He has attended to the practice of meditation regularly. Upon some doubts pertaining to the practice, he asked Phra Acharn the following questions:

People today are too anxious, When practising Dhamma, they wish to find the quickest result possible. They sometimes do not even know what the high Dhamma is. Most of them, as I have noticed, think of the high Dhamma as miraculous experiences and abilities to "see" this and that.

This is the so-called "high Dhamma" of people today. Actually Dhamma is discovered not because of our desire. Whenever we have confidence (Sakkha) and practise efficently the four principles of mindfulness (Satipatthana), Dhamma will eventually present itself, whether it be the crude or the refined, the high or the low. All these phases will dawn upon you automatically, without your desire.

As a matter of fact, desire will be quite a hindrance to the Realization of Dhamma. Be not so covetous that you forget the Buddha's teaching when he says: morality at its height of prosperity does further the growth of wisdom. And wisdom at its height of prosperity does further freedom, a complete detachment from defilements and sufferings for that matter. The careless ones, who have not acquired a taste for morality and meditation, hearken heartily to the saying that only wisdom brings one to freedom.

So they joyfully sit around the tray of foods that are put in front of them and gauge themselves hurriedly. Dhamma is not the foods nor the rice which someone else sets before you. You have to prepare it with your own heart. True Dhamma must be touched by the heart. If we do not touch all things by the heart, how can we achieve the total, mental comprehension or Panna ? How can we realize what we have managed to get rid of, and what not ?

Samadhi and Samatha are identical. When you contemplate verbally on the word "buddho" until you achieve one-pointedness, here you have Samadhi. The calmness of the heart, which does not take to wandering, is called Samatha.

The teachers usually talk of Samadhi and Jhana as the same thing. If I explain to you here both the similarities and the differences, it will take too long. In my book Pramuan Neo Patibut Dhamma ( Dhamma in Practice ), I have explained them quite in detail. So if this is not clear, you may seek more information from there. I will give just the gist of it like this: Samadhi, can be observed on the basis of the three Cardinal Points of Samadhi, while Jhana can be observed on the basis of Bhavanga ( the passive state ).

However, one may start out with the same object of concentration, according to one's preference. When you have decided upon a particular object, say, you may choose to concentrate on the body, especially on its solid matter, you may concentrate on it without seeking the train of cause and consequence of that solid state, so that the mind becomes focused to the point of BHAVANGA. Here is what is called Jhana. And let it be understood that Uggaha& Patibhaga ( the powers to retain and manipulate and object of concentration ) are derived from Bhavanga. If Bhavanga dies not take place, the two mentioned types of power cannot take place. ( Bhavanga is a state in which the heart flashes and rests itself in one particular state of its own. Sometimes it is completely shut off ).

In Samadhi, after we have chosen the body as an object of contemplation, there must be reflection as to the followings: this body is just an element of earth. What is each of the parts ? What is its characteristic behaviour? How is this element of earth developed? How does it take place? And what is the use of its existence? Etc. Upon reflection, if the heart remains one-pointed, and there is neither anxiety nor doubts in the object of reflection, we will become clear as to the nature of cause and consequence of the object.

In this case, the heart does not enter Bhavanga or the passive state just mentioned. However, when the heart is fully charged with power due to through consideration, the heart will be capable of entering the Appana -Sanadhi ( Absorption Samadhi). (Appana-Jhana and Appana-Samadhi are different. It will take quite long an explanation. And those who have never gone through them in practice will, of course, find it difficult to understand just the same.)

You asked how many times does the heart have to acknowledge in order to reach the Appana-Samadhi stage. Now, if you still have to count on signs like that, your heart cannot passibly reach the Appana stage. The Appana does not develop wisdom. It is simply a stage in which the heart rests after work (or after a sufficient amount of reflection).

As to the question of how far are you supposed to with. Draw the heart in order to obtain wisdom. The heart withdraws itself automatically to the level of Uppacara- Samadhi.

Panna and vipassana are different in character and, therefore, are used in different context. Panna is used generally, beginning from the training of the heart in Samatha all the way to Dhamma Vijaya (mental reflections).

If the heart is capable of perceiving the truth clearly so that the heart becomes bored and withdraws itself from attachment to a particular object, while at the same time the heart drops into a calm state, then this is Vipassana.

This view belongs to the Samatha pragmatist. All those who are still dwelling in the Samatha stage carry a view like that : anything, that other people do and that are not conformable to their experience, will be considered foolish, ridiculous, crazy, not leading toward an extinction of suffering. Those at that stage if citta are like that. That is, they reach the Samatha without a well-rounded Panna.

So anyone who gives a view like that can be predicted right off that he is stuck at the Samatha without a well-rounded panna. So anyone who gives a view like that can be predicted right off that he is stuck at the Samatha stage. Once there was a monk who had entered monkhood for more than ten years.

After he had gone through the strenuous job of contemplation, he attained the state of calm. He was very delighted with it. But then turned his view against religious rituals, saying they were all foolish. Later his KAMMATTHANA ( Meditation ) deteriorated.

He took to a widow. So he left monkhood and went to live with her for about five to six months, but he could not put up with her. So he came back again to monkhood. This time he sew that acts and objects of generosity and contribution that laymen rendered to the monks were kindling the monks' Kilesa (defilements). Finally, he could not stay in monkhood. Becoming a layman this time, he was even worse than before. He was ridiculed by youngsters and all. This is the story of one being stuck to Samatha.

Religious rituals are signs of Buddha.Sasana. If there had been no ritual, what would be used as a meansuring device, since the heart by itself is not concrete. And the speech by itself cannot call for consent. The religion has been able to stand firm and lasted up to this time because of all those various rituals. Some built the U posatha hall, Sala, and Kuti for the sake of a deceased person, this is how a Wat got established and lasted till today. If a tree appears only with its core, it will not be able to stand long. It needs the bark and the periderm to protect the core, so that it will not die.

This is also true with the Buddha sasana. It does need those religious rituals as something to protect and help it grow. This is how it has lasted from time past up to this day.

Those who are stuck in the state of calm feel that they have no more Kilesa ( defilements ). They feel no need to examine further as to the cause and effect of right and wrong. Therefore, they do not know which is which. Later when the Samatha power deteriorates, he may not retain himself in monkhood. Some who have left monkhood that way usually are not able to find a way back to the temple.

The regular duties in the Buddha Sasana must be attended to with no exception by all ordained ones. The secular saying has it that : cultured people must know how to attend to what they have got. The Buddha approved of those regular duties and called them Vatta. This means, of course, to do, to attend to.

If we do not yet know how to attend to what we've got, we'll be considered uncivilized. The buddha Sasana has developed a culture higher than that in the secular sphere. Therefore, if those, who have entered monkhood, see not the value of the Buddhist culture, they will certainly turn out savage indeed.

Just consider if there were no one to attend to the dining-hall, if all came to dine and then walked away. What would that dining-hall be like? This is one example. To speak the plain truth: since human beings ate not lowly animals, we eat and then we excrete; nevertheless, we must eat and excrete in proper places, after which we must help one another clean them. " This is Vatta. "

Aside from the reference to their being good culture, those duties are also physical exercises for good health. For those who have attained perfection in morality and Dhamma, having at their disposal both Sati ( awareness ) and panna ( wisdom ), they will have those duties as their shelter ( vihara Dhamma ).

Right, the Buddha' Dhamma seems to be selfish, if they refer to that Pali text, 'One is one's own refuge." However, this saying of the Buddha may have an interpretation entirely different from what it is understood. The point is, in doing or in saying anything, there must be a doer, that is, the subject of the deed or the self, otherwise there cannot be a recognizable deed. Neither can there be an understandable speech.

Therefore, the Buddha teaches one to begin with the self, make it accountable and efficient. Then it may be accountable and efficient for other people.

Now if the meditation pragmatist, who is stuck in the calm stage, refuses to do anything but meditation, as already mentioned in Answer 9, he may cause a speculative person to conclude that the Buddha's Dhamma teaches one to be selfish. In fact, the Buddha reminded the monks even in his last words that, " Bhikkhu, you shall with prudence attend to those deeds boht for the good of yourselves and others." This shows that the Buddha does not teach one to turn selfish after one has sufficiently confirmed oneself in goodness.

A dogmatist usually conjectures that in carrying on a deed for others, one has to sacrifice all by way of personal matters…as, for example, the Bodhisatva in the Mahayanist School, who refuses to become inlightened in order to help others. Never.

Theless, a Bodhisatva is actually a person working toward enlightenment. He is a person working for the good of himself, but in the meantime he is working also for the good of other people. It is difficult to understand for those who have not trained themselves and for those who do not know the actual self. So, even if they perform good deeds for their own self and for other's so that they succeed in reaching their goals, they are still incapable of conceiving the person or the place to Which the goodness goes.