<p>This article thinks with Miri Albahari, Ramakrishna Puligandla, A. G. Javadekar, Martine Nida-Rümelin, Swami Medhananda, the Kashmir Śaiva, Sri Rāmakṛṣṇa, and Swami Vivekānanda. It also thinks against, and hopefully beyond, several of them. The <i>Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad</i> teaches that consciousness has four forms: waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep, and <i>turīya</i> (the fourth). Albahari and Puligandla maintain that mystics in <i>turīya</i> experience their identity with ultimate absolute reality. They claim that this mystical experience corroborates the ontology of Advaita Vedānta, according to which ultimate reality is impersonal, only ultimate reality is real, and conventional reality is nonreal. Javadekar also accepts the Advaita ontology, but he denies that mystical experience corroborates it. While Nida-Rümelin argues that phenomenal consciousness always is intentional, Albahari and Puligandla would gainsay that. Although Albahari can rebut Medhananda’s two criticisms of her position, her rebuttal of his first criticism is overcome by refiguring it. Albahari, Puligandla, and Javadekar would agree that mystics nonintentionally experience ultimate reality as impersonal. However, some mystics report experiencing ultimate reality either as personal or as simultaneously impersonal and personal. Further, the Kashmir Śaiva, Rāmakṛṣṇa, and Vivekānanda describe yet another kind of mystical experience that incorporates and encompasses all other kinds. This article designates <i>pañcama</i> (the fifth) as the form of consciousness that encompasses <i>turīya</i>.</p>