I think we've got to about number five. Only as entity are uniquely related and may be described in terms of relation of condition. Or how can a non-relational condition be asserted of entities which have not come from the vehicle? What do you have? Something like that? Exactly. Exactly. Do you get these? It drives to those. Therefore, these are called conditions.

[01:10]

As long as those do not come from these, why are those not non-conditioned? So when you say these give rise to those, so these give rise to those, so these are called conditions, meaning the only reason for calling conditions is because they colorize. In other words, there's not some other reason, like that we have this real connection with those. That's why you call them conditions. The only reason is that they co-arrize. So as long as those are not complete, why are these not non-conditioned? In other words, since there isn't any connection other than this thing is co-arrizing,

[02:16]

If those don't come from these, these are non-conditions. Well, actually, you could say coincident, too. And then someone would say, well, isn't there something more than just coincidence between the condition and the effects or the things that are right? Isn't there something more than coincidence? And there isn't at that time. If there isn't anything more than coincidence, if that thing is taken away that was coincident, it will no longer be a condition. Just like it says in the next part, as long as those do not come with these, why do not non-conditions?

[03:27]

They have nothing more to them to be conditions other than these things co-arized, which is also a coincidence. So what is it about some sets of event pairs, but not about others that make them independently related? If not some deep causal link present in some cases, but not in others. If not our journey, it's just the regularity. If the regularity broke down, the conditions would be longer conditions. Because what happens is that, if there is regularity, then they gradually start to seek some essence into the case, into the regularity.

[04:29]

SPEAKER 1 Yeah, that's, when we're, when we're like, when we're in this, when we're metaposition and we're substantialists, or realists, or re-eplicationists, then, when we think that way, then these things that are there, that we don't see as having causal power, we call them coincidence. And if it happened again and again, we might still call them coincidences. But finally, after a certain amount of time, we might say, not convert them into the coincidences, and then finally make the new thing for that central power to cause things to happen. And if something else that was around would be a condition, I mean, if you're coincident. But we watched these things over eons, we saw some regularity, and then they became conditions in our explanation.

[05:40]

But if the regularity broke down, these things would not be conditions anymore, they might not do that. But if they have the essence in them, it's hard to break down. So again, it's hard for us to change the story, like being someone's story up for a last night. Tell a certain story about, you know, the real, who's really responsible for an accident. And then it's hard for you to sort of like, given later information to adjust. Yes. Right, we have one also think that . The regularity, well, I think the essence isn't fed by the regularity, I don't think the essence of that, by the way, the essence of our sense of our belief is something of being independent.

[06:45]

You can watch if you didn't have that idea that something should be independent, that something could be self-existent, have a pure identity. I think you could watch regularity for a long time and not attribute, you know, essence to the process. Actually, you can watch to say that's that, have you regular it? at the sun rises without attributing essence to the sun having lightened. But we don't have to watch this for so long before we start attributing essence to it. In fact, we can't attribute essence to the Pro-C Regulator. You know? You need somebody right off. They have the ethics of something. Of course, you could say, well, you use other kinds of regularity or other situations to sort of map this projection of reality for this person.

[07:48]

In that case, the regularity, maybe the regularity of your own history. Something like that. I don't think it's the regularity. As a matter of fact, That's the point you see. That the regularity is precisely why there isn't essence. Because the regularity is what makes the thing have a condition. Because the condition depends on regularity. That's why the condition doesn't have X's. So if you watch the regularity, you see that's why it doesn't have X's. And yet, watching the reason why it doesn't have X's, we make that proof of how it does have X's. It's like, again, Victoria, this person is this way because of these reasons. That's exactly why the person isn't that way. Because this person does these things on a regular basis, that's why I say she's this way.

[08:51]

That's precisely why she's not essentially that way, but that's just an explanation of why I say she's that way. But by going over the reasons to show that something doesn't have essence again and again, I go deeper and deeper and use those reasons why it doesn't have essence and use this why it does. But I'm just looking for an excuse to have somebody be somebody. Because I'm looking for a excuse for me to be somewhere. I think regularity is practical. No, it's not necessarily better. They can do a whole bunch of regularities, and they're all practical. We have a big repertoire of regularians, and they're all practical, but they're not necessarily better. They're just all practical.

[09:53]

First, you know, because they're more practical, I guess, or less practical, but basically, that's what's practical. In other words, it's conventional. In other words, it's horrible. Yes. I've had this disturbing sense of it being a logical problem in the argument that it feels to me. And it's one that we've gone over with before, sort of having more restless with it. And it feels to me, like they're saying, a crossing of levels of language. I want to clarify that I'm not arguing for essentialism. I'm just concerned about the value of this particular argument. If we look at the regulatory current and we induce this of coincidence and we induce this as a demonstration of essential nature, But that is not to say that the essential nature depends on regularity, but only that our knowledge of the core, our adducing of that relationship, of that characteristic depends on the regularity of the current.

[11:10]

That is to say, it takes us a while to catch on, and we may not be sure of it. So the regularity of the current is something that we can look at and say, well, it looks like there is something essential going on because it comes up this way. But that doesn't mean with the essential nature, that the attribution of essence, that the essence itself depends on only the attribution of it, that is to say our knowledge of it. So it seems like it's a crossing of levels between ontological argument and physical project. Well, you don't have to answer that. Do you like? I was just wondering if you were a bit romantic between bishops and I don't want to use the word, but ingredients.

[12:20]

Addictions and ingredients. Yeah, conditions for something, for, for gratitude. And the ingredient that makes, right, are conditions that would make something up. To see what. Well, you could distinguish between conditions of the two types you just talked about. One type of, you know, in some sense there are conditions which we tend to associate with the identity of the thing more than other conditions. The glass and the metal and plastic of the glasses is somewhat a different type of condition than the glassmaker, the optometrist, the ophthalmologist, the money you pay, the conditions of your eyes, and so on and so forth.

[13:23]

But there are also conditions for the glasses to do it. It wouldn't be considered ingredients. You might not call it an ingredient. You might not call silicone an ingredient. I guess you would. You might not consider the ophthalmology school as an ingredient in the glasses. How would that fit in the project, too? I think that, for example, that the The first one is more like the ingredients, and the other things that we don't usually call ingredients are more like the fourth one. The dominant thing is more like the fourth one, the things which don't seem to be related to the thing itself.

[14:25]

We don't usually, we don't necessarily call the ophthalmology school part about the identity of the glasses. However, the glasses are due to the ophthalmology school, and the glasses are due to some extent to your wanting your glasses, because there's a market for glasses. It's part of the dominant condition. Dominant conditions, so for example, In the case of, like, the acorn or the oak tree, the acorn in the ground is a little bit different in relation to different conditions for the oak tree than the water. And the water is considered more like a dominant cod, like the patikakaya. And the acorn is more considered like the patikakaya. Primal collagen, yeah, more like the acorn, more like the ingredients, you might say.

[15:31]

And the dominant collagen would be more like all the things that are not yet that surround it and make it possible, but don't see it being part of its identity. You know, those are conditions. Those are the four conditions, right? It's just a bit different. We tell slightly different stories about those, right? You know what I mean? That's what I'm saying. There are different ways you think about causation or conditions. These four, you know, the examples you give, you can put it in your fourth pathway. I'll hold it to questions now. Anthony, Charlie. Alna, and Joan. Pardon? Pria was the translation for like functional force or power or action.

[16:35]

The word relation of conditions is yeah, yeah. Fracchiaia means conditioned, and relational is a full-blown or extended translation to fracchiaia. You could just say conditioned or relational conditional. And next is I think John's next. Dr. Darn has hand before, Carly, I think. What to say about regularity, in essence, it seemed to me that it's a question of flipping between regularity, understanding regularity as a psychological phenomenon, and projecting that for the world, believing that there's an external world that's happening, in a sense, looping it back on itself and repeating itself. So rather than saying that there's certainly apparent features that are taking a salient where you understand that there's a standpoint and it's relative. That's that too, yeah. So once that relative is forgotten, then there's a kind of what we call absolute timing of that position, which is an essential aspect.

[17:51]

And this is more the epistemological argument, right? Okay? It's a good one to bring up another dimension. But this is the epistemological. Did you follow what he said? There's regularity by which we come to have practical explanations about how things happen. But those regularities are also determined by not only the regularities, but the regularity of our processes and perceptions within a given person, a given culture, and so on. flies and rats and fish have a whole list of human system irregularities, they project in the same phenomenon. Yeah, I would say that. Well, objectively extending means that every experience we've had, it basically is everything that we can have an experience of is objectively ascending.

[19:06]

But it's dealing with it in terms of the fact that we can have it as an experience. The point is that something could be an object of our experience. That's another condition. Anything could be that way. So to see the regularity. To see that something is a condition, it's part of what we need to do in order to see the thing. It's like that we can differentiate the four different kind of conditions only by having about the difference between them, because otherwise, it's essential again. Do it. Say a question again. If you want to make the difference between the condition, you can only do it by saying this is other than that condition. You can only do it by making the difference between the condition, because otherwise you add substance to each of the conditions.

[20:10]

I don't just get, I'm having trouble understanding your question. We could try again. Does everybody else understand? I couldn't help. Peter wants to help. Peter wants to help. Well, I think what he's saying is that to speak of each of the conditions individually by themselves is to give them substance. And that the only way that you can do it without giving substance is to speak of it in relation to the other. To say, this is not created. You mean the conditions for a particular thing that happens? Yeah. That you're talking about? Yeah. In many ways, we want to have four different kinds of conditions. Are you talking about the four different types, or just the conditions for something that's happening? The conditions themselves, the four different types. OK, so you're talking about the conditions, OK.

[21:23]

So you differentiate them in your essence. Well, I don't know what this actually happened. It's a different, this condition, it's different to that. And it's different to that. Then you don't touch the central line. But if it's safe, if you explain it individually, then add it up there. I think what Peter said is what I want to say. Say it again, Peter. We can't consider one condition by itself. It has to be related to the other condition. I think that's another word. We consider one condition by itself for giving suckers. If you consider one condition by itself, then I would like saying that it has the essence, the essential power.

[22:29]

Like I'm saying. I could call that. There was Sylvia, and then it's Eden. I was thinking that the Buddha and the Nagarjuna have an experience and try to conceptualize or put the convention in this. But then all of us, many, many other people are trying to deliver it. We were trying to understand this concept and then how we do it. Or I think that I'm not going to work for my life. That's right. That's the hard work.

[23:32]

And that's how it worked for Buddha, too. They didn't have, Buddha did not have this. Yes, he did. Buddha did. Buddha did. He said he did. He said I did. He had the concept, and he studied the concept, and by studying the concept, he had the experience, and then he told us about it. Yeah. The Buddha, in the night of the Buddha's experience, he started the night by sitting upright and not moving. That's how he started. That was his yogic commitment. Then he had various what he called shamanic, you know, experiences. And then he got into philosophy, philosophical experience. And what he studied was the pentacle rising. And he saw how... You know, how we see in character, depending on this, this arises. Depending [...] on this, this arises. He saw that. That's what he was seeing. He said, you know, that that's what he was talking to himself about when he was, you know, sitting upright awake that night.

[24:37]

And then, after going to that conceptual process, he woke up. His awakening was based on tuning into his conceptual process. His awakening, however, was not a conceptual process. Awakening is not conceptual. There's no traces of conceptualization going on in awakening. However, the awakening completely penetrates the conceptual process. But first of all, you have to penetrate the conceptual process, and then you awaken, and then you completely penetrate the conceptual process of doing it. He definitely was. He was doing this exactly. He was going to exactly this. Buddha was thinking. And he was thinking about causation. And he saw that causation operates in this way. That depending on this, this arises. That's what he saw. And how do you understand, depending on this, this is what this section is about.

[25:45]

How do you understand that? Basic thing. Depending on this, there's a right to leading up. These give rise to those. That's what you meditate on. And the profound impact of that is these give rise to those means that those have no inherent existence because they depend on these. And these also have no inherent existence. And the process has no inherent existence. The process by which you empty these or those of inherent existence is because we know it depends on these. And also the process by which you did that also is empty. And that's what he realized, is that everything is empty. That the whole process of suffering is empty. I've been given something to read here, number 115. This is why the Buddha at all times kept silent.

[26:50]

Harry's commented, that's not the end yet. About the four-fold format. With or without a limit. Both or neither. Check it out. It doesn't sound. Sounds like more than a coincidence. Well, yeah, it sounds like more important. It is more important. What more is it? What word would you use? More if more. Right. It didn't sound regular yet, but what was it?

[27:54]

Conditional or dependent. Dependent. They're dependent. They're dependent, right. And something that's dependent on something doesn't have an essence. So he was meditating on suffering and misery and a cycle that goes on forever and ever. It can't be broken by ordinary people. This depending on this. This depending on this. That's what he was meditating on. So it looks, but some people say if you don't make a causal connection between those two, that it's just coincidence. Why isn't it more than coincidence? And the difference between the coincidence and dependency is regularity. Like I said, you know, if there was a, what do you call it? fireman near your mother when she was born, you know, but the next time you were born, the fireman, not the next time you were born, but the next, when your sister was born, the fireman wasn't there, and people wouldn't necessarily say that your brother's children were dependent on the fireman being nearby.

[29:09]

But if you say, depending on the fireman being nearby, the children are born, then the fireman becomes a condition. And that shows that the children do not have essence, because they need their attention. This is what the Buddha saw. It isn't just coincidence. There's some regularity there. So he said, on a regular basis, depending on ignorance, And each link in it, everything that rose rose in dependence, therefore it was empty. And then it was a condition. It being an empty thing then became a condition for something else. So things depend on other things. Therefore, they're empty. And the other things they depend on also depend on what they say. Therefore, it's empty. Because the whole process is empty. Because the whole process is nothing more than a story about this stuff.

[30:15]

I actually was up to a week now. I've been thinking about something. And I was like, take me back now, and now I'm taking it out of context. But somebody mentioning another person, I believe, maybe, said that I believe he said that this man believed in Atma. And I kind of had to think about that, you know, . And my first time, well, for some feeling that the outline is . But also, right, not too much, I don't know if it would be named anything, I mean, anything.

[31:22]

to describe any meaning or to have an answer or not. The assumption about Atman is that if one believes in Atman or one has an experience with Atman, that therefore that means that Atman is the only or finally cause the rising, say, like, that, that, um, the, the, um, that that negates, um, this teaching or that, which I don't see, I don't see, because that's, it seems to me if, if, if, um, these, um, there are four relational conditions that say Atman is not necessarily a greater field board at the

[32:47]

have an essence for primary cause than, say, be quiet. And this is sort of a question that women ask me. And my question is, I can't get that one, I don't know, thing to marry one another in this case. But I'm wondering if that's the case. Well, I don't hear you putting it that way. But, so if you... No, I know, I'm making the... I know, I'm making the... Yeah, so if you... The way you put it, I don't see a problem, but somebody else could put it differently and say that, I mean, is the... Is the... It does have the causal power. That it has... It has the power to make the thing happen, therefore... And the thing it had to make happen is that it's something that actually exists. And then there would be a somewhat different way of quitting it. And then we'd have some reputation going on here. But you didn't go that far yet.

[33:49]

I would go to the point, say, that, say, for example, could be seen as a, I don't know, Well, they're similar to the acorns. Like, um, with the good chance, for example, that oak seeds were happening with the acorns in a ground. Yeah, right. That's, you know, I would like that. Yeah, I see that you're wondering. See, you're not coming out of the closet.

[34:52]

Not yet. That's what I mean. You're not coming out any further than that. So far it's okay. But some other people, you know, I'm not criticizing you, but some other people came up further and they gave signs of, you know, that what they were talking about had, you know, something to it. You know, you could have an experience and then get a name for it. But you can really, you know, be looking for a name for something that you really think is really there. And when you use the name, the way you use the name, we can feel maybe from the way you use the name that you think there was actually something there that you're using the name to apply to. And then that's good because then it surfaces your belief in the essence of your experience.

[36:03]

And this is all, you know, this is all related to, you know, fundamental ordinary experiences of, you know, pain and suffering and identity, but also to enlightenment. Some people have some great experiences that now that's going to, now that's got to happen. And part of the development of our awakening is to experience some insights and then watch us attribute substance to those, which is, you know, various kinds of what we call Zen sickness or whatever. But you're still playing kind of loose about this, so I don't see any reputation necessary from any side. You're not bothering Nagarjuna, and Nagarjuna didn't bother you yet either. We got a credit. And maybe you don't need any help right now. Steve? Well, I'm just having a hard time getting from the current there itself, how that, uh, how that way they are in court.

[37:05]

So it seems to be that, uh, that it seems to be an answer, something about, from some debating point, about some kind of panorama, I think, that it's been a negative practice in the court, but that can't be a conviction. I mean, I don't think it's an effort. Oh, well, maybe I'm drawing out a little bit here. It's true. Well, I'm just saying, given you got these, these, you rise to those. In other words, that's a statement of regularity. Not this gave rise to this. This is coincidence. But generally speaking, these give rise to those. Therefore, these are conditioned for those. That's a statement of regularity. That's the way I read it. But just so you don't think then that we're saying that these have within them the power to give rise to those eternally, I would say that if it ever happens that these don't give rise to those, then these lose their authority as conditions on that case.

[38:06]

Maybe later they'll come back and be conditioned again, but right now they're not conditioned anymore. That's the next part. As long as those do not come from these or with these, then those are not, they are not, we can call them non-conditions. In other words, as soon as the regularity breaks down, we don't have, they don't lose their condition, their quality is conditioned. There are classic conditions such that everything in the birth allows us to happen. So the big part, you know, we have something entertaining that's arisen for them to want to respond to the conditions that people. Some of them are not, because it's uniquely related. We can't see the connection. but there's still a kind of a class of condition that they can put it into a kind of a condition of life. But you seem to be saying something else. I don't really get the point of it, but if you can't say there could be a condition happening from something that doesn't exist. That seems to be a bit more translation.

[39:11]

You can't say that you can say something in the condition if it doesn't, if it has to be written. Yeah, I think that seems to be what the line said. What I'm trying to say is I don't think how that's coincident. The way I read this line is it got something, okay? something arisen and you don't see it in association with something else. So long as these others do not arise,

[40:15]

Why are they not in non-conditioned? It doesn't mean it's a non-conditioned. But we're talking about something that hasn't. Maybe we don't see it. No, no. The others are the things that arise, not the conditions. Well, you've got to learn to handle this all different ways, OK? OK, I'll do it. I'll do the transition. And this is what you have, OK? But basically what I'm saying, here's my concept and see if you think it's different from what you're saying and showing how you think it's different if you do. We're saying these arise from those, okay? These arise from those, so those are conditions for these, right? That's the definition of condition that we put forth in the first party's character. Do you think it will be different here? Just a second. Does everybody else see this? Yeah, first part.

[41:20]

It's all right. Now, what I think it's saying in the second part is, if those things don't arise, as long as those do not come, when you have these, then these are not conditions. So I'll do it again. These arise from those, all right? Got that? Therefore, those are called conditions. That's okay, right? Now, these do not arise from those, okay? Therefore, those are not conditions. Or can't we call those non-conditions? Non-relational conditions, yeah. They're only convicted to deceive the rock. Right. That's the way I read this paragraph. He wanted to put it that way.

[42:34]

I just put it another way. I said it away. And then if you go over it and not the way I said it, then you can jump to the way he said it. But he said it this way. That's the way it was. He wanted to do it that way. There's no need. So if these give rise to those, if you have these and then those, then those. These give rise to those, so these are called conditions. As long as those do not come from these, These are non-conditions, or these are not conditioned. That's good. So a more literal translation is the one you have here. How can a non-conditional relation, how can a non-relational condition be asserted with entities that are not coming to be?

[43:40]

That we say that these arrive because those arrive because of this. But if these arise without these, somehow there's a tendency to believe that these are there. Is that why he's saying this? OK. I just want to say, the way that he's trying to say it is part of . Well, let's try to get a wider idea of what to say this. So . Well, not because. No. These give rise to those.

[44:45]

These give rise to those. Now, if, if, that if these conditions don't exist, then those, then they're As long as those do not come from these. Right. Those do not come from these, that these are not in the condition. Yeah, couldn't you say that? And is the tendency that, because he's saying that because there's a tendency to believe that these conditions are always arising in relationship development, that there's this tendency to believe that these conditions

[45:35]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_83.35