6. The Layer of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception
“Again and further, Ananda, a practitioner, having removed attention of the mind from perception of ‘the layer of no finite consciousness’, and having removed attention of the mind from perception of ‘no something-ness’, places attention on the focal point dependent upon perceiving ‘the layer of neither perception nor non-perception’. One's perception is only of ‘the layer of neither perception nor non-perception’, and in it they become clear and calm, become stilled and established, and are fully drawn into and settled upon it.
“One thus understands there is no longer the three-fold tether due to one perceiving ‘the layer of no finite consciousness’, and one also understands there is no longer the three-fold tether due to perceiving ‘no something-ness’. There is now only a more subtle tether, because there is now the focal point dependent upon one’s perception of ‘the layer of neither perception nor non-perception’.
“One understands that one’s field of perception is now empty of any perception of ‘the layer of no finite consciousness’, and one understands that one's field of perception is now empty of any perception of ‘no something-ness’. All that remains is a provisional entity, namely the focal point resulting from now perceiving ‘the layer of neither perception nor non-perception’.
“One now sees that whatever entity is not in one's field of perception, that field is therefore empty of that entity. One also sees that whatever entity remains in one's field of perception, that entity does exist in one's field of perception. This has again been an unmistakable and clear establishment of emptiness in accordance with what is true.”
Now we let go of “no something-ness” and try to get a sense of why that was remarkable, and therefore what we mean by “perception” (sañña) or, literally, what we “know with”. As with the last step, there is a definite parallel with working with and through the seventh fetter, and here we get a solid glimpse that there is no such thing as perception as the “me” aspect of experience. Here we are more passively allowing ourselves to see this, without trying to penetrate into “perception” or question whether such a thing actually exists (i.e., the seventh fetter probably won’t “break” here). Of the four formless layers, this can be the most unstable, in that it can be difficult to stay with the non-perception or non-finding of “perception”, especially if we are new to this stage. So, some perseverance and patience may be helpful here!
The traditional phrases to use for the transition are “isolated” or “peaceful”. In a way, we are withdrawing the final connection or tether to phenomenal existence here, and the notion that we have something called “perception” by which anything at all might be detected. Withdrawing that connection means no longer having a tether to what we normally consider to be “experience”. As a result, simply letting go of the urge to perceive something can be enough to temporarily pause the perception process. As a result, experience continues, but there is no longer the experience of anything in particular.
I also found the questioning approach quite useful, where I tried to perceive who or what is doing the perceiving, sometimes called “looking for the looker”, or searching for that which corresponds to the word “perception”. This might seem like something of a hall of mirrors, an infinite regression, or a dog chasing its tail, but it eventually settles down into that “isolated” and “peaceful” quality, and generally a sky-like mind. At that point, it becomes obvious that, given our psychophysical makeup, it is simply impossible for us to perceive anything absolutely real. And yet, we somehow perceive that fact, but only because the illusion (and fetter) of "perception" persists - there's no other word we have for how (and that) we know anything.
Another way to transition to the layer of neither perception nor non-perception is to subtly recognize what could be called the six sense doors (described above), the basic elements of experience, and try to consciously perceive a particular “something” out of that raw information, for example a “sound” in the room or a “thought” about breakfast. You will find that it is impossible, thus experientially realizing that there is no such thing as “perception”; and yet, this fact is clearly perceived (the “nor non-perception” aspect). Every time an incipient “thing” is pursued, it never comes into being – the experiential framework within which this could happen simply doesn't exist - and the habitual urge to make this happen can cease.
Once settled in neither perception nor non-perception, how one abides in emptiness, the original topic of the Shorter Discourse on Emptiness, can start to come into view. Nevertheless, it is an emptiness that knows: it may not know something discrete or concrete, but there is still a definite sense of knowing or, perhaps better, the ability to know. Ironically, you now know that there is really no such thing as perception, since you can't locate it or pin it down, yet the only way you know perception is non-existent is because you perceive that to be true. How can this be?
The Visuddhimagga talks in terms of a “subtle perception” that has no karmic consequences, as opposed to the grosser perception that dominates much of our waking lives. Ananda inquired of both the Buddha and Sāriputta on this matter, and was told that one is in fact still percipient here and in the signless state which follows, but one is just not sensitive to it, does not respond to it nor make anything of it. From this perspective, it is the “gross” perception that has fallen away, and the more subtle perception is now predominant.
By this we can see that formless layer practice is ultimately a matter of letting go, of abandoning the very underpinnings of the dualities that seem to pervade life. Normally, thoughts and images arise and are elaborated upon without any particular fanfare or even awareness that this elaborative process is occurring. From the perspective of the formless layers, the arising of a thought, and especially the adornment of it with further bits and pieces of memory, desire, anxiety, etc. can be very obvious indeed.
“One thus understands there is no longer the three-fold tether due to one perceiving ‘the layer of no finite consciousness’, and one also understands there is no longer the three-fold tether due to perceiving ‘no something-ness’. There is now only a more subtle tether, because there is now the focal point dependent upon one’s perception of ‘the layer of neither perception nor non-perception’.
“One understands that one’s field of perception is now empty of any perception of ‘the layer of no finite consciousness’, and one understands that one's field of perception is now empty of any perception of ‘no something-ness’. All that remains is a provisional entity, namely the focal point resulting from now perceiving ‘the layer of neither perception nor non-perception’.
“One now sees that whatever entity is not in one's field of perception, that field is therefore empty of that entity. One also sees that whatever entity remains in one's field of perception, that entity does exist in one's field of perception. This has again been an unmistakable and clear establishment of emptiness in accordance with what is true.”
Now we let go of “no something-ness” and try to get a sense of why that was remarkable, and therefore what we mean by “perception” (sañña) or, literally, what we “know with”. As with the last step, there is a definite parallel with working with and through the seventh fetter, and here we get a solid glimpse that there is no such thing as perception as the “me” aspect of experience. Here we are more passively allowing ourselves to see this, without trying to penetrate into “perception” or question whether such a thing actually exists (i.e., the seventh fetter probably won’t “break” here). Of the four formless layers, this can be the most unstable, in that it can be difficult to stay with the non-perception or non-finding of “perception”, especially if we are new to this stage. So, some perseverance and patience may be helpful here!
The traditional phrases to use for the transition are “isolated” or “peaceful”. In a way, we are withdrawing the final connection or tether to phenomenal existence here, and the notion that we have something called “perception” by which anything at all might be detected. Withdrawing that connection means no longer having a tether to what we normally consider to be “experience”. As a result, simply letting go of the urge to perceive something can be enough to temporarily pause the perception process. As a result, experience continues, but there is no longer the experience of anything in particular.
I also found the questioning approach quite useful, where I tried to perceive who or what is doing the perceiving, sometimes called “looking for the looker”, or searching for that which corresponds to the word “perception”. This might seem like something of a hall of mirrors, an infinite regression, or a dog chasing its tail, but it eventually settles down into that “isolated” and “peaceful” quality, and generally a sky-like mind. At that point, it becomes obvious that, given our psychophysical makeup, it is simply impossible for us to perceive anything absolutely real. And yet, we somehow perceive that fact, but only because the illusion (and fetter) of "perception" persists - there's no other word we have for how (and that) we know anything.
Another way to transition to the layer of neither perception nor non-perception is to subtly recognize what could be called the six sense doors (described above), the basic elements of experience, and try to consciously perceive a particular “something” out of that raw information, for example a “sound” in the room or a “thought” about breakfast. You will find that it is impossible, thus experientially realizing that there is no such thing as “perception”; and yet, this fact is clearly perceived (the “nor non-perception” aspect). Every time an incipient “thing” is pursued, it never comes into being – the experiential framework within which this could happen simply doesn't exist - and the habitual urge to make this happen can cease.
Once settled in neither perception nor non-perception, how one abides in emptiness, the original topic of the Shorter Discourse on Emptiness, can start to come into view. Nevertheless, it is an emptiness that knows: it may not know something discrete or concrete, but there is still a definite sense of knowing or, perhaps better, the ability to know. Ironically, you now know that there is really no such thing as perception, since you can't locate it or pin it down, yet the only way you know perception is non-existent is because you perceive that to be true. How can this be?
The Visuddhimagga talks in terms of a “subtle perception” that has no karmic consequences, as opposed to the grosser perception that dominates much of our waking lives. Ananda inquired of both the Buddha and Sāriputta on this matter, and was told that one is in fact still percipient here and in the signless state which follows, but one is just not sensitive to it, does not respond to it nor make anything of it. From this perspective, it is the “gross” perception that has fallen away, and the more subtle perception is now predominant.
By this we can see that formless layer practice is ultimately a matter of letting go, of abandoning the very underpinnings of the dualities that seem to pervade life. Normally, thoughts and images arise and are elaborated upon without any particular fanfare or even awareness that this elaborative process is occurring. From the perspective of the formless layers, the arising of a thought, and especially the adornment of it with further bits and pieces of memory, desire, anxiety, etc. can be very obvious indeed.