*"... not the physical lama, ... but your own nature of mind ... That's the real lama ..."* Is that actually a concept in vajrayana? In a recent comment in a blog I've read the following remark:

&quot;(...) Not the physical lama, not anything or anyone outside of yourself, but your own nature of mind, the true nature of reality. That’s the real lama; that’s the essential point in the vajrayana ‘system of practice’, and that has nothing to do with a bully on a throne teaching you. His or her role is only to help you to recognise that true nature, (…)
(...) His or her role is only to help you to recognise that true nature, once you have that recognition, you no longer need the physical lama.(...)”

I asked in that blog for a source of this (in case it is more than a personal idea, of course) but it seems I could not find the attention of the writer so far.  So I ask in this forum:

Q: is this a statement which I can find in some scripture? Or, something from which it follows more or less immediately? Or is it merely the expression of an individual's conclusion?

Motivation: I've nearly no knowledge of tibetan buddhism (I like the reading in the pali-canon, in some older zen-literature and feel strongly connected with the way of Thich Nhat Hanh), and am getting in contact with it currently only initiated by my following of some blogs which concern themselves with the recent revelations of misuse and misconduct by teachers (and their inner circles). The above statement surprises me in recollection of all what I've heard and read of guru-orientated buddhism and makes me curious, whether this is really a basic or at least derivable conception.
(Ahh, nearly forgot: just for reference  comment-in-blog)
In Tibetan Buddhism there are many different lineages, broadly grouped into several categories known as schools or traditions. The exact details of the Dharma passed down from teacher to student in large degree depends on a particular lineage. In a more abstract sense, an overall teaching style is determined by the school. And then finally there are elements common to all of Tibetan Buddhism.

Then, within each school &amp; lineage, there are different levels of presentation, targeted at students of different maturity levels.

There is a commonly held understanding among Tibetan Buddhism teachers and senior students, that the basic levels of Dharma are more focused on the outer forms of practice and simplistic concepts of teaching, to help complete beginners and outsiders get a "Micky-Mouse"-level introduction, before they can start delving into the real thing.

In my understanding the cult of the guru (formally known as the "guru-yoga") and the endless emphasis on compassion both belong at this basic level, along with some rather highly religious elements, and then, as the students mature, they are gradually introduced (or, rather, are allowed to discover for themselves) the progressively more direct teachings, with gradually less emphasis on the outer forms and gradually more focus on the inner personal practices of groundlessness, wakefulness, sobriety and composure.

Specifically, this idea that "your own mind is guru" is very well-known at the higher levels of teaching in Kagyu and Nyingma lineages (Mahamudra and Dzogchen respectively).

For example, here is a verse passed down Shangpa Kagyu lineage since ~12th century:


  ...
  Yes, gurus do point out how things are,
  But the guru who is natural being is within.
  Mind that is my guru, here is how you are:  
  
  ...
  I can’t see, hear, taste, smell or touch you:
  You are not a thing, yet you are the source of all experience.
  Try as I may, there’s nothing I can point to and say, “That’s you!”
  But when I sit and don’t look for you, you are present in everything.  
  
  ...
  Because you aren’t anywhere, you arise as anything anywhere.
  Yet you don’t belong to any one place.
  So, while you are not anything I can point to,
  You are my guru!  
  
  ...
  Oh, mind that is my teacher,
  I meet you by recognizing what I am.
  I pray to you by letting go of doubt and hesitation.
  I revere you by letting go and settling naturally.  
  
  ...
  I serve you by resting continuously in how things are.
  I provide you with food by resting without strain in empty clarity.
  I provide you with drink by knowing attention and distraction make no difference.
  I clothe you by knowing appearance and sound as enchantments.  
  
  ...
  I have studied with many capable gurus:
  Each guru has given me his or her own advice.
  All advice comes down to one point – mind!
  So, mind that is my guru,
  I look at you, listen to you, and seek your instruction again and again.  
  
  ...
  By doing so, I know directly that mind is the guru.
  Because this knowing arises internally,
  When I see writings that contradict or conflict with my experience:
  I consider the meaning, not the words.