18 March 2013

Conversation With Jackson Peterson


We don't have "two minds", one enlightened and the other ignorant and impure. Rather we have only one mind. When we recognize the "empty nature" of our current state of mind, no matter how seemingly burdened and obscured it may be, we discover this mind is itself the "enlightened mind". When the empty nature of the mind is recognized, all the various "impurities" and "obscurations" instantly lose their ground as there is no longer a substance for their roots to cling to.

This is why it is said the we are all "Buddhas". Our mind when recognizing its true nature as emptiness is realized to be the Buddha Mind. The nature of our mind is essentially a knowing emptiness whose appearances are its luminosity. When the luminosity aspect becomes too intense the "emptiness" aspect is not noticed. It can render consciousness a bit bewildered. The elaborations that evolve from that overwhelming, vivid luminosity are our sense of self, self-stories, fixations and all the causes of suffering. These all evolve because the mind in its bewildered condition conceptually grasps for some ground and solidity where there is none to be found. When that same mind recognizes the empty nature of that vivid luminosity itself, it self-releases. This is like re-claiming the throne of Buddhahood that was always yours while remaining in the exact same place that you have always been.

How do we recognize the empty nature of our mind? What does the "empty nature of our mind" even mean?

If we simply examine one thought thoroughly, we will discover that it dissolves as fast as it appears. Its like a transparent hologram that appears in space and then disappears. You can't find any graspable substance no matter how much you try. In this way we conclude that our thought was empty of any actual enduring substance. But what remains when the thought vanishes? Not just a complete nihilistic absence, but rather a vivid and knowing awareness remains. This vivid, knowing, empty awareness is the true nature of thought, of every thought. All of our personal stories are made up of these empty thoughts.

Ours sense of self is made of these thoughts, empty thoughts. Outside of our empty thoughts there are no other causes of our suffering and anxiety. All of our negative emotions and passions are the same, empty of substance when examined. We can notice and recognize the empty nature of our suffering because of the empty nature of our thoughts. When we recognize the empty nature of our suffering authentically and directly, our suffering releases.

When we recognize the empty nature of our thoughts we immediately realize that our thoughts are themselves "awareness" as a vivid knowing. Thoughts have themselves revealed their nature to be empty awareness. When we recognize the empty nature of our negative emotions, we immediately realize that our negative emotions are themselves " knowing awareness". The luminous aspect now appears as radiant and vivid aware knowing. When we recognize the empty nature of our mind, we immediately realize that our mind, just as it appears, is itself the vivid awareness and knowing of a Buddha. When this is fully recognized and not just intellectually understood, a profound wisdom will arise that is the wisdom of a Buddha in full recognition of itself.

We then continue by simply resting in that realization. If we lose our clarity, we simply examine our condition again in order to recognize the inherent nature of its emptiness.
Like ·  · Unfollow Post · 4 hours ago


Ed Muzika Jackson, what you say is true to a point. But you focus is on knowingness. Self is not found in the mind or thoughts. It is not a construct of thoughts. It is found in direct experience through a loving, welcoming introspection of inner phenomena, ...See More
3 hours ago · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson:

There is no "Self" or "I am" in my view. These are just created experiences of the mind itself. The mind can and does appear as every experience not matter how vast and grand. Understanding the true nature of our mind reveals that we are t...See More
3 hours ago · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson

There is no "Self" or "I am" in my view. These are just created experiences of the mind itself. The mind can and does appear as every experience not matter how vast and grand. Understanding the true nature of our mind reveals that we are t...See More
3 hours ago · Like · 1

Ed Muzika:

I understand what you say, believe me. I was a Zen monk for 12 years and know emptiness, the void, illumined consciousness, and no-self very well. I dwelled there for many years. I have written about it extensively on my sebsites, ...See More

The website for the teachings of spiritual teacher Edward 'Edji' Muzika and the charitable works for We Are Sentience, where No Pet is Left Behind.
2 hours ago · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Jackson Peterson

Ed, what I am referring to is not a state or experience. The Buddha was fully familiar with the Vedas and their teachings. His enlightenment revealed a further insight beyond "Self", Brahman and God. Nirvana can't be described or established in any way. What you seem to be describing is an "experience". Nirvana is not an experience nor a state. Rarely do even old-timers in Zen and Buddhism get it right.
23 minutes ago via mobile · Like

Ed Muzika

Jackson, I am talking about a specific form of awakening, which I call self-realization, which is different from Nirvana, or the unknowable witness, both of which I have lived in for some time.

I chose to come back into experience and not stay as the unknowable witness, and I talk always about relating as two, as a dualism with everything in the world in a loving and compassionate way.

You might even say I am more Christian now than ever before, accepting the teachings where love is everything.

I have no interest in the Absolute anymore, or the Unmanifest, the Unborn. I am intested in the self I feel as me and in me always, every moment, manifest as both shakti and as love.

Muktananda said it best when he said, "I have come alive," meaning from the Unmanifest to the manifest. I will let the Unmanifest, Nirvana, take care of itself, but as long as I am alive, I take care of the world and those I love.
9 minutes ago · Like · 1

    • Jackson Peterson
       Geesh, you have some misunderstanding regarding Buddhist view. There is no "unknowable witness" in Buddhism. Where did you get that idea from? Nirvana is simply living without ignorance and delusion. There is no ego in nirvana, hence the dynamics of infinite,unconditional love embody and empower our life in every moment, choicelessly so! 
    • Ed Muzika Really you think that?

      What does Basuii's "Unborn" self or man mean to you? What of the "man of no rank?"

      Your description of "Nirvana" is purely conceptual. For example, how did unconditional love come in as a result of "living withoutignorance or delusion?
    • Ed Muzika Is not living without ignorance or delusion an experiential state? You said Nirvana was not a state, now you are clearly describing it as a state of living without ignorance or delusion.
    • Ed Muzika So, is Nirvana a state or not? Is it a knowing or not? What does it mean or feel like to live without ignorance or delusion?It is not a state or experience?
    • Jackson Peterson No Ed, nirvana is "unestablished". It is the mind of a Buddha. "Unborn" and "man of no rank", both point to the "unestablished" mind of a Buddha. The expression of compassion and love are the natural dynamics of the nirvanic mind, the mind/heart of a Buddha. Nirvanic mind is a sensitive reflexivity that matches the needs of beings choicelessly. I am sorry you never met a Buddhist teacher that could incite this authentic gnosis within your mind stream. I would be more than glad to help you complete your path... 
    • Ed Muzika No, No thanks Jackson, there are far too many concepts in your form of Buddhism. In Zen we had no concept of "unestablished." We had no concept of a "Nirvanic mind." We had no concept of a "sensitive reflexivity," that "matched the needs of (other)beings choicelessly." Nor did we have teachers that could "incite authentic gnosis" nor did we have "mind streams."

      These things did not exist for us because they are concepts as is Nirvana. We were kind of dumb you know, chopping wood and carrying water.

      We left all the conceptual stuff to those who read sutras and talked philosophy. We were too dumb for books and sutras.


  1. Way to go Ed, I can hear Nisargaddata thumping the table and yelling Kalpana, Kalpana, Kalpana!!!

    laughing and loving you


  2. "Too dumb for books and sutras." How cheerful! How apt!

    Thanks for passing on this teaching moment.


  3. A conceptless, unestablished, unborn mind experienced by Jackson and unexperiential Nirvanic mind has sensitive reflexivity that matches the needs of beings choicelessly (WHAT THE FUCK), oh but there is no ego there...

    Well, i am glad Ed never met a Buddhist teacher that could install an authentic nirvanic mind that is not experiential, yet describable..

    I am sorry but this all stuff just appeared so funny, i don't know...

  4. Beats me. I don't understand it at all :)

  5. Actually this has been just a big misunderstanding. A matter of different terminology.

    Obviously I know your teachings very well, Ed, but I have been following Jackson´s yahoo group for years, and both teachings are almost identical.

    He does not know your terminology, and you don´t know his. That is all. Your "mind" is not his "mind". Your "Absolute" is his "Dharmakaya". He does not know what you mean by "consciousness", by "The I Am sensation", and so on...

    He is a great guy and a great teacher , as you are, and you have much more in common than what you think,haha.

  6. The question is, does he speak from experience, has he attained the last goal, or not.

  7. To much conceptual bull.. Don't get in this trapp.
    Nice day!

  8. Yes, Charly. I can assure you that he speaks from experience.

    He´s one of the few real teachers out there, and furthermore, his deep in situ research into different traditions to find the common essence is very, very interesting.

    But, as I said, his terminology is radically different to Ed´s, and they use similar terms in very different ways, and that is the reason for that misunderstanding between two of the few absolutely reliable masters alive.

    Actually this is very usual. Remember those problems between Nisargadatta´s and Ramana´s followers because of the radically different way they used the word "consciousness", and this is just one example among hundreds.