Consciousness in Philosophy of Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Dvaita and Śaivism with synoptic view of other philosophical traditions
By Sushim Dubey
Summary
Sushim Dubey compares the concept of consciousness across major Indian philosophical schools. He begins with Advaita Vedānta, which posits that Brahman, the ultimate reality, is pure consciousness. In this non‑dual view, the individual self (jīva) and the world are illusory appearances of the same underlying consciousness; liberation comes from realising this identity. Dubey then explores Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta, where Ramanuja teaches that Brahman is qualified by attributes and that individual souls and the world are real but dependent on God. Consciousness here is not undifferentiated but part of a personal relationship between the individual and the divine. Dvaita Vedānta, advanced by Madhva, is examined next; it asserts a fundamental dualism between God and the soul. Consciousness, in this view, is the intrinsic property of individual souls that remain eternally distinct from the supreme being. Dubey also discusses Śaiva traditions, particularly those of Kashmir, where consciousness is identified with Śiva. The dynamic interplay of consciousness (cit) and energy (śakti) creates the universe, and liberation involves recognising one’s identity with this cosmic consciousness. After outlining these systems, Dubey offers a synoptic view of other traditions such as Sāṅkhya, Yoga, Nyāya and Buddhism. He notes that while Sāṅkhya separates puruṣa (consciousness) from prakṛti (matter), Yoga emphasises the discipline needed to realise the puruṣa. Nyāya treats consciousness as a quality of the self that becomes manifest through contact with sense objects, whereas Buddhist schools often deny a permanent self and see consciousness as a stream of momentary events. Throughout, Dubey highlights both convergences and divergences, arguing that the Indian philosophical tradition offers a rich spectrum of theories about consciousness. He suggests that modern debates on mind and consciousness can benefit from engaging with these classical perspectives.
Conclusion
Dubey’s comparative survey underscores that Indian thinkers developed multiple sophisticated theories of consciousness. Whether conceived as non‑dual, qualified, dualistic or dynamic, consciousness remains central to questions of reality and liberation. Appreciating this plurality can broaden contemporary discourse on the nature of mind.