Reading from the author's text with commentary and collation of manuscripts

The reader: "And this is a place of independent legal reasoning (ijtihad), and as for the resemblance".

The Shaykh : As for.
The reader: As for formal resemblance.

The Shaykh : As for, yes, with the fa (conjunction) in my view.
The reader: "As for formal resemblance, if it does not abrogate an obligation, then the cause for which the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) gave the reason is free from any contradiction or abrogation, because standing in prayer is not a resemblance in reality, so it is not a thing to be avoided".

The Shaykh : Is it not a resemblance, or is it not resembling?
The reader: Resembling.

The Shaykh : With the ba (preposition)?
The reader: Yes. "It is not a resemblance in reality, so it is not a thing to be avoided. If a ruling is given a cause, and then it is abrogated while the cause remains, it must be that another cause took precedence over it at the time of the abrogator, or that its effect was weakened"

The Shaykh : Weakened.
The reader: Or weakened?

The Shaykh : Yes, it must be.
The reader: "It must be that another cause took precedence over it at the time of the abrogator, or that its effect was weakened. As for it being invalid in itself, this is impossible. All this is if the ruling here were abrogated, but how so? The correct view is that this hadith is decisive (muhkam), and more than one of the Companions acted upon it after the death of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), even though they knew of his prayer during his illness.
And it is well-established from him (peace and blessings be upon him) the command to do so, with a well-established and explicit transmission, such that it is impossible for the hadith of the illness to be an abrogator of it, as is established in other places. This is either because both actions are permissible, since performing standing does not contradict performing sitting, or because of the distinction between one who begins the prayer sitting and the prayer in which the imam began standing, because this prayer does not fall under his statement:

And if he prays sitting

وإذا صلى قاعدا

And because of the absence of the harm for which the reason was given, and because building the action of the end of the prayer upon its beginning is more appropriate than building it upon the imam's prayer, and similar matters mentioned in other places".

The Shaykh : The research you will hardly find in any other place. Now he mentions things, saying: either the permissibility of both actions. What are they? That they pray behind him standing or sitting, since performing standing does not contradict performing sitting. Or the distinction between one who begins the prayer sitting and the prayer in which the imam began standing. This is the position of Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him). Why is there a distinction? He says: because this prayer does not fall under his statement: The imam now did not pray sitting; he first prayed standing, then secondly sitting, so the follower remains in his standing. And because of the absence of the harm for which the reason was given, which is resembling the non-Arabs in their standing before their kings, because these people did not stand before the imam; they were initially equal to the imam, not standing over him. And because building the action of the end of the prayer upon its beginning is more appropriate than building it upon the imam's prayer. This is the fourth. All these answers are correct, and one of them suffices. The correct ruling is that if the imam prays sitting, they pray sitting, even if they are able to stand. And if he began the prayer standing, they are obligated to stand. Yes.