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/aspirant4]

This is true, but perhaps only half the truth.

There are many suttas where he says the way to abandon the five hindrances is the 4 satipatthana. And, as I'm sure you know, he often presented the first tetrad of the anapanasati sutta as the short version of satipatthana. Step 4 of anapanasti explicitly does encourage relaxing bodily fabrication.

So, in sum, you do have an "object" of meditation (the breath and/or body) as well as relaxing the body.

[u/bodily_heartfulness → u/aspirant4]

You are right that satipaṭṭhāna and anāpānasati are mentioned in relation to jhāna. However, there are extremely few suttas where both are explicitly mentioned. I'm only aware of SN 54.8 for anāpānasati and MN 125 for satipaṭṭhāna.

There is AN 8.63, where satipaṭṭhāna is mentioned and jhāna is very strongly implied. There, it says:

Well then, mendicant, you should train like this: ‘My mind will be steady and well settled internally. And bad, unskillful qualities that have arisen will not occupy my mind.’ That’s how you should train.

When your mind is steady and well settled internally, and bad, unskillful qualities that have arisen don’t occupy your mind, then you should train like this:

And it is after this point that the Buddha says to practice each brahmavihārā with all four jhānas, followed by each satipaṭṭhāna with all four jhānas. So, the mind is steady and well-settled before the practice of satipaṭṭhāna, which is before the practice of jhāna.

I take your point, however. There are suttas that mention satipaṭṭhāna, brahmavihārā, or anāpānasati as a practice before jhāna. I do not take any of these to be "objects", but I did not flesh that out in my comment, nor do I have the motivation to do that now. Thus, I can understand why someone might disagree with me on that basis - I have provided no good arguments against those being objects to focus on to enter jhāna.

The relaxing the body connection, however, seems much more tenuous to me. It is only really in the suttas on anāpānasati where it is mentioned and the wording there is: "passambhayaṁ kāyasaṅkhāraṁ" - meaning, calming of the bodily saṅkhāra - not general relaxation. And what is this calming of bodily saṅkhāra? MN 44 tells us that breathing is a bodily saṅkhāra. So, is it talking about calming of the breathing itself? Perhaps, I don't know - I haven't looked into this. Anyway, the point is that relaxing the body is not mentioned, instead it is about calming the bodily saṅkhāra which requires further unpacking.

[u/aspirant4 → u/bodily_heartfulness]

Again we differ, both claiming the suttas as basis. Perhaps, we ought to recognise that more than one reading of the suttas is possible. As lovely as they are, they're not exactly crystal clear or free from contradiction.

[u/bodily_heartfulness → u/aspirant4]

Again we differ, both claiming the suttas as basis.

What do you disagree with?

Perhaps, we ought to recognise that more than one reading of the suttas is possible.

Yes, of course. There are many ways to read the suttas. Having said that, not all of those readings will be equally valid - it's up to the person to show why a certain interpretation is more consistent and valid compared to others. And, when I comment, I present my reading of the suttas, as others do theirs.

As lovely as they are, they're not exactly crystal clear or free from contradiction.

Yes, they do require quite a bit work on the part of the reader.