Sermons of the Sages – Beer Gola

What do we see here? What is the connection between the claim that everything real is implied in the Torah (in the Mahar”el's sermonic/deep way) and the claim that everything in the world is actually implied in the Torah. And if people are mistaken in thinking that their true words also come from the Bible (in commentary; not in sermons) those who are mistaken are not responsible for us.
[And by the way, it seems clear that the Mahar”el is only referring to the legendary sermons that he dealt with throughout the entire book (except for the last sermon, "There is no money for this master, there is money for another master," and at the end appears the quote in the question that all sermons are references, but it seems to me that the Mahar”el is not saying that the law (Torah) of consecrating money and money to the father originated "according to the knowledge and wisdom of the sages" even before the sermon, but rather that his words that the sermons are references only concern the legendary sermons in the rest of the book.] However, it remains to be seen whether the relationship between the Maharal's explanations and the sages' intention in the sermons is one of ordinary reference or reference in the Maharal sense.

* The real ones in their eyes

I will make a few comments:
0. My words also revolved around the Midrash Agada.

1. Your words remind me of the story I already told about my friends at the Netivot Olam Yeshiva. When they saw that I go to university every day at noon, they claimed to me that everything is in the Torah. I told them that their answer in my translation was: A. So, what's the problem with me going to university? I also study Torah there. And does the location matter?! B. Please, kindly, hit me with Efron Ben-Zahar and find me the solution to the Schrödinger equation for a rotating potential well in the Torah, and then I can really stay in the yeshiva and not waste my time at the university. Needless to say, I have not yet received your answer (I have already found it in the meantime in more conventional ways). Similarly, you claim here that only true things are found in the Torah, but we have no way of knowing what is true and what is not and what is in it. This is an irrefutable claim and in my opinion means nothing, at least on a practical level.

2. Also according to you, what is certainly written here is at least my claim that we learn nothing from the Torah, but rather that we insert our own ideas into it.

3. Beyond that, it can be concluded from this that it is possible to put everything into the Torah. If something seems true to me, then it is impossible that it is not in the Torah, and it can be inserted there in various and strange ways. What is this if not the statement that it is possible to put everything I think into it?! Indeed, the responsibility for the mistake is not ours, and no one said it was. It still says here that it is possible to extract everything from the Torah.
If so, from sections 2-3 it follows that his words do indeed state my two claims (which are of course related): We learn nothing from the Torah. We can extract everything from it.

4. Indeed, in the Maharal's ”deep” way, it is truly possible to extract anything from anywhere. Even the theory of general relativity from its density.

[I cannot argue that I personally do not connect with the Maharal's explanations, and from what I have been impressed, it seems to me that his relationship with the words of Chazal is a relationship of ordinary reference according to the usual interpretation, that is, there is no real connection, as you write here.
By the way, Malbim in his generation was like a Maharal in his generation and found other ways to explain the sermons, but Malbim in your case did the same fathoming of verses in the interpretation itself, and not just in the sermons, and your broad claim that deals with the interpretation of the body of the parshits actually applies to him. All that stands before me is that wise people from whom I heard many things at the time that seemed enlightening to me at the time, even though I won't mention them at all today and perhaps they have no real value, set out to praise the above-mentioned, such as Rabbi Meir Mazuz on the Melbim, and Rabbi Nachum Broida on the Maharl (many learned and created from the Maharl, etc., and the aforementioned Rabbi was also one of them and was a close friend of Rabbi Shapira). ]

Question regarding references. Eruvin 57 said that Rav Chisda said that Torah is not acquired except through signs, as it is said, "Shima in their mouths, do not call it Shima, but rather a sign." Rav Tahlifa from Marava Azal said that Kamiya, the Rabbi of Abba, said, "Aton, from them, I have given them, from here, I have given them to you, etc. They have assigned them to the Torah." [Searching for "Aton, from here," brought up six times in the Gemara that told of differences between the Amoraim of the Land of Israel and the Amoraim of Babylon in various references]. In the manner of the Maharal, I assume that they will find in each such reference a different "examination" of the common content, and then it is understandable that they make a deal with it as "Aton." But if these references are only for memory, then what does it matter where this is implied from? Are these stories cryptic? Or maybe the issue is just to see which reference is more ringing and smooth (like looking for a product that is as simple as possible).

Maybe so and maybe so. In my opinion, references are like sermons these days. They are not a means of memorization as we tend to think (because they usually don't really help us remember), but rather to flavor things like preachers do. That's why we offer various references to increase Torah and flavor it. Not my cup of tea, but there are quite a few who find sermons like these appealing.

Apparently they help to remember for those who are used to the verses (which were written and common) and then either when they encounter the verse they will remember it, or in general when you connect something to something familiar even artificially it helps to remember it by itself (I think that's how I feel, but I'm not sure).
For example, I have several references that I have caught and I always remember when I hear them in the verse or through it, such as "He will not burn deceitfully his prey on the deceitful hunter" or "I went down to the garden of walnuts, that what is in it is not tired of", and several interpretations of the verses by commentators that, although I think they are incorrect interpretations, I still remember the idea inherent in them by remembering the verse (for example, "Malavim" Job 34:18-19; Proverbs 18:9; Psalms 67:27 on matters of consequentialism).