helping NB folks understand 'guruism'
Jeffrey
Veteran
I hear a lot of people down on gurus at least insinuated if not directly stated.
Here is Lama Shenpen trying to explain. She says she is going to write a book.
http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=11be6cd6a9d79d32b05c3934f&id=6e394b9f95
Working With a Spiritual Teacher
Lama Shenpen Hookham
Summary: A look at some of the issues that come up around the idea of a spiritual teacher.
A student writes:
"I have just started the Coursebook section on trusting a spiritual friend and it struck me that one of the main things a spiritual guide/teacher does is to show us who we really are and what we already know deep down, i.e., to help us uncover our true nature.
This requires trust, confidence and the willingness to develop a relationship with a spiritual teacher.
It seems to me that in this way a spiritual teacher is really a spiritual friend gradually helping us to uncover our Buddha Nature.
Until now I have always seen spiritual teachers as remote authoritarian figures and that has been an enormous hindrance for me. I find the idea of a spiritual teacher as a spiritual friend so much easier to relate to as I think the role of the spiritual teacher can still be a difficult concept for western students to understand."
Lama Shenpen:
Yes, the idea of the spiritual teacher is indeed very hard for western students to understand and there are many reasons for that. That is why I am preparing a book on the topic.
Every way you try to approach the subject you find a nest of related issues that all needs unpacking and disentangling.
I think your idea of there being a need for each of us to have someone to help us uncover our Buddha Nature is the key here.
There is no need for a remote authoritarian figure, although even such figures can sometimes be helpful, especially when it comes to holding religious institutions together.
On the other hand, it is obvious, I think, that there are great dangers in remote authoritarian figures, if we are talking about how to help us uncover our Buddha Nature. However, the fact that there are dangers doesn’t automatically exclude the possibility that such figures could in fact help us.
It is just a matter of being clear about the effect that person is having on us. Are they helping us or not? In the end it is we, ourselves, who have to judge that. It is we who decide to submit to such a figure and so it is we, ourselves, who have to take the responsibility for that decision.
Lama Shenpen Hookham.
Comments
I think there's a world of difference between going to a spiritual teacher for teachings, and "guruism", i.e. complete devotion to a guru, and suspension of critical thinking, meaning: blind trust. I don't think anyone has a problem with receiving guidance from a run-of-the-mill spiritual teacher. The problems seep in when they demand blind trust, and tell students to regard them as a representative of the Buddha and dharma who have the students' best interests at heart at all times. Or when they encourage a cult of personality.
Also, I think the problem is the opposite of "Westerners having a hard time with the idea of a spiritual teacher". The problem is that Westerners have been all too willing to go into devotional mode with gurus, without questioning inappropriate requests.
Also, I think Western communities who form a sangha around a teacher who arrives and offers to give teachings need to get used to researching people, and doing their homework before accepting a stranger into the fold and handing over their trust. I'm reminded of a messy case in Australia a few years ago, where a Tibetan "teacher" arrived from India, and got involved in several scandals. Lineage authorities got involved, and the community ended up splitting in half on the question of whether to keep this person as teacher. One of the people who was a member of the governing dharma organization went to Dharamsala to research this person posing as a teacher, and learned that he wasn't respected at all, and that he wasn't very accomplished or advanced in his studies. Many local people said he didn't have a good understanding of the requisite texts and teachings.
So, the person conducting this investigation came back saying that if only the community had known what the guy's reputation was, they never would have agreed to form a sangha and take him on as a teacher. This story now is starting to remind me of the Buddha's Kalama Sutra, in which he instructs a community on how to discern real teachers passing through from false ones. The Buddha taught discernment, not blind faith.
@Dakini I think you are on the same page as the OP.
From the OP: "On the other hand, it is obvious, I think, that there are great dangers in remote authoritarian figures, if we are talking about how to help us uncover our Buddha Nature. However, the fact that there are dangers doesn’t automatically exclude the possibility that such figures could in fact help us."
^^^^
Hey Dakini! Is there someone in this world that you trust? Completely? Who is it? Why do you trust them? What was it that gave rise to this trust?
The psychiatrist that I was seeing some time ago also practiced psychotherapy individually and in groups. This man spent months each year in retreat, at both Buddhist and Christian establishments.
Part of the program was that you trust him completely, which I had little trouble with so long as he continued to prove that he deserved the trust. At the point that you are seeing a therapist, you have given up on trying to figure things out for yourself and are looking for someone you can trust anyway.
I consider my time spent with him to be worthwhile.
The problem he had was that some of his patients, who were mainly women in this case, attached to him in an almost cult like fashion. Some of them stayed literally for years and years. They couldn't function without him.
And it wasn't that he was inappropriate in any way, or expected or even wanted that level of attachment, though his method included some physical contact which was never inappropriate and was approved by the college after some extensive investigation.
No real point here except to say that sometimes people are over the top with devotion to someone they believe in, especially if they are vulnerable emotionally.
More often than not it's likely that's it's not the Guru who is to blame for starting a cult.
@Jeffrey
Everything I have seen from Lama Shenpen Hookham confirms her status as a guru or spiritual friend. Somebody with the knowledge and integrity to teach. Her approach is particularly relevant to a Western mindset and non authoritarian, cyber teaching mode. As far as I am aware she also has a residential retreat centre in the UK?
The Guru or Lama mindset from and in the East is a little different and does not always relate well with Western students not able to adapt. The Guru in the Tibetan Lama Devotion is seen as a symbolic/embodiment of the Buddha. As such they are considered as enlightened beings when fulfilling this role. Whether they are or not enlightened, they should at the least have valuable advice, experience and teaching to impart. The same could be said of a book.
The devotion to a Guru or Mr Cushion will provide insight and discernment or lead us astray because of our capacity and integrity.
When the master readies, the student appears.
>
Well, my advice is to PM Jeffrey and ask him about her course and how one can take it from within another country. He is also from the States as am I and he took her course or is taking it. Her website says it is available in email form if I understand it correctly.
What is it in us that cooperates with a leader (teacher in this context) and gives up their responsibility for themselves? A desire to be a helpless infant again? Who would want that? Maybe it's the desire to not be held responsible for bad choices or mistakes? "The guru told me this teaching is only given in bed". People (me included) always want to abdicate this 'responsibility' for themselves thing. Being responsible is daunting, it's very hard to admit I am an idiot, I'd much prefer to see myself in a better light and believe someone's bad advice 'led me astray'.
Anywhere there's a power imbalance between two adult human beings is occasion to stay VERY aware, conscious, whatever. On both sides, teacher and student.
@Robot, the shrink/therapist you spoke of was responsible to discourage dependency on him. The women or whoever glommed onto him were responsible to grow up. I don't mean to sound harsh or judgmental, cuz we're complicated and vulnerable creatures, us humans. That's just a set up for him to have his whole career and life's work go splat, not to mention these women and their major issues!
Well, as the Dalai Lama says, you should spend years investigating your teacher, if you're going to do guru yoga. "Spy on your teacher", he says, and do everything you need to do to decide whether s/he is worthy of your trust or not.
But under more normal circumstances, we come to trust people after getting to know them, and observing how they treat us and others, and how honest they are, don't we? Don't you?
Yes, overall, I think so. I was just clarifying and elaborating. I don't think that attending teachings at a Buddhist center is automatically "guruism" any more than going to church and hearing a sermon is guruism or "priestism". Where "guruism" comes in is with guru devotion, which can be a tricky matter. ...or not.
Lama Shenpen sounds very good.
@robot Great point. And the key thing in your example is that the therapist maintained his integrity, and practiced professional ethics at all times. It takes a strong person to not fall to temptation when people are trying to hand him/her a lot of power. Congrats on finding a good therapist. I hope you got some good work done.
It's an interesting statement you made, here:
Part of the program was that you trust him completely, which I had little trouble with so long as he continued to prove that he deserved the trust.
So, you had no trouble trusting as long as he continued to prove he deserved your trust. That sounds like a contradiction, because complete trust, i.e. blind trust as we've been discussing, means you suspend your watchful eye, your critical thinking skills. What you were practicing is "mindful trust", to coin a term; you held the therapist to a standard, and as long as he continued to meet that standard, you allowed yourself to trust.
Sounds kind of like that expression Gorbachev taught Reagan in one of Reagan's last meetings with Gorby in Russia: "Trust, but verify".
I don't think that devotion is inherently negative. I am devoted to my girlfriend. The kicker is to see the truth in whether they are worthy of trust. Same thing can happen with a bad relationship where one partner is doing unacceptable things and their partner doesn't see the truth and stays with them.
Another example is a sports player who is devoted to team mates.
The issue of power/authority (remote authority?) does not appear in my above comparisin. I was just trying to say that devotion is not always negative.
>
You know, I've always had a problem with this attitude espoused by the Dali Lama. It puts the responsibility entirely on the student to judge the guru and discover if he is trustworthy or not.
How about instead, the Buddhist temple and this monk's buddies are the ones who gave this guru the title and position in the first place, and they're the ones who know his history and how he acts when nobody is looking, so why isn't it the Temple's responsibility to police their own people?
Don't tell me if a woman ends up being taken advantage of by a Lama that it's the woman's fault for not checking around before trusting the guy. He's a Lama. His peers have given him that title.
America is no stranger to the worshiping of the Holy Man. Even our mainstream Christian churches can get caught up in this type of personality cult. I do believe, though, that Buddhism and the inherited Eastern Master-student structure encourages abuse. And the Buddhist temples have and continue to do a poor job of addressing the issue, because it means divorcing themselves of their special status as the sole definers of Enlightenment. In other words, they are still struggling to figure out how to empower the lay population. Not their fault and some branches of Buddhism seem to be trying. Heck, the Catholic church has had many centuries and still hasn't gotten the message.
@Cinorjer do you find something wrong with Christian mainstream churches? I just find their religion less effective for my well being. I don't think there is anything wrong with leader/flock thing of Christianity.
I think it is the Lamas fault. But that doesn't mean that caution of the student is not worth while, right? Same thing of rape. It is never the girls fault it is the rapists. But that doesn't mean that we cannot learn things such as not accepting drinks or leaving your drink unattended. I imagine HHDL is thinking along the lines that I am. He also calls out to mistreated/abused people to publicly denounce corrupt gurus. I think I read that?
It looked like a pretty tough call to me.
Some of these women had been jacked around by men their whole lives and this guy who offered to help them was probably the first real man they had ever met.
Also, because (in a nutshell), this type of therapy was based on the idea that in many cases the problems people had, stemmed from ineffective or non existent nurturing by one or both parents, the therapist assumed the role of nurturing parent in the case of the missing or negligent father, or a female assistant, usually the doctor's wife, in the case of the mother, so attachment was a necessary part of the treatment. For a time, anyway.
Ultimately, the patient should resolve the issues, and move on, having gained insight into those issues, made resolutions to change the destructive behaviour, and mentally put everyone in their respective places.
Things didn't always work out that way, but since the doctor was writing a book about his method, it was likely all interesting to him, and his career, while not without some bumpy bits, probably ended up ok.
Can't say what happened to the hyper-attached women though.
Some seem to get cut loose for some reasons that I wasn't privy to, while others were deemed not well enough to end treatment.
I imagine the therapy industry is rife with similar issues.
And honestly, I can't say for sure that this doctor didn't buy into the veneration and maybe even encouraged it more than I noticed.
@Robot that might suggest that there wasn't an ideal solution and rather withdrawing therapy might be as risky as having the potential for the client to attach to their therapist.
For sure, that's the way it looked to me.
I'm generally inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt. I like to think that the doctor's intentions were pure.
I agree. The lineage or "school"/sect the lama is a part of should take some responsibility, but unfortunately, that's not how they usually work. Thailand has a national organization that oversees misconduct issues and has the power to defrock monks, but that's unusual.
Still, the DL does raise some good points. And investigating a teacher thoroughly is essential in the absence of any institutional responsibility, unfortunately. I think there needs to be responsibility exercised on all levels: the lineage or sect level, the sangha administration level, and the personal level. There actually was a case in which the head of a Tibetan sect withdrew his support of a teacher/Rinpoche, so the teacher removed that name from his letterhead and literature, and kept on teaching. So in view of some of these cases, word needs to get out to potential students to be cautious.
HHDL is wise, but that's pretty much common thought in the Tibetan community.
Doesn't answer my question.
I'm not to interested in hypotheticals. I asked a specific set of questions and you seem to be evading.
The Western lama who lives on my street (yes there really is such a person) has completed the traditional continual 3 year, 3 month and 3 day box retreat . . .
http://guruslight.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/tibetan-meditation-box-retreat.html
So lamas/gurus literally come in all shapes, sizes and boxes. Some enter further practice, teach, return to normal life etc.
Mr Cushion says he is ready to support these extreme practitioners . . .
I don't know why you think I'm evading your questions.
Let me help by saying that there should be a chapter in the book about sexual relationships between spiritual teachers and their students.
Where there is controversy about the teacher, in ninety-nine percent there are such relationships going on.
Never ever there are problems about a teacher’s opinions on Buddhist issues. Everyone can trust their teacher, in the same way that they trust the plumber on his field of expertise. And if they misjudged, okay that’s a lesson for the future. Find another plumber.
Problems are lurking when the teacher is included in our personal and difficult decisions. This can reach the point where students would not make such a decision without talking with their teacher first.
I think some student/teacher relationships are very intimate. And I have met teachers who promote such intimacy.
Such an intimate relationship can be good, I think. It’s a tricky thing, but it could work, I suppose.
But when sex gets into the game, it’s bound to go wrong.
Trust me.
And secrets are a bad sign. They ruin the atmosphere.
The teacher is obviously bound by confidentiality.
The student however shouldn’t be bound by secrecy.
This wasn’t directed at me, but it reminded me of a basic rule that I was taught about organizations.
Checking the cash register has nothing to do with not trusting the particular cashier. Even when you trust him or her you check as if you didn’t.
One reason is that you never know and your trust could prove to be unjustified.
Another reason is that there is something impersonal about the check. The good news for the cashier is that it isn’t a sign of any personal suspicion.
So what I mean is that all student/teacher relationships should be shaped in such a way that abuse is prevented as much as possible.
That has nothing to do with a personal - trusting or suspicious - inclination and also has nothing to do with the - trustworthy or suspicious - appearance of the particular teacher.
>
I was thinking of the churches where the Minister turns out to have a long history of abusing certain members of the congregation, usually sexually. Finally it becomes public knowledge and the congregation can no longer ignore it. Or, it might be a very charismatic Minister grows the congregation into a megachurch, becomes famous, and lives like a millionaire off tax-free donations.
I wanted to know if YOU trusted anyone, who it is/was, and what led YOU to trust them.
You make an issue of misplaced trust, certainly a problem in some cases, but in my experience not so common as to be SO circumspect with regards to a guru.
It's also been my experience that people who have difficulties or misgivings towards trust in a guru, sometimes have broader trust issues.
So I was wondering about trust in relationships you have.
@Chaz I already answered your question. You even quoted my answer.
But don't assume that when I post here, my posts are all about me. lol! I post about issues in Buddhism, not about me. I've known people who trusted way too soon, basically on demand by their unscrupulous teachers, and suffered dire consequences. This has been a huge problem in Zen, too, as @zenff knows. So a note or two of caution now and then, when relevant topics are posted, may make a difference in someone's life down the road. You never know. An ounce of prevention is worth so much more than a pound of cure.
Yes, and as Pema Chodron pointed out in an interview on that subject, those scandals usually involved secrecy - wehere the relationships and the reasons for them were kept hidden from the community.
One notable exception would be the case of Geshe Michael Roach and Christie McNally. That relationship was, by all accounts, above board, but what was controversial was the nature of the relationship which was, to say the least, kinda wierd.
Not much of an answer if you ask me, but that's ok.
I don't assume that at all.
Y'know everyone seems to know people who got the fuzzy end of the lollipop from "unscrupulous teachers".
Of all the Buddhists I know I only know of one who fits that bill. Just one. I know dozens of people, personally, who were associated with Trungpa and not a scratch on them.
Who are these teachers who people always talk about? There's always this vague reference that could mean literally anyone. If it's such a big deal why aren't we exposing these unscruplous teachers so others don't fall into the trap. Otherwise it's seems like paranoia and fabrications to cover an unwillingness to trust in general
The thing is, most people wouldn't know a good guru from a bad one. So, putting out paranoid rambling about people who may or may not exist helps no one. What's needed, rather, is to say, "look out for so-and-so".
So, here's a link to a list of controversial Buddhist teachers that some may find helpful:
http://viewonbuddhism.org/controversy-controversial-teacher-group-center-questionable.html
I can definitely see what @Chaz is saying, especially about people not knowing a good guru from a bad one, etc. -- An attitude too far in that direction makes people paranoid and has peeps in general coming to believe that everyone is suspect, or to be suspected! Not good...not good. Things like this are so unhealthy, and clearly has damaged the reputations of those who didn't deserve it. One can only be so careful in this world.
It's important to not see ourselves as free of the qualities of a 'bad guru'. How else could a person use proper discrimination if the qualities of a 'bad guru' is something only other people have? ETA (incomplete thought, sorry) To really 'get' something, a person must experience it and deal with it as a personal issue.
I think that whatever sangha we choose to join in, it is important to remain as freelance and unbiased as possible from the idiosyncrasies akin to a particular school.
Growth in Buddhadharma should come uppermost, and every school has their own version of the Buddha's teaching.
Far from finding mixing traditions confusing, I think it's enrichening.
I study plenty of Theravada, Zen and Chan material, though participated mainly in Tibetan groups: Gelugpa and more recently Dzogchen sanghas.
I do Lojong and Lamrim, but also read Bodhidharma and the suttas.
I read a verse of the Dhammapada every morning, on waking up.
I admire both Lodrö Tulku Rinpoche and Dzogchen Rinpoche Jigme Losel Wangpo, but don't venerate them blindly.
They are human beings.
I have investigated both groups and done my research before joining them.
The list provided above by @Chaz is one I have pasted on several links before.
I personally believe we can be spared many headaches if we stay away from controversial groups, but then it's a personal decision.
Yes it's important not to venerate a guru blindly. The reason is not only corruption. You also need to assess whether they are teaching liberating dharma (as you find). That is almost as important as avoiding a corrupt guru. It is possible to 'outgrow' a guru if you feel you need something different with your changing needs. The question is if the guru is right for you.
^^^
.
This is getting along, and understanding that devotion has multiple meanings. Folks will devote themselves to what and who they choose. Some folks devote themselves to getting knowledge, over any personal devotion to person or persons. A balance is needed between knowledge and people devotions. IMHO.
It's sometimes hard to discern just what a 'liberating dharma' is. A person who doesn't trust their own common sense will walk right into corruption and give themselves up to it. And then genuinely believe they've found salvation.
If a person just wants to be told what to do, it's no more than wanting to be a spoon fed baby -- not a healthy perspective for an adult.
The Buddha 'outgrew' all of his teachers. That's not a coincidence or 'evidence' he is just better than everyone else. Outgrowing your teachers is probably part of the path.
@Hamsaka if that person does that then they are foolish as you say.
As far as finding liberating dharma I would say it is a path with many twists, turns, and dead ends. But in the end if we are persistent we may find our way. We have a quality of intelligence and this intelligence may only temporarily be deceived. This intelligence is the quality of recognizing truth. If there was not this quality then we indeed would be up a creek without a paddle.
@Chaz
Some of the gurus have been exposed. There's been a huge nationwide (and at times, international) flap about Roshi Eido Shimano, and one other Roshi, who spent their careers preying on students with disastrous results (but not to the Roshis). There are websites discussing Sogyal Rinpoche's predations, and British reporter Mary Finnigan has written about Sogyal. There was a website up about a teacher in Canberra who was involved in multiple scandals. So, some of this info is out there.
The fact that a lot of students wouldn't know a bad teacher from a good one is why it's important to discuss these things and get the word out about how to discern. There are entire books now devoted to this topic, as well as websites, forum discussions, etc. Western Dharma leaders have met with the Dalai Lama on this topic en masse, more than once, and some have posted on the internet about the results and recommendations.
People can't post a list of people who are guilty of misconduct because of potential libel suits. Though a few people have posted online anyway, but if threatened with legal action, they have to take their posts down. The only way to post legally about any given perpetrator is if a police report was filed and charges were pressed, i.e. the case is documented. So there's an international movement now to urge women (and men) to file charges as the situation calls for.
I've been in touch with the author of that list you posted a link to. He said he only lists teachers with dubious qualifications, not qualified/legitimate teachers who have been accused of sexual misconduct.
I wouldn't know 'liberating dharma' from shellfish without a solid common sense, or a 'healthy' ego that doesn't chase rainbows and my mother complex anymore. I have been that fool, and followed people who didn't deserve the respect I gave them. By doing that, though, I've learned important lessons that ended up being crucial to learn. In my case, temporarily deceived STILL took too long
. Recognizing truth is hard to do if one is extremely insecure, easily flattered, in persistent denial, or very young and very lost.
I have to attribute the intelligence that recognizes truth to learning a fool's lessons the hard way. I feel fortunate that it wasn't worse for me as it has been for others.
Here's an interesting thought. Is it possible that we can do away with this guru system altogether, or modify it somewhat, or do you think it's too ingrained into the religion? Instead of a Master or Roshi or Lama, pehaps we need to dial down the role of the Enlightened Master to something more resembling a real Teacher or Coach.
One Lama or Roshi or Master can only handle so many students, no matter how they schedule the sessions. And there can only be so many of the Masters to go around, not if you still want the title to mean something. This system is fine if you live in a Buddhist culture already where there's a temple in every town. How many of us can move to Plum Village because that's where the Master lives? Or India? Or California?
I'm not sure I have an answer, but it feels to me sometimes like Buddhists hoard the Dharma jealously and are afraid to let people take it and transform it into something accessible to all of us.
What do you folks think? We have universities that graduate Ministers and Reverends. Why not a Buddhist university that graduates Teachers of the Dharma? Or do we insist on that personal seal of approval from one Master to another?
I think the West is starting to outgrow the fascination with and faith in Enlightened Masters. And most teachers aren't of a high enough status to warrant anything near that designation, though that doesn't mean we could take for granted that they would be free from misconduct, either. But doing away with the "Enlightened Master" fiction would be a step in the right direction.
@Cinorjer Have you seen this essay by Stuart Lachs, on the Enlightened Masters issue?
http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/Zen_Master_in_America.html
I wonder how the Catholic Church is coping with their crisis? Do practicing Catholics research their neighborhood priest, when a new one arrives? Or do people tentatively accept him, as long as no red flags are noticed?
Maybe there are too many of us too far apart for the traditional student/teacher relationship to be a standard or norm. At what point is a 'norm' no longer normal?
I can't see why those who want the Master seal of approval (transmission) to go for that and those who don't, don't. People who vehemently disagree with either end of the spectrum could be mistaking this issue for a personal one, albeit without the insight to know it's gotten personal.
Isn't the traditional Master/student relationship an 'eastern' type orientation? A lot of westerners are put off by it, simply because our culture doesn't reward the same things and does reward others. Someone here wrote about this on another thread.
It's certainly more 'western style' Buddhism to have a nice Teacher educated at the Insight Society for a few years. There is more challenge for the teacher and less absolutisms about respect or devotion (the latter being discouraged usually).
We already have universities that graduate teachers of the Dharma. There are programs in Buddhist Ministry/Chaplaincy, and there are academic programs on the BA and MA level in Buddhism studies or Comparative Religion that some people take to become dharma teachers or dharma center administrators.
To me unquestioning faith in a teacher looks foolish, and claiming not to need a teacher at all looks arrogant. So as usual the middle way is probably the answer.
From my experience of Buddhism in the UK the teacher is effectively the instructor/leader at the local group or centre that people attend. The "guru" can appear quite remote, somebody they may see at public talks but never meet personally. Analogous perhaps to being a junior employee in a large company, where the CEO is probably a remote figure and the line manager is the boss to all intents and purposes.
So with Triratna I didn't meet Sangharakshita personally until I had requested ordination.
With Rigpa I didn't meet Sogyal Rinpoche personally until I travelled to Ireland to be on a retreat that he was leading. With NKT I received empowerments on retreat from Kelsang Gyatso, but never had a conversation with him. With Thai Forest I saw Ajahn Sumedho give several talks at Amaravati but didn't get to meet him personally because I wasn't that deeply involved. And with Interbeing I didn't get to meet Thich Nhah Hanh personally, partly because I never made it over to Plum Village in France ( he spent a lot of time there ).
So I think it's important to recognise that Buddhist schools are organisations, with their own hierarchies and methods of disseminating teachings.
Or maybe we could address the misunderstandings of what it's about.
I've had a Guru for years now, and he's already just like a teaher/coach.
All a lama is, is a person who's finished a 3-year retreat. In that time they've been given all the lineage teaching and have permission to teach. That's all.
You can move wherever you like. When My Guru moved his seat from Boulder to Seattle, a good number of students moved with him.
I don't see how the Dharma is inaccessible right now.
We do. In the Tibetan community we have Shedra and the Three-Year Retreat. My Guru completed his three-year and graduated top of his Shedra class at Rumtek Monastery. He also attended Columbia. Pretty good credentials.
you might be able to find some gurus talking about the role of the guru in the sangha on youtube. My teacher Lama Shenpen talks about this, but I am not sure if she has a talk titled. She has a talk on the seven limbs prayer where she talks about the role of a guru in a teaching.
I think it will change, but still retain that which is needed to transmit dharma. Already a lot of teachers craft their approach of teaching to fit the modern times and culture. Personally I like the fact that my teacher is approved by hers.