Hi Alberto, (&Sarah)
I will not be in tomorrow Saturday Dhamma discussion with Ajahn, but maybe you could rise points from me.? Some may be constructive points, and not me blbla bla while under the influence. It s my suggestion to you, so don't feel like you need to do it. As we all heard and learned there is everything is conditioned, anatta.
I can't come in tomorrow, since I have been very sick recently. It is not hangover really, I don't have hangovers. After drinking, I am becoming very sick that last days. Monday, doctor is calling me if Antabuse medication or detox. Thank you. I really wish I could join AS talking and questioning. But maybe next week.
And citta itself, without the akusala cetasikas or kusala cetasika would be pure, but it isn't pure, it's tainted by the akusala cetasikas, so what is outside to paint the citta?
Even a moment of akusala citta, citta itself not including cetasikas is pure, but akusala cetasikas are that which make it tainted, impure. So what is the innermost?====
Lukas: I wonder if we can call pure, or light as 'BUddha nature'? Because in unortodox Mahajana they say 'Buddha nature' I reckon. So the doctrine of Mahajana(In Kathavathy opposite group to later Vibhajavana if me correct?) in Mahajan there is a concept of 'Buddha-nature'. So Can we say cittam pandaram and this may be what later schools means by their interpretation of panadarm citta as Buddha nature? I am not looking for a compromise or peace in between those two schools, but I am asking to understand more what Buddha meant in Kathhavathu about wrong views obviously. So Buddha nature is barely a concept of later traditions, but I trying to understand, for what meaning Buddha nature really has.? As Than Ajahn said, about citta is pure without akusala cetasikas. And concept of Buddha nature refers to something, I reckon, like there something primarily in the dhamma(a person) that is pure and not influanced by any unwholesome ness. So I wonder if there is any connection, and what is the meaning of Buddha-nature?
Than A. Sujin: Because citta arises all the time and there are cetasikas arising with one moment of citta, so when one citta arises there must be many cetasikas arising with it in one moment, so what is the inner, innermost, citta or cetasikas? Because sometimes some cetasikas do not arise at all, but citta is always there, the chief of experiencing an object, only one object at a time.
Lukas: Innermost, what was that in Vibhanga? The term for inner most, hadaya? It must be only that in this case while instances of cittas are so compassionate explained by Thathagatha. This cannot be confused with ajjhatta/bahiddha. So only innermost means hadaya I think , like heart, aint it Alberto?
I really think Ajahn Sujin is the only existent Dhamma teacher, that is the last savaka and is so straight following exactly what Buddha and Elders really thought. She is an amazing mahaupasika, and great Vibhajavadin. She is understanding and doing exactly what Buddha and Elders told us to do.
I think only That Than Ajahn has a great carita from birth(not to mention her amazing understanding of life and dhamma). And my problem is that I am born with spoiled morality and weak carita. I followed AS so many years and now I am thinking, maybe it's not helping me. Since Ajahn only matters right understanding, because she has that great kusala behaviour accumulated. I have a problem with drink, and I am spoiled morally and alcohol dependent. I really doubt right teaching Ajahn is sharing, I don't think so it helps me, since I need sila first and good behave. This is my doubt.
Alberto, what do you think, could you render some questions to Ajahn from that? It's my doubt and I think her answer may help me a bit in my alcohol quiting and trying start leaving a new wholesome life from the beginning. I want to stay with kusala, it so calm, does not harm any one, does not agitate. Kusala is the best