The Nature of Sushupti
First, let us read what Shankara has in mind regarding DS (Deep Sleep) via his commentaries on BS (Brahma Sutras).
Commenting on the two Sutras (3.2.7 and 3.2.8 ) , Shankara has clearly shown that there is a certain purpose and scope to a specific prakriya in the proper understanding of Deep Sleep.
Concluding the commentary on 3.2.7 (tadabhāvo nāḍīṣu tacchruterātmani ca), Shankara writes:
ब्रह्म तु अनपायि सुप्तिस्थानम् इत्येतत्प्रतिपादयामः तेन तु विज्ञानेन प्रयोजनमस्ति जीवस्य ब्रह्मात्मत्वावधारणं स्वप्नजागरितव्यवहारविमुक्तत्वावधारणं च। तस्मादात्मैव सुप्तिस्थानम्।।(BSBH 3.2.7)
Translation:
We are out to prove that Brahman is the invariable locus of sleep. Such a knowledge serves a purpose, namely that the soul is ascertained to be identical with Brahman, and it is realized to be free from the dealing consequent on the dream and wakeful states. Hence the Self is the locus of Sleep.
[Translation: Swami Gambhirananda]
Here, what he is proposing is a specific explication of the idea that one should understand the Self as the locus of Sleep. By “locus,” it cannot mean localization but rather the unity of the individual self with the infinite is intended. The unity intended is not to be taken as the merger of two elements (individual soul and the infinite) but rather it should be taken as the ‘existence’ of non-dual existence alone.
This rules out that there is existence of any foreign element to the Self in Deep Sleep. By this, one should be able to intuit that what one takes as one of the states (i.e., one of the three states where one roams around) is not a state by itself but one’s own true nature bereft of misidentification with any upadhi (aggregates). It is seen to be so (as a state) due to the lack of proper and impartial analysis. This is a very remarkable point, so much so that if it is intuited outright, one can understand that what one takes oneself to be in the waking and dream states is just a façade, an ideational mask.
One might doubt that one’s identity with the Supreme Purusha may be vouchsafed in a state like Sushupti, but in the waking and dream states, as the differential state is again obtained, what fruit does it bear to understand that in Sushupti, one is ‘one’ with the Lord?
The answer is given in this sutra commentary by: jīvasya brahmātmatvāvadhāraṇaṃ svapnajāgaritavyavahāravimuktatvāvadhāraṇaṃ ca […the soul is ascertained to be identical with Brahman, and it is realized to be free from the dealing consequent on the dream and wakeful states.]. It is not just in Deep Sleep but in all states that the soul is ascertained to be identical with Brahman; however, due to ‘ignorance’ of this fact, one subscribes to opposite ideas. This very investigation, in this manner, first of all shows that the true nature of oneself is what is obtained in Sleep.
Now, when one comes to understand that one’s natural stand is that of Sleep, one will naturally drop off the idea of Sleep as a state. Any other concepts, like the seed-form of the universe or the potency of ignorance, cannot be available in the Sleep state if one looks into it abandoning the conceptual framework which is available only in waking or dream. Deep Sleep is the state where the alleged individual self merges into Pure Consciousness.
It may happen in two ways:
i. The individual self gets completely dissolved in Deep Sleep, or
ii. The individual self, along with the Waking state, gets temporarily merged in the Self but retains its potentiality to manifest in the future.
The idea of recurrence of the waking state is overwhelmingly potent, as that seems to be universal experience. Taking this into consideration, the next Sutra declares: ataḥ prabodho’smāt (3.2.8 ). [Translation: For the same reason, the soul’s waking up is from this supreme self.]
Shankara comments in the following manner:
यस्माच्च आत्मैव सुप्तिस्थानम् अत एव च कारणात् नित्यवदेव अस्मादात्मनः प्रबोधः स्वापाधिकारे शिष्यतेकुत एतदागात् इत्यस्य प्रश्नस्य प्रतिवचनावसरे यथाग्नेः क्षुद्रा विस्फुलिङ्गा व्युच्चरन्त्येवमेवास्मादात्मनः सर्वे प्राणाः इत्यादिनासत आगम्य न विदुः सत आगच्छामहे ||. इति च। विकल्प्यमानेषु तु सुषुप्तिस्थानेषु कदाचिन्नाडीभ्यः प्रतिबुध्यते कदाचित्पुरीततः कदाचिदात्मनः इत्यशासिष्यत्। तस्मादप्यात्मैव सुप्तिस्थानमिति।।
Translation: Since the Self itself is the locus of Sleep, therefore, for that very reason, it is taught in the context of sleep that wakefulness occurs invariably from this Self, by the texts, “As from a fire tiny sparks fly in all directions, so from the Self emanate all organs” (Br. II. i. 20), etc., said in the course of the answer to the question, “Whence did it come?” (Br. II. i. 16). This is done also by the text, “We have come from Existence'” (Ch. IV. X. 2). Had the loci of sleep been but optional, the Upanishad would have instructed that the soul wakes up sometimes from the nerves, sometimes from the puritat, and sometimes from the Self. From this also follows that the Self is the locus of Sleep.
[Translation: Swami Gambhirananda.]
From this, we can draw two ideas without any doubt:
- All empirical phenomena—namely the waking (jāgrat) and dreaming (svapna) states—are understood within Advaita Vedānta to originate from the ground of Deep Sleep (suṣupti). From the perspectival framework (dṛṣṭi) of these very states seeking self-explanation, suṣupti functions as the sole vyavahārika (provisional/conventional) causal principle capable of accounting for their apparent emergence. This attribution of origination is accepted and employed provisionally to direct the student’s (sādhaka) attention towards the non-dual substratum (adhiṣṭhāna/reality) mistakenly apprehended as a ‘source’.
- The assertion that “in Deep Sleep, there is nothing other than Pure Existence-Consciousness (sat-cit)” signifies, paramārthataḥ (ultimately), that no distinct ontological state called suṣupti exists independently. The term “Deep Sleep” itself constitutes loka-buddhi-anuvāda—a pedagogical concession to conventional understanding (vyāvahārika-pratyaya) for the purpose of communication (upadeśa), mirroring the ignorant standpoint (ajñāni-dṛṣṭi) it seeks to dismantle. Consequently, when the Sūtrakāra (Bādarāyaṇa) and Bhāṣyakāra (Śaṅkara) designate the Self (Ātman) as the locus (adhiṣṭhāna) of sleep, their intent (tātparya) is precisely to identify suṣupti itself as the Self (Ātman eva suṣuptiḥ). This identification holds true only insofar as “Sleep” is recognized as a merely conceptual (vācārambhaṇam) designation for the Self (Ātman)—a designation arising solely from erroneous cognition (mithyā-jñāna) or misapprehension (adhyāsa) within the relative standpoint.
Then, what is the purpose of analyzing Deep Sleep?
The first and foremost is to show that Deep Sleep is pure consciousness, as it is bereft of all upadhis. Secondly, it is to cognize the true identity of the separate self with Pure Consciousness itself.
By positing Sleep as the source of the two remaining states, the Sutrakara outright declares that these two states do not have any independent reality of themselves but are rather derivatives and dependent on another source for their existence.
The waking consciousness is just a superimposing idea upon the pure Self as obtained in Deep Sleep. Therefore, this ‘waker’ (individual self) is just a pratiti (semblance) of the pure Self, a mistaken idea, natural it may seem, but due to adhyasa. The sole purpose of teaching Deep Sleep in the Sastras is to show this case.
It will be a wrong approach if one takes that Sleep is invariably Brahman but now “I have submerged in this duality due to my previous karmas, etc.” What the Sastra is teaching, in contrast, is that “I am the same as in deep sleep”: i.e., Pure, Unrelated, Unborn, and non-dual. The cause of this duality is an incidental factor which is not natural to my true nature. This is the acme for the falsification of any wrong notion and is subservient to the perfect identity with the Reality.