and if you keep reading, I think he pretty clearly stated that he doesn't think these conditionalities have been met with Sogyal or Rigpa, i.e. we are NOT talking about the ideal situation, so most of the ideals regarding guru-disciples don't apply here.
He also talked about why he didn't warn students of SL's lack of credentials, but thought that decision may have been a mistake ...etc. (apologies for not quoting the article more precisely but only loosely based on memory. I am a slow reader and going through it once was already quite taxing! But based on memory, especially the later half was really rather sympathetic to the students, including lamenting why help from within the tradition didn't appear sooner (due to cultural habits, trying avoid trouble...etc. which he then challenged as unhelpful.. I am paraphrasing..)
smcj wrote:I don't think so.I think he IS affirming, if not very explicitly, that the students did the right thing.. and in his own convoluted way (his style?) denouncing Sogyal.Later he continues...DJKR wrote:If an impure perception – such as criticism of one’s guru – is made deliberately and consciously, and if it then goes on to become a well-organized, choreographed public discussion with no room for amendment or correction, it constitutes a total breakage of samaya.I think that this is why Chime R. (Karma Kagyu/U.K.) has been in the West for 50 years and never once given an initiation.It’s a big mistake to speculate about the possibility of continuing to analyze and criticize the guru after having received a major initiation – actually it’s totally wrong. We cannot modify Vajrayana’s fundamental view just because it doesn’t suit the minds of a few liberal, puritanical, Abrahamic, or individualistic activists.
If you find this view doesn’t suit you, but you still want to follow the Buddha’s path, you can always try the Mahayana and Sravakayana paths instead.