1.  Mahadevan, T.M.P. The Panchadasi of Bharatitirtha Vidyaranya. Madras; University of   Madras, 1969. This book presents an interpretative exposition of Pancadasi of Bharatitirtha Vidyaranya. The author explained the Vedanta philosophy as described in Pancadasi. It is very helpful and provide guidance to understand the philosophy of Advaita. Several phrases have been quoted here which were relevant to the study.

2. Madhavananda, Swami. The Brahadaranyaka Upanishad with Commentary of Sankaracharya. Almora; Advait Ashram. This book is translation by Swami Madhavananda of the Brahadaranyaka Upanishad with Commentry of Sankaracharya. To understand the nature of consciousness it is very important to refer to the Urahadarnyaka Upanishad. The author used easy vocabulary to explain the verse of the Upanishad. Relevant parts to the study have been quoted.

3. Gambhirananda, Swami, Brahma-Sutra-Bhasya of Sri Shankaracharya. Kolkata; Swami Bodhsarananda, 1965. This book is translation of the Brahma-Sutra-Bhasya of Sri Shankaracharya. To understand the Advaita view of brahma it is necessary to understand Brahma-Sutra-Bhasya of Shankaracharya. Relevant phrases have been quoted for better understanding of the study.

In Advaita philosophy consciousness is the nature of the soul (Atman). Consciousness is reality and pure consciousness has been considered as Brahman. According to Shankara Brahman is existence (sat), consciousness (chit), and bliss (ananda). Brahman is the ground of all creation. The consciousness is presupposed for all form of knowledge. “Existence, consciousness and bliss are not parts of Brahman, or its attributes; they constitute its essential nature (svarupa). They are not separate constituents: existence is consciousness and consciousness is bliss. It is because the world of plurality is characterised by impermanence, inertness, disvalue that in order to distinguish the non-dual Brahman from the world that Brahman is said to be existence, consciousness, and bliss. In Brahmans essential nature, however, there is no distinction. Brahman is free from any of the three kinds of differences, sajatiya, vijatiya and svagata.”[1] In Upanishad, it is found that, consciousness has been explained through the clarification of the actual nature of the soul. The word ‘Consciousness’ has been used as alternative of the soul, pure consciousness, Brahman etc. All these terms are different from the empirical understanding of the soul. It is repeated numerous times in various ways that ‘All this is Brahman’ (sarvam khalvidam brahman). According to this statement the world which appears to be real in ordinary perception is completely dependent for its being on Brahman. In early Upanishad there are three categories of phenomenal states of consciousness waking (jagrata), dream (svapna), deep sleep (susupti) along with the fourth state (turiya) which is pure consciousness or the self (Atman) as described in the Mandukya Upani shad. In the waking state “the self appears to have mental and physical limitations (upadhi) on a gross (sthula) “objective” level. Here, more than in any state, there is superimposition of unreal conditions on reality. In dream state, physical and gross spatiotemporal limitations disappear, yet the subtle (suksma) mental bondage to wishes, beliefs, and desires (collectively called vasana) still exists. As with waking, one remains in the realm of cause and effect, enjoyer and enjoyed. And in the deep sleep state, gross and subtle limitations are unknown; one rests in pure Self-awareness, full of bliss (ananda), and without any superimposition. Susupta appears in the latent or causal (karana) condition, without effects and not an effect. The sleep form is most like the self in its true nature.[2] In the ‘turiya’ state there is no conscious of internal or external object. The state of ‘Turiya’ does not admit of description or indication by means of words, for all uses of language fails to express it. Therefore, Turiya is indicated by the negation of all attributes.[3] In Upanishad we can find the same point described as “not this, nor this”(neti neti).[4]  Because all phenomenal distinctions depend on Brahman, they cannot be used to provide sufficient meaning to define it.

Advaitins use the word Atman to refer phenomenal consciousness of the world and the word Brahman to refer to the purely transcendental consciousness. Shankara says in Brihadaranyak Upanishad Bhasya that pure consciousness has no distinguishing mark such as name, or form, or action, or heterogeneity, or species, or qualities. Consciousness transcends the duality between the knower and the object of knowledge which characterises cognitive activity, the essential nature of consciousness is self-revelation. Because the essential nature of consciousness is self-revealing they argues that it can be known directly and immediately to be the identity of existence, knowledge and infinity (satyam, gyanam, anantam). To establish the relation between Reality (Brahman) and the phenomenal world Advaitins introduced the concept of Maya. Maya is said to be the power of Brahma by which Brahman is concealed and at the same time by its distortion, in the form of the apparent world, appears. According to Advatins phenomenal world is the creative power (maya) of Brahman and Brahman with creative power is called Isvara. In the epistemology of Shankara, he correlates the ontological distinction between Brahman and the phenomenal world following Upanishadik passage by saying that there are two kinds of knowledge (vidya) to be attained, the higher (para) and the lower (apara). Sankara says “This Atman in the form of consciousness, is the lower Brahman, called Hiranyagarbha or Prana, the living principle of all bodies, that has entered into the conditions of the mind like the image of the Sun reflected on various water. ….Pragya is consciousness, that is Brahman. ….Wisdom is the basis of all the universe. Therefore wisdom is Brahman.”[5] According to Advaitin higher knowledge is the awareness of the identity of the knowing subject with reality itself. Therefore, the essence of the knowing subject is realised to be identical with the essence of the objective world in higher knowledge and knowledge and reality, epistemology and metaphysics merge in non-duality here. All the reality is known when the essence of the knowing subject, the self (Atman) is known. The lower knowledge (apara) is the knowledge of the objective world where subjective knowledge of reality is object. According to Advaitins although the absolute reality is the essence of the subject (Atman), but, because of ignorance (avidya) the actual nature of   individual self is superimposed (adhyasa) and it appeared to be object of knowledge. According to Shankara superimposition is “an awareness, similar to the nature of memory, that irises on a different (foreign) basis as a result of some past experience.”[6] To explain superimposition Shankara gives example of rope and snake. In several occasions we experience snake in the place of a rope. This happens due to a rope which is immediately present to the consciousness appears to be a snake. Because we superimpose the characteristics of a snake which we remember from previous experience on the rope. Therefore, according to Advaitins the phenomenal world including the individual self is superimposition. Transcendentally there is only pure consciousness of absolute reality, Brahman.

So here we can find that according to Advaitik there is clear distinction between absolute or pure consciousness (sakshi chaitanya) and phenomenal or modified consciousness (vritti chaitanya) of the world. According to Shankara consciousness is awareness, intelligence or knowledge. When consciousness exists eternally as Brahman, it is identical with reality itself and conceived as pure knowledge. To explain pure knowledge Shankara gives an example that ‘A lump of salt dropped into water, its cause, dissolves with the dissolution of (its component) water. The solidification of a lump through its connection with particles of earth and heat goes when the lump comes in contact with water, its cause. This is the dissolution of (the component) water and along with it the lump of salt is said to be dissolved. No one, not even an expert, is able to pick it up as before.”[7] In the same way ‘when the separate existence has entered and been merged in its cause, in other words, when the differences created by ignorance are gone, the universe becomes one without a second, ‘the great reality’.’[8] Thus we can find that according to Upanishad pure consciousness cannot be known as an object although it is involved in every act of knowing. So here we can find some radical ontological discontinuity here, which is corresponding to the previously mentioned Advaitik contradictions between absolute and phenomenal reality, higher and lower knowledge, and the ultimate freedom associated with knowledge and the bondage of action.

This distinction is different from any other types of dualism we find in Indian or Western philosophical though. According to Sankhya Philosophy we can find that there is an ultimate dualism presented between the soul (purusa) or absolute consciousness, and matter (prakriti) including phenomenal consciousness. Here soul has been accepted as eternally isolated, and the phenomenal consciousness of mater is categorised as its reflection. This distinction is not equivalent to the distinction of Advaita philosophy. Because the modified phenomenal consciousness of matter in Sankhya is as ontologically real as pure consciousness itself. In western philosophical thought we can find that dualism of mind and matter is common problem there. Mind and matter have been considered as opposite in nature. For example, in case of metaphysical dualism of Descartes there is no suggestion for ontological distinction between mind or mental substance and activities of mind or the attributes of mental substance. But in case of Advait philosophy the radical discontinuity between absolute and phenomenal consciousness we can find that there is no duality. Here pure consciousness persists as the underlying, unifying and intelligent ground of all phenomenal state of consciousness. “It is like a thread that courses through and holds together a collection of pearls”[9] but they are not identical.

Another distinctive nature of consciousness of Advaitin is its hierarchical nature. We can find that this type of hierarchical vision of consciousness has been presented in Upanishads also by numerous examples. Consciousness has been categorised according to their degree of purity and intelligence. For example, in the Chandogya Upanishad consciousness which is identified with the waking, dream and deep sleep state of experience is in actuality Atman or pure consciousness itself. Pure consciousness remains unaffected throughout all empirical states of experience. ‘He who is conscious is the self.’[10] Similarly, in Taittiriya Upanishad we can find that ‘the essence of Atman revealed trough the intensification of consciousness. It begins with the physical body and the reflection or thought (tapas), then it moves through the vital force of life (prana), then the sense mind (manas) and the understanding (vijnana) and culminates in bliss (Ananda), or the state in which there is no lack of value, no duality and no limitation.’[11] In Mandukya Upanishad we find that along with waking, dreaming and deep sleeping there is a fourth state of consciousness (Turiya), which is freedom itself, are identified as the four quarters of the self (Atman) or pure consciousness. Here consciousness is said to the witness which underlies the first three states of experience and remains unaffected as it moves through them. These three states are ranked hierarchically according to the subtlety of their respective object of experience. According to the increasing purification and intensification of consciousness each state demonstrates in its function as an enjoyer. This hierarchical classification of consciousness in phenomenal states of experience, probably, is the most complete statement.  

This hierarchical treatment of consciousness is as integral to the spiritual goal of Advaitik thought as it is to the inner workings of the philosophy of the non-duality itself.  In spite of the importance of this hierarchy, however, no amount of discriminative knowledge can bridge the discontinuity between relational and non-relational or absolute knowledge. But this is not to deny that there are stages in the path of Gyan-yoga, i.e. in the de-superimposition of the self and the non-self. As Sankara says, It is true that the Atman which is the object of knowledge is without parts; but as people have superimposed upon it several things consisting of parts such as the body, the sense, the mind, the intellect, the objects of the senses, and the accompanying pleasure and pain, the method of realising its real nature would be to discard one after another the superimposed on it, by successive act of attention. Thus, we may have the various stages in the realisation of the Atman. At the final stage of this process, then, the phenomenal world completely cancels itself and the self-revealing knowledge of Brahma is realised.

If we compare the Advaitik distinction regarding level of conscious, it can be noticed clearly that it is different from all other hierarchical vision of reality of all other system of thought. The theory of radical discontinuity of consciousness can be found only in Advaita philosophy. ‘For other hierarchies rest on the quantitative ordering of certain shared or common qualities, while Sankara’s hierarchy is based precisely upon the claim that no common quality can be found in terms of which the different orders can be quantified or related. Let us look, for example, at the Neoplatonic hierarchy of being. Plotinus’ transcendent and overwhelming One or God is in itself beyond all qualifications of thought and is in this sense similar to Sankar’s Brahman. However, Plotinus also speaks of the One as “the principle of all things” which , according to the peculiar process he calls “emanation”,remain unaffected and unchanged as decreasing levels of being and intelligence, or consciousness, from nous to the world-soul, to individual human souls and finally to matter, proceed from it. Thus, while Plotinus’ Reality, or God, is not limited by any quality, he maintains that the qualities whose gradual diminishment determine the order of his hierarchy of being nevertheless are potentially in, and emerge from, God. In this sense Plotinus treats the lower levels of his hierarchy as the manifestation of the positive qualities which are latent in his highest principle. As opposed to this, Sankara’s empirical reality is discussed in terms of qualities which are diametrically opposed to, or radically discontinues with, Brahman. As Sankara says, the Self and the not-Self are so opposed in nature to each other like light and darkness that they can never be identical.’[12]

Similarly, the Nature of Sankara’s hierarchy can be distinguished from the hierarchy of monads found in Leibniz’s pluralistic philosophy. For the levels of Sankara’s hierarchy share no common qualities, while Leibniz distinguishes his multiplicity of real and independent substance, or monads, qualitatively, i.e., in terms of the degree of perception and appetition which each possesses. According to Leibniz principle of the identity of indiscernible, the qualitative difference between monads comprises the necessary and sufficient condition for distinguishing between substance. Clearly, this hierarchy would be unintelligible unless each monad was capable of participating to a different degree in the shared criterial qualities.[13]

Given the radical discontinuity between absolute and modified reality in Advaitic thught, one might object that Sankaras attempt to establish a hierarchical relationship between the absolute and relative levels as well as within the relative level itself is contradictory, if not absurd. However, to arrive at this conclusion would be to misunderstand the unique way in which Sankara uses discontinuity itself as a hierarchical criterion. For as radical discontinuity serves to distinguish Brahman from the world, so the criterion used to distinguish the waking state from dream and the dream state from deep sleep is precisely the relative discontinuity existing between them. For example, the intentional perception of gross material objects and the confinement of experience to the conditions of space and time, both of which characterize waking experience, are absent in the dream state. Further, the duality between subject and object and the desire and consequent frustration which characterise the previous two levels of experience are no longer present in the deep sleep state. And in both the cases, the discontinuity which distinguishes one level of relative consciousness from another is analogous to the radical discontinuity which serves to distinguish modifified and bound from pure and absolute consciousness. That the basic hierarchical criterion is discontinuity should come as no surprise, moreover, for Sankara’s criterion of reality and truth is non-contradiction.[14]

Thus, it would not be inaccurate to say that dream sublates the waking state of experience and deep sleep sublates the dream state, and that these relative discontinuities we get a suggestion or hint of the radical ontological discontinuity that distinguishes worldly experience from liberation. But the Upanishadic texts and the Advaitic system based upon them are complex and at times inconsistent. And while the Advaitin argues for additional criteria in terms of which to establish his hierarchy of consciousness, he also presents alternate hierarchies which, for example, treat waking experience as paradigmatic of the sublation of the content of the dream state. Advaitic philosophy and its theory of consciousness concludes with a few remarks concerning the implication of the Advaitin’s hierarchical vision. It has been claimed that Sankara’s hierarchical approach to the distinction between practical reality and Brahman, as well as with respect to levels within practical reality, is the manifestation of a “practical and synthesizing tendency to Advaita” which has contributed much to its historical success by allowing the Advaitin to accept “all philosophical and religious views as well as ritual and social practice.”[15]