishe sefer. Is meor aynayim less chasidish than the tanya? The only major sefer that i haven’t touched is the toldos, because one of my rebbeim told me not to. He said it can be more confusing than the others. Some seforim i don’t understand very well, including much of likutei moharan and the noam elimelech; some parts i get, others i don’t, and just move on. But it’s been a while since I’ve been into chasidus in any case; this was mainly in my bochurishe days. But i value what chasidus has done for me and for countless yiden throughout history.