Just as in deep sleep nothing is seen because the mind sleeps, so in samādhi, when contemplating, nothing exists then.

The comparison between deep sleep (suṣupti) and samādhi is a commonplace in yogic literature, but here it receives a particularly clear formulation. The point is not to say that samādhi is like sleeping—in fact, the Kaṭha Upaniṣad and later Śaṅkara insist that a sleeper does not know Brahman—but rather to isolate a structural aspect: the absence of an object.

In deep sleep, there are no objects because the instrument of objectification is inactive. In samādhi, there are no objects because the subject-object dichotomy has dissolved into their common source. The crucial difference is that in suṣupti there is latent avidyā, seeds of ignorance that will reactivate projection upon waking. In samādhi there is prajñā, direct wisdom which, upon returning, does not reinstall duality but operationally transcends it. This is the difference between a mukta and a sleeper: both are without objects, but one knows it.

The comparison between deep sleep (supti) and samādhi is a common theme in yogic literature, but here it receives a particularly clear formulation. The point is not to say that samādhi is like sleeping—in fact, the Kaṭha Upaniṣad and later Śaṅkara insist that a sleeper does not know Brahman—but rather to isolate a structural aspect: the absence of an object.

In deep sleep there are no objects because the instrument of objectification is inactive. In samādhi there are no objects because the subject-object division has dissolved into their common source. The crucial difference is that in supti there is latent avidyā, seeds of ignorance that will reactivate projection upon waking. In samādhi there is prajñā, direct wisdom which, upon returning, does not reinstall duality but operationally transcends it. This is the difference between a mukta and a sleeper: both are without objects, but one knows it.