Is it never what you think it is?

In the [Sappurisa Sutta, MN 113, Access to Insight](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.113.than.html) it says: > 'The Blessed One has spoken of non-fashioning even with regard to the > attainment of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, > for by whatever means they construe it, it becomes otherwise from > that.' Or as translated in [The Middle Length Discourses](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Middle-Length-Discourses-Buddha-Majjhima-Nikaya/dp/086171072X/) , page 912 > 'Non-identification even with the attainment of the base of > neither-perception-nor-non-perception has been declared by the Blessed > One; for in whatever way they conceive, the fact is ever other than > that.' and by [Tang Huyen, alt.zen](https://groups.google.com/g/alt.zen/c/VvI4DHmHEYg/m/8VEsTodEfnYJ) > 'Non-identification-with (a-tam-maya-taa, the state of > not-being-made-up-with-that) even the place of neither notion nor > not-notion has been spoken of by the Blessed One; for what and what > (yena yena) they think it (maññanti tato), it becomes otherwise (ta.m > hoti aññathaa ti).' The phrase in the second translation: "for in whatever way they conceive, the fact is ever other than that", seems to apply generally, as if describing Maya. The other translations could be read as saying specifically the "attainment of the dimension ..." or 'Non-identification-with' should not be construed. Should the more general sense apply? Is that the original meaning?