Surrection

I well remember those texts, Col. iii, 1, and Ephes. ii, 5, and many similar places; but these mention only quickening, and rising, and raising: there is mention of surrection, but not of re-surrection, much less of a first resurrection.

As there muſt be a day of judgment, 2 Cor. 5. 10. ſo there muſt be a Reſurrection of the body; not only there may be, but there muſt be, and of the ſame body; not only the ſame ſpecifical, but the ſame numerical body: Otherwiſe it were not a Reſurrection, bu^([sic]) a Surrection; not a Reſuſcitation; but a ſuſcitation. And (as Eſtius ſaith) not a Regeneration (as it is called, Matth. 19. 28.) but a Generation.

So of the resurrection of the dead. We do not mean to say that by natural reason we cannot demonstrate a future continued existence, but that a fact answering to the term resurrection is naturally neither cognoscible nor demonstrable. Resurrection means rising again, and evidently pertains, not to the soul, which never dies, but to the body, and implies that the same body which died is raised; for if not, it would not be a re-surrection, but a simple surrection, or perhaps creation.

There is, indeed, a rising, but not a rising again. There is a surrection, but not a re-surrection.

The name logistic itself is not a resurrection, but a surrection, for it is an almost wholly disused word revived in an entirely new and useless meaning:[…]

The Resurrection is essentially a surrection or an ascending that must no longer be understood as a philosophical transcending or an elevation in exteriority, already viciously impregnated with theology and opening the way to every dialectic.[…]Surrection is an ascendance or a phase that no longer goes to trans-cendence, the emergence of ex-istence insofar as it does not go to the ecstasis that loses itself in the object. […]Nonecstatic Ascension corresponds to the algebraic property of idempotence and it is a pure Surrection, which, like every scientific law, in a sense has no justification other than itself—it is ultimately axiomatic.

What Upanishadic Man is interested in is not a return to the old familiar life, not a “new” old life; not a resurrection, but a “surrection,” an ascent to the heights of real and everlasting life.