As a contemporary Gelug I imagine one of your root teachers is HH the Dalai Lama. (If I am wrong, I apologize). Now while HH is a pure monk, he practices the terma of Lerab Lingpa as one of his heart practices, afaik. Lerab Lingpa was a Ngakpa yogi who had children. Likewise, HH studied Dzogchen with HH Dudjom Rinpoche, whose tradition I follow and whose children and grandchildren continue to benefit the Dharma and sentient beings in profound and vast ways. Us disciples of these great beings are generally not encouraged (or discouraged) to be celibate. I think it may behoove you to respect the various views on this issue
Of course HH Dalai Lama is one of my teachers. And I have heard him time and time again advocate the importance of monastic practice in many of his teachings I've attended in Dharamsala. I myself practice from time to time a Guru Rinpoche ritual I received from Khamtrul Rinpoche- a lay master- but I don't see how this erases any of the points about the importance of monasticism.
HHDL is fond of quoting this verse, that you'll also find on his webpage:
Lord Buddha himself says in the Vinaya Bases:
Wherever there is a gelong, a holder of the vinaya, that place is luminous; that place is illuminated. See that place as not devoid of me. I also abide unperturbed in that place.
Of course, I understand your position as your lineage is one that prides itself on a type of pure sutric conduct. However, I ask the same from you as from Huseng: which is to simply accept with openness that there are other (perhaps equally valid) interpretations of these subtle points, and rich lineage traditions that are constantly churning out realized beings despite a lack of stringent adherence to celibacy.
Where in this thread did I say that realization is impossible without celibacy, or indicate that lay practice couldn't lead to enlightenment? Have you read my posts?
While it is true I may not have read your preceding post closely enough before responding,where did I disrespect any of the views on this issue, or criticize ngakpa or lay practice?
In fact, I think it is you who are trying to buffer your position by equating my advocacy of the monastic form with some kind of Gelug triumphalism, which is unfair.
One of the lamas from whom I have taken transmission, Garje Khamtrul Rinpoche, is a lay person. I have never criticized lay practice, it seems to me that some see any advocacy of monasticism as an affront to non-monastic practice, this is not the case.
I also mentioned Rigpa's monastic Sangha and Sogyal Rinpoche's remarks on its importance very purposefully to demonstrate that an advocacy of monasticism is neither sectarian nor puritanical- as a well known Lay Nyingma master promotes it.
I posted several important quotations on this subject from HH Penor Rinpoche, a great Nyingma master who was chosen to be chief representative for the lineage for many years, there was no response to that.
Namkha Rinpoche in Switzerland, who is also an upholder of the Dudjom Tersar, told me that both ngakpa and monastic Sanghas are important, and that the survival of dharma depends on both, not one or the other.
And as I've stated in many threads, I have several teachers in the Gelug tradition, but also in the Karma Kagyu tradition, and Khamtrul Rinpoche who is Nyingma master. Despite being a layperson, Khamtrul Rinpoche has built a large monastery to house monks and his grandson is ordained as a monk.
In order to ensure my mind never comes under the power of the self-cherishing attitude,
I must obtain control over my own mind.
Therefore, amongst all empowerments, the empowerment that gives me control over my mind is the best,
and I have received the most profound empowerment with this teaching.
brtsal ba'i bkhra drin