(111) Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj , John 3:13-15 , Bhagavad Gita

Before you can know anything directly, non-verbally, you must know the knower. So far, you took the mind for the knower, but it is just not so. The mind clogs you up with images and ideas, which leave scars in memory. You take remembering to be knowledge. True knowledge is ever fresh, new, unexpected. It wells up from within. When you know what you are, you also are what you know. Between knowing and being there is no gap.

(Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj)

–

No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

(John 3:13-15)

–

Nothing you do will change you, for you need no change. You may change your mind or your body, but it is always something external to you that has changed, not yourself. Why bother at all to change? realize once for all that neither your body nor your mind, nor even your consciousness is yourself and stand alone in your true nature beyond consciousness and unconsciousness. No effort can take you there, only the clarity of understanding. Trace your misunderstandings and abandon them, that is all. There is nothing to seek and find, for there is nothing lost. Relax and watch the ‘I am’. Reality is just behind it. Keep quiet, keep silent; it will emerge, or, rather, it will take you in.

(Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj)

–

By thy grace I remember my Light, and now gone is my delusion. My doubts are no more, my faith is firm; and now I can say ‘Thy will be done’.

(Bhagavad Gita)

(110) Sri Ramana Maharshi , Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj , John 3:7-8 , w/ Freud & Derrida & John & Blake & Mathew footnotes (11/21/15)

From our perception of the world there follows acceptance of a unique First Principle possessing various powers. Pictures of name and form, the person who sees, the screen on which he sees, and the light by which he sees: he himself is all of these.

(Sri Ramana Maharshi)

–

‘Nothing is me,’ is the first step. ‘Everything is me’ is the next. Both hang on the idea: ‘there is a world’. When this too is given up, you remain what you are — the non-dual Self. You are it here and now.

(Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj)

–

You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’
(John 3:7)

–

The wind blows (breathes) where it wills; and though you hear its sound, yet you neither know where it comes from nor where it is going. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.
–

God’s Spirit blows wherever it wishes. You hear its sound, but you don’t know where it comes from or where it is going. It’s the same with everyone who is born of the Spirit.
–

The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you don’t know where the wind comes from or where it’s going. That’s the way it is with everyone born of the Spirit.

(John 3:8)

–

You cannot be alive for you are life itself. It is the person you imagine yourself to be that suffers,not you. Dissolve it in awareness. It is merely a bundle of memories and habits. From the awareness of the unreal to the awareness of your real nature there is a chasm which you will easily cross, once you have mastered the art of pure awareness.

–

Along with courage will emerge wisdom and compassion and skill in action. You will know what to do and whatever you do will be good for all.

(Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj)

================================================================================================================================

Freud & Derrida & John & Blake & Mathew Footnotes :

I remember my own defensive attitude [meiner eigenen Abwehr] when the idea of an instinct of destruction first emerged in psycho-analytic literature, and how long it took before I became receptive to it.

(Freud, Civilization and its Discontents)

==================================

and this openness opens the unity, renders it possible, and forbids it totality. Its openness allows receiving and giving.

(Derrida)

===========================

Just as the day was breaking, Jesus stood on the beach; yet the disciples did not know it was Jesus.

(John 21:4)

=============================

From every-one of the Four Regions of Human Majesty
There is an Outside spread Without & an Outside spread

Within,

Beyond the Outline of Identity both ways, which meet

in One

(William Blake)

==================================

This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: ‘Say to the daughter of Zion, ‘See, your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’ “Announce to the people of Jerusalem: ‘Your king is coming to you! He is humble and rides on a donkey. He comes on the colt of a donkey.’” “Tell the people of Zion, ‘Now your king is coming to you. He is humble and riding on a donkey. He is riding on a young donkey, born from a work animal.’”“Tell Jerusalem her King is coming to her, riding humbly on a donkey’s colt!” This is the full story of what was sketched earlier by the prophet: Tell Zion’s daughter, “Look, your king’s on his way, poised and ready, mounted On a donkey, on a colt, foal of a pack animal.”

(Mathew 21:5)

=======================================

In their form and in their grammar, these questions are all turned toward the past: they ask if we already have at our disposal such a concept and if we have ever had any assurance in this regard. To have a concept at one’s disposal, to have assurances with regard to it, this presupposes a closed heritage and the guarantee which is sealed, in some sense, by this heritage. And the word and the notion of the archive seem at first, admittedly, to point toward the past, to refer to the signs of consigned memory, to recall faithfulness to tradition. If we have attempted to underline the past in these questions from the outset, it is also to indicate the direction of another problematic. As much as and more than a thing of the past, before such a thing, the archive should call into question the coming of the future …

The king has indeed a body (and it is not here the original text but that which constitutes the tenor of the translated text), but this body is only promised, announced and dissimulated by the translation. The clothes fit but do not cling strictly enough to the royal person. This is not a weakness; the best translation resembles this royal cape.

(Derrida)

(109) Mundaka Upanishad , John 3:5-6 , Sri Ramana Maharshi , Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj , w/ I Ching & Derrida footnotes (11/20/15)

As rivers flowing into the ocean find their final peace and their name and form disappear even so the wise become free from name and form and enter into the radiance of the Supreme Spirit who is greater than all greatness. In truth who knows God becomes God.

(Mundaka Upanishad)

–
Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
(John 3:5-6)
–

What is your idea of Sri Krishna and what do you mean by sakshatkara?
You see, you think he is a human being or one with a human form, the son of so and so, whereas he himself has said, ‘I am in the Heart of all beings, I am the beginning, the middle and the end of all forms of life.’ He must be within you, as he is within all. He is your Self or the Self of your Self. So if you see this entity [the Self] or have sakshatkara of it, you will have sakshatkara of Krishna. Direct realization of the Self and direct realization of Krishna cannot be different.
However, to go your own way, surrender completely to Krishna and leave it to him to grant the sakshatkara you want.
(Sri Ramana Maharshi)
–

There is no difference between us; nor can I say that I know myself, I know that I am not describable nor definable. There is a vastness beyond the farthest reaches of the mind. That vastness is my home; that vastness is myself. And that vastness is also love.

(Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj)

==================================================================================================================================

I Ching & Derrida Footnotes :

=============================

Water flowing out from a mountain becomes a spring, pure and transparent, symbolizing the pureness of a child’s innocent mind. After the spring flows out of the mountain, it accumulates sediment over time … after Beginning, Childhood follows.

–

On the first divination, I give light.

(I Ching)

=================================================

“The very condition of a deconstruction may be at work in the work, within the system to be deconstructed. It may already be located there, already at work. Not at the center, but in an eccentric center, in a corner whose eccentricity assures the solid concentration of the system, participating in the construction of what it, at the same time, threatens to deconstruct. One might then be inclined to reach this conclusion: deconstruction is not an operation that supervenes afterwards, from the outside, one fine day. It is always already at work in the work.

–

Since the destructive force of Deconstruction is always already contained within the very architecture of the work, all one would finally have to do to be able to deconstruct, given this always already, is to do memory work. Yet since I want neither to accept nor to reject a conclusion formulated in precisely these terms, let us leave this question suspended for the moment.”

(Jacques Derrida)

(108): Sri Ramana Maharshi , John 3:3 , Bhagavad Gita , w/ Tao Te Ching & I Ching & Luke & Derrida footnotes (11/19/15) …

All religions postulate the three fundamentals, the world, the soul, and God, but it is only the one Reality that manifests Itself as these three. One can say, ‘The three are really three’ only so long as the ego lasts. Therefore, to inhere in one’s own Being, where the ‘I’, or ego, is dead, is the perfect State.

(Sri Ramana Maharshi)

–

Yes, indeed,” Yeshua answered him, “I tell you that unless a person is born again from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.”Jesus replied, “I tell you for certain that you must be born from above before you can see God’s kingdom!” “I can guarantee this truth: No one can see God’s kingdom without being born from above.
(John 3:3)
–

But he who will teach this secret doctrine to those who have love for me, and who himself has supreme love, he in truth shall come unto me.

(Bhagavad Gita)

=====================================================================================================================================

Tao Te Ching & I Ching & Luke & Derrida Footnotes :

==========================================

The Master gives himself up
to whatever the moment brings.
(Tao Te Ching)
=================================

making a resolution is equivalent to casting aside hesitation.

eliminate hesitation.

Breakthrough (Resoluteness).

–
When water on the ground has risen up to Heaven and accumulated as a lake of cloud in the sky, surely there will be a cloudburst.

(I Ching)

=========================================

On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived.

Eight days later, when the baby was circumcised, he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel even before he was conceived. (Luke 2:21)

========================================

Such difference without presence appears, or rather baffles the process of appearing, by disclosing any orderly time at the center of the present. The present is no longer a mother-form around which are gathered and differentiated the future (present) and the past (present). What is marked in this hymen between the future (desire) and the present (fulfillment), between the past (remembrance) and the present (perpetration), between the capacity and the act, etc., is only a series of temporal differences without any central present, without a present of which the past and future would be but modifications. Can we then go on speaking about time, tenses, and temporal differences? …

It follows, certainly, that Freudian psychoanalysis proposes a new theory of the archive; it takes into account a topic and a death drive without which there would not in effect be any desire or any possibility for the archive. But at the same time, at once for strategic reasons and because the conditions of archivization implicate all the tensions, contradictions, or aporias we are trying to formalize here, notably those which make of it a movement of the promise and of the future no less than of recording the past, the concept of the archive must inevitably carry in itself, as does every concept, an unknowable weight. The presupposition of this weight also takes on the figures of “repression” and “suppression,” even if it can not necessarily be reduced to these. This double presupposition leaves an imprint. It inscribes an impression in language and in discourse. The unknowable weight which imprints itself thus does not weigh only as a negative charge. It involves the history of the concept, it inflects archive desire or fever, their opening on the future, their dependency with respect to what will come, in short, all that ties knowledge and memory to the promise. …

It goes without saying from now on that wherever one could attempt, and in particular in Freudian psychoanalysis, to rethink the place and the law according to which the archontic becomes instituted, wherever one could interrogate or contest, directly or indirectly, this archontic principle, its authority, its titles, and its genealogy, the right that it commands, the legality or the legitimacy that depends on it, wherever secrets and heterogeneity would seem to menace even the possibility of consignation, this can only have grave consequences for a theory of the archive, as well as for its institutional implementation. A science of the archive must include the theory of this institutionalization, that is to say, at once of the law which begins by inscribing itself there and of the right which authorizes it. This right imposes or supposes a bundle of limits which have a history, a deconstructable history, and to the deconstruction of which psychoanalysis has not been foreign, to say the least. This deconstruction in progress concerns, as always, the institution of limits declared to be insurmountable,’ whether they involve family or state law, the relations between the secret and the nonsecret, or, and this is not the same thing, between the private and the public, whether they involve property or access rights, publication or reproduction rights, whether they involve classification and putting into order: What comes under theory or under private correspondence, for example? What comes under system? under biography or autobiography? under personal or intellectual anamnesis? In works said to be theoretical, what is worthy of this name and what is not? Should one rely on what Freud says about this to classify his works? Should one for example take him at his word when he presents his Moses as a “historical novel”? In each of these cases, the limits, the borders, and the distinctions have been shaken by an earthquake from which no classificational concept and no implementation of the archive can be sheltered. Order is no longer assured.

(Derrida)

—

This history of the archon in progress is a static entity reflecting an already-grace in recovery and amnesia, retroactive and reactiviated, foundering/floundering of a legacy between historical eras and multiple death dives, the ends of ego/man particularized in the phantom subject/object (floundering), unearthing, unclenching, spatula-dream, Donald Winnicott and/or Erik Erikson baby games, Heinz Kohut wars that never existed, Jungian autobiography (with and within Winnicott’s reading/dreams), Freud’s “historical novel” for Moses, reach(ing) forward/backward woth the grandson’s fort/da game, presence and absence played as a “mastery” game (that gets away from us)… over the ledge of the internet (screen), alchemy stories inside/outside , private/public …

To return to the “spatula game” there is a (recent) memory of a story told regarding matrimonial dishwashing and what Margaret Mahler might have said about that (particular narrative), in the archive/context (of an appropriated native american circle, for 21st century zeros?)the library where “you” can be “found” (lost) , but again it’s not “you” , deconstruction(s) of the human subject, simulacra interent highway, circumcision, circumfession, foreskin, scropts, scrptures, of name and naming, what can (never) be translated (but it) — cross it out , (you might still be able to see it. brought to “you” by the “other” (which is not), Atman breathing, Atman breath …

(6/5/16)