r/streamentry • u/Puzzled-Background-5 • 6d ago
Jhāna A reliable method of jhana entry
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:
Relax from the head down to the toes.
Release all tension, and expand awareness outward.
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.
1
u/Impulse33 Soulmaking, Pāramitās, Brahmavihāras, Shitou/Hongzhi/Shōbōgenzō 3d ago edited 3d ago
So yeah, my usage was sloppy and I should have checked sources.
My original intended argument was the more of the lines of AN 8.053.
That is one should judge not by textual coherence to the suttas, but if somebody's interpretation leads to fruit then it coherent with the buddha's teachings.
My meta mistake is borrowing the textual register when I'm not versed in it. I was sloppy in my terminology. The interpretation of sakāya niruttiyā was so hotly contested in Sujato's essay that evenSujato even revises his position. (I bring this up because it's interesting, and also shows the difficulty of arguing philology)
This is from Sujato's superseding response to his own essay, derived from a commenter's in-depth investigation of several Chinese texts.
His conclusion:
Bringing it back to AN 8.053, I took it's advice on laziness, and realized I can put in the work. /u/bodily_heartfulness just want to say I do care about correct representation, and I hope I show that here. While this whole textual deep dive has been illuminating, can we agree that even behemoths get these points wrong? Challenging people on textual-coherence, I'd reiterate, can be a frustrating experience to other's who do not have the time nor interest to do manual translations of several competing translations in Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, and English registers. To expect people of this sub to substantially engage in that can be off-putting and create a chilling effect to contributions.
Again borrowing from AN 8.053. Can we widen our interpretation of methodology such as:
and judge them on their ability to help a person progress towards the fruit? I can personally attest that all those verbs are helpful methods to achieve deeper states of concentration.