I appreciate the thoughtful response. It is very helpful!

The last bit, where you said "…others won't settle for anything less than you reinventing your own path in the process" was particularly powerful, and it's now a quote on my tumblr

I look forward to hearing more from you in the future!

Certain practices can still be practiced literally in the context or in a time-frame of intensive practice, whether retreat or home-based. Outer forms still have a role to play, at least for some of us, like a stepping stone. A 100-day discipline may be pursued exactly according to received instructions, and then reviewed to see what comes out as essential, and what remains basically as just a formality, useful and perhaps improvable in days to come. We're in this together, it seems. Impermanence is relentless, especially when it comes to time-honored Dharmic formalisms. Going beyond them by not suppressing the vitality of one's actual experience with one's teachers is not an instance of disrespect, at least for the mind that is modern and beyond. To be honest, Buddhist practitioners have done such "outrageous" moves even in very rigid, traditional circumstances. Certainly some teachers these days would rather see a xerox of their own teaching, than a lifelike students' authenticity that challenges everyone involved. Yet others won't settle for anything less than you reinventing your own path in the process. Hope this is helpful.

Great answer! For me personally, it brings up an interesting and challenging question. I understand that conceptually the outer, inner and secret levels are integrated, but for me, experientially they just don't fit together! I've always felt weird about outer-level guru yoga and I've always been torn between whether I'm bad at it or it's just "who I am". I can't do it like it says in the books because I can't think of my teachers as anything other than just really wise people. (Buddhas? Deities?)

And then when I hear "inner" explanations like yours I feel so much more comfortable in that territory. But the quandary arrives when I hear teachers say "don't invent your own path" because I feel like, day to day, I rely almost exclusively on the sorts of things you wrote about, and not the things associated with traditional, outer guru yoga (like asking your teacher for advice on everything!).

I have two teachers who I have great relationships with, and I've learned a lot from them. I know deep down that the way these relationships turned out is right for me, but it doesn't stop my mind from playing tricks like, "You have abandoned them because you don't meditate on them as being the Buddha EVERY day" and all the practices about Guru Yoga in the Tibetan tradition that I studied.

What do you think about it? I know it's kind of a tangent, but maybe it's interesting anyways? Is there some other factor that might help me understand this situation? Because it's been an ongoing question for me and your article made me think about it again,

In most of the Buddhist settings I've been in, discussion about authority, trust and devotion was always a Guru Yoga topic.

But it seems like your definition of these three are talking about something else…

Are you offering an alternative? That if we contemplate and develop "inner" authority, trust, devotion… this is better? Or is it just general practice advice? It's just that the title makes me think you are maybe saying, "Real authority is this. Real devotion is this." and implicitly saying, "And that other stuff that you've heard about it, well it's good, but actually this is the real deal."

Or maybe I'm missing the overall point. I'm just unclear what I am supposed to take from this