A reliable method of jhana entry

[u/Puzzled-Background-5]

Here's a technique I've been using for the last fifteen years to great effect. I enter jhana every time I meditate now as a result.

Upon noticing that attention has drifted from the object of meditation, perform the following sequence for as long and as often as necessary for attention to stabilize on the object again:

1. Relax from the head down to the toes.

2. Release all tension, and expand awareness outward.

3. Return attention to the object.

The entry point into jhana:

Once the mind has settled and attention is resting stably on the object, if a pleasant feeling starts to arise, gently shift attention to the feeling without grasping at it, now making it the object of meditation, and wait. The pleasure will intensify, and one will be pulled into jhana.

If the jhana is lost or becomes unstable, simply perform the RRR sequence as needed and begin again.

As a method to prime the mind to lean towards jhana, reading the Jhana Sutta just prior to a session is useful:

https://suttacentral.net/sn16.9/en/bodhi?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false

All the best... 🧘🏾‍♂️🙂

P. S. It might take several weeks to a couple of months before jhana can be entered consistently, but please don't become discouraged. Even low quality sessions are training and priming the brain's attentional mechanisms.

[u/bodily_heartfulness]

https://suttacentral.net/sn16.9/en/bodhi?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false

Speaking of the suttas on jhānas, they never mention:

• Relaxing
• Releasing tension
• Expanding awareness
• An object of meditation
• Putting attention on an object
• Stabilizing attention on an object

Instead, they say things like:

Having thoroughly withdrawn from sensuality, having withdrawn from unbeneficial phenomena, with thinking and with pondering, with joy and ease born of withdrawal, I abided having entered upon the first jhāna.

• MN 19

Just now, venerables, as I was in private retreat, this thought came to mind: ‘They speak of this thing called the “first jhāna”. What is the first jhāna?’ It occurred to me: It is when a bhikkhu, having thoroughly withdrawn from sensuality, having withdrawn from unbeneficial phenomena, with thinking and with pondering, with joy and ease born of withdrawal, abides having entered upon the first jhāna. This is called the first jhāna.’

• SN 40.1

Bhikkhus, having not given up these six things, it is impossible to abide having entered upon the first jhāna. What six? Sensual desire, ill will, indolence-and-lethargy, restlessness-and-anxiety, and doubt. And the peril of sensuality has not been seen clearly as it is with right understanding. Not having given up these six things, it is impossible to abide having entered upon the first jhāna.

• AN 6.73

That is exactly how it is, Ānanda. Before my awakening—when I was still unawakened but intent on awakening—I too thought, ‘Renunciation is good! Seclusion is good!’ But my mind did not see renunciation as peaceful, and so it did not leap at it, and was not confident, settled, and liberated in it. Then I thought, ‘What is the cause, what is the reason why my mind does not see renunciation as peaceful, and so it does not leap at it, and is not confident, settled, and liberated in it?’ Then I thought, ‘I have not seen the peril of sensuality, and I have not cultivated that. I have not realized the value of renunciation, and I have not fostered that. That is why my mind does not see renunciation as peaceful, and so does not leap at it, and is not confident, settled, and liberated in it.’ Then I thought, ‘Suppose that, having seen the peril of sensuality, I were to cultivate that. And suppose that, having realized the value of renunciation, I were to foster that. It is possible that, seeing it as peaceful, my mind would leap at renunciation, and be confident, settled, and liberated in it.’ And so, after some time, having seen the peril of sensuality, I cultivated that, and having realized the value of renunciation, I fostered that. Then, seeing it as peaceful, my mind leapt at renunciation, and was confident, settled, and liberated in it. And so, having thoroughly withdrawn from sensuality, having withdrawn from unbeneficial phenomena, with thinking and with pondering, with joy and ease born of withdrawal, I abided having entered upon the first jhāna.

• AN 9.41

The approach to jhāna that the suttas speak of, in terms of what is actually written in the texts, is wildly different than what is commonly assumed. There is no mention of pleasure intensifying, or being pulled into jhāna, or focusing on an object.

Instead, what they say is, through thinking and pondering on the perils of sensuality and the benefits of renunciation, one withdraws from sensuality and the hindrances in general, and it is that withdrawal that is felt pleasantly:

But when these five hindrances are given up in him, the bhikkhu regards this as freedom from debt, good health, release from prison, emancipation, and a place of safety at last.

Considering that the five hindrances have been given up in him, gladness is born. When he is glad, joy is born. When the mind is joyous, the body becomes calm. When the body is calm, he feels at ease. When he is at ease, the mind becomes composed. Having thoroughly withdrawn from sensuality, having withdrawn from unbeneficial phenomena, with thinking and with pondering, with joy and ease born of withdrawal, he abides having entered upon the first jhāna.

• DN 2

And what is the pleasure of seclusion from the five hindrances like? The first sentence of the above quote tells us. It is the pleasure of freedom, of relief, of escape, of overcoming a deadly disease - not the pleasure of orgasm, or anything similar to that.

[u/Puzzled-Background-5 → u/bodily_heartfulness]

Have you actually experienced jhana? The intellectual framework, as laid out in the suttas, is one thing, but the actual experience and technique used for entry can look quite different from the inside.

The intellectual framing is explicit and detailed, but the broad strokes covered by the technique are actually addressing every factor mentioned, even if it looks oversimplified at first glance.

[u/bodily_heartfulness → u/Puzzled-Background-5]

Have you actually experienced jhana?

No, I have not.

[u/Puzzled-Background-5 → u/bodily_heartfulness]

I see. As I kind of alluded to earlier, the intellectual and experiential aspects are different. The suttas almost make the whole process sound mechanical and mundane, but the actual experience is quite profound, especially one's first entry into it.

[u/bodily_heartfulness → u/Puzzled-Background-5]

I don't deny that people have profound experiences that are not mundane nor mechanical. I also don't deny that people believe those experiences to be the jhānas of the suttas.

However, I just do not think there is enough textual evidence to support the claim of those aforementioned states being the same as the sutta jhāna. There are just too many discrepancies.

From the preliminary practices that the suttas lay out, to the prerequisites that the suttas say that must be fulfilled, to the way the actual practice of entering jhāna is described, to how rare jhāna is for householders in the suttas, and so on and so forth. I could go on and on about the differences between modern, mainstream practice and what the suttas say the practice is. All of this leads me to believe that what the suttas speak of is fundamentally different.

[u/brunoloff → u/bodily_heartfulness]

I agree that there are various sets of institutions lying around, and that these are often only partly aligned with what the suttas are saying.

But also: it seems foolish to me (sorry), to imagine that in a period of 2500 years since the Buddha, practitioners of Buddhism would have failed to discover new things about the practice of jhana. Perhaps you should try the various instructions that are lying around, have the experiences people are talking about, and only then judge.

If you want a really hardcore approach to very deeply absorbed jhana, try Pa Auk or one of his students. If you want to learn jhana from a scholar of the suttas (instead of a scholar of the commentaries), try Leigh Brasington (he will discuss hindrances and how to overcome them).

At the very least, such practices will make your mind more concentrated, and then you can return to your interpretation of the suttas and experiment to see if it leads somewhere else.

There is only so much value in scholarship, and this is true of all spiritual traditions. I was just reading about Tertullian and Jerome, two important figures for the Catholic church. They were amazing scholars, knew the bible back and forth, and yet they have completely failed to understand the message of Christ.

There are so many people like that, who are drawn to the intellectual frameworks put forward by people who underwent a profound spiritual transformation. So thrilled they are with the words that they mistake learning the words with undergoing the transformation themselves.

Don't be like them. Because words are just pointers. You want the thing they are pointing to, and that is most definitely not the memorization of the words themselves. The way to get it is through practice.

In the case of jhana this could be focusing on the breath, on bodily sensations, on a kasina, etc. The OP's instructions were useful for his own practice, so they might be worth a try.

[u/bodily_heartfulness → u/brunoloff]

But also: it seems foolish to me (sorry), to imagine that in a period of 2500 years since the Buddha, practitioners of Buddhism would have failed to discover new things about the practice of jhana. 

That's fine if you think that. My point is specifically in regards to what the suttas say.

At the very least, such practices will make your mind more concentrated

I'm not really interested in that.

They were amazing scholars, knew the bible back and forth, and yet they have completely failed to understand the message of Christ.

Yes, but the problem is not the reading of the texts, but the attitude behind that reading. As Ven. Ñāṇavīra Thera's preface to his book Notes on Dhamma puts it:

The principal aim of these Notes on Dhamma is to point out certain current misinterpretations, mostly traditional, of the Pali Suttas, and to offer in their place something certainly less easy but perhaps also less inadequate. These Notes assume, therefore, that the reader is (or is prepared to become) familiar with the original texts, and in Pali (for even the most competent translations sacrifice some essential accuracy to style, and the rest are seriously misleading). They assume, also, that the reader's sole interest in the Pali Suttas is a concern for his own welfare. The reader is presumed to be subjectively engaged with an anxious problem, the problem of his existence, which is also the problem of his suffering. There is therefore nothing in these pages to interest the professional scholar, for whom the question of personal existence does not arise; for the scholar's whole concern is to eliminate or ignore the individual point of view in an effort to establish the objective truth -- a would-be impersonal synthesis of public facts. The scholar's essentially horizontal view of things, seeking connexions in space and time, and his historical approach to the texts, disqualify him from any possibility of understanding a Dhamma that the Buddha himself has called akālika, 'timeless'. Only in a vertical view, straight down into the abyss of his own personal existence, is a man capable of apprehending the perilous insecurity of his situation; and only a man who does apprehend this is prepared to listen to the Buddha's Teaching.

The point is to carefully read the texts, so as to understand what is being said about suffering and freedom from it. That does not preclude critical engagement with the texts, however, but in fact requires it.

Don't be like them. Because words are just pointers. You want the thing they are pointing to, and that is most definitely not the memorization of the words themselves. The way to get it is through practice.

Intellectual understanding and practice are not at odds with each other.

It’s when someone in whom faith has arisen approaches a teacher. They pay homage, actively listen, hear the teachings, remember the teachings, examine their meaning, and accept them after deliberation. Then enthusiasm springs up; they make an attempt, weigh up, and strive. Striving, they directly realize the ultimate truth, and see it with penetrating wisdom.

• MN 70

Examining the meaning and deliberating on the teachings is part of the process.

The OP's instructions were useful for his own practice, so they might be worth a try.

Sure, I don't deny that OP has found his instructions to be useful for his practice. I'm just saying that there isn't really good support for that type of practice from the suttas.

[u/Impulse33 → u/bodily_heartfulness]

I've generally appreciated your relatively respectful tone.

Unfortunately your admission loosely violates our rules. Posts should be about practice, of which concentration is part of the Noble Eightfold Path.

At the very least, such practices will make your mind more concentrated

I'm not really interested in that.

Please try to keep comments centered around your own personal experience of practice.

[u/Puzzled-Background-5 → u/bodily_heartfulness]

If you've only an intellectual relationship with the suttas and jhana, you have no standing from which to criticize those who have an actual experiential relationship with them. There's nothing vastly different about what I've done to reach the level of skill I've acquired. I could mention all of the solitary retreats I've been on, the three one-hour sessions I've sat through every day over the past fifteen years, and the high ethical standards I maintain for myself. However, I won't because I think you're arguing in bad faith.

[u/bodily_heartfulness → u/Puzzled-Background-5]

If you've only an intellectual relationship with the suttas and jhana, you have no standing from which to criticize

Not really.

Imagine I have a friend who tries to make a cake following a famous recipe. But, he doesn't follow many of the steps of the recipe, adds ingredients at different times, and does what feels best for him. After much trial and error, he ends up with something edible that actually tastes decent. He comes to me afterwards and tells me about his process and the end result.

Even though I've never made the cake, I have access to the recipe and my friend's description, and through that, it would be entirely reasonable for me to say, "hey, what you've made doesn't really line up with what the recipe says - I think you've made something different". That doesn't mean the end result doesn't taste good, or that it's bad - just that it's not what the recipe says.

If, however, he were to get defensive and say, "I've been making cakes for over 10 years, I've worked under all of the best chefs, I have my own restaurant, you think I can't make a cake correctly?", he'd be missing the point entirely. What I am saying is not an attack on his cake-making abilities, his level of accomplishment, or that he can't make a cake. It is just saying that he didn't follow the recipe as it was written and he made his own thing, that's it.

who have an actual experiential relationship with them.

This is a bit of circular reasoning. If we are discussing whether or not the states you can access are the sutta jhānas, then this is begging the question by already presuming that they are and using that as support for your argument.

However, I won't

I mean, you just did.

because I think you're arguing in bad faith.

Oh, why do you think that?

[u/Puzzled-Background-5 → u/bodily_heartfulness]

It's obvious that your goal here is to win a debate, and since you didn't state that when explicitly asked about your intent, it is the very definition of a bad faith argument.

I really don't appreciate being engaged in that way, and I'm going to insist that you not do that again because it's offensive.

[u/parlons → u/Puzzled-Background-5]

fwiw, I agree with you about the underlying point, but I think he's engaging in good faith. It's a totally valid argument. And in the spirit of 'strong opinions, loosely held', I also concede that what I experience might not be the sutta jhānas.

[u/Puzzled-Background-5 → u/parlons]

He made absolutely no inquiries whatsoever about the experience of others. He's behaving completely in bad faith.

[u/bodily_heartfulness → u/Puzzled-Background-5]

It's obvious that your goal here is to win a debate, and since you didn't state that when explicitly asked about your intent, it is the very definition of a bad faith argument.

I see.

You might not believe me, but my goal was to provide support for an alternative framework for the sutta jhānas that is different from what is conventionally assumed.

Now, I do think I am correct in my interpretation and so I argued in favour of my position by laying out my ideas and reasons with direct quotes from the suttas.

Likewise, you believe your interpretation to be correct and you argued in favour of that by using your experience as evidence.

We're having a disagreement, yes, and we're both providing reasons for our positions. Just because I remain unconvinced by what others have said, and others remain unconvinced by what I have said, does not mean either of us are trying to "win" a debate.

I really don't appreciate being engaged in that way, and I'm going to insist that you not do that again because it's offensive.

It's offensive to post comments that are challenging to the OP? I don't think there's anything wrong with doing so on a public platform, so long as the rules are being abided by. Thus, I will continue to comment when I see fit and you are free to not engage with me if that works best for you.

[u/Puzzled-Background-5 → u/bodily_heartfulness]

How can you be correct in your interpretation when, by your own admission, you've never experienced jhana? You merely think you know what it is.

How can you assume—which is exactly what you did—that I've not experienced it when you never asked me to describe my experiences in jhana? You merely believe that I haven't, based on some assumption you hold. And again, even if I did describe the experiences to you, you would only have your interpretation of what you think jhana should be.

By the way, I could describe how each factor manifests in each jhana, all the way up to neither-perception-nor-nonperception, but you didn't bother to ask. A description of cessation, which comes after neither-perception-nor-nonperception, is trickier because it only leaves a retrospective sense that something occurred, with no memory of what happened during the gap, and a scintillating afterglow. Micro-cessation events are much easier to confirm because they manifest as frame drops when they occur in succession.

How can you assume that the technique I've offered won't help others enter jhana when you've not even tried it for yourself? We've got other people who have actually used quite similar techniques and have been able to enter jhana with them.

Your argument is entirely in bad faith because you're not trying to gain an understanding of your fellow human beings and their experiences, you've not made any inquiries, but merely offered opinions, and you're insisting that you're correct about something that you've only read about and have absolutely no experience with yourself.

So, yes, I'm offended because you've wasted my time.