Dear Sir,
I admire the courage your site displays in addressing what is an unfortunate yet all-too pervasive problem of Western "seekers." I am not a Vajrayana practioner nor even a Buddhist, however I have been apprenticed with a teacher whose aspect and methodology is much in keeping with the spirit of the vajra master. From what I have experienced, the methodology and understanding that is at the heart of the method of the vajra master has always been integral to any true student-teacher relationship that is to bear fruit, regardless of the tradition. It seems impossible to me, in fact, that any true teaching can be gained that is beyond the student's present understanding without having such a relationship. Even without the outward characteristics that many identify with the vajra master in your tradition, it seems evident that no true understanding can be gained without the surrender to a teacher/teachings that is the heart of such a vajra master relationship in order to receive them as they are, unadulerated by the often subtle manipulations of one's own mind.
In my own apprenticeship, I was constantly confronted with the complaints of others who felt that it was somehow appropriate for them to decide what is and what is not acceptable on the part of the master in his manner of teaching. The question of abuse was constantly raised. What these people seemed to be incapable of understanding is that these fears and concerns were deeply entwined with their own spiritual intransigency. Seekers after understanding often seem to fail to understand that their assessments of right and wrong are irrelevant and beside the point. Such paradigmatic thinking is itself one of the "diseases" that spiritual practice seeks to cure. However, such individuals almost never come to such an understanding and inevitably seem to involve themselves in endless perambulations around the question of whether they are doing the right thing without ever actually doing anything. It is especially sad when such people attempt to pass their "disease" to others who might otherwise genuinely appreciate the role of a vajra master if it was presented to them by one with understanding.
It seems quite clear to me that anyone who does not recognize the role of your vajra masters is simply ignorant of the true nature of the spiritual path. I would never regard such a person as being an authentic representative of any tradition. How could they be, if they spurn the very processes and practices that are themselves the basis of any true transmission? The problems that people seem to experience with masters seem to be less a problem of the masters and more a problem of the seekers. All too ready to find a spiritual daddy or mommy figure, they run off to whomever impresses them in the most superficial way as being capable of healing their wounds or turning them into a super-special enlightened person. Then when their own unwillingness to take responsibility for themselves prevents them from carefully understanding what it is that they propose to undertake, they inevitably protest that their teacher is doing something wrong or is not quite enlightened enough for them. I feel pity for someone who finds themselves in such a position, which is entirely of their own making.
Unfortunately for Buddhism, many of its beliefs are very comforting to those who have been brought up in the Western psychological paradigm. Yet, such people in their rush to involve themselves in what they see as the spiritual path that is finally compatible with them fail to examine in a responsible way the real nature of the path which they are undertaking. They fail to see that the heart of Buddhism lies outside the paradigms of psychology and Western (or Eastern, for that matter) values. Then, when the path becomes steep and treacherous, they cry foul as though they were somehow deceived. Such people are in the saddest of positions and should be treated with utmost compassion. Having met with the possibility of understanding, they destroy any possibility they might have of actually receiving its deepest teachings.
It is sad that such should be the case, but it seems time and time again that those who will commit themselves to understanding regardless of form benefit from teaching, and those who are committed to a form will never understand a teaching no matter how well explained or demonstrated. It is unfortunate that so beautiful a tradition as that of the vajra master should be subjected to the mire of foolish debate that surrounds it in the West. It is as though a group of unruly schoolchildren should undertake to learn arithmetic and then complain that it is being taught improperly without having even understood the first lesson. I salute you and your vajra brothers and sisters and wish you well.