Search the Community

Hi all! I have seen my name pop up quite often lately regarding Dzogchen teachings. I would enjoy the opportunity to correct many of the comments regarding my relationship to the Dzogchen teachings and to clarify several points that are incorrect regarding Dzogchen practice and realization. There seems to be a clique of "Hinayana style Dzogchennist Taliban" panditas here that confuse conceptualization for rigpa wisdom or yeshe. One can't intellectualize one's way to rigpa. In spite of what many from this clique consider my view to be, this recent text I wrote contains the view that has been recognized here: If perceptions are not "objectified" and the perceiving is not "subjectified", there is then only the "unestablished". When the "unestablished" arises one cannot frame it in any conceptual way or else it becomes the "established". The "established" is then something perceived and objectified. If something is perceived and objectified then for that to be possible the perceiving must have become subjectified. Knowing this we find Nirvana is the condition of the "unestablished". Further comment: In practice, this means we leave "appearances" as-is without creating a story that defines them in any conceptual way. Likewise we leave our "perceiving" undefined, not creating a story about a "me", the perceiver. Continuing in this completely open and undefined space of experience, how can each moment not be Nirviana? I think this formula shows the same point that Zen, Dzogchen, Mahamudra, Madhyamaka and the Buddha's earliest teachings point to... Jackson Peterson. My background: http://mumonkan.org/resources/jackson.aspx