So today, let's review a bit, and then go ahead.
We've been treating these various stages of the development of religious life.
We have looked not just at monastic life, but at all religious lives,
and they often are as one organism.
And even if they are not, to that extent, one organism,
the problem is that the Church often treats them as being one organism,
as if they were the same thing, just different varieties of the same thing.
So we need to look...
We understand the monastic life, but when it's developed,
we look at the whole of religious life.
Because the other forms of religious life are like branches from these different forms of monastic life.
And often, we forget the content, I think, of this thing.
So the activities of Jewish religions.
So I'm not going to review the different places that we've talked about.
Let's look at the use of it, and his sort of summing up his general vision of the whole picture.
This is between pages 30 to 34.
I don't know if everybody...
Okay.
You don't have anything to do with it?
I think I have a couple of them.
Here it comes up.
Okay.
I'd like to do two things really.
We'll get to the Conagra's problem this morning,
but next time we'll start with the Conagra's history,
which will be a going back and looking at the Conagra's against the background of the other history.
I'd like to do two things this morning.
One is to review the whole picture according to the view.
The second is to look at the present situation,
according to Martin Hagin, 15 years ago, still in this region.
Talking about it.
This is 10 years old.
10 or 12 years old.
I think it appeared in the cessation studies in 1971,
and you can figure who wrote it the year before that.
13 years.
For you, as one of the avant-garde thinkers and philosophers,
he's not the whole figure in the view.
I think he has a background in sociology.
You'll see he's coming from that point of view.
I don't have to read everything he says.
What we want to do is have something to work with.
He, of course, is the avid and misdeceiving of the world.
He was.
Okay, he says, looking back over the whole period,
we find two basic periods,
one stretching from the origins down to the 10th century
and the other from the Gregorian reforms of the present day.
Remember, the Gregorian reform was what great churches were
at the time of Gregory VII.
Remember, that was almost exactly the time of the beginning of the novelists.
This way of looking at the picture is rather simple.
We were founded with a very special role in the church.
The novelist tradition is a flowing out movement,
which, looking back now, is one of the central elements.
In the first period, after a time of rapid and vast expansion,
where you didn't have a legislation,
you just had the right,
a range of the different forms of religious life
that contracts like the building of a family,
as it begins all to be channeled into one form.
Now, here, talking about religious life,
what would he mean by that?
He would mean virgins, ascetics,
and all the people who lived a life of prayer,
or even widows,
people who lived a life of prayer,
a life of renunciation, a life of celibacy.
In some way, not living the ordinary.
Even though some of them had a work to do with it.
That's all.
Basically, he was speaking of Christ,
and at the bottom line, he was speaking of self-religion,
or religious life.
During the early centuries, Christians and other social classes
determined the way their Christian life was,
not the way they were coming together in religious process.
That's his definition of religious life.
Either remaining in society or returning to society,
alone or in fraternities,
was the purging way.
Religious life was not absent from any form of social existence.
Rather, it expressed itself in all the forms.
Notice that point of view.
You don't see that at first sight,
but you'll hear something that can be brought over.
But he's interpreting religious life
as being able to put into various pre-existing forms of society,
rather than being a form of society all by itself.
But later on, it tends to get all channeled into monasticism,
which becomes a social class,
or a social sector all by itself.
Now, that can also happen in Christianity.
It can happen with religion,
and it can happen with a particular character,
a particular affiliation.
Now we have to ask,
how is that right?
His contention.
Panikkar says that anybody can be a monk.
Everybody has that archetype.
Everybody has that monastic dimension in them.
And he doesn't make a clear distinction
between a person who commits himself to a life,
a monastic life in a monastic institution,
and a person who just goes it on in any other social environment.
We'd have to talk about that.
We'd have to dig further into that.
That's what I think.
But he was coming from another angle.
He's not even considering that question
as to who could be a monk.
But he's saying that everything, at a certain point,
narrowed down, channeled into monasticism,
which became a separate social entity,
a separate social institution.
And that was a great deprivation of the Church,
because then it was impossible to live
a committed type of religious life
in the environment that other people had to feel
in which they wanted to live.
That was what it was.
Gradually, however, the extraordinary growth of monasticism,
so monasticism became a big tree,
and for a while it looked like the only tree,
occasioned a legislative activity
that slowly transformed religious life
into an officially recognized state of life,
and ended up by withholding its recognition
from the non-monastic forms of religious life.
It's a very subtle thing.
We don't see what's going on in the religious community.
We don't see what's happening in the Catholic community.
Otherwise, it probably would help to decide what to do.
But in the end, they want a purgatory state of life,
if you like,
to feel that they're really deserving of that,
and consequently,
religious people have to have a state of life
that's necessary for them to be able to live
and live as a monastic.
Ultimately, the Caravaggian reform,
what's on the shelf,
is a very new development in monasticism,
reduced monasticism itself, at least in the West,
to a kind of anomaly,
an iconic anomaly that's advantageous
to some of the other forms of monasticism,
because it's on a very poor structure.
And it's on a very poor internal organization,
which can also be somewhat controversial,
because of the intricacies of the Catholic system
as well as the Catholic system.
In fact, it wasn't monasticism.
This contraction was not due to the mere fact
that monasticism was spread like a drug.
Typically, monasticism grew more
and became more silent than Catholicism.
It was above all due to women
who failed in all cases, though.
Their life became more evil
when their political will tends to be closed off
in terms of the issues of religion.
In other words, the legislation
has such responsibility.
What he says is that the vitality decreased,
the spiritual vitality decreased,
and then the legislation came in
as a political expression,
and it worked to prop up
the life of the individual itself.
And it did this in a simple way.
The legislation can't prohibit
what it tends to,
and now it's in front of us.
Most of the time,
it's a political expression.
But people didn't expect it
to be a political expression.
We never did it.
And so, we could regulate it.
It's like what happens
in some of those departments.
It's like what we did before.
But we didn't have the same kind of support before
without the self-contentment
and the resource of God.
So, if we knew how to do it,
how to behave as a group,
and who we are,
and who we are,
and somebody else has to come
and ask you how to do it,
and you believe in you,
you can't believe in how to behave
as a group.
It's like that.
There are traditions, for example,
that people, because no one
has ever written a text before,
have written a paragraph.
Even when you're writing a paragraph,
you only feel very good
when you know it's good.
The strength of the style
is that you feel good.
So, you have this courage.
You're brave.
You're brave enough,
by the way, to know the surface.
It's helpful to be brave and brave.
And it's something you can figure out.
Very often,
it begins to get weaker
from its brutality
at a certain point.
Because, somehow,
the line of communication
is so different from
how it is in our country.
How it is in the country,
to be honest,
is very, very different
from what it is in the country.
It's a different group
of people
that have a different
understanding of the country.
And what follows
is the idea
that we're the same.
We're all the same.
And so it is
that there's division.
And what really happens
in a situation
begins to be a huge mediation.
In other words,
It's very present in our history, real close to our history.
It's really becoming the front line.
People have to build up an image.
They build up an image, a structure,
and then they question it.
And so when young Michael came to America,
he was a revisionist in his first year.
If you tell him that, what to do,
he does that, and you let him have it.
And this phase was largely kept for a few minutes
because we didn't want it.
As if it were valid.
And it never really did.
And so there's a direct question about
whether or not I'm open to it.
Whether or not I'm open to it.
That's why it's been challenging,
that we let people think that way
versus having an institution that supports you in security
that has diminished its power
and guarantees you that,
that you just stay in your place
and that you're all happy.
Somehow, God will shut out of that situation.
We trust ordinarily that in the institution,
God will exactly be communicated to us
and not shut out, but somehow
it seems to be able to shut down
over many years.
And this is a big problem in the church.
And this is where I think the brightest information
for all its criticism comes in
is the over-reviation of the church.
People are trusting the church instead of God.
Rather than trusting God through the church
and then trusting God even where the church is at.
And it's very difficult.
And when religion spreads, what happens?
When religion spreads from its original,
original mass to express itself
over into Italy, up through Europe,
it gets reinterpreted.
And when it gets to the ends
of its reach,
it may be very much changed
from that perspective.
Even though the terrorism is still there.
Two reasons.
Lack of exposure
and the immediacy of the contact with God.
And I think the gradual
gradually unchangeable transformation
of the Catholic Church
is very, very important.
And besides that,
besides the physical security,
we have a kind of spiritual insurance policy
in the sense that, well, if I do it,
you have to tell me to do it.
It's all in the work of the church.
It's a material thing.
Huh?
Huh.
Not necessarily.
Sure.
Well, it's not.
Of course,
most people
don't know
Most people have never, even in monastery,
have never trusted absolutely
toward the truth of God
Secondly, there are risks
and exposures
to God, which are not simple
on the material level.
Therefore, you can
be relatively
worriedly, but concerned for
the material level, and still,
I think, go through the whole monastery.
Thank you.
There are many kinds of
insecurities, besides the
security of the church.
Okay, this is what you're using now.
Picture.
That's the first phase.
This contraction into one form.
Of course, he's making the picture seem
rather crude.
From the 11th century
onward, there appeared
a trend in the opposite direction,
continuing on for a long time.
The fan opens.
Diversity was once again restored
in monasticism.
As a consequence of its own inner requirements,
within the context of the world,
as if that kind of ideology
dominated the world.
Then there reappeared
a long monasticism, new forms of liberty,
and then he gives a sequence of different
classical ways of life.
Everyone knows about
the 11th century.
He used kind of a similar
expression, but he used a spectrum.
In the event, reformers
split the single traditional version of the monastic life
into 20 different divisions
over the colors of the spectrum,
each realizing the potentiality of the
monastic life, but neglected
by most contemporary manifestations.
Thus meeting him in the more
complex and articulated society of the late
11th century. That's when he's
beginning to talk about the new orders
of monasticism,
among which other philosophers.
Then he talks about the appearance
of a kind of regular, mendicant
order of monasticism.
Unforced
to the religious life, the religious life
out in the world, which gradually makes its way to existence,
and finally the secular ones begin to
emerge. And still we find
that there are some pieces missing
in the whole spectrum.
There are some elements missing, because you find
a lot of people looking for monastic
life, and you don't find
them anywhere.
It seems
that they need to bring new forms,
which are somewhere between the
institutional monastic life
and the secular life.
The second
period had its origins in the monastic reforms
of the 11th century.
These, in turn, eroded the importance of
reform. As common knowledge, this was
marked by a movement toward
centralization and institutionalization.
As it were, the second phase
of expansion, the first phase of expansion
didn't have this centralizing
thing coming on until later.
The second phase starts out
with this movement toward
this
mentality
of centralization and institutionalization,
and therefore
of legislation.
It starts out with
the demand of an organized church,
which wasn't really an organized church
until later.
Within a civil society
characterized by its absolute
control of the secular society
at this time, there were real struggles
for power between church and state,
and the rest of the congested
church.
It was a time of
social and political freedom
of the church.
The church was able to preserve its independence
and recover it only by organizing itself
with some of the elements which the church
could not.
So the papacy would be
without
all of the
elements of the church,
all of the selves that were valuable
to the community of its past,
which is
still one of the most
important conditions of the church.
So the religious life, too, was passed
into the rigid structures
of the religious state.
What does that mean?
I think of
medieval society
as being characterized
by the constraints of the
state of authority
and the state of
freedom as well as the state of
self-determination.
We have a monastic state.
It's a kind of
fixed social structure
in which there are
some people
who are not monastic.
But the religious
life, too, had to be,
sort of, not so much in terms of
a press or a movement or a charism,
but in terms of a state.
The state
was limited to its religious privileges
and its requirements.
The requirement
would be that the
religious people
were no less than the
rest of the church.
And the
papacy would be
that at the time of the census period
it was crucial that we were
really
inside
the responsibility of the person
who was with us
to have the best
chance of reaching
the state of freedom.
In fact, it was up to
the speaker
to make the decision.
If we make the decision,
then we have the right
and the possibility
of a
principle of harmony.
There's a beauty there.
The risk, you see,
is that it brings all of the
individual, the rest,
all of the person at the side
of the religious center,
but not the religious power
of the community.
Living in this community
has to be a little bit different
from what it was
at the time of the census.
Now, it's not easy,
but at the same time
the difficulties
are on one side.
The difficulties probably
tend to come from
a balance of the
religious power.
That's a very good question.
There is a validity underneath it.
First of all, why isn't there a
sacrifice?
That's the question.
The logical and reasonable answer
is that you don't need
a baptism.
I live without a baptism.
If that's so,
then the sacramentality
of the monastic life lies in practice
theological racism.
So,
you get a second
idea of what we're talking about later on,
especially when we talk about the
sacrament of forgiveness.
The forgiveness of sins
is conferred by the
monastic tradition,
which therefore becomes equivalent
to public penance,
which is very relevant
to the monastic life.
It is conceived of as
a way of not passing
the baptism.
So, on the parasitical aspect,
the traditional idea
that by the monastic tradition
all sins were wiped out at the end.
And it was a thing
that was very individual
in practice.
And that doesn't change
today.
Okay, then you get these distinctions.
The idea of a religious state
and those structures
have been maintained until a long time.
So, the immediate consequence of this
is that the private experience
And it seems like a good thing
if somebody teaches you that doctrine.
You could very likely evolve
because the way it's presented is very attractive.
Now, this wasn't true then,
but if you get that truth
at the expense of the other truth,
which is a kind of spontaneity,
which is all of the job.
Okay, these distinctions.
After having
distinguished the state of contemplative life
from the state of the active life
and then the mixed life,
another distinction between
orders and congregations,
and then the congregations
and those very different secondary ones.
Orders were basically
those are the institutions
of self-knowledge.
Originally, orders referred to
monasticism.
But then they got enlarged
beyond the religion of monasticism.
So, the orders of the congregation
were basically
those institutions of self-knowledge
and those congregations.
I think the word congregation
includes inside monasticism.
Other congregations are called
congregations.
See, that key distinction
between distinguishing
the state of contemplative life
from the state of active life
is necessary.
If you get religious
congregations, religious communities,
which are obviously congregations
of active life,
very carefully preserve
the solitary life.
But if you make this kind of distinction,
what people are believing
after a while is
that if one life,
which is totally on one side of the world,
and the two
kinds of persons,
two locations,
are essentially different.
Because the active person doesn't really have
a contemplative core
of the heart of his own location.
He doesn't have the function
of a functional person.
He doesn't have a real function.
The core of his own location
is that people will tell him
that he's really
a disaster.
The hospital,
the teacher,
is down to the level
of tension
and worry
and misunderstanding.
And the other problem
is I'm going to start with
if you believe that your life
is solely contemplative,
what's going to happen
if you realize
that you don't have a soul?
What do you think about that?
The first example is a father
who has to have a
piece of his heart
in his heart.
And so he gives
a piece of his heart.
And then such is
the master
part of his heart
which will be
unfortunately
part of the religion, ideology
and freedom of
his family.
I'll go on
for a second.
Religion and ideology
at the same time
put the
proper emphasis
on self-control
and self-determination.
But you have to
get into certain rules
of self-determination.
The pregnant woman
has certain rules of her own
pregnancy.
We're going to try to be
unfair to my father
and my mother.
We're going to
deal with
the very
very
very
very
very
very
very
very
very
very
very
very
very
very
very
very
very
very
very
But if you say that that's the whole of the mastermind of this contradiction, or that the other thing is the mastermind of this contradiction,
then it will go a long steps down.
But that distinction can be made.
It's so difficult to express what's going on.
Because this reality of the mastermind of this contradiction really can't be verbalized,
because the words are about the fences of the world,
and they don't keep them apart from each other,
which is important in the reality of this contradiction.
And I think the formulation is fixed in that formulation,
in the state of this contradiction.
Okay.
You talked about the feminists,
who fit in a new form.
But you got it fixed in the form of a cabinet,
with these different boxes,
that's like a vision.
Whatever comes along with the vision.
Remember this requirement in the 13th century,
to prove that there couldn't be any truth.
But gradually things open up into a system of theological theory.
The theologian reasoned that the continuity structures this constitutive religious state.
And this is a very kind of insidious thing.
After something has been laid down by authority,
and this is very trivial,
I really don't think we have time to go into it.
It's quite the same.
But once something is laid down by authority,
you don't distinguish anymore,
between what comes strictly from the Holy Spirit,
or what came originally from God,
and the original inspiration of God,
and the historical growth of this,
and what the church authority has laid down at a certain point in time.
And if you're full of zeal,
more than that,
now there's zeal inside.
You don't want to make a distinction between those two things.
You want to give it all the same value.
That is the point.
The fact is that there's a great deal of zeal,
and that the pinnacle,
the original pinnacle,
the charismatic pinnacle,
has no value at this point.
It's sooner or later that's going to do it.
Otherwise the life is destroyed.
It's destroyed.
And when authority comes in,
and imposes something that's contrary to the nature,
to the character,
to the development of life,
then there's a conflict,
and the life can lose some flexibility.
Because authority is capable of doing something.
It really doesn't bother the country or the state.
That's the other point.
This is the other point I was trying to make.
We don't have to do that all the time.
I'm sorry.
Because authority is very often...
I don't know if I'm...
Authority can be taken very often...
I don't know if I'm talking about the problem.
The country is trying to do something,
and do it in a decisive way.
And we don't have to do that.
It's the other thing.
And once that problem is removed,
that problem is worse,
and the good is still there.
And we do it.
We do it like...
like it's a task.
Okay.
Yes.
Let's see.
I would say...
the position...
of course,
that...
for...
the...
the...
the...
the...
the...
the...
the...
the...
the...
the...
the...
the...
Mm-hmm.
I see.
Well, I'm quite prepared.
I think you're quite prepared, sir.
We're...
going to...
And when you do that, especially in the United States,
you use a certain power of communication,
a certain amount of communication,
to get the public to understand what's going on.
And that is a good thing.
And in fact, the older people out there,
in every historical fact, something acquired once and for all.
See, what that just means is,
despite not having an optical sense of perspective,
so you look at something and you don't have a better view of it,
you see everything on the same plane.
So, no matter where it came from,
if it's present, existing,
you're trying to give it the same kind of light,
the same power.
This is also an important point.
We've all been given an infallible witness.
And so we've been given an infallible witness.
And that becomes an infallible witness.
If everything came out the way we want it to be,
then maybe there would have been this kind of power.
There are times when we think it doesn't have to be this way.
And in fact, who would dare to call into question structures
that have already received official approval
from the highest professors in the world?
What's happening is, structures can't be abused.
They're downgraded.
And then when we look at it,
we abolish those principles.
In like manner, if we present them in cases
where obvious abuse of this was present,
every reform on the list would come
within the split of a year,
they had to keep the old observations in.
And then if we knew it,
so it's a kind of under-generational competition
for pictures.
And the Franciscans used to say,
we've got an order now.
We've got to control it.
Control all of it.
And that's after some simplification.
It's a simple order.
It's a creative order.
The one that's chosen from the left,
and the one that's chosen from the right.
The tension between charism and institution
is in fact a question in the religious life
because that's supposed to be a charismatic way.
But it's an organized charismatic way,
so there's not this out-of-tension order.
Organized charismatic way.
And monasticism is like that, by and large.
Organized as we speak.
But you've got to do it.
The barriers of the religious life, like any other,
must accept organization in the religious mind.
You see, it's not like this is a problem.
This is kind of a mess.
What's happening is Jesus continues to be established
through his religious mind.
This is not a problem.
What happens is,
Jesus becomes a part of the institution
of this kind of organization.
And yet, they don't like that.
They don't like that.
So this is a problem.
All life is a problem.
So when the time comes,
we have to focus on purpose.
We don't want to focus on the dark side.
We have to focus on the light side.
We have to focus on the light side.
Resistance.
It's not a kind of...
It's not a...
It's not why it's a serious problem.
It's really a person's avoidance.
Problem.
Okay.
There's a kind of pendulum.
This is egoism.
Since there were a perfect harmony between terrorism and structure,
it's simply impossible to describe.
History bears witness to a sort of given fate,
a certain alternation of terrorism.
It's been stifled by institutions.
It becomes a cumbersome institution
that's breaking up under the infrastructure of creation.
It's culminating in the creation of institutions.
But, alongside the new institution,
essentially, is the old institution.
This is purely a sub-community.
It was created for strength.
It isn't an organization.
I don't know if it's right or wrong.
But, it was better than the foundation.
It was created for faith.
Those dark systems forget to have a community.
We are a part of that community.
We also have a part of that community.
And we are a part of that community.
And we are a part of that community.
And we are a part of that community.
And we are a part of that community.
And we are a part of that community.
Usually, when I say a community, it's a community.
Sometimes, I feel, usually, it's a community.
But, the tension remains within the strong structure of a community.
There are many polarizing things that can be expressed in that community.
Depending on which orientation you have in the community,
it's much less frequent than the traditional.
I didn't do it in my experience.
Sometimes, it's good.
He said, never has a form of religiosity been created by a hierarchical authority.
Never has a reform initiated by a hierarchical authority been created by a hierarchical authority.
That's what he is trying to say.
There's a character that you create.
If you don't make life, you can't make life in the world.
It's impossible not to make life in the world.
But, neither can you.
Genuine reforms.
The heart of reform is reforming the heart.
The heart of reform is reforming the heart.
He goes on to the development today.
What he's trying to do here is characterize, put today into the historical context he's describing.
And, he compares it.
You see, he's got a very schematic view.
He's got a theory, which you don't have to buy.
But, he's got a theory that if you're going, you're going through the center of the history.
And, today, the pendulum has swung back to the center.
So, we have to pick up that movement of creativity.
And, if nobody wants it anymore, that's because the pendulum is too fast at the time.
But, it's not very different from any of these.
There's a descriptor in here, which itself will be represented by one of those structures necessary for life.
You see, the big tension is, what do we know?
What do we know?
What is we know?
Do we know already pretty much who we are, where we are, how we are, and where we are?
It's just a matter of changing and modifying existing structures.
And, here's the basic reason for changing those structures.
What is the basic reason for materialism?
The basic reason is to ask questions about materialism.
At what level do we live in the world?
And, what do we have to question?
And, what do we have to question?
What is it?
What is the beginning of the question?
And, the church itself is equivalent to materialism.
And, that's the place we have to be.
And, the beginning is to question.
Just so that we can take up this reason, this machine,
and modify it in a way that we could before we took a look at the whole structure.
In a life of, a deeper life, I think, we must have questions about it.
We must have questions about it.
How deep will the question be?
Problem.
Now, it's not like this hall has to be open right now.
So, the thing is not being open right now.
This is not being open right now.
So, now we have a certain kind of experience.
And, how much do we have to experience?
Second, the third, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth, the seventh, the eight, the nine, the ten, the twenty, the twenty-one, the twenty-two, the twenty-three, the twenty-four.
How much time is left in this question?
Exactly the same as in the days of J.F. Sackler in the 11th century.
We find ourselves in a significant time in history.
So, there's a society that gives us its foundation.
And, I think, we realize that.
This church has rather been created under the concept of emancipation.
It's under the concept of emancipation.
In other words, she also has created for herself new races.
New social races within this country.
So, this is where we must undertake the same question here, I think.
Okay, he puts the world, the bottom line of the world on that level.
As far as other impacts, reform of the heart,
I'm not able to understand.
At times, the reaction here is that you have to understand the concept of emancipation.
You have to, in the 16th and 17th century,
and as we are still going to know later,
you have to understand the concept of emancipation.
At that time,
I think that's quite right, isn't it?
You see, there's this other kind of knowledge
that every human being has to find for himself.
There's always something totally different.
And, every human being has to find it for himself.
Every human being has to re-fight this battle
and to re-live and re-experience this new world.
It's always different.
That's all we have.
In other words, if he's convinced that he has this today,
he has to, like the little prince, he has to ask the question,
what does he want?
It's just an extension of the question that it is,
to find the other quality.
It's always the same question.
You have to be able to answer it.
The answer is always different.
We're always trying to be different.
And, we're always forgetting.
So, we always have to go back to, at some point,
that our answer is different depending on our languages.
Every language is different depending on the situation.
Our response has to be different.
You can't give me the question, can you?
Because you have to experience it.
I don't care about it.
It's essentially the same.
But, you try to get to it.
You try to get to it.
It's the same thing.
The sense is different.
It's different.
And, the sense is always different.
And, I think there are obstacles.
We've been on our own for quite a few minutes.
And, I think that, by itself,
it's quite difficult to clear your way
to the other person.
You see it again.
And, when you see it, it's different.
And, you see it every time you try to get to it.
And, that means it's ruined.
It's ruined.
It's ruined.
It's ruined.
And, it takes time to get to it.
There's never a place to go without this.
And, I think that that's a good thing to do.
Because, very much, you don't have to remember it.
It's constant.
In other words,
many people like that
are ruined.
And, it's ruined.
It's ruined.
It's a little bit of a different question.
But, good and bad are different.
Good and bad are different.
Good and bad are different.
And, all of that,
as soon as that experience is gone,
all of the other stuff
is going to go to the person.
Because, it's not inevitable.
That's what it's like.
It's like there's always one thing they have to do,
which is the first thing.
It's inevitable.
The first thing is always happening.
It's always good.
Because, it's an effector's problem.
That is inevitable.
Whatever isn't going right,
it's not going right.
It happens.
And, therefore,
this question is,
in a sense,
the only thing we can do.
So, it's always fun.
It's always good.
In the light of that,
as soon as you get close to it,
as soon as it's over,
we're creating all our habits of thought.
All our habits of thought.
So, much of this stuff is not right.
But, as soon as we get close to it,
we say,
how much do we have to do changes?
I'd like to look at it.
It's still the same.
But, it's imperative.
What do we do now?
Because,
it just puts everything in question.
But, also,
it doesn't put everything in question,
by underpinning it,
A lot of it is still the same.
It's underpinning it.
Because, we know it's not going to be the same.
And,
it's so hard to talk about it,
but,
we know,
there's always a direct continuity,
like,
some of it was,
most of it,
and,
part of it was,
and,
the original,
most of it was,
maybe,
and,
that part,
is directly a reminder of Christianity,
that's all.
Precisely,
underpinning Christianity,
is the very core of Christianity.
It's the core of Christianity.
Christianity is one.
If you look back at Christianity,
in the Middle Ages,
the Jewish,
the Buddhists,
the Christians,
the communists,
the Buddhists,
the communists,
the Christians,
they were made,
they were just a creation.
And,
it comes into some,
late in the Middle Ages,
in the Middle Ages,
and,
he says,
it's no longer,
a part of the,
it started on that line,
but,
it wasn't part of the,
and it goes on that,
so,
it's in the middle,
and,
it's always coming,
to,
it's coming,
it's always,
to build a new foundation,
because,
we want to find,
and,
just,
put some more bricks on,
and,
put some more,
to,
fix up the mess,
and,
we want to find,
to do some more of that,
but,
he finds,
and,
he has to build a new foundation,
and,
and,
and,
and,
and,
and,
and,
and,
and,
and,
and,
and,
and,
and,
and,
and,
The pluralism is a kind of a fact that has been accepted in college, and a lot of the politicians have done the same thing, which has set the record for the history of the United States of America.
If you look at what the United States has done, it's a kind of a fact that has been accepted in college, and a lot of the politicians have done the same thing, which has set the record for the history of the United States of America.
This is not a private issue, it's a public issue.
See what happens in the newsroom, if we didn't get all this information,
The master said that non-religious and non-religion, non-religious and non-religion,
I don't like to say it, but it's a different, it's a different kind of thing.
It's a different kind of issue.
It is, frankly, the master's right to kill all the religious people,
that's what he said.
But that's a different kind of sanction,
a different kind of sanction.
Now, the religious people in the West have been left to their own destiny,
and they can't do anything,
since they've been left to their own circumstances,
there's nothing they can do.
So the West has been left to its own destiny.
And there's that problem,
and when it comes out that the news creates these politicians,
and there's a question of legislation,
and it comes from the White House,
and you can get a question from the White House,
and they can't find a way to help the decision-makers,
and they can't find the means of communication between the people,
so that's the problem.
Okay.
Let's be clear that we're playing for time here.
We're waiting for questions to come in,
and I'd like to pass it over to you.
Well, problems and prospects is the first chapter
in the final version of the book, actually.
And I was looking around for an article
which would represent the situation
at the time of that attack,
which is unheard of,
taken by the White House.
There could have been other cases, too.
If you want the light,
the radical expression directly
of monastic life,
it's marked by a curve
in the aspects of monasticism,
which is more
the contemplative life of monasticism
than the radical life of monasticism.
That's what you're saying.
That's exactly what you're saying.
What he's doing here is analyzing the life of monasticism.
It's a detailed book,
but it doesn't have as much detail
as we thought there would be.
I think that's the idea
of recognizing the situation
of monasticism.