Wei Wu Wei (Terence Gray)

[Reefs]

I've been browsing a bit thru WWW's books lately and I have to say I am impressed by his level of clarity and especially his concise style of writing. I don't know if he deserves a 5-star rating, but the little I've read from him so far is definitely first-class non-duality. He may come across as a bit neo-advaita at first, but I sense his understanding goes much deeper than that. I'll post some quotes and let you decide.

First a bit of biographical background from wikipedia:

Terence James Stannus Gray (14 September 1895 – 5 January 1986), was a theatre producer who created the Cambridge Festival Theatre as an experimental theatre in Cambridge. He produced over 100 plays there between 1926 and 1933. Later in life, under the pen name Wei Wu Wei, he published several books on Taoist philosophy.

Terence James Stannus Gray was born in Felixstowe, Suffolk, England on 14 September 1895, the son of Harold Stannus Gray and a member of a well-established Anglo-Irish family. He was raised on an estate in the Gog Magog Hills outside Cambridge, England. He received a thorough education at Ascham St Vincent's School, Eastbourne, Eton and Oxford University. Early in life he pursued an interest in Egyptology which culminated in the publication of two books on ancient Egyptian history and culture in 1923.

In the later part of his life he lived with his second wife, the Georgian princess Natalie Margaret Imeretinsky, in Monaco. He had previously been married to a Russian noblewoman, Rimsky-Korsakov.

Gray maintained his family's racehorses in England and Ireland and in 1957 his horse Zarathustra won the Ascot Gold Cup, ridden by jockey Lester Piggott in the first of his eleven wins of that race.

In the 1920s and 1930s, Gray worked as a theorist, theatrical producer, creator of radical "dance-dramas", publisher of several related magazines and author of two related books. His cousin was Ninette de Valois, founder of the Royal Ballet.

In 1926, Gray, with no previous practical theatrical experience, opened the Cambridge Festival Theatre as an experimental playhouse. He acquired the old Theatre Royal in the Cambridge suburb of Barnwell, and substantially rebuilt it. The opening production was Aeschylus' The Orestia, with de Valois as choreographer, and he continued to produce non-naturalistic productions, emphasising movement over speech. Doria Paston worked as an actress and set designer with Gray for seven years. Critics were divided, with some praising his achievements, and others saying he sacrificed text and acting to clever trickery. Gray delighted in upsetting audiences but, despite controversy, audiences filled the theatre.

Many of Gray's collaborators left the project over his inability to compromise. By 1933, he had abandoned theatre for good.

After he left his theatrical career, his thoughts turned towards philosophy and metaphysics. This led to a period of travel throughout Asia, including time spent at Ramana Maharshi's ashram in Tiruvannamalai, India.Between the years 1958 and 1974, eight books and articles in various periodicals appeared under the pseudonym "Wei Wu Wei" (Wu wei, a Taoist term which translates as "action that is non-action").His identity as the author was not revealed at the time of publication for reasons he outlined in the Preface to the first book, Fingers Pointing Towards the Moon (Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1958).

The next 16 years saw the appearance of seven subsequent books, including his final work under the further pseudonym "O.O.O." in 1974. Wei Wu Wei influenced among others, the British mathematician and author G. Spencer-Brown, Galen Sharp, and Ramesh Balsekar. Wei Wu Wei is discussed in some detail in the book Taoism for Dummies (John Wiley and Sons Canada, 2013). A biography was published in 2004.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wei_Wu_Wei

[Reefs]

Seeking for Satori

Every time you seek Enlightenment you lose it. You had it, though you were not aware of it, but when you sought it you inevitably turned away from it. Whenever we start to search for something we have not lost we always necessarily separate ourselves from it.

Spiritual Experience

When I hear people speaking of experiences (“spiritual” understood) that they have had, or that some other, envied, person has had, and which appear to imply some kind of preliminary or try-out of Satori, I invariably wonder what on earth they are talking about; and with such earnestness—for slightly hushed voices are often invoked. Such experiences, since they are recognized as such, are evidently experiences in time and are therefore inapplicable to a context which implies reality. Neither Satori nor any other spiritual state could be in Time, nor, not being in Time, could be an experience.

Suchness

The Void (sunyata) is called emptiness because it cannot be an object of knowledge (or consciousness). That is, it is only empty to us as subject for whom every percept is object. This rendering as “emptiness” has caused endless confusion— for “Void” is not that at all, but, on the contrary, Reality Itself.

It is the hypostasis of the opposites, the dimensional extension of linear contradictions, or their “inner” identity, i.e. the identity which becomes apparent when their extension in a further dimension is perceived.

Wei Wu Wei, Why Lazarus Laughed 

[unseekingseeker]

Interesting. I too have partly gone through a book ‘Open Secret’ by Wu Wu Wei ~ must have a relook.

It would be great if on this forum our direct experiences and insights can shared as far as non-duality is concerned or for that matter any other wisdom download, kundalini energisation etc.. To affirm without expression by saying it cannot be expressed does not help.

The void too apparently has ‘layers’, as does Samadhi, where we become one without a second and yet inexplicably return back to form* (* a paradox, because if no one is there, what then enables the shift from singularity to duality?).

Swami Lakshmanjoo had affirmed that in his experience, with each breath, the universe appears and disappears. Amazing! Thus both in duality and nonduality.

Eric Putkonen, a member on this form has great videos on non-duality, apparently based on his direct recognition.

[Reefs]

Oct 23, 2022 7:48:31 GMT -5 unseekingseeker said:

Interesting. I too have partly gone through a book ‘Open Secret’ by Wu Wu Wei ~ must have a relook.

It would be great if on this forum our direct experiences and insights can shared as far as non-duality is concerned or for that matter any other wisdom download, kundalini energisation etc.. To affirm without expression by saying it cannot be expressed does not help.

The void too apparently has ‘layers’, as does Samadhi, where we become one without a second and yet inexplicably return back to form* (* a paradox, because if no one is there, what then enables the shift from singularity to duality?).

Swami Lakshmanjoo had affirmed that in his experience, with each breath, the universe appears and disappears. Amazing! Thus both in duality and nonduality.

Eric Putkonen, a member on this form has great videos on non-duality, apparently based on his direct recognition.

Open Secret is a good book. I've read it many years ago. That's from where I remember WWW (under the pseudonym OOO). The other books I just recently discovered.

Well, look at it this way: if you can't say what IT is, you can at least say what IT is not. That's as far as the usefulness of language goes when it comes to non-duality.

There are no layers or levels in the absolute context. So when you see someone talking about layers of experiences or levels of consciousness, that's always the relative context. Therefore, the switch from the relative to the absolute context is always a quantum leap. There is no transition period or in-between twilight zone.

Yes, Eric has some good stuff.

[Reefs]

The Illusory Element of the Ego

Might one not say: the concept that the self-as-an-entity-distinct-from-other-entities is illusory is probably itself a false concept, for it assumes that the self has spatial characteristics?

The illusory character of the self, so much insisted upon, may well be an error due to a misplacement of the illusory element, which really belongs not to the self but to a non-existent spatial character gratuitously attributed to it.

If Space and Time are themselves illusory - as the same metaphysical approach insists why should the self be given a spatial attribute? What is there in our consciousness of self to justify a spatial limitation?

But if the self is not in Space, as it may not be in Time, it need not be illusory. It is then only illusory in so far as it is conceived as a spatial and temporal entity.

Distinctness being a spatial and temporal factor, and an illusion, the false self or I-process, stripped of its temporal and spatial appearance, i.e. of its illusory element, would seem to be a manifestation of the I-Reality Itself.

Wei Wu Wei, Fingers Pointing Towards The Moon

This is excellent! This is what the distinction between 'Source' and 'extensions of Source' (or Inner Being vs. self, or inner ego/self vs. outer ego/self) is pointing to.

[Reefs]

Realization - personal or impersonal?

WWW: In regarding Realization as a personal phenomenon, if not attainment, are we not making a fundamental and disastrous error? Surely Realization is impersonal - the realization of our basic impersonality?

[Reefs]

What is Zen?

WWW: The essentials of the doctrine known to us as Zen antedate Buddhism. They are implicit in Lao Tzu, who was a contemporary of the Buddha in the Far East, and they are explicit in Chuang Tzu a couple of generations later. The Tao Te Ching was not the annunciation of a new doctrine, but a commentary on a teaching already ancient.

Zen doctrine has come down to us in a Buddhist context and it is impregnated with the teaching of the Buddha. Even if the traditional origin of the Flower Sermon could be regarded as authentic the Chinese element has an independent origin in the original Taoism.

Has no materialist ever suggested that Zen is the reductio ad absurdum of Buddhism? If not, why not?

The Void of Buddhism becomes more readily understandable if it may be regarded as meaning that which is void of qualities, evaluations projected by the dualistic human mind.

[Reefs]

"Zen is the reductio ad absurdum of Buddhism"

[inavalan]

Oct 29, 2022 12:51:07 GMT -5 Reefs said:

"Zen is the reductio ad absurdum of Buddhism"

That sounds intriguing. Looked it up and couldn't find anything to shed some light.

This is a link to that quote in the book: link

Probably unrelated, it brings to memory a joke made recently by an Aussie, dr. Phillip Altmann:

"My donut diet was really effective. I only gained 2 killos. Just think how much I could've gained if I hadn't been on a donut diet."

[laughter]

Oct 29, 2022 12:51:07 GMT -5 Reefs said:

"Zen is the reductio ad absurdum of Buddhism"

all humor is founded on some root of absurdity. Zen strikes me as suffused with humor even as it is ultimately as serious as it gets.

[Reefs]

Oct 30, 2022 0:49:27 GMT -5 laughter said:

Oct 29, 2022 12:51:07 GMT -5 Reefs said:

"Zen is the reductio ad absurdum of Buddhism"

all humor is founded on some root of absurdity. Zen strikes me as suffused with humor even as it is ultimately as serious as it gets.

Zen is something special, indeed. Watts called Buddhism the religion of no-religion. And Zen takes this a step further still.

[Reefs]

Reality and the Ego

WWW: Nine-tenths of the ideas which occupy our thoughts, which are the subjects of our conversations, discussions, discourses, public and private, have no existence in Reality.

Political, ethical, and social notions are in this category. They are phantasies, makebelieve, comparable with children's games of 'let's pretend'. (Ouspensky found that he could obtain no answer to such questions, when he was in contact with the noumenal plane, and when he sought the reason he found that it was because the questions referred to something that has no existence.)

Dogmas, religious, political, or moral, are ipso facto untrue. Truth itself cannot be expressed in words. Relative truth cannot be conveyed dogmatically. Yet we confound dogma with truth!

The unity, and ultimate identity, of what we distinguish as Spirit and Matter, which is a metaphysical concept and a tenet of Zen, would seem to make it inevitable that what we see as 'matter' may be regarded as that aspect of 'spirit' which our senses are able to perceive. We perceive it as such - a fraction of it a time - and are simple enough to suppose that what we perceive is the only reality.

We are only aware of that aspect of the universe of which the senses we possess are able to inform us.

An insect with antennae may have only one sense: his awareness of the universe must be restricted relatively to ours. A man born blind is aware of less of the universe than a man with sight. An animal has five senses only: he has a psyche and uses it but, having percepts without concepts, is unlikely to be aware of it. A man has six senses - as oriental psychology has always understood - for he is aware of that aspect of the universe which is his mind. If we had further senses we may suppose that we should become aware of further aspects of the universe. To imagine that the universe is restricted to that of which we are aware is probably as ill-founded in our case as in that of the insect.

[inavalan]

Nov 2, 2022 9:18:41 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Reality and the Ego

WWW: Nine-tenths of the ideas which occupy our thoughts, which are the subjects of our conversations, discussions, discourses, public and private, have no existence in Reality.

Political, ethical, and social notions are in this category. They are phantasies, makebelieve, comparable with children's games of 'let's pretend'. (Ouspensky found that he could obtain no answer to such questions, when he was in contact with the noumenal plane, and when he sought the reason he found that it was because the questions referred to something that has no existence.)

Dogmas, religious, political, or moral, are ipso facto untrue. Truth itself cannot be expressed in words. Relative truth cannot be conveyed dogmatically. Yet we confound dogma with truth!

The unity, and ultimate identity, of what we distinguish as Spirit and Matter, which is a metaphysical concept and a tenet of Zen, would seem to make it inevitable that what we see as 'matter' may be regarded as that aspect of 'spirit' which our senses are able to perceive. We perceive it as such - a fraction of it a time - and are simple enough to suppose that what we perceive is the only reality.

We are only aware of that aspect of the universe of which the senses we possess are able to inform us.

An insect with antennae may have only one sense: his awareness of the universe must be restricted relatively to ours. A man born blind is aware of less of the universe than a man with sight. An animal has five senses only: he has a psyche and uses it but, having percepts without concepts, is unlikely to be aware of it. A man has six senses - as oriental psychology has always understood - for he is aware of that aspect of the universe which is his mind. If we had further senses we may suppose that we should become aware of further aspects of the universe. To imagine that the universe is restricted to that of which we are aware is probably as ill-founded in our case as in that of the insect.

There are some observations, then there are some rationalizations and wishful-thinking. All of us do that to some degree; most of us are so arrogant, or ignorant, as to believe that our rationalizations are the truth.

Ouspensky's find is what I found too. I think that he erred in his interpretation because of he took his beliefs for truth.

(Ouspensky found that he could obtain no answer to such questions, when he was in contact with the noumenal plane, and when he sought the reason he found that it was because the questions referred to something that has no existence.)

He should've suspended (put aside) his beliefs and expectations, then should've kept inquiring his "contact with the noumenal plane" in different ways. When you don't get an answer, it means that your question is wrong.

Oct 30, 2022 14:55:20 GMT -5 inavalan said:

...
I can ask my inner-guide for help with the interpretation and the guidance, or I can use my inner-senses for that. My inner-guide is focused on developing my abilities; he doesn't care about my physical-life accomplishments. Using my inner-senses is a way to test my abilities, and improve them. Almost always there is a deeper level of interpretation beyond what I come up with (this isn't an intellectual process; but you need a certain level of intellect to understand).
...

[Reefs]

The Phenomenal Self and the Illusory Self

WWW: A man without a false-ego would be like a hedgehog without bristles, but a man without an ego would be like a log of wood or a jellyfish - if he did not simply fall to pieces.

Every conscious being must have an ego. Every unity has a centre, its rallying-point; the solar system and the atom have their nuclei, around which their elements are grouped. Far from being something superfluous, of which we should rid ourselves, it is the essential factor of the organism, as the heart is of the physical body.

When one attacks the 'egoism' of somebody one is guilty of a misuse of words: it is not his ego that is insufferable but his 'illusory self'. The ego belongs to so-called relative-Reality. It may be masked by the fictitious 'me', but itself is a functional necessity.

The ego, or nucleus of centrifugal and centripetal forces, which should be regarded as an aspect of Reality, can be the subject of pure, instantaneous perception, but the interpretation that our mind gives to this perception transforms it into an element of the illusory self.

'The Tathagata declares that Characteristics are not Characteristics' (Diamond Sutra XIV)

Is Humility anything but the result of a diminution of the power of the fictitious-self? Is it not in fact a function of the degree of consciousness, or of the sensation, of self? This being so, it does not exist as a quality: it is only an evaluation.

To seek humility as a thing-in-itself is absurd.

All forms of discipline, oriental (yoga) or occidental, only attack symptoms and could only have a superficial and temporary effect - like a febrifuge against typhoid-fever.

Our spiritual misery has but one basis, and there is only one treatment for it: its cause is the illusory self, and the treatment consists in realising that that does not exist.

However, intellectual recognition is not enough.

After all, the 'me' is our own creation; it is not imposed upon us from without; it is created by our reactions to everything that happens to us.

[maxdprophet]

Oct 30, 2022 9:26:14 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Oct 30, 2022 0:49:27 GMT -5 laughter said:

all humor is founded on some root of absurdity. Zen strikes me as suffused with humor even as it is ultimately as serious as it gets.

Zen is something special, indeed. Watts called Buddhism the religion of no-religion. And Zen takes this a step further still.

I don't really get that as Zen is full of traditional garb and gizmos and rituals all repeated incessantly and religiously.  Chants repeating the lineage of teachers, prostrations, blah blah blah.  I asked a Zen teacher once why all the bowing and he said to me in his very Zen way "can you just *wholeheartedly* bow?"  I was like why not wholeheartedly somersault??