Nisargadatta sometimes made an artificial distinction between awareness and Consciousness, sometimes calling the distinction as Witness or the Absolute versus the Manifest, the world, or the body. I understand the why of that distinction because we all "appear" to experience a witness in our experience, witnessing our minds, thoughts, our bodies, and the world.
Nisargadatta posits the I Am sensation (not the I-thought) as being the intermediary between the Absolute and all appearances, and says we (the Witness, the doer) should rest our awareness on the I Am sensation as a focal point, and awareness will reveal the I Am sensation (and idea) to be the Self (the Atman or Manifest Self), which eventually will dissipate, leaving only One, where there no longer is an identification with the I Am, with the Self (Atman) or the experience of a separate Witness or Absolute. There no longer is any sense of separation, or even an I am everything experience; identification disappears.
Here one can say everything is Shakti, or Brahman, or Consciousness; the words used make no difference, because at this point you are no longer moving anywhere. You are everything, all motion, without desire, without any preferred direction or goal. You are unmoved and unmoving with absolutely no detachment or attachment to anything happening within or without, leaving one in the most exquisite state of subtle bliss, and utter, utter peace.