|
|
Post by michaelsees on Feb 11, 2011 10:42:24 GMT -5
I have often read his quotes which I love.
Yesterday I was able to get a copy of his out of print book "Open Secret" What a amazing book this is. He's a little hard to understand, intellectual and tends to make up his own English but I have never seen another book like this one.
I am not sure if you can buy or get his books anymore.
If anyone wants a copy let me know.
Michael
|
|
|
|
Post by goatsnest on Feb 11, 2011 16:03:08 GMT -5
I like the old fashioned spiritual writers, like WWW, Paul Brunton, Christmas Humphreys etc, you don't get that eloquent way of writing they had anymore. You can buy some of Wei's stuff at Watkins (good place to visit as well if you're in London) www.watkinsbooks.com/ |
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Feb 11, 2011 16:14:02 GMT -5
Thanks gn. it's true and thanks for the resource.
i love WWW open secret but you do need a little background to truly understand him.
Terry Gray was a rare gem for sure.
Michael
|
|
|
|
Post by goatsnest on Feb 11, 2011 16:25:07 GMT -5
I've never read the book you mentioned, but I like the taoist perspective. What I love about those early 20th century writers was the fact they didn't have access to the stuff we do now, so they had to go to India, China etc and learn it direct from the masters. Another author I like is John Blofeld. He spent time in taoist hermitages before the communists trashed the place. If you can find it, I recommend a book called 'taoism, the quest for immortality' a superb book.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Feb 11, 2011 16:39:27 GMT -5
Here's a little bit from open secret to give you the idea.
Michael
Seeing
I
How CAN THERE be a 'seeing'? Surely the 'seeing' is
false: the object is not over there, it is at home 'here'. I am
it, it is I. How, then, can I 'see' it? There is no object there:
therefore there cannot be any subject here.
All my eye! My eye and whatever lies behind it.
II
Once More
The conclusion is simple and evident. There is no
one to 'see' and no 'thing' to be 'seen'; the 'seen' is the
'see-er' and the 'see-er' is the 'seen', and that is a definition
of noumenon. This applies to each of the senses by means
of which phenomena are cognised.
'Noumenon' has no more existence than 'phenomena'
since each is merely a concept of divided 'mind', itself the
sixth sense, interpreter of its fellows. And all that each is is
neither 'there' nor 'here' nor any 'where'.
No name, nor any description, can ever be given to
what remains, for that is by definition no object, because as
ultimate subjectivity it could not see itself which is therefore
no 'thing' other than objectified as every 'thing', i.e., all
phenomena.
Therefore 'it' is ultimate and absolute phenomenal
absence and the absence of that concept of 'absence', which
is absolute presence.
Note: Phenomena are noumenon objectifying itself, or Noumenon is
subject objectifying itself as phenomena.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Feb 11, 2011 16:44:38 GMT -5
The only one of his i have is
John Eaton Calthorpe Blofeld - The Tantric Mysticism Of Tibet
michael
|
|
|
|
Post by stepvhen on Feb 11, 2011 21:28:01 GMT -5
Here's a little bit from open secret to give you the idea. Michael Seeing I How CAN THERE be a 'seeing'? Surely the 'seeing' is false: the object is not over there, it is at home 'here'. I am it, it is I. How, then, can I 'see' it? There is no object there: therefore there cannot be any subject here. All my eye! My eye and whatever lies behind it. II Once More The conclusion is simple and evident. There is no one to 'see' and no 'thing' to be 'seen'; the 'seen' is the 'see-er' and the 'see-er' is the 'seen', and that is a definition of noumenon. This applies to each of the senses by means of which phenomena are cognised. 'Noumenon' has no more existence than 'phenomena' since each is merely a concept of divided 'mind', itself the sixth sense, interpreter of its fellows. And all that each is is neither 'there' nor 'here' nor any 'where'. No name, nor any description, can ever be given to what remains, for that is by definition no object, because as ultimate subjectivity it could not see itself which is therefore no 'thing' other than objectified as every 'thing', i.e., all phenomena. Therefore 'it' is ultimate and absolute phenomenal absence and the absence of that concept of 'absence', which is absolute presence. Note: Phenomena are noumenon objectifying itself, or Noumenon is subject objectifying itself as phenomena. LOL |
|
|
|
Post by absoluteabsence on Oct 6, 2012 23:20:12 GMT -5
I found Wei Wu Wei's books when i was working at a large library here in Florida back in 1990. I was enthralled with his writing & was immediately hooked. I had been studying Buddhist & Vedantic teaching for some time & what intrigued me was that WWW was attempting to impart to us - to attempt to explain to us - objectively of course - the core teachings of the great sages & masters of Ch'an & Vedanta & Taoism, among others, the so-called mysterious teachings that the masters never really went into great detail about as they knew that ultimate truth can only be pointed at & not verbalized, conceptualized. But Wei Wu Wei attempts to give us an objective understanding of these teachings which he says will hopefully lead at some point to subjective understanding. His method of instruction tends to focus on the premise that there is no one to be awakened & that awakening is not a 'thing' to be attained. 'Original Mind', the awakened state or our true nature is what we are already & always have been. It is our attachment to a conceptual self - an object - that eclipses our true nature.
"I only am as all beings,
I only exist as all appearances.
I am only experienced as all sentience,
I am only cognised as all knowing.
Only visible as all that is seen,
Every concept is a concept of what I am.
All that seems to be is my being,
For what I am is not any thing.
Being whatever is phenomenal,
Whatever can be conceived as appearing,
I who am conceiving cannot be conceived,
Since only I conceive,
How could I conceive what is conceiving?
What I am is what I conceive;
Is that not enough for me to be?
When could I have been born,
I who am the conceiver of time itself?
Where could I live,
I who conceive the space wherein all things extend?
How could I die,
I who conceive the birth, life, and death of all things,
I who, conceiving, cannot be conceived?
I am being, unaware of being,
But my being is all being,
I neither think nor feel nor do,
But your thinking, feeling, doing, is mine only.
I am life, but it is my objects that live,
For your living is my living.
Transcending all appearance,
I am immanent therein,
For all that is - I am,
And I am no thing" - W.W.W.
|
|
|
|
Post by lukewarm on Dec 14, 2012 23:49:48 GMT -5
"The Tao That Can Be Named Is Not The Eternal Tao".
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 9, 2015 18:35:27 GMT -5
Michael came back as a guest, guess I missed that.......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 19:15:08 GMT -5
Michael came back as a guest, guess I missed that....... michaelsees came back briefly and posted about James Swartz, who he now says is his teacher. We had thought of him as a librarian/archivist of sorts, collecting . He was never against socializing and shooting the shiola as Roy is, so they are dissimilar in that way. Msees and ZD got along well but he and E butted heads a lot. He was interested in shedding light on neo-advaitists as opposed to real advaitists. On his last visit he seemed to have mellowed quite a bit, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 9, 2015 21:13:22 GMT -5
Michael came back as a guest, guess I missed that....... michaelsees came back briefly and posted about James Swartz, who he now says is his teacher. We had thought of him as a librarian/archivist of sorts, collecting . He was never against socializing and shooting the shiola as Roy is, so they are dissimilar in that way. Msees and ZD got along well but he and E butted heads a lot. He was interested in shedding light on neo-advaitists as opposed to real advaitists. On his last visit he seemed to have mellowed quite a bit, IMO. Thanks for the update maxd. .........I'm pretty sure I read some of his posts before......it looks like he deleted them....... He must have come back as guest while I was gone..... James Swartz, that makes sense. I be read-n me some James Swartz.............. I'll take old school vs new school any day........ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2015 9:37:23 GMT -5
michaelsees came back briefly and posted about James Swartz, who he now says is his teacher. We had thought of him as a librarian/archivist of sorts, collecting . He was never against socializing and shooting the shiola as Roy is, so they are dissimilar in that way. Msees and ZD got along well but he and E butted heads a lot. He was interested in shedding light on neo-advaitists as opposed to real advaitists. On his last visit he seemed to have mellowed quite a bit, IMO. Thanks for the update maxd. .........I'm pretty sure I read some of his posts before......it looks like he deleted them....... He must have come back as guest while I was gone..... James Swartz, that makes sense. I be read-n me some James Swartz.............. I'll take old school vs new school any day........ msees was also nobodyishome and nowhereman and randyji |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2015 18:34:52 GMT -5
I have often read his quotes which I love. Yesterday I was able to get a copy of his out of print book " Open Secret" What a amazing book this is. He's a little hard to understand, intellectual and tends to make up his own English but I have never seen another book like this one. I am not sure if you can buy or get his books anymore. If anyone wants a copy let me know. Michael 'People neglect the reality of the "illusory" world.' 'On no account make a distinction between the Absolute and the sentient world.' 'There's never been a single thing, Then where's defiling dust to cling?' 'I am not, but the apparent universe is my self.' 'The Asker is the Answer.' 'If you suppose that anything is NOT Prajnd, let me hear what it is.' 'You have no objective existence (as 'you'), Nor any subjective existence (as 'you'), Because 'existence as subject' would make subject an object—which it could never be. You only exist as existence itself.' |
|
