I am not exactly sure if it is beneficial to answer such questions here, since these topics are vast and misinterpretations, incompletenesses and subjectivism are virtually guaranteed. Besides, Malcolm is very right, I really doubt that anyone gives a shit about what I am doing in Mexico, and I would really prefer that no one does. On top of that I dont really believe in internet discussions anymore. I found out long ago that on a forum you could be arguing for years with your potential best friend without even suspecting that if you meet this person face to face it would be completely different. This is a very limited form of exchange. But still, I will try, bear with me. I will be saying nothing new though.
First of all, although you have distanced yourself from many aspects of Tibetan Buddhism, you continue to emphasize the practice of guru devotion, and have assumed the role of a guru yourself (even to the extent of leading students from Bulgaria to Mexico). But isn't guru devotion one of the most problematic aspects of Tibetan Buddhism, responsible for numerous abuses? In your view, why is guru devotion necessary or beneficial? Are there any limits to the obedience owed one's guru? What are the qualifications of a genuine guru?
In my opinion things nowadays are completely messed up and guru devotion can bring as much harm as benefit. It is a method which belongs strictly to the very advanced stages of the path and can be applied only by practitioners who have grown totally disillusioned by samsara (and this includes the conventional Dharma paths). If
, and this is a big "if", such an individual exists, and meets a qualified teacher with a good karmic connection, then there is a chance of real accomplishment through guru devotion. Then, and only then there will be no limits, but I would not call it obedience, it would be more like sharing.
As for myself, I have not assumed the role of a guru. It was a very complicated situation involving several of my teachers, people who practiced with me, etc. I just got tired of running from all this and listened to an advice I received from my root teacher.
As for the qualification of a genuine guru, if we are talking about Vajrayana, these are very well explained in the tantras. From what I understand, maybe the key point is validated personal experience on the level that this so called "guru" is teaching.
Although you disclaim tulku status, if I am not mistaken, you do present yourself as a terton ("treasure-text discoverer"). In this postmodern era (and given your problematic relationship to Tibetan tradition), how can such claims be interpreted as anything other than a personal fantasy? What is the difference?
To be honest, I do not know what a "terton" is. I had to share with some people some events which have been happening to me for a long time. If this is what a "terton" is, then I can assure you that it is nothing special and I am positive that it can happen to anyone who practices seriously. I certainly do not feel any different than I have ever felt before. I made a choice to share some methods I have been receiving, and this was a rational decision. How is this different from a personal fantasy? The whole world is a personal fantasy. I do not think it is different.
Like traditional Tibetan Buddhism, you believe in reincarnation (and have memories of your own past lives), as well as liberation from samsara, and a cosmology / psychology consistent with Buddhist dzogchen, and even report receiving messages from dharmapalas. So, what aspects of traditional Tibetan Buddhism led you to regard it as incompatible with your new path? For the benefit of Dharma Wheel readers, I append a couple of explanatory quotes from the Sky Dharma website...
Reincarnation is not a belief with me or my close dharma friends. It is a conventional fact which can be very easily verified. As for the cosmology stuff, I am not sure what you are referring to. Tibetan Buddhism is a wonderful path which still has power, and it is a path I have a very close connection to. It is just that there are methods which use different principles and are self contained. They are not to be mixed with any other system if we want to use their full power. They are not given in the context of another system so I am trying to be faithful to that.
Your website states that " a student can drop out at any stage by his/her own wish, but would lose the privilege to attend any further teachings and activities." Why is that?
Oh, this is just my stupid personality thing. A few years ago I even had an argument with Dzongsar Khyentse about this very point. I do not believe in practicing with people who are not fully committed. I do not believe in any kind of Dharma where there is no serious personal interaction between teacher and student. I have been in a position to teach the Dharma, at the request of my own teachers for more than a decade, I have made my choices on the basis of past experiences. This is just my condition if I am to continue with this thing.
Your website also suggests that your teachings are inappropriate for those who "feel that working for a career makes sense" [...] "trust the news media" [...] or "believe Stephen Hawking." I can't tell whether this is a restatement of the traditional Buddhist teaching of samsara, or something a bit more paranoid--along the lines that we are all living in the Matrix, or some such. What's wrong with mainstream careers / mainstream science?
Probably the correct reading is as a restatement. The Steven Hawking thing was a joke we put on the day he announced that all extraterrestrial life is sure to be hostile to planet Earth