The Signless Abiding and the Signless State
Pexels
Our reliance on signs, and our experience of actual “somethings” to which signs point, is gradually put on hold as we traverse the formless layers. Firstly, the sense of “space” disappears, by which determining where we or anything else is becomes impossible. Then, “consciousness” falls away, and we no longer conclude that sensory information means that we are conscious of something in particular. Then, the sense of “thingness” disappears, where we realize that there are no particular “somethings” which we could possibly be conscious of.
Finally, the basic sense of perception, by which we could possibly know or be aware of anything at all, falls away, and yet somehow we can “perceive” this. Once this apparent contradiction settles in, we have, at least temporarily, stopped concluding that sensory information “means” anything; in other words, sensory information is no longer a sign or indicator that something in particular is happening. Experience is now signless, and we can simply abide in the signless state, since there is no perceived reason not to.
In the signless state, though you are still awake and conscious, you are not conscious of anything in particular. In fact, it might be said that all you are conscious of is that you aren’t conscious of anything, and that is what is remarkable about it. Daily life is filled with what we assume to be signs, even if we close our eyes, and yet in this abiding it is unmistakable that there are none. The only way you can describe this meditative state is that it is signless.
It is at this point of the meditations, therefore, that what “signlessness” means finally can come into focus because, as with emptiness, we have an “unmistakable and clear establishment” of signlessness. Of course, like “emptiness”, the term “signlessness” is itself a sign or symbol which, at some point, will not be meaningful nor a term that necessarily springs to mind. And as the final stages of the meditation describe, “signlessness” only has meaning because we have conditioned ourselves to perceive “signs” in daily life. Seeing that and how we have conditioned how we experience everything is the key to awakening.
In the Shorter Discourse, this state is referred to in two different ways: as an abiding (Pali vihara, the same term used for a monastery where monks reside) and as what I translate as a state (samadhi). Translating vihara as an “abiding”, as the opposite of roaming about, is a fairly accurate way to describe the experience of signlessness, as long as it doesn’t imply the sense of an actual location. As described above, there is also the sense of aimlessness associated with this state: there isn’t any perceived need or inclination to recognize, much less do, anything.
The term samadhi is often translated as a “concentration” or “contemplation”, but in this signless state those are precisely what aren’t happening: we are concentrated or focused on absolutely nothing, and have suspended all contemplative (thinking) activities. In fact, if we start trying to concentrate on or contemplate anything, we will no longer be in a signless state(!). Similarly, a popular Pali-English dictionary defines samadhi as “a concentrated, self-collected, intent state of mind”, though again that is essentially the opposite of what the signless state is all about: the only thing you notice is that you don’t notice anything in particular. It also is not an “immersion” as is sometimes suggested, but the opposite of that: daily life is spent immersed in thought and interpretation, but here all of that is cleared away. As a result, I have chosen the word “state” to describe signlessness, in the sense that it is an artificial and temporary mode of experience.
Signlessness versus Emptiness
Because “I” and “me” are signs from which we most need to awaken, it is no surprise that, in the final steps of the Shorter Discourse, the Buddha chose to focus on the signless state, rather than the empty or the aimless state. As we go through the first stages of the meditation, we learn what emptiness means by verifying at each stage that what was previously in our field of perception is no longer there. However, once all content of the mind has temporarily ceased, we can see that we are still alive and conscious in an everyday sense, but that none of the signs or indicators of being alive are being interpreted that way.
Focusing on signlessness can be a more effective way to get us to see that neither we nor anything else exists as we normally assume, because signs are the precursors to what we identify with, such as consciousness and space. While experience is currently empty of consciousness and space, that there is nothing happening that could even be construed as space or consciousness (i.e., can be interpreted as signs of them) digs a little deeper. Awakening means not only do we no longer perceive something like a separate “self”, but also the underlying belief no longer exists: it doesn’t even occur to us that such a thing is possible. Whether we see that we don’t exist all at once, or take it step-by-step with an approach such as the unfettering process, all the ways we identify with or as what we experience needs to be completely uprooted.
Once awake, we will still be able to use “me” and any other words needed to get through daily life. Awakening therefore doesn’t mean that daily life will be devoid of signs and symbols, or that we forget what symbolic language means in conventional terms. Therefore, it’s not that experience is non-symbolic once awake: instead, it is entirely symbolic. However, the symbols we use no longer refer to real and existing “somethings”, but are applied based on our memory of how they are conventionally used.
It might be assumed that, because the Buddha often chose to abide in the empty (and signless and aimless) abiding, this is what 24/7 experience is like when awakened. However, the empty/signless/aimless abiding is a temporary and artificial state, whether one is awakened or not. Indeed, daily life once awake is impossible if one does not continue to interpret and respond to conventional signs and symbols, otherwise, a “frying pan” cannot be placed on the “stove” in order to cook “dinner”. At that point, though, one knows that whatever is experienced is in fact an interpretation, rather than a sign of something “real”.
Finally, the basic sense of perception, by which we could possibly know or be aware of anything at all, falls away, and yet somehow we can “perceive” this. Once this apparent contradiction settles in, we have, at least temporarily, stopped concluding that sensory information “means” anything; in other words, sensory information is no longer a sign or indicator that something in particular is happening. Experience is now signless, and we can simply abide in the signless state, since there is no perceived reason not to.
In the signless state, though you are still awake and conscious, you are not conscious of anything in particular. In fact, it might be said that all you are conscious of is that you aren’t conscious of anything, and that is what is remarkable about it. Daily life is filled with what we assume to be signs, even if we close our eyes, and yet in this abiding it is unmistakable that there are none. The only way you can describe this meditative state is that it is signless.
It is at this point of the meditations, therefore, that what “signlessness” means finally can come into focus because, as with emptiness, we have an “unmistakable and clear establishment” of signlessness. Of course, like “emptiness”, the term “signlessness” is itself a sign or symbol which, at some point, will not be meaningful nor a term that necessarily springs to mind. And as the final stages of the meditation describe, “signlessness” only has meaning because we have conditioned ourselves to perceive “signs” in daily life. Seeing that and how we have conditioned how we experience everything is the key to awakening.
In the Shorter Discourse, this state is referred to in two different ways: as an abiding (Pali vihara, the same term used for a monastery where monks reside) and as what I translate as a state (samadhi). Translating vihara as an “abiding”, as the opposite of roaming about, is a fairly accurate way to describe the experience of signlessness, as long as it doesn’t imply the sense of an actual location. As described above, there is also the sense of aimlessness associated with this state: there isn’t any perceived need or inclination to recognize, much less do, anything.
The term samadhi is often translated as a “concentration” or “contemplation”, but in this signless state those are precisely what aren’t happening: we are concentrated or focused on absolutely nothing, and have suspended all contemplative (thinking) activities. In fact, if we start trying to concentrate on or contemplate anything, we will no longer be in a signless state(!). Similarly, a popular Pali-English dictionary defines samadhi as “a concentrated, self-collected, intent state of mind”, though again that is essentially the opposite of what the signless state is all about: the only thing you notice is that you don’t notice anything in particular. It also is not an “immersion” as is sometimes suggested, but the opposite of that: daily life is spent immersed in thought and interpretation, but here all of that is cleared away. As a result, I have chosen the word “state” to describe signlessness, in the sense that it is an artificial and temporary mode of experience.
Signlessness versus Emptiness
Because “I” and “me” are signs from which we most need to awaken, it is no surprise that, in the final steps of the Shorter Discourse, the Buddha chose to focus on the signless state, rather than the empty or the aimless state. As we go through the first stages of the meditation, we learn what emptiness means by verifying at each stage that what was previously in our field of perception is no longer there. However, once all content of the mind has temporarily ceased, we can see that we are still alive and conscious in an everyday sense, but that none of the signs or indicators of being alive are being interpreted that way.
Focusing on signlessness can be a more effective way to get us to see that neither we nor anything else exists as we normally assume, because signs are the precursors to what we identify with, such as consciousness and space. While experience is currently empty of consciousness and space, that there is nothing happening that could even be construed as space or consciousness (i.e., can be interpreted as signs of them) digs a little deeper. Awakening means not only do we no longer perceive something like a separate “self”, but also the underlying belief no longer exists: it doesn’t even occur to us that such a thing is possible. Whether we see that we don’t exist all at once, or take it step-by-step with an approach such as the unfettering process, all the ways we identify with or as what we experience needs to be completely uprooted.
Once awake, we will still be able to use “me” and any other words needed to get through daily life. Awakening therefore doesn’t mean that daily life will be devoid of signs and symbols, or that we forget what symbolic language means in conventional terms. Therefore, it’s not that experience is non-symbolic once awake: instead, it is entirely symbolic. However, the symbols we use no longer refer to real and existing “somethings”, but are applied based on our memory of how they are conventionally used.
It might be assumed that, because the Buddha often chose to abide in the empty (and signless and aimless) abiding, this is what 24/7 experience is like when awakened. However, the empty/signless/aimless abiding is a temporary and artificial state, whether one is awakened or not. Indeed, daily life once awake is impossible if one does not continue to interpret and respond to conventional signs and symbols, otherwise, a “frying pan” cannot be placed on the “stove” in order to cook “dinner”. At that point, though, one knows that whatever is experienced is in fact an interpretation, rather than a sign of something “real”.