What do you think?
Rate this book
Open Secret
An essential work by the mysterious Wei Wu Wei.
203 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 1982
17 people are currently reading
516 people want to read
About the author
Wei Wu Wei
22 books76 followersTerence James Stannus Gray 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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
October 4, 2018
Probably one of the clearest books (unintentionally and mostly unknown) regarding the highest teachings in Buddhism, with relation to nondualistic thinking and living. WWW doesn't mince his words, and each sentence is written with the utmost precision. This book and be read again and again (like all WWW books). There may be an element of frustration encountered though if the book is read by beginners or those starting on the nondual path. It's more suited to advanced students and those with a taste of previous enquiry. WWW's books tend to be copies of each other, hence one book is likely enough material to go over.
Read
August 1, 2013I came across one of the Kong Kong University Press editions of this at a used book store and could not put it down. Definitely one that will crack your head open if you are ready for it.
November 30, 2018
This book is to obscure and convoluted to be of any use to me. It has moments of lucidity, but most of it reads like this (I think this passage might be in 50 different places in this book, with only slight alterations. See if you get anything out of it)
'Noumenon' necessarily is total potentiality. If it functions, in functioning it must be subjective, and thereby inevitably objective also. That is to say, subject objectivises itself and so becomes apparent to itself as object, manifesting phenomenally 'within' itself. It looks at itself and perceives the universe—which is then apparently outside itself, since objectivisation is a process of apparent exteriorisation.
This is what most of this book reads like. It was frustrating for me. I sense that this man has a deep understanding of these things, yet he can't articulate them clearly enough for a dummkopf like me to understand. Its like he doesn't really want to communicate. Which is what makes this a frustrating read, like having a word at the tip of your tongue but not actually finding it, this book stops just short of my understanding.
There are moments of lucidity, and those are what kept me going, thinking "ah, now we might turn a corner here". But alas, give it a page and he always fades back into obscurity
I want to share some of the lucid moments:
Knowing that the observed has no existence Apart from the observer,
Knowing that the observer has no existence Apart from the observed,
Divided mind is re-united.
Then there is no other, so there can be no self.
Then there is no self, so there can be no other.
Without extension in space, without duration in time,
In mind that is whole,
There is no being to suffer, to experience pain or pleasure,
To hate or to love.
Gone with its ego, the scourge of volition.
Mind as a concept, utterly absent,
Pure noumenality, none to conceive it,
Untrammelled and radiant, is all that we are.
And as sound an argument for idealism as i've read:
OBJECTS ARE only known as the result of reactions of the senses of sentient beings to a variety of stimuli.
These stimuli appear to derive from sources external to the reagent apparatus, but there is no evidence of this apart from the reagent apparatus itself.
Objects, therefore, are only a surmise, for they have no demonstrable existence apart from the subject that cognises them.
Since that subject itself is not sensorially cognisable as an object, subject also is only a surmise. Since the factual existence of neither subject nor object can be demonstrated, existence is no more than a conceptual assumption, which, metaphysically, is inacceptable.
There is, therefore, no valid evidence for the existence of a world external to the consciousness of sentient beings, which external world is therefore seen to be nothing but the cognisers of it, that is—sentient beings themselves. But there can be no factual evidence for the existence of sentient beings, either as subject or as object, who therefore are merely a conceptual assumption on the part of the consciousness in which they are cognised.
'Noumenon' necessarily is total potentiality. If it functions, in functioning it must be subjective, and thereby inevitably objective also. That is to say, subject objectivises itself and so becomes apparent to itself as object, manifesting phenomenally 'within' itself. It looks at itself and perceives the universe—which is then apparently outside itself, since objectivisation is a process of apparent exteriorisation.
This is what most of this book reads like. It was frustrating for me. I sense that this man has a deep understanding of these things, yet he can't articulate them clearly enough for a dummkopf like me to understand. Its like he doesn't really want to communicate. Which is what makes this a frustrating read, like having a word at the tip of your tongue but not actually finding it, this book stops just short of my understanding.
There are moments of lucidity, and those are what kept me going, thinking "ah, now we might turn a corner here". But alas, give it a page and he always fades back into obscurity
I want to share some of the lucid moments:
Knowing that the observed has no existence Apart from the observer,
Knowing that the observer has no existence Apart from the observed,
Divided mind is re-united.
Then there is no other, so there can be no self.
Then there is no self, so there can be no other.
Without extension in space, without duration in time,
In mind that is whole,
There is no being to suffer, to experience pain or pleasure,
To hate or to love.
Gone with its ego, the scourge of volition.
Mind as a concept, utterly absent,
Pure noumenality, none to conceive it,
Untrammelled and radiant, is all that we are.
And as sound an argument for idealism as i've read:
OBJECTS ARE only known as the result of reactions of the senses of sentient beings to a variety of stimuli.
These stimuli appear to derive from sources external to the reagent apparatus, but there is no evidence of this apart from the reagent apparatus itself.
Objects, therefore, are only a surmise, for they have no demonstrable existence apart from the subject that cognises them.
Since that subject itself is not sensorially cognisable as an object, subject also is only a surmise. Since the factual existence of neither subject nor object can be demonstrated, existence is no more than a conceptual assumption, which, metaphysically, is inacceptable.
There is, therefore, no valid evidence for the existence of a world external to the consciousness of sentient beings, which external world is therefore seen to be nothing but the cognisers of it, that is—sentient beings themselves. But there can be no factual evidence for the existence of sentient beings, either as subject or as object, who therefore are merely a conceptual assumption on the part of the consciousness in which they are cognised.
June 30, 2019
It is the best book regarding non duality that I ever encountered.
It is difficult to read for someone who has not yet seen that the person he thinks he is is just an “phenomenon” being experienced by (his real identity) consciousness.
It is direct and no “non non-sens”.
It is difficult to read for someone who has not yet seen that the person he thinks he is is just an “phenomenon” being experienced by (his real identity) consciousness.
It is direct and no “non non-sens”.
December 19, 2021
نميل إلى إساءة فهم الطبيعة والمبالغة في أهمية "الزمان" و "المكان".
لا توجد مثل هذه "الأشياء" (فهي غير موجودة في حد ذاتها): تظهر هذه الأشياء إلى الوجود الظاهر ، أي أنها "تعمل" فقط كآلية يمكن من خلالها إدراك الأحداث ، الممتدة مكانيًا وبشكل متسلسل . إنهم يرافقون الأحداث ويجعلون تنميتها قابلة للتحقق.
في حد ذاتها ليس لديها أي وجود على الإطلاق. إنها مظاهر ، ووجودها الظاهر يُستنتج من الأحداث التي ترافقها وتجعلها محسوسة. إنها رموز افتراضية ، مثل "الأثير'' ، مثل الجبر ، والاستدلالات النفسية التي تياعد في معرفة الكون ، وهي ليست موجودة مسبقًا ولا تنجو بعيدًا عن الأحداث المصاحبة لها .
في حالة عدم وجود حدث ، لا توجد حاجة إلى "الوقت" أو "المكان" - وفي غيابهما لم نعد مستعبدين - حيث لا أحد يعتقد بأنه ملزم بأي شيء .
الوقت هو مجرد استنتاج ، تم تصميمه في محاولة لشرح النمو والتطور والامتداد والتغيير ، والتي تشكل اتجاهًا إضافيًا للقياس يتجاوز الثلاثة التي نعرفها وفي الزوايا الصحيحة للحجم ؛ "الماضي" و "الحاضر" و "المستقبل" هي استنتاجات مشتقة من هذا التفسير الزمني للبعد الإضافي الذي يبدو أن الامتداد يحدث فيه. كل أشكال الزمنية ، إذن ، هي مفاهيمية ومتخيلة.
وبالتالي ، فإن النبوءة أو الإدراك المسبق هو إدراك من اتجاه قياس آخر ، بعيدًا عن الوقت ، زاوية رابعة ، حيث - كما في حالة كل بُعد متفوق - يُنظر إلى الأبعاد ككل ، بحيث تكون تأثيرات الأسباب واضحة في ما نسميه المستقبل كما هي فيما نسميه الماضي.
يحدث الحدث فقط في ذهن من يدركه ، مفردًا أو جمعًا حسب الحالة ، ولا يمكن لأي حدث أن يكون أي شيء سوى ذكرى عندما نعرفه. لا يوجد حدث ما سوى كتجربة نفسية. الأحداث ، أو ذكريات الأحداث ، هي أشياء موضوعية في الوعي.
.
Wei Wu Wei
Open Secret
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
لا توجد مثل هذه "الأشياء" (فهي غير موجودة في حد ذاتها): تظهر هذه الأشياء إلى الوجود الظاهر ، أي أنها "تعمل" فقط كآلية يمكن من خلالها إدراك الأحداث ، الممتدة مكانيًا وبشكل متسلسل . إنهم يرافقون الأحداث ويجعلون تنميتها قابلة للتحقق.
في حد ذاتها ليس لديها أي وجود على الإطلاق. إنها مظاهر ، ووجودها الظاهر يُستنتج من الأحداث التي ترافقها وتجعلها محسوسة. إنها رموز افتراضية ، مثل "الأثير'' ، مثل الجبر ، والاستدلالات النفسية التي تياعد في معرفة الكون ، وهي ليست موجودة مسبقًا ولا تنجو بعيدًا عن الأحداث المصاحبة لها .
في حالة عدم وجود حدث ، لا توجد حاجة إلى "الوقت" أو "المكان" - وفي غيابهما لم نعد مستعبدين - حيث لا أحد يعتقد بأنه ملزم بأي شيء .
الوقت هو مجرد استنتاج ، تم تصميمه في محاولة لشرح النمو والتطور والامتداد والتغيير ، والتي تشكل اتجاهًا إضافيًا للقياس يتجاوز الثلاثة التي نعرفها وفي الزوايا الصحيحة للحجم ؛ "الماضي" و "الحاضر" و "المستقبل" هي استنتاجات مشتقة من هذا التفسير الزمني للبعد الإضافي الذي يبدو أن الامتداد يحدث فيه. كل أشكال الزمنية ، إذن ، هي مفاهيمية ومتخيلة.
وبالتالي ، فإن النبوءة أو الإدراك المسبق هو إدراك من اتجاه قياس آخر ، بعيدًا عن الوقت ، زاوية رابعة ، حيث - كما في حالة كل بُعد متفوق - يُنظر إلى الأبعاد ككل ، بحيث تكون تأثيرات الأسباب واضحة في ما نسميه المستقبل كما هي فيما نسميه الماضي.
يحدث الحدث فقط في ذهن من يدركه ، مفردًا أو جمعًا حسب الحالة ، ولا يمكن لأي حدث أن يكون أي شيء سوى ذكرى عندما نعرفه. لا يوجد حدث ما سوى كتجربة نفسية. الأحداث ، أو ذكريات الأحداث ، هي أشياء موضوعية في الوعي.
.
Wei Wu Wei
Open Secret
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
July 31, 2018
Outstandingly brilliant book....you will lose your self in it.
May 30, 2021
wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww very slow read. I would recommend to anyone who's been taken in by meditation/the "path" to enlightenment/buddhism/philosophy of mind etc.
best book on these topics i've ever read, even though it's a tough read.
also side note for later: it's so freaky how much W.W.W's writing about space and time aligns with donald hoffman's claims about spacetime
What is scary is that hoffman reached these via evolutionary and mathematical arguments, whereas W.W.W reached these via introspection and talking to eastern bodhissativas
ANYONE WHO HAS perceived the purely conceptual
existence of either time or space has held in his mind the
key of the gateless gate beyond which lies understanding of the
nature of manifestation—that is, of the universe in relation
to sentient beings.
How many have used this golden key may never be
known, but has a more direct path to that understanding yet
been discovered?
For its perception all manifestation depends on the
extension of what is to be perceived—in an apparent spatial
dimension, and also on the duration of such extension in a
dimension of time. Without these two inseparable media,
called 'space' and 'time', no manifestation could arise in
perception.
This is to say that the sensorially perceptible universe
is entirely subjected to the concept of space-time in order
to have objective existence.
But the independent existence of space-time as a
thing-in-itself, i.e., as an objective reality, is as inconceivable
metaphysically as it is inacceptable in philosophy or in
physics.
If space-time is recognised as a piece of psychic
apparatus devised in order to render perception possible, it
will be regarded as no more than an inference devoid of any
but conceptual existence.
Recognition of the purely conceptual existence of
space-time automatically requires recognition of the purely
conceptual existence of the sensorially perceived universe
which is dependent upon it, and as a result of such recognition both space-time and universe are seen to belong to the
objective voidness which is non-manifestation.
best book on these topics i've ever read, even though it's a tough read.
also side note for later: it's so freaky how much W.W.W's writing about space and time aligns with donald hoffman's claims about spacetime
What is scary is that hoffman reached these via evolutionary and mathematical arguments, whereas W.W.W reached these via introspection and talking to eastern bodhissativas
ANYONE WHO HAS perceived the purely conceptual
existence of either time or space has held in his mind the
key of the gateless gate beyond which lies understanding of the
nature of manifestation—that is, of the universe in relation
to sentient beings.
How many have used this golden key may never be
known, but has a more direct path to that understanding yet
been discovered?
For its perception all manifestation depends on the
extension of what is to be perceived—in an apparent spatial
dimension, and also on the duration of such extension in a
dimension of time. Without these two inseparable media,
called 'space' and 'time', no manifestation could arise in
perception.
This is to say that the sensorially perceptible universe
is entirely subjected to the concept of space-time in order
to have objective existence.
But the independent existence of space-time as a
thing-in-itself, i.e., as an objective reality, is as inconceivable
metaphysically as it is inacceptable in philosophy or in
physics.
If space-time is recognised as a piece of psychic
apparatus devised in order to render perception possible, it
will be regarded as no more than an inference devoid of any
but conceptual existence.
Recognition of the purely conceptual existence of
space-time automatically requires recognition of the purely
conceptual existence of the sensorially perceived universe
which is dependent upon it, and as a result of such recognition both space-time and universe are seen to belong to the
objective voidness which is non-manifestation.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews