According to the Samkhya tradition, there are many individual consciousnesses. Samkhya cites the existence of the multiplicity of lives and deaths, and the necessity of each life having "its own organizing consciousness" as part of the evidence to support this doctrine (Chapple 2). Moreover, it is evident that individuals are pursuing their own agendas "in their own spheres" (Chapple 2). Individuals also exhibit different combinations of the three gunas, which are constituents of prakriti, unconscious matter, to so speak (Chapple 2). All this tends to support a view that there are many different individual consciousnesses, according to the Samkhya analysis.

The Advaita Vedanta tradition would vehemently disagree with the Samkhya analysis. In the Advaita tradition, the only consciousness that truly exists is Brahman. Reality is, according to Advaita, "that which is the content of non-dual spiritual experience. It is the timeless, unconditioned, undifferentiated oneness of being. The Real is (nirguna [unqualified]) Brahman." [emphasis mine] (Deutsch 19) It is evident that the Advaitin believes that there is only one consciousness, and this consciousness is the ultimate reality.

The Shaiva would concur with the Advaitin’s monism. As David Lawrence succinctly puts it, according to Monistic Kashmiri Shaivism, "...all experience is a single process of recognition by a cosmic subject...[which is] God/Siva." [emphasis mine] (Lawrence 21) Thus, in the Shaiva viewpoint, there is only one supreme consciousness .


Genuine Limitations to Consciousness?

It has already been mentioned that in Samkhya ontology there exists prakriti, a nonconscious aspect of reality. Prakriti also spawns a plethora of particular nonconscious entities, such as gunas, budhi, sense organs, elements, and whatnot (Chapple 2,3). Thus the implication here is that consciousness does not permeate all of reality. However, in the Samkhya Karika purusha, consciousness, is described as "all-pervasive" (Moksha 1). Thus it is not clear, at least in this analysis, how to characterize the limits, if any, of consciousness in the Samkhya system.

In Advaita Vedanta, the Real is only Brahman (Deutsch 19). Brahman pervades and is all that is real. Brahman, which is pure consciousness, is even maya, illusion, in the sense that maya "is that mysterious power of Brahman that deludes us into taking the empirical world as reality." (Deutsch 30). However, it must be noted that from the perspective of one who has attained saccidananda, the experience of Brahman, one is only aware of an unqualified oneness, and thus is not aware of maya (Deutsch 26).

The Shaivite position is probably the most clear. The Shaiva asserts that all "things," all actions, all thoughts, all feelings, any and all that one can conceive of and beyond, all of such are acts of self-recognition (Lawrence 96). The cosmic consciousness which is Shiva is identical with everything.


Is Consciousness a Single or Differentiated Reality?

Citing verse 10 of the Samkhya Karika, Chapple states that Samkhya describes consciousness as "uncaused, infinite, all-pervasive, inactive, single, unsupported, nonmergent, not made of parts, and independent [emphasis mine]" (Chapple 2). Samkhya upholds the oneness of consciousness.

As is evident in earlier citations, the Advaitin would heartily agree with Samkhya on this issue. "Brahman for the Advaita Vedanta, is a name for that fullness of being which is the "content" of non-dualistic spiritual experience: an experience in which all distinctions between subject and object are shattered and in which remains only a pure, unqualified "oneness."" (Deutsch 13) Not only is an aspect of the Advaita Vedanta view of consciousness is that it is single, non-dual; this doctrine is virtually the essence of Advaita Vedanta.

This time it is the Shaiva that responds in a more complicated manner. Consciousness, Shiva asserts, unites all things by being identical to all things (Lawrence 102). At the same time but in a different respect, things qua emanations of Shiva exist as a multiplicity (Lawrence 102). The Shaiva does not deny, at least in one sense, the reality of the experience of many diverse objects of cognition. Nonetheless all these experiences are united by all being instances of Shiva’s self-recognition. The Shiava cites some paradoxes, such as the movements of a dancer, the waves of an ocean, and so forth to show that multiplicity and unity do not necessarily contradict one another (Lawrence 105). Thus consciousness is a differentiated and single consciousness.


Does Consciousness "Do" Anything?

The Samkhya tradition asserts that purusha is by nature inactive (Chapple 2). Consciousness only seems to be involved in activity because of prakriti, manifested as budhi, intellect, causes one to think that the "gyrations" of the gunas are committed by what is really "still" purusha (Chapple 2).

The Advaitin would in a sense agree with Samkhya. However, the Advaitin reply would go even further and say that the concept of "doing," and even "not-doing," is not applicable to Brahma, because they are terms that qualify, while nirguna Brahman, ultimate Brahman, is unqualified.

The Shaiva upholds the opposite position. As stated before, Shaiva and His self-recognition is identical with all "things" in the broadest sense of the term (Lawrence 121). Thus, in short, the supreme consciousness is very active indeed.


Does One Already Know the True Nature of Consciousness?

Samkhya asserts that "few people see pure consciousness as distinct from the manifest and unmanifest forms of prakriti." (Chapple 3) Purusha is one’s pure consciousness. In Samkhya, the budhi, or intellect that arises from prakriti, the nonconscious, subsequently creates ahamkara, the I-Maker, the ego (Chapple 3). One becomes deluded into thinking that one’s consciousness is identical with the ego, but of course the ego is ultimately unconscious. To compound the problem, the budhi also attributes the actions of the guna’s to be the action of purusha, another falsehood (Chapple 3). Thus it is evident that one does not initially know one’s true nature of consciousness.

The Advaitin would agree with Samkhya on this issue. The Advaitin however, is not as specific about how one’s ignorance occurs. Advaita simply posits the broad category of maya, which is "all experience that is constituted by, and follows from, the distinction between subject and object, between self and non-self." (Deutsch 28) Maya is one’s failure to apprehend the oneness of all reality, and most of us are heavily under the influence of maya. Besides a select few mystics, we are ignorant of our true nature, the true nature of consciousness.

The Shaiva would fiercely disagree with the Samkhya and Advaita Vedanta assertions. Monistic Kashmiri Shaivism asserts that one is "really always aware of Himself as the Supreme Lord in a kind of immediate ‘a priori’ intuition." (Lawrence 47) Thus "each individual" (I put that in quotes because ultimately all individuals are united, according to the Shaiva) is actually already aware they he or she is the Lord Siva. This assertion seems to contradict one’s usual experience. Most people would say that they are certainly not aware that that he or she is the Lord Shiva. The Shaiva’s reply would be to firmly repeat that you already know that you are Shiva, only that you hold a false conception that you are not aware. The purpose of the Shaiva’s discourses is to remove this false conception (Lawrence 47).


Is Consciousness Knowable Through Reason?

In Samkhya, the answer is inclined toward the affirmative. One can ultimately discern the true nature of purusha by examining how the world manifests itself, and then, with that knowledge, reversing that world-manifesting process (Chapple 3). Also, inference is a pramana, a valid means of knowledge, in the Samkhya system (Chapple 4).

The Advaitin would disagree with Samkhya on this issue. Brahman, also called Atman simply "cannot be an object of thought, and it cannot be arrived at as the conclusion of a rational argument." (Deutsch 50) The Advaitin would affirm that, for the philosopher who is cognitively operating on the level of Appearance, the pramanas remain useful and valid (Deutsch 83). However, in order to achieve an awareness of Reality, of the supreme consciousness which is Atman, Brahman, one must abandon all things that imply a subject-object dualism, an implication necessarily found in the pramanas (Deutsch 83). Any such subject-object dualism, as stated earlier, is maya. Nonetheless, the Advaitin does proffer rational arguments (Deutsch 50), analogies, and elaborations on the analogies, to instead "awaken" one to "new possibilities of experience," namely, the experience of Brahman (Deutsch 94).

The Shaiva’s answer to this question is two-pronged. Agreeing in part with the Advaitin, the Shaiva asserts that Shiva "cannot be in any way an object of cognition." (Larwence 46) Thus knowledge of Shiva cannot be known through any of the the pramanas. However, paradoxically it seems at first, Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta, two prominent Shaivas, argue that instead that Shiva is the necessary foundation of all experiences and means of knowledge. Shiva is "the source and experient of all phenomena." (Lawrence 46) In other words, proof presupposes this consciousness which is Shiva, and the content of proof originates in Shiva. Thus in this way one is able to reason, in part, toward understanding one’s true consciousness.

Yet the Shaivas go even further. Utpaladeva’s and Abhinavagupta’s writings are designed to bring about the purification of the reader’s conceptualization (Lawrence 97). Because Shaivite doctrine asserts that all things and occurrences are all ultimately manifestations of Siva’s self-recognition, then the very philosophical inquiries written by the the Shaiva becomes "a tantric ritual that bestows salvation." (Lawrence 98) Reading the writings of Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta can be none other than a formal re-anactment of Shiva’s self-recognition in order for reader to attain that very same self-recognition!


Conclusion

Now the reader has a summary exposure on three theories of consciousness from Indian philosophy.