It is not Ameyatma who is saying this but the vedas...
Prajnanam Brahma. (Aitareya Upanishad 3.1.3) --Brahman is pure consciousness.
Please put it in context and what do you get...
It is not that which is conscious of the internal subjective world, nor that which is conscious of the external world, nor that which is conscious of both,nor that which is a mass of consciousness, nor that which is simple consciousness, nor is it unconsciousness. Mandukya Upanishad Verse 7
Consciousness which is trapped by an inward or outward idea or object due to intense desire or raag-dvesh (craving-aversion) is obviously impure consciousness with vasanas or psychological impressions.
So you can see that in context, Shankara is saying that the grosser, impure desire-filled consciousness
is not essentially Brahman or Turiya .
In this regard, Shankaracharya had also stated the following...
'Evil arises from the senses pursuing sense-objects.Wherefore that individual's knowledge (awareness) is steady whose senses have been restrained from sense-objects in all forms, subjective and objective.' ~ Adi Shankaracharya
It is unseen by any sense-organ, beyond empirical dealings, incomprehensible by the mind, uninferable,
unthinkable, indescribable, essentially by of the Self alone, negation of all phenomena, the peaceful,
the auspicious and the nondual. This is what is considered as the Fourth (Turiya). This is the Atman
and this is to be realised.[ remaining part o Mandukya Upanishad Verse 7 ]
The upanishadic verse says that Turiya is Atman, and Turiya is but pure consciousness.
Turiya - Wikipedia
This is a huge contradiction to your earlier statement...
I am not being critical but pointing facts. Your knowledge is good for a 23 year old, probably due to
past life positive impressions or sanskars, but you need to fine-tune and sharpen your understanding, and the likes of Atanu, Ameyatma, Tattvaprahav, Sayak, Salix, Martin here in this forum can help you achieve the same.
Sweet regards and well-wishes.
Greetings Ajay. Those English translation is not right. Sorry, if that is to be taken as base, I'm out of this discussion.
But, if you really want right translation, let us translate those verse word by word from Sanskrit to English. Are you ready for that??
Nantaprajnam - NOT Conscious of Internal World (psych or Thoughts or Dreams),
na bahiḥprajñaṃ - NOT Conscious of External World (Physical or Wakeful),
nabhayataḥprajñaṃ - NOT Conscious of BOTH (internal and External, Psych or Physical),
na prajñānaghanaṃ - NOT Indifferentiated Mass of Consciousness (like Sleeping Blissful/Satchitananda/sense of "I AM" where no division),
na Prajnam - Neither Consciousness
na Aprajnam - Nor Unconsciousness
adṛśyam - Invisible,
avyavahāryam - cannot be transacted with or cannot be dealt/business with,
agrāhyam - Non-perceivable (there is no Sanskrit word said here for senses),
alakṣaṇam - No behavior or No symptoms or No character,
acintyam - Unthinkable (cannot be grasped by thought)
avyapadeśyam - Indescribable
ekātmapratyayasāraṃ - Essence of the Belief in 'One Atma'
prapañcopaśamaṃ - Cessation of the Universe (negation of all)
śāntaṃ - Peace
śivam - Auspicious/Eternal/Unlimited
advaitaṃ - Non-dual
caturthaṃ manyante - known as 4th
sa ātmā sa vijñeyaḥ - THIS is to be KNOWN as SELF.
Just a word "Prajna", implies "Pure Consciousness" in "Prajnanam Brahman", and the same word "Prajna" implies only "simple consciousness but not pure" in Mandukya, is all a play with words Shankara did.
But, if you want to really decode that verse, you may also neglect my translation, and you yourself try it translating.
Not only here, even in Brahma sutras, Shankara played a lot.
But, he did it as duty to bring back "non-self" thing in the nation to "self". Fine. But it is not right translation. Every words simply means things, and nothing complex situations/perceptions is said. Simple. Isn't it?