L: Thanks for the Sutta. I am a layperson, so I can be political, I can have my opinion on climate or whatever. Some of my personal views I will never change is abortion. For Buddha it was killing, For Elders, it was killing, and for me, it is killing unborn ones. So those are not only my views, and I want to help and support politics that will protect unborn kids. I can bend down my head and leave this view, but only if it will lead to stop killing unborn kids. It's abortion, very bad dead, and in modern culture and some politics, now think is good. I try to be without views, but still, there are some views I will never change. I am still layperson, and I can be involved with politics, kings and their ministers. This the Buddha teaching. And he says every upasika and upasaka can be involved in politics. I rather think that what BUddha meant in Suttas and IN Vibhanga, Abhidhamma is not like political views, or your own personal views like protecting unborn, or protect the family and their wholesome values from LGBT+ and all spoiled modern ideologies, so this is Okay to a layperson. Buddha said only let go the ditthi, like a wrong views, and you know from brahmajala sutta a lot a whole net of wrong vies like ethernalism, no result of kamma, no kamma, you know many of these wrong ditthi. I am a layperson, and some opinions, while following Buddha sasana, I agree and keep and follow, since they are good and wholesome. I am not gonna get rid of all of my personal views. Sorry, Alberto. This is my personal opinion, and I want to help to protect families and good worldly weel being.
A: I remember once Ajahn's asking "would you like to be the world's manager?"... and in another occasion saying that taking part actively in politics with kusala cittas (i.e. with metta for all involved, including those who do wrong) is fine, otherwise would just be like shooting oneself in the foot. For example she is talking on Thai radio and TV programs on how many monks in Thailand are breaking Vinaya and destroying the teachings of the Buddha by accepting and handling money, and she's also caring about these monks by warning them of the future results of their deeds, giving them a chance to give up their wrong doings.
L: There is a mistake in the Sutta in the beginning 5th Paragraph. Someone made only 4 Khandha ending on sankhara, volitional reactions, conditione of course, no self. And forgot citta.
“The form element, householder, is the home of consciousness; one whose consciousness is shackled by lust for the form element is called one who roams about in a home. The feeling element is the home of consciousness … The perception element is the home of consciousness … The volitional formations element is the home of consciousness; one whose consciousness is shackled by lust for the volitional formations element is called one who roams about in a home. It is in such a way that one roams about in a home."
A: Wow, well spotted Lukas :) I've checked B.Bodhi translation and found a footnote with the commentary which explains why consciousness is not mentioned here:
19 Spk: Why isn’t the consciousness element mentioned here (as a “home for consciousness”)?
To avoid confusion, for “home” is here spoken of in the sense of a condition (paccaya ).
An earlier kammic consciousness is a condition for both a later kammic consciousness and a resultant consciousness, and an (earlier) resultant consciousness for both a (later) resultant consciousness and a (later) kammic consciousness.
Therefore the confusion could arise: “What kind of consciousness is intended here?”
To avoid such confusion, consciousness is not included, and the teaching is expressed without disorder.
Further, the other four aggregates, as objects (or bases: ārammaṇavasena), are said to be “stations for the kammically generative consciousness” (abhisaṅkhāraviññāṇaṭṭhitiyo), and to show them thus consciousness is not mentioned here.