2018 (22a) : Winnicott , Derrida , Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj , Derrida , Winnicott , John 7:37-39 , Bhagavad Gita 2:51-52 , Winnicott , John Ashbery , Derrida , Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

As the infant starts to use organized sounds (‘mum’,
‘ta’, ‘da’) there may appear a ’word’ for the transitional
object. The name given by the infant to these earliest
objects is often significant, and it usually has a word used
by the adults partly incorporated in it. For instance, ‘baa’
may be the name, and the ‘b’ may have come from the
adult’s use of the word ‘baby’ or ‘bear’. (Winnicott)

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? … (Derrida)

Understand the source of child. The child is a product of the sperm of the father and the ovum of the mother. Consciousness is there in the child as it is in the parents; it is always the same consciousness whether in the child or the adult. There is only one consciousness. You must become one with and stabilize in that consciousness, then you transcend it. That consciousness is your only
capital. Understand it. To what extent do you know yourself?
(Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj)

At stake, in sum, is that which in me could learn to say ‘me’ only by cultivating an idiom where — for reasons I do not understand very well but which I would like to try to elucidate a little with you, as if I were in analysis with you — the word ‘resistance’ does not play just any role. (Derrida)

At this point my subject widens out into that of play,
and of artistic creativity and appreciation, and of religious
feeling, and of dreaming, and also of fetishism … (Winnicott)

37 On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.”[c] 39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified. (John 7:37-39)

The wise endowed with equanimity of intellect, abandon attachment to the fruits of actions, which bind one to the cycle of life and death. By working in such consciousness, they attain the state beyond all suffering.
(Bhagavad Gita 2:51-52)

It is true that the piece of blanket (or whatever it is) is
symbolical of some part-object, such as the breast.
Nevertheless, the point of it is not its symbolic value so
much as its actuality. Its not being the breast (or the
mother), although real, is as important as the fact that it
stands for the breast (or mother). (Winnicott)

We can only imagine a world in which a woman

Walks and wears her hair and knows

All that she does not know. Yet we know

What her breasts are. And we give fullness

To the dream. The table supports the book,

The plume leaps in the hand. (John Ashbery)

Each time it is the event itself, a first time is a last time. Altogether other. Staging for the end of history. Let us call it a hauntology. This logic of haunting would not be merely larger and more powerful than an ontology or a thinking of Being (of the “to be,” assuming that it is a matter of Being in the “to be or not to be,” but nothing is less certain). It would harbor within itself, like circumscribed places or particular effects, eschatology and teleology themselves. It would comprehend them, but incomprehensibly.the discourse about the end? (Derrida)

Ultimately one must go beyond knowledge, but the knowledge must come, and knowledge can come by constant meditation. By meditating, the knowledge “I Am” gradually settles down and merges with universal knowledge, and thereby becomes totally free, like the sky, or space. (Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj)

2018 (21e-31) : Derrida

it is always possible for a text to become new, since the white spaces open up its structure to an indefinitely disseminated transformation. (Derrida)

the infinitely small point of meaning which the languages barely brush … What can an infinitely small point of meaning be? What is the measure to evaluate it? The metaphor itself is at once the question and the answer. (Derrida)

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)

And yet nothing is more necessary than this wisdom. It is ethics itself: to learn to live-alone, from oneself, by oneself Life does not know how to live otherwise. And does one ever do anything else but learn to live, alone, from oneself, by oneself?
This is, therefore, a strange commitment, both impossible and necessary, for a living being supposed to be alive: “I would like to learn to live.” It has no sense and cannot he just unless it comes to terms with death. 2 Mine as (well as) that of the other. Between life and death, then, this is indeed the place of a sententious injunction that always feigns to speak like the just. (Derrida)

What follows advances like an essay in the night-into the unknown of that which must remain to come-a simple attempt, therefore, to analyze with some consistency such an
exordium: “I would like to learn to live. Finally” Finally what.
If it-learning to live-remains to be done, it can happen only between life and death. Neither in life nor in death alone. What happens between two, and between all the “two’s” one likes, such as between life and death, can only maintain itself with some ghost, can only talk with or about some ghost s’ entretenir de quelque fantome. So it would be necessary to learn spirits. Even and especially if this, the spectral, is not. Even and especially if this, which is neither substance, nor essence, nor existence, is never present as such. The time of the “learning to live, a time without tutelary present, would amount to this, to which the exordium is leading us: to learn to live with ghosts, in the upkeep, the conversation, the company, or the companionship, in the commerce without commerce of ghosts. To live otherwise, and better. No, not better, but more justly But with them. No being-with the other, no socius without this with that makes being-with in general more enigmatic than ever for us. And this being-with specters would also be, not only but also, a politics of memory, of inheritance, and of generations. (Derrida)

the law imposed by the name of God who in one stroke commands and forbids you to translate by showing and hiding from you the limit (Derrida)

they do not ask the question; they stage it or overflow this stage in the direction of that element of the scene which exceeds representation. (Derrida)

If I am getting ready to speak at length about ghosts, inheritance,
and generations, generations of ghosts, which is to say about certain others who are not present, nor presently living, either to us, in us, or outside us, it is in the name of justice. of justice where it is not yet, not yet there, where it is no longer, let us understand where it is no longer present, and where it will never be, no more than the law, reducible to laws or rights. 3 It is necessary to speak of the ghost, indeed to the ghost and with it (Derrida)

To be just: beyond the living present in general-and beyond its simple negative reversal. A spectral moment, a moment that no longer belongs to time, if one understands by this word the linking of modalized presents (past present, actual present: “now,” future present). We are questioning in this instant, we
are asking ourselves about this instant that is not docile to time,
at least to what we call time. Furtive and untimely, the apparition
of the specter does not belong to that time, it does not give time,
not that one: “Enter the ghost, exit the ghost, re-enter the ghost”
(Hamlet). (Derrida)

the future has the form of a past which I will never have witnessed and which for this reason remains always promised – and moreover also multiple. (Derrida)

not toward death but toward a living-on [sur-vie], namely, a trace of which life and death would themselves be but traces and traces of traces, a survival whose possibility in advance comes to disjoin or dis-adjust the identity to itself of the living present as well as of any effectivity. There is then some spirit. Spirits. And one must reckon with them. One cannot not have to, one must not
not be able to reckon with them, which are more than one: the more than one/no more one [Ie plus d’un]. (Derrida)

a whole chemistry of information largely under the sway of unconscious drives, as well as affects and phantasms that were already in place before calculation, (Derrida)

Plus d’un [More than one/No more one]: this can mean a crowd, if not masses, the horde, or society, or else some population of ghosts with or without a people, some community with or without a leader-but also the less than one of pure and simple dispersion. Without any possible gathering together. (Derrida)

First suggestion: haunting is historical, to be sure, but it is not dated, it is never docilely given a date in the chain of presents , day after day, according to the instituted order of a calendar. (Derrida)

One would even have to say that he represented it or staged it. In the shadow of a filial memory (Derrida)

It is something that one does not know, precisely, and one does not know if precisely it is, if it exists, if it responds to a name and corresponds to an essence. One does not know: not out of ignorance, but because this non-object, this non-present present, this being-there of an absent or departed one no longer belongs to knowledge. At least no longer to that which one thinks one knows by the name of knowledge. (Derrida)

One does not know if it is living or if it is dead. Here is-or rather there is, over there, an unnameable or almost unnameable thing: something, between something and someone, anyone or anything, some thing, “this thing,” but this thing and not any other, this thing that looks at us, that concerns us [qui nous regarde], comes to defy semantics as much as ontology (Derrida)

Nor does one see in flesh and blood this Thing that is not a thing, this thing that is invisible between its apparitions, when it reappears. This Thing meanwhile looks at us and sees us not see it even when it is there. A spectral asymmetry interrupts here all specularity. (Derrida)

the tangible intangibility of a proper body without flesh, but still the body
of someone as someone other. And of someone other that we will not hasten to determine as self, subject, person, consciousness, spirit, and so forth. This already suffices to distinguish the specter not only from the icon or the idol but also from the image of the image, from the Platonic phantasma, as well as from the simple simulacrum of something in general to which it is nevertheless so close and with which it shares, in other respects, more than one feature. (Derrida)

Paradoxically, the absence of horizon conditions the future itself. The emergence of the event ought to puncture every horizon of expectation. (Derrida)

Another suggestion: This spectral someone other looks at US,6 we feel ourselves being looked at by it, outside of any synchrony, even before and beyond any look on our part, according to an absolute anteriority (which may be on the order of generation, of more than one generation) and asymmetry, according to an absolutely unmasterable disproportion. (Derrida)

1. First of all, mourning. We will be speaking of nothing else. It consists always in attempting to ontologize remains, to make them present, in the first place by identifying the bodily remains and by localizing the dead (all ontologization, all semanticizationphilosophical,hermeneutical, or psychoanalytical-finds itself caught up in this work of mourning but, as such, it does not yet think it; we are posing here the question of the specter, to the specter — Derrida

Repetition and first time: this is perhaps the question of the event
as question of the ghost. What is a ghost? What is the effectivity or
the presence of a specter, that is, of what seems to remain as ineffective,
virtual. insubstantial as a simulacrum? Is there there, between the thing itself and its simulacrum, an opposition that holds up? Repetition and first time, but also repetition and last time, since the Singularity of any first time, makes of it also a last time. Each time it is the event itself, a first time is a last time. Altogether other. Staging for the end of history. Let us call it a
hauntology. (Derrida)

Each time it is the event itself, a first time is a last time. Altogether other. Staging for the end of history. Let us call it a hauntology. This logic of haunting would not be merely larger and more powerful than an ontology or a thinking of Being (of the “to he,” assuming that it is a matter of Being in the “to be or not to be,” but nothing is less certain). It would harbor within itself,hut like circumscribed places or particular effects, eschatology and teleology themselves. It would comprehend them, but incomprehensibly.the discourse about the end?
(Derrida)

After the end of history, the spirit comes by coming back [revenant]. it figures both a dead man who comes back and a ghost whose expected return repeats itself, again and again. (Derrida)

“analysis as untangling, untying, detaching, freeing, even liberation — and thus also, let us not forget, as solution. The Greek word analuein, as is well known, means to untie and thus to dissolve the link. It can thus be rigorously approached, if not translated, by the Latin solvere (to detach, deliver, absolve, or acquit). Both solutio and resolutio have the sense of dissolution, dissolved tie, extrication, disengagement, or acquittal (for example, from debt) and that of solution of a problem: explanation or unveiling. The solutio linguae is also the tongue untied.” (Derrida)

Now, one may very well wish to take a breath. Or let out a sigh: after the expiration itself, for it is a matter of the spirit. What seems almost impossible is to speak always of the specter, to speak to the specter, to speak with it, therefore especially to make or to let a spirit speak. (Derrida)

What is the time and what is the history of a specter? Is there a present of
the specter? Are its comings and goings ordered according to the linear succession of a before and an after, between a present-past, a present-present, and a present-future, between a “real time” and a “deferred time” (Derrida)

Before knowing whether one can differentiate between the specter of the past and the specter of the future, of the past present and the future present, one must perhaps ask oneself whether the spectrality effect does not consist in undoing this opposition, or even this dialectic, between actual, effective presence and its other. (Derrida)

This impression has left behind a trace which has never been perceived, whose meaning has never been lived in the present, i.e., has never been lived consciously. (Derrida)

Mourning always follows a trauma. I have tried to show elsewhere that the work of mourning is not one kind of work among others. It is work itself, work in general, the trait by means of which one ought perhaps to reconsider the very concept of production-in what links it to trauma, to mourning, to the idealizing iterability of exappropriation, thus to the spectral spiritualization that is at work in any tekhne. (Derrida)

All phantasms are projected onto the screen of this ghost (that is, on something
absent, for the screen itself is phantomatic, as in the television of the future which will have no “screenic” support and will project its images-sometimes synthetic images–directly on the eye, like the sound of the telephone deep in the ear). (Derrida)

The specter appears to present itself during a visitation. One represents it to oneself, but it is not present, itself, in flesh and blood. This non-presence of the specter demands that one take its times and its history into consideration, the singularity of its temporality or of its historicity. (Derrida)

The paradox must be sharpened: the more the new erupts in the revolutionary crisis, the more the period is in crisis, the more it is “out of joint,” then the more one has to convoke the old, “borrow” from it. Inheritance from the “spirits of the past” consists, as always, in borrowing. Figures of borrowing, borrowed figures, figurality as the figure of borrowing. (Derrida)

A question of credit, then, or of faith. But an unstable and barely visible dividing line crosses through this law of the fiduciary. It passes between a parody and a truth, but one truth as incarnation or living repetition of the other, a regenerating reviviscence of the past, of the spirit, of the spirit of the past from which one inherits. The dividing line passes between a mechanical reproduction of the specter and an appropriation that is so alive, so interiorizing, so assimilating of the inheritance and of the “spirits of the past” that it is none other than the life of forgetting, life as forgetting itself. (Derrida)

The figures of the ghost are first of all faces. It is a matter then of masks, if not, this time, of a helmet and a visor. But between the spirit and the specter, between tragedy and comedy, between the revolution on the march and what installs it in parody, there is only the difference of a time between two masks. It is a matter of spirit … (Derrida)

One must take another step. One must think the future, that is, life. That is, death. (Derrida)

“- So, this non-knowing . . . it is not a limit . . . of a knowledge, the limit in the progression of a knowledge. It is, in some way, a structural non-knowing, which is heterogeneous, foreign to knowledge. It’s not just the unknown that could be known and that I give up trying to know. It is something in relation to which knowledge is out of the question. And when I specify that is is a non-knowing and not the secret, I mean that when a text appears to be crypted, it is not at all in order to calculate or to intrigue or to bar access to something that I know and that others must not know; it is a more ancient, more originary experience, if you will, of the secret. It is not a thing, some information that I am hiding or that one has to hide or dissimulate; it is rather an experience that does not make itself available to information, that resists information and knowledge, and that immediately encrypts itself … (Derrida)

This disadjustrnent will no doubt never end. Doubtless it will reverse itself, and we’ll have the revolution within the revolution, the future revolution that, without mourning, wins out over the past revolution: it will finally be the event, the advent of the event, the coming of the future-to-come. (Derrida)

“it is always possible for a text to become new, since the white spaces open up its structure to an indefinitely disseminated transformation.” (Derrida)

it will not hide itself, driven back behind the bereaved rhetoric of antique models and the grimace of death masks. It will exceed the form, it will break out of the clothes, it will overtake signs, models; eloquence, mourning. (Derrida)

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? … (Derrida)

“Multiplicity and migration of languages, certainly, and within language itself, Babel within a single language … multiplicity within language, insignificant difference as the condition of meaning. But by the same token, the insignificance of language, of the properly linguistic body : it can only take on meaning in relation to a place. By place, I mean just as much the relation to a border, country, house, or threshold, as any site, any situation in general from within which, practically, pragmatically, alliances are formed, contracts, codes and conventions established which give meaning to the insignificant , institute passwords, bend language to what exceeds it, make of it a moment of gesture and of step, secondarize or ‘reject’ it in order to find it again.” (Derrida)

far from knowing first what ‘life’ or ‘family’ mean whenever we use these familiar values to talk about language and translation; it is rather starting from the notion of a language and its ‘sur-vival” in translation that we could have access to the notion of what life and family mean. (Derrida)

by a kind of spacing that punctuates it … if thought belongs from the beginning to no one … blended into the continuum of something always – already – there … the origin is suspended by this multiple punctuation … moving again … (Derrida)

Well, I’m remembering God this morning, the name, a quotation, something my mother said, not that i’m looking for you, my God, in a determinable place and to reply to the question … and neither my will nor my power is today to “go beyond” … but to quote the name of God as I heard it perhaps the first time … (Derrida)

Someone, you or me, comes forward and says: I would like to learn
to live finally.

Finally but why?

To learn to live: a strange watchword. Who would learn? From
whom? To teach to live, but to whom? Will we ever know? Will
we ever know how to live and first of all what “to learn to live”
means? And why “finally”

By itself, out of context-but a context, always, remains open,
thus fallible and insufficient-this watchword forms an almost
unintelligible syntagm. Just how far can its idiom be translated
moreover? (Derrida)

The debt does not involve living subjects but names at the edge of the language. (Derrida)

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

At stake, in sum, is that which in me could learn to say ‘me’ only by cultivating an idiom where — for reasons I do not understand very well but which I would like to try to elucidate a little with you, as if I were in analysis with you — the word ‘resistance’ does not play just any role. (Derrida)

But to learn to live, to learn it from oneself and by oneself, all alone,
to teach oneself to live (“I would like to learn to live finally”), is
that not impossible for a living being? Is it not what logic itself forbids? To live, by definition, is not something one learns.Not from oneself, it is not learned from life, taught by life. Only from the other and by death. In any case from the other at the edge of life. At the internal border or the external border, it is a heterodidactics between life and death. (Derrida)

There is a power of language, therefore, at once a dynamis, an enveloped virtuality, a potentiality that can be brought or not to actuality; it is hidden, buried, dormant. This potentiality is also a power (Macht), a particular efficacy that acts on its own, in a quasi-autonomous manner (facon) without the initiative and beyond the control of speaking subjects. (Derrida)

2018 (21d) : Winnicott , Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj , Nietzsche , Derrida , Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj , John 7:15-18 , Winnicott , Bhagavad Gita 2:48-49 , Chuang-tzu , Genesis 12:4-5 , Winnicott , Mark 8:43 , Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj , John 7:19-21 , Winnicott , Nietzsche , John 7:25-27 , Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj , Winnicott , John 7:28-29 , Genesis 12:8, Winnicott , Mathew 13:11 , Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

It is generally acknowledged that a statement of human
nature in terms of interpersonal relationships is not good
enough even when the imaginative elaboration of function
and the whole of fantasy both conscious and unconscious,
including the repressed unconscious, are allowed for.
There is another way of describing persons that comes out
of the researches of the past two decades. Of every
individual who has reached to the stage of being a unit
with a limiting membrane and an outside and an-inside, it
can be said that there is an inner reality to that individual,
an inner world that can be rich or poor and can be at peace
or in a state of war. This helps, but is it enough? (D.W. Winnicott)

Every being experiences the Isvara state, either directly or potentially, but he is so wrapped up in this objective world that he loses his identity. You must know what this “I Am” principle is. It appears spontaneously and with its appearance begins the riddle of conceptual life. (Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj)

The fictitious world of subject, substance, “reason,” etc., is
needed-: there is in us a power to order, simplify, falsify, artificially
distinguish. “Truth” is the will to be master over the
multiplicity of sensations:-to classify phenomena into definlte
categories. In this we start from a belief in the “in-itself” of things
(we take phenomena as real). (Nietzsche)

Repetition and first time: this is perhaps the question of the event
as question of the ghost. What is a ghost? What is the effectivity or
the presence of a specter, that is, of what seems to remain as ineffective,
virtual. insubstantial as a simulacrum? Is there there, between the thing itself and its simulacrum, an opposition that holds up? Repetition and first time, but also repetition and last time, since the Singularity of any first time, makes of it also a last time. Each time it is the event itself, a first time is a last time. Altogether other. Staging for the end of history. Let us call it a
hauntology. (Derrida)

You are both the question and the answer. All your questions come from your
identification with the body. How can any questions relating to that which was prior to the body and consciousness be answered? (Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj)

16 Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me. 17 Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own. 18 Whoever speaks on their own does so to gain personal glory, but he who seeks the glory of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him. (John 7:15-18)

My claim is that if there is a need for this double
statement, there is also need for a triple one: the third part
of the life of a human being, a part that we cannot ignore,
is an intermediate area of experiencing, to which inner
reality and external life both contribute. It is an area that is
not challenged, because no claim is made on its behalf
except that it shall exist as a resting-place for the
individual engaged in the perpetual human task of keeping
inner and outer reality separate yet interrelated. (Winnicott)

Be steadfast in the performance , O Arjuna, abandoning attachment to success and failure. Such equanimity is called Yoga.

Seek refuge in divine knowledge and insight, O Arjuna, and discard reward-seeking actions that are certainly inferior to works performed with the intellect established in Divine knowledge. Miserly are those who seek to enjoy the fruits of their works. (Bhagavad Gita 2:48-49)

When this bird rouses itself and flies, its wings are like clouds all round the sky. When the sea is moved (so as to bear it along), it prepares to remove to the Southern Ocean. The Southern Ocean is the Pool of Heaven. (Chuang-tzu)

4 So Abram went, as the Lord had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he set out from Harran. 5 He took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all the possessions they had accumulated and the people they had acquired in Harran, and they set out for the land of Canaan, and they arrived there. (Genesis 12:4-5)

I hope it will be understood that I am not referring
exactly to the little child’s teddy bear or to the infant’s first
use of the fist (thumb, fingers). I am not specifically
studying the first object of object-relationships. I am
concerned with the first possession, and with the
intermediate area between the subjective and that which is
objectively perceived. (Winnicott)

And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years.
(Mark 8:43)

I have no individuality. I have assumed no pose as a person. Whatever happens in the manifest consciousness happens.People identify me with their concepts and they do what their concepts tell them. It is consciousness which is manifest, nothing else. Who is talking, who is walking, who is sitting? These are the expressions of that chemical “I Am”. Are you that chemical? You talk about heaven and hell, this Mahatma or that one, but how about you? Who are you?
(Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj)

“Why are you trying to kill me?”

20 “You are demon-possessed,” the crowd answered. “Who is trying to kill you?”

21 Jesus said to them, “I did one miracle, and you are all amazed.

(John 7:19-21)

In the case of some infants the thumb is placed in the
mouth while fingers are made to caress the face by
pronation and supination movements of the forearm. The
mouth is then active in relation to the thumb, but not in
relation to the fingers. The fingers caressing the upper lip,
or some other part, may be or may become more important
than the thumb engaging the mouth. Moreover, this
caressing activity may be found alone, without the more
direct thumb-mouth union. (Winnicott)

Continual transition forbids us to speak of “individuals,” etc;
the “number” of beings is itself in flux. We would know nothing
of time and motion if we did not, in a coarse fashion, believe we
see what is at “rest” beside what is in motioll. The same applies
to cause and effect, and without the erroneous conception of
“empty space” we should certainly not have acquired the conception
of space. The principle of identity has behind it the
“apparent fact” of things that are the same. A world in a state
of becoming could not, in a strict sense, be “comprehended” or
“known”; only to the extent that the “comprehending” and “knowing”
intellect encounters a coarse, already-created world, fabricated
out of mere appearances but become firm to the extent that this
kind of appearance has preserved life-only to this extent is there
anything like “knowledge”; i.e., a measuring of earlier and later
errors by one another. (Nietzsche)

25 At that point some of the people of Jerusalem began to ask, “Isn’t this the man they are trying to kill? 26 Here he is, speaking publicly, and they are not saying a word to him. Have the authorities really concluded that he is the Messiah? 27 But we know where this man is from; when the Messiah comes, no one will know where he is from.” (John 7:25-27)

Your thoughts about individuality are really not your own thoughts; they are all
collective thoughts. You think that you are the one who has the thoughts; in fact thoughts arise in consciousness. (Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj)

All these things I am calling transitional phenomena.
Also, out of all this (if we study any one infant) there may
emerge some thing or some phenomenon – perhaps a
bundle of wool or the corner of a blanket or eiderdown, or
a word or tune, or a mannerism – that becomes vitally
important to the infant for use at the time of going to sleep,
and is a defence against anxiety, especially anxiety of
depressive type. Perhaps some soft object or other type of
object has been found and used by the infant, and this then
becomes what I am calling a transitional object. This
object goes on being important (Winnicott)

28 Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, “Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own authority, but he who sent me is true. You do not know him, 29 but I know him because I am from him and he sent me.” (John 7:28-29)

As our spiritual knowledge grows, our identification with an individual body-mind diminishes,and our consciousness expands into universal consciousness. The life force continues to act, but its thoughts and actions are no longer limited to an individual. They become the total manifestation. It is like the action of the wind – the wind doesn’t blow for any particular individual, but for the total manifestation.
(Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj)

8 From there he went on toward the hills east of Bethel and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. There he built an altar to the Lord and called on the name of the Lord. (Genesis 12:8)

I suggest that the pattern of transitional phenomena
begins to show at about four to six to eight to twelve
months. Purposely I leave room for wide variations.
Patterns set in infancy may persist into childhood, so
that the original soft object continues to be absolutely
necessary at bed-time or at time of loneliness or when a
depressed mood threatens. In health, however, there is a
gradual extension of range of interest, and eventually the
extended range is maintained, even when depressive
anxiety is near. A need for a specific object or a behaviour
pattern that started at a very early date may reappear at a
later age when deprivation threatens. (Winnicott)

Now, consciousness has identified with a form. Later, it understands that it is not that form and goes further. In a few cases it may reach the space, and very often, there it stops. In a very few cases, it reaches its real source, beyond all conditioning. It is difficult to give up that inclination of identifying the body as the self. I am not talking to an individual, I am talking to the consciousness. It is consciousness which must seek its source. Out
of that no-being state comes the beingness. It comes as quietly as twilight, with just a feel of “I Am” and then suddenly the space is there. In the space, movement starts with the air, the fire, the water, and the earth. All these five elements are you only. Out of your consciousness all this has happened.
There is no individual. There is only you, the total functioning is you, the consciousness is you. (Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj)

The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. (Mathew 13:11)

You are the consciousness, all the titles of the Gods are your names, but by clinging to the body you hand yourself over to time and death—you are imposing it on yourself. I am the total universe. When I am the total universe I am in need of nothing because I am everything. But I cramped myself into a small thing, a body; I made myself a fragment and became needful. I need so many things as a body. In the absence of a body, do you, and did you, exist? Are you, and were you, there or not? Attain that state which is and was prior to the body. (Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj)

2018 (21-c3) : DERRIDA , JOHN 1:38-39 , LUKE 17:20-21 , BHAGAVAD GITA 1:4-6 , SRI RAMANA MAHARSHI , SRI NISARGADATTA MAHARAJ

EXTEND AND STRETCH ITSELF

AND STILL STAND AND HOLD ITSELF

AWAIT AND EXPECT ITSELF TO RECEIVE THE STRANGER

‘WHAT DO YOU WANT?’

THE MESSIANIC AS HOSPITALITY

‘YOU WILL SEE’

TO BE HOSPITABLE IS TO LET ONESELF BE OVERTAKEN

THE KINGDOM OF GOD COMETH NOT WITH OBSERVATION

THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU

THE GIFTS, THE SITE, THE SHELTER AND THE COVER

WIELDING MIGHTY BOWS

AWARENESS OF THE SELF (Atman) IS ABSOLUTE

REQUIRES NO OBJECT

‘BEING’ APPLIES TO THE NOW ONLY

2018 (21-b2) JOHN 1:15 , DERRIDA , BHAGAVAD GITA 1:2-3 , GENESIS 2:10 , JOHN 1:38 , TAO TE CHING , JOHN 2:39 , BHAGAVAD GITA 1:4 , SRI NISARGADATTA MAHARAJ

HE WHO COMES

THE WITNESS I AM SEEKING

SUBLIME VOCABLE

GOING ROUND IN CIRCLES

SPOKE TO HIM THESE WORDS

A GARDEN IN THE EAST

PLEASING TO THE EYE

TURNING AROUND

TIME

YOU WILL SEE

ONE IS DESTINED

POWERFUL ARCHERS

IN EVERY EVENT THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE IS REFLECTED

UNCAUSED EMERGENCE

ANOTHER WRITING OF THE QUESTION OF BEING OR MEANING

DISTINCT FROM DOUBT OR FROM CRITIQUE

THE AUTHORITY OF JUDGEMENT OR OF THE CRITICAL EVALUATION IS NOT THE FINAL AUTHORITY

2018 (21a) : SRI RAMANA MAHARSHI , MATHEW 3:15 , DERRIDA , GENESIS 1:13

THE REAL SELF (ATMAN) IS WAITING THERE TO RECEIVE YOU

LET IT BE SO NOW

THE NEED FOR FIGURATION, FOR MYTH, FOR TROPES, FOR TWISTS AND TURNS

LET THERE BE LIGHT

THIS TAKING THE PLACE ONE HAS OF THE ARKHE

IT LIES BEYOND APPARENT LIGHT OR DARKNESS

EVERYONE IS IN FACT SELF-REALIZED

IT IS NOT ANYTHING NEW TO BE ACQUIRED

(SRM, Mathew, Derrida, Genesis, Derrida, SRM)

2018 (20a) : Nietzsche , Derrida , Mathew 5:4 , John Ashbery , Derrida , John 1:38 , Sri Ramana Maharshi , Derrida , Gospel of Thomas , Derrida , John 17:33 , Sri Ramana Maharshi , Mark 8:24 , Derrida , Bhagavad Gita 2:46-47 , John 7:37 , Sri Ramana Maharshi

To attain a height and bird’s eye view, so one grasps how
everything actually happens as it ought to happen; how every
kind of “imperfection” and the suffering to which it gives rise
are part of the highest desirability. (Nietzsche)

First of all, mourning. We will be speaking of nothing else. It consists always in attempting to ontologize remains, to make them present, in the first place by identifying the bodily remains and by localizing the dead (all ontologization, all semanticization philosophical,hermeneutical, or psychoanalytical-finds itself caught up in this work of mourning but, as such, it does not yet think it; we are posing here the question of the specter, to the specter) (Derrida)

4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. (Mathew 5:4)

For progress occurs through re-inventing
These words from a dim recollection of them,
In violating that space in such a way as
To leave it intact. Yet we do after all
Belong here, and have moved a considerable
Distance; our passing is a facade.
But our understanding of it is justified. (John Ashbery)

Hospitality — this is a name or an example of deconstruction. (Derrida)

Turning around Jesus saw them following and asked, ‘What do you want?’ … ‘What are you looking for?’ … ‘What are you seeking?’ … ‘What are you after?’ … ‘Mah tevakkeshun’ … (John 1:38)

Complete surrender does imply that you should have
no desire of your own, that God’s will alone is your will and
you have no will of your own. (Sri Ramana Maharshi)

hospitality must wait, extend itself toward the other, extend to the other the gifts, the site, the shelter and the cover; it must be ready to welcome, to host and shelter, to give shelter and cover … (Derrida)

“If they say to you, ‘Where did you come from?’, say to them, ‘We came
from the light, the place where the light came into being on its own accord and
established itself and became manifest through their image.’ If they say to you, ‘Is it you?’, say, ‘We are its children, we are the elect of the living father.’ If they ask you, ‘What is the sign of your father in you?’, say to them, ‘It is movement and repose.'” (Gospel of Thomas)

… like a piece in a borderless fiction, neither public nor private, with and without a general narrator. (Derrida)

: There are two ways; one is looking into the source of
the ‘I’ and merging into that source; the other is feeling ‘I am
helpless by myself. God alone is all-powerful and except for
throwing myself completely on Him there is no other means of
safety for me,’ and thus gradually developing the conviction
that God alone exists and the ego does not count. Both methods
lead to the same goal. Complete surrender is another name for
Jnana or Liberation. (Sri Ramana Maharshi)

I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. (John 17:33)

There is no duality. Your present knowledge is due to the ego and is only relative. Relative knowledge requires a subject and an object, whereas the awareness of the Self is absolute and requires no object. (Ramana Maharshi)

He looked up and said, ‘I see people; they look like trees walking around.’

And he looked up and said, “I see men as trees, walking.”

And he looked up, and said, I see men; for I behold them as trees, walking.
And he looked up and said, I see people, but [they look] like trees, walking.
The man looked up and said, “I see people. They look like trees, only they are walking around.”
He looked up and said, “I see people, but they look like walking trees.”
And he looked up, and said, I see men: for I see them walking like trees.
And looking, he said, I see men; I see that they walk as trees.
(Mark 8:24)

the task, the mission to which one is destined (always by the other), the commitment, the duty, the debt, the responsibility … the bond and the love which seal the marriage between the author of the ‘original’ and his own language. (Derrida)

You have a right to perform your prescribed duties, but you are not entitled to the fruits of your actions. Never consider yourself to be the cause of the results of your activities, nor be attached to inaction. (Bhagavad Gita 2:46-47)

Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, ‘If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.’ (John 7:37-38)

The state we call realisation is simply being oneself, not
knowing anything or becoming anything. If one has realised,
then he is That which alone is and which alone has always
been. He cannot describe that state. He can only be That. Of
course we talk loosely of Self-realisation for want of a better
term, but how is one to realise or make real that which alone
is real? What we all are doing is ‘realising’ or regarding as real,
that Which is unreal. This habit has to be given up. All spiritual
effort under all systems is directed only to this end. When we
give up regarding the unreal as real, then Reality alone will
remain and we shall be That. (Sri Ramana Maharshi)

2018 (19c) : Derrida , Taittireeya-Upanishad , Nietzsche , Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj , Mark 10:15-16 , Gospel of Thomas , Emerson , Heidegger

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. (Derrida)

God thought: ‘I would be many; I will procreate.’ And in the heat of his meditation created everything; creating everything He entered into everything; entering into everything He took shape yet remained shapeless; took limits yet remained limitless; made his home, yet remained homeless; created knowledge and ignorance; reality, unreality; became everything; therefore everything is reality.
(Taittireeya-Upanishad Book 2)

Tbe assumption of one single subject is perhaps unnecessary;
perhaps it is just as permissible to assume a multiplicity of subjects,
whose interaction and struggle is the basis of our thought
and our consciousuess in general? A kind of aristocracy of “cells”
in which dominion resides? To be sure, an aristocracy of equals,
used to ruling jointly and understanding how to command?
My hypotheses: The subject as multiplicity.
Pain intellectual and dependent upon the judgment “harmful”:
projected.The effect always “unconscious”: the inferred and imagined
cause is projected, follows in time. (Nietzsche)

Krishna said, “I saw myself, not the world, whatever I see, is myself.’ Once established in this knowledge, you can die any moment you wish. Make use of this knowledge, assimilate it and you will lose this habit to criticize others, Krishna said, when you are that, who will criticize whom?
(Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj)

15 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” 16 And he took the children in his arms, placed his hands on them and blessed them. (Mark 10:15-16)

“When you disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments and
place them under your feet like little children and tread on them, then will you see the son of the living one, and you will not be afraid”
(Gospel of Thomas , 37)

Life will escape, the body will die, but it will not affect me in the least. Beyond space and time I am, uncaused, uncausing, yet the very matrix of existence.
(Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj)

from within or from behind a light shines through us upon things , and makes us aware that we are nothing, but the light is all. (Emerson)

To acknowledge and respect consists in
letting every thinker’s thought come to us as something in
each case unique, never to be repeated, inexhaustible–and
being shaken to the depths by what is unthought in his
thought. Wbat is unthought in a thinker’s thought is not a
lack inherent in his thought. What is un-thought is there in
each case only as the un-thought. The more original the
thinking, the richer will be what is unthought in it. The
unthought is the greatest gift that thinking can bestow.

(Heidegger)

2018 (19b) : Heidegger , Luke 2:21 , I Ching , Mark 10:15-16 , Derrida , Nietzsche , Gospel of Thomas , Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj , John 6:56 , Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

To acknowledge and respect consists in
letting every thinker’s thought come to us as something in
each case unique, never to be repeated, inexhaustible–and
being shaken to the depths by what is unthought in his
thought. Wbat is unthought in a thinker’s thought is not a
lack inherent in his thought. What is un-thought is there in
each case only as the un-thought. The more original the
thinking, the richer will be what is unthought in it. The
unthought is the greatest gift that thinking can bestow.

(Heidegger)

And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. (Luke 2:21)

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. (I Ching)

15 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” 16 And he took the children in his arms, placed his hands on them and blessed them. (Mark 10:15-16)

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. (Derrida)

“Everything is subjective,” you say; but even this is interpretation.
The “subject” is not something given, it is something added
and invented and projected behind what there is.- Finally, is it
necessary to posit an interpreter behind the interpretation? Even
this is invention, hypothesis. (Nietzsche)

“When you disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments and
place them under your feet like little children and tread on them, then will you see the son of the living one, and you will not be afraid”
(Gospel of Thomas , 37)

I do not need the world. Nor am I in one. The world you think of is in your own mind. I can see it through your eyes and mind, but I am fully aware that it is a projection of memories; it is touched by the real only at the point of awareness, which can be only now. (Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj)

56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
(John 6:56)

Go within, go beyond. Cease being fascinated by the content of your consciousness. When you reach the deep layers of your true being, you will find that the mind’s surface-play affects you very little.(Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj)

2018 (19a) : Heidegger , John 6:59 , Derrida , Gospel of Thomas , Sri Ramana Maharshi , Nietzsche

People still hold the view that what is handed down
to us by tradition is what in reality lies behind us-while
in fact it comes toward us because we are its captives
and destined to it. The purely historical view of tradition
and the course of history is one of those vast self-deceptions
in which we must remain entangled as long as we are still
not really thinking. That self-deception about history prevents
us from hearing the language of the thinkers. We
do not hear it rightly, because we take that language to be
mere expression, setting forth philosophers’ views. But the
thinkers’ language tells what is. To hear it is in no case
easy. Hearing it presupposes that we meet a certain requirement,
and we do so only on rare occasions. We must acknowledge
and respect it. To acknowledge and respect consists in
letting every thinker’s thought come to us as something in
each case unique, never to be repeated, inexhaustible–and
being shaken to the depths by what is unthought in his
thought. Wbat is unthought in a thinker’s thought is not a
lack inherent in his thought. What is un-thought is there in
each case only as the un-thought. The more original the
thinking, the richer will be what is unthought in it. The
unthought is the greatest gift that thinking can bestow.

(Heidegger)

He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

(John 6:59)

Another suggestion: This spectral someone other looks at us, we feel ourselves being looked at by it, outside of any synchrony, even before and beyond any look on our part, according to an absolute anteriority (which may be on the order of generation, of more than one generation) and asymmetry, according to an absolutely unmasterable disproportion.

(Derrida)

“When you disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments and
place them under your feet like little children and tread on them, then will you see the son of the living one, and you will not be afraid”

(Gospel of Thomas , 37)

You now think that you are an individual; outside you
there is the universe and beyond the universe is God. So there
is the idea of separateness. The idea must go. For God is not
separate from you or the cosmos.

(Sri Ramana Maharshi)

To attain a height and bird’s eye view, so one grasps how
everything actually happens as it ought to happen; how every
kind of “imperfection” and the suffering to which it gives rise
are part of the highest desirability.

(Nietzsche)