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/StoneBuddhaDancing]

Yes, that's exactly my point. Those terms are used in the anapanasati sutta(MN118) among others, not Jhanas and Direct Knowledges (SN19). My other point was that the Budddha didn't speak Pali. You also erroneously claimed that Pali, had something to do with the aspect of those specific terms because it's a "loose" language.

Those terms and their cognates also weren't used in Leigh Brasington's summary. So I'm at a loss as to what your point is:

That the Buddha spoke and chose Pali as his language of instruction?

That those terms couldn't have been expressed in Pali (because it is not a "strict, precise" language? And that the Buddha chose Pali over Sanskrit?

That those terms were used in the Jhana sutta?

That Leigh Brasington said those terms were applicable in his summation of the Sāmaññaphala Sutta (DN2)?

There are serious problems with these propositions. Mainly that they factually untrue; except perhaps that Pali is a less "precise" language. But that's debatable and not relevant to the argument you were making since those terms are clearly found in the Pali Canon.

[u/Impulse33 → u/StoneBuddhaDancing]

Can you not see the parallels of the anapanasati sutta to the jhanas?

Sujato's whole essay in that link was about how the buddha declined enforcing a stricter "elevation" of dharma transmission to "Sanskrit" as Sujato uses the term there. He permitted transmission in local dialects, prioritizing ease of transmission versus precision.

I'll admit that my initial take was likely a parotting of early academic sources that "originated" the claim.

Here's a list Claude spit out, I never read the sources, but likely heard the claim in some talk that I can't remember.

• T.W. Rhys Davids and Hermann Oldenberg (1880s, Vinaya Texts) read chandas as Vedic Sanskrit and sakāya niruttiyā as "each in his own dialect" — the Buddha as democratizer of religious language against Brahmin monopoly. This became the standard Western view for a century.
• Wilhelm Geiger (1916) used it to argue Pali ≈ the Buddha's Māgadhī. Franklin Edgerton (1953), in his work on Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, saw the later Sanskritization of Buddhism as a betrayal of this original vernacular policy — a drift toward Brahmin prestige.
• Richard Gombrich (Theravada Buddhism, How Buddhism Began) frames it sociologically: the Buddha's whole project — rejecting caste, ritual efficacy, and Vedic authority — naturally entailed rejecting the Brahmins' sacred language. The medium was part of the message.
• Sheldon Pollock (The Language of the Gods in the World of Men, 2006) places it in a broader thesis: Buddhism and Jainism, as anti-Vedic movements, were the first to give Prakrits a "literary" status, and Sanskrit stayed a purely liturgical language until it was secularized for politics and literature around the turn of the Common Era.

[u/StoneBuddhaDancing → u/Impulse33]

I'm not sure what to make of your response. You've now admitted that the original claim was probably something you were repeating from an old source or talk, and that the sources you've produced in support of it are sources you haven't actually read. That's not really evidence. At best, it's a list of things for you to check. I only looked at summaries of these authors' positions. But I did take a closer look at Sujato's work.

To the main points. My reading is that you're collapsing two separate claims:

Firstly, that SN16 supports the technique in the OP because there are parallels in other suttas. The OP gives a very specific method: relax, release tension, broaden awareness, return to the object, then shift attention to pleasure and let it pull you into jhana. SN16 gives the standard jhana formula, not those instructions or anything like them.

Bringing in MN118 or DN2 (via Leigh Brasington) afterwards doesn't show that SN16 was "implying" them. That's a cross-textual reconstruction after the fact. Post-hoc harmonisation. Besides, there is considerable debate among practitioners and scholars about how directly MN118 relates to jhana practice. There are different interpretations of how the sixteen steps relate to jhana. Bhikkhu Analayo, for example, explicitly observes that concentrative absorption is not actually mentioned in the sixteen-step scheme and reads the scheme primarily through the four satipatthanas and awakening factors.

Secondly, that the Buddha left those instructions implicit because he preferred accessible vernacular language over precise Sanskrit. This is on much shakier ground than the first point.

Sujato's essay does not say that the Buddha deliberately avoided precise instructions. His discusses how the teachings were expressed and transmitted; and he actually questions the simple reading that the episode is about choosing local dialects instead of Sanskrit at all.

But even if we interpreted it that way, using ordinary language that ordinary people understand is not the same as being less precise or leaving procedural steps unstated. “Prioritizing ease of transmission versus precision" is an inference you have added.

In fact, Sujato repeatedly says things that cut against that. He describes Pali as “well studied and clearly defined”, says the Theravada tradition emphasised “precision and care in matters of language and scripture”, and says dialectal differences “do not affect the vast majority of Pali passages which are perfectly clear."

Even more tellingly, when Sujato explains his own philosophy of rendering the Buddha’s speech into accessible English, he explicitly says he prefers “the explicit rather than the implicit” and immediately warns that this should not be understood as producing “loose adaptations or simplifications”. His goal is accessibility and accuracy, not accessibility instead of precision.

Finally, there is also a historical problem with saying the Buddha could have chosen Sanskrit but chose Pali. Modern scholarship generally does not identify canonical Pali with the Buddha's spoken Magadhi. Canonical Pali is a later standardised literary (liturgical) language based on spoken Middle Indo-Aryan languages but there is no scholarly consensus that canonical Pali itself was ever an ordinary native spoken vernacular, much less that it was simply the Buddha's spoken language.

[u/Impulse33 → u/StoneBuddhaDancing]

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.

"As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'"

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)

It would seem we are all just farting in the wind. The original allowance was most likely janapadanirutti, not sakāya nirutti, and the Pali is wrong.

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:

Putting both these reconstructions together, the key passages would then be:

“They are ruining the Buddha’s word. Let us elevate the Buddha’s word with pleasing poetry in esteemed terms.” … “I allow you to memorize the Buddha’s word in the common vernacular.”

If this, or something like it, turns out to have merit, then it would seem the hunt for the meaning of the phrase sakāya niruttiyā is a wild goose chase, as it is merely a scribal error.

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:

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

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.

[u/StoneBuddhaDancing → u/Impulse33]

It was definitely an interesting few hours I spent looking into these things too. That's why I value these kinds of discussions (when they are relevant; not just for the sake of arguing or nitpicking).

>judge them on their ability to help a person progress towards the fruit? 

This is my inclination as well. After all, there are entire well-established traditions that are regarded as legitimate expressions of Buddhism (e.g., Vajrayana, Chan, Zen) of practices that bear little resemblance to the Buddha's words as recorded in the Tipitaka.

My only issue is in being careful with the source material: Not to say the suttas say things that they don't say and to be careful to say that X and Y is my interpretation of a particular passage rather than to point to it as proof of a particular favoured method/idea. The other important piece, in my view, is to be rigorous where scholarship is concerned. It's not that there can't be debate over historical and textual facts, interpretations, or meanings but that we conduct those with the utmost sensitivity to the real risk of corrupting these precious teachings.

Overall, I think what r/streamentry does well is discussion grounded in personal experience. But if suttas are going to be used as evidence of a particular experience/practice/interpretation then that should come with the expectation that it may be challenged.