Tongnyid Dorje wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:22 am
Mantrik wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:28 am
Grigoris wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:56 am
This is called "arguing from the exception."
But seriously: You still cannot judge the people that followed his lead, as you do not know their motivation.
How many of the people here arguing against ngakpa garb (and there are some people here doing exactly that), are doing so based on ignorance and ego?
You see, you're being defensive again - nobody has 'argued against ngakpa garb' have they? Some have said their master does not require it, even that it may not be necessary, but nobody has been 'against' afaik.
My laughing at an extreme appearance is hardly a serious 'judgement' of the sincerity and the efficacy of a person's spiritual path, is it. In fact, based on the little contact I have had, I have reason to believe they are very sound, and recognise their own fascination with dressing up.
As we are going round in circles as you seek to defend against a scarecrow invention of your own, I'll make this my last comment.
I recall a young man I knew who had aspirations of fame as an artist. He wandered around Bath dressed up like Orson Welles, the fedora topped and caped eccentric genius.
The young man's art was not well received and, being Bath, nobody bothered much about the dressing up. He learned a lesson:
Whilst an eccentric genius may dress eccentrically, dressing eccentrically does not confer genius.
I dare to say the same of the Ngakpa's appearance and their siddhis.
your comments are like "I have no problems if anyone is wearing Dharma robes" and then "you are all just a pretenders". Im sorry but they are.
btw, arent you dzogchen community person? just curious.
Like Greg, I will make a second final final remark in the thread.
I'm not sure if your sentence makes sense, but I will try to answer.
I have never made a comment about pretence which is directed at you, or generally against wearing robes as a Ngakpa, but I'm sure if people are feeling sensitive and upset they will find something to misinterpret. My perspective defined is pretty simple:
Those who wear robes but do not live according to the path, whilst doing their best to keep their vows, are pretenders, yes.
This is also true of monastics.
Ultimately, the wearing or not is something for the individual and their Guru.
If you or Greg do, great. If Malcolm doesn't, great. I don't see your problem. Some are getting extremely miffed because others differ, seeing it as some sort of attack. This is not unusual on this forum. Straw men are thrown around like bales in a barn. Actually shows a lack of confidence.
Outside of that I am at a loss to know what you are talking about.
You threw a quote into the debate which said, in effect, that someone had a dream, followed it, and believed that although they were a monastic they were better received by deities and spirits when they dressed up as a Ngakpa, even though they weren't one.
It seems an odd quote to give as it seems to support the opposite of the case you are making.
At best it is saying to those who aren't Ngakpas it is fine to wear the robes and they too may get a better outcome in rituals. That too is guaranteed to upset those who feel they 'earned' them somehow.
It isn't really anyone's business who I have received empowerments from, or what vows I have taken and from whom.
The two masters who have most influenced me have been Dzogchen Rinpoche and Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, but I have received empowerments from quite a few others.
But I come back to what I have written repeatedly - if a Guru wants you to wear robes when you attend sessions then do, if they say no then don't, and if they say nothing just make your own mind up.
But please don't fall into the same trap as some others and see every expression of difference or every query as an attack.
You put up a quote with no attempt to explain it. I interpreted it. You've told me I misinterpreted it but can't seem to show how, whereas I have now explained to you how you have misinterpreted me.
But this meandering into the realms of sartorial preference is rather missing the main thrust of the earlier debate on Ngakpas being everywhere.
I am in accord with the view I saw expressed (can't remember where) that people are on the Ngakpa path, ordained or otherwise, but are not Ngakpas until they truly have reliable command of the function of mantras.