<blockquote>
<p><strong>I don't understand the emptiness that Buddhism gives to
consciousness.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The word 'emptiness' ('sunnata') means 'empty of self'.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>The Advaita vedanta teaches us that we are pure consciousness</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Buddhism teaches there is no &quot;we&quot; or &quot;self&quot; in pure consciousness.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>But Buddhism seems to indicate that there is no self at all, no conscience.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Conscience (moral sense of right and wrong) does not require a self.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>I find that illogical; who lives the Nirvana? Who's waking up?</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The mind (<em>citta</em>) abides in Nirvana; the mind (<em>citta</em>) wakes up.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>If there is no self, there is at least one conscious witness, one
spectator.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The mind is the witness &amp; spectator.</p>
<p>What is known as &quot;self&quot; is a product of thinking (thought fabrication) rather than of consciousness.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>There is the case where a person <strong>assumes</strong> form, feeling, perception, fabrications &amp;/or consciousness to be the <strong>self</strong>. <strong>That assumption is a fabrication</strong>. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that.</em></p>
<p><a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.081.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Parileyyaka Sutta</em></a></p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-17T01:42:41.437Z
I can only suggest to focus on the present rather than imagine things about the future that have not occurred (such as "left the mind"). This said, the mind attains nirvana, per Dhammapada 154.
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-12T06:05:55.430Z
2018-01-12T06:11:01.523Z
2020-06-17T09:56:10.877Z
Dhamma Dhatu
<p><strong>I find that illogical; who lives the Nirvana? Who's waking up? If there is no self, there is at least one conscience witness, one spectator.</strong></p>

<p>I think that Buddhism talks of several consciousnesses: for example, seeing a deer running would be "eye consciousness"; hearing a sound there will be "ear consciousness"; etc.</p>

<p>I think that grammar (language, or "logic" i.e. words) encourages reification, e.g. sentences are expected to have a verb, and verbs need a noun or pronoun as subject, e.g. "I run", "You run", etc. Some languages don't require that and might say something like "Running in the mountains" without being specific about who or what is running. Similarly I don't think it's necessary (except to be grammatical) to assume that when there's a verb (e.g. "seeing") there must be a reified subject, a who or what that is seeing.</p>

<p>Buddhism's reluctance to postulate a "self" is at least partly for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteriology#Buddhism" rel="nofollow noreferrer">soteriological</a> reasons, not metaphysical reasons -- e.g. according to the answers to <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/15898/254">this topic</a> it's because views-of-self result in suffering (or "are unsatisfying" or "are confusing" etc.).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-12T11:35:00.723Z
2018-01-12T11:42:06.640Z
2018-01-12T11:42:06.640Z
ChrisW
<p>I used to admire and subscribe to the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta which speaks of a universal consciousness.</p>

<p>Chuang Tzu once dreamt that he is a butterfly flying through a garden. When he woke up, he wondered whether Chuang Tzu dreamt that he is a butterfly, or whether the butterfly is dreaming that it is Chuang Tzu. The only thing common between the two is "I" (consciousness), hence this "I" must be the "permanent" thing?</p>

<p>There are many beings, but only one "I" (consciousness) according to Advaita. The "I" (consciousness) is identical between beings that Advaita says is the same Supreme Consciousness, that is the silent witness behind and beyond all beings. And this is also the Atman, the Self, which manifests as the Supreme Consciousness through all beings.</p>

<p>As nice as that sounds, when I read the Buddha's description of consciousness, it met my observation of my own consciousness more accurately than Advaita's.</p>

<p>From <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 38</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in
  dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood
  is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence
  on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that
  burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a
  fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a
  cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified
  simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is
  classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness
  is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which
  it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye &amp; forms
  is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises
  in dependence on the ear &amp; sounds is classified simply as
  ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose
  &amp; aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness
  that arises in dependence on the tongue &amp; flavors is classified simply
  as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on
  the body &amp; tactile sensations is classified simply as
  body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the
  intellect &amp; ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Think about it. How can the silent witness witness anything except through one of these media: eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind? There was never a time, when there was consciousness being aware of something except through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind. There is therefore no independent consciousness.</p>

<p>Consciousness is dependent on and conditioned upon these six media. It was a "aha" moment for me when I read that, and realized that the Buddha's analysis of consciousness is more accurate than Advaita's.</p>

<p>In terms of self, the Buddha never said that there is no self. There is a self. But this self is not permanent, not standalone. It arises by the inter-working of the five aggregates (form, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness). It is not independent. In normal day to day circumstances, there is obviously a self, but if you examine deeply, the five aggregates (and 
everything else) are themselves ultimately empty of a self.</p>

<p>From <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.038.niza.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 6.38</a> (shows that there is a self for all practical purposes):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>“So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring
  beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer,
  this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a
  doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving
  forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no
  self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>From <a href="http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=160" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dhammapada 160</a> (shows that you use your self to reach the fruit of liberation - arahatta phala):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>One indeed is one's own refuge; how can others be a refuge
  to one? With oneself thoroughly tamed, one can attain a refuge (i.e.,
  Arahatta Phala), which is so difficult to attain.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>From <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.010.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 44.10</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a
  self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming
  with those brahmans &amp; contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism
  [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being
  asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer
  that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans &amp;
  contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that
  death is the annihilation of consciousness]. <strong>If I — being asked by
  Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that
  there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of
  knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"</strong></p>
  
  <p>"No, lord."</p>
  
  <p>"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no
  self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered
  Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: <strong>'Does the self I used
  to have now not exist?'</strong>"</p>
</blockquote>

<p>From <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 2</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view
  arises in him: <strong>The view I have a self arises in him as true &amp;
  established, or the view I have no self</strong>... or the view It is precisely
  by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely
  by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is
  precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as
  true &amp; established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of
  mine — the knower that is sensitive here &amp; there to the ripening of
  good &amp; bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant,
  everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it
  is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of
  views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views.
  Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is
  not freed from birth, aging, &amp; death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, &amp; despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering &amp;
  stress.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-12T15:29:03.700Z
I like the metaphor of Chuang Tzu dreaming of butterfly since a little child. However, your *"There was never a time, when there was consciousness being aware of something except through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind"* this is but also isn't so. The Dhyana/Jhana practice, higher level is to shut down these. These are the limitations, instead. But Form, Sound, Smell, Taste, Sensation and Concepts are "materials" to build the "world", true.  -- Chinese Canon has Sutras explaint it, not sure the Pali Suttas though since I've not read the Agamas yet.
Mishu 米殊
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-12T07:37:02.393Z
2018-01-12T11:58:16.623Z
2018-01-12T11:58:16.623Z
ruben2020
<p>The sense of being present - pure, empty or bare awareness - arises and subsides.  That which is always already there to witness it arising is the Self.  The Self is not aware of itself, that is, it is never an object of its own awareness.  It simply is without effort, motion, form or characteristics of any kind. What we 'are' we are without any effort or doing on our part. I am that by which I know that I am, but I am never anything conceivable of perceivable.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-31T00:40:59.487Z
2018-01-31T00:40:59.487Z
David
<p>If you are looking for a logical breakdown of the "self" in Buddhism, then look no further than <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the Five Aggregates</a>. This wikipedia article however doesn't go into enough detail into the Volition aggregate (4th skandha). In Abhidhamma this skandha is broken down into 82 different factors... I'd recommend the book "How to Measure and Deepen Your Spiritual Realization" for a lucid, motivating rundown on it. The author references texts of all traditions including some vedanta.</p>

<p>I.e.: the "observer" is composed of multiple factors.</p>

<p>I also like Vedanta and you do not have to choose one or the other.
However, Buddhism is often more scientific in its analysis. Which is not to say that Vedanta is not the right energy for you and may definitely give you what is needed to Awaken. I certainly have Vedantic texts/commentary on my to-read list...</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-31T15:37:34.873Z
2018-01-31T15:37:34.873Z
Med
<p>You are thinking clearly. If there were no Atman (the consciousness principle), which is not a spatial being at all, no signals coming in through ANY of the sense organs would ever result in any perception at all. Light would fall on the eyes, but there would be no seeing. Sounds would enter the ear, but there would be no hearing. Sugar could be placed on your tongue, but nothing would be tasted. Someone could pinch you, but nothing would be felt. Fumes could enter the nose, but nothing would be smelled. It is because of the Atman aspect of matter that matter, in the form of organisms, could ever be sentient at all. No amount of totally unconscious matter could ever be arranged into an organism and then consciousness arises out of this dumb, dead stuff. It is only because consciousness (which has both a passive mode and active mode) pulsates and masquerades as matter itself (and may well start out relatively dumb, but not completely and utterly insentient), that your eyes see, ears hear, etc. This consciousness is ultimately unbound and free. Lastly, to any of you Buddhist critics (with the exception of many, but not all Dzogchen and Zen folks) who like to speak of grasping at a self, please take note of the following, which is a statement by Greg Goode, which I once read on some forgotten web forum, "The Self can't do grasping."</p>

<p>Furthermore, I would like to suggest that without the Atman, you would never have anything like a stable identity over time. With each passing moment, you would feel like a different person, but I trust that is not how you feel. I also reccomend looking into Pratyabhijna philosophy of Kashmir Shaivism.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-16T16:34:15.563Z
You wrote, "*without the Atman, you would never have anything like a stable identity over time*." When a person has an accident and injures his head, he may have a totally different identity or personality due to brain injury. Does that mean, his Atman has changed or become damaged?
ruben2020
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-22T16:03:28.013Z
I may have pushed things too far with that statement. It is conceivable, though, that the information (memories, skills, insights) underlying personality being expressed up until the time of brain injury remains intact, but cannot be accessed. Perhaps the brain and its states act as a filter for consciousness and that, at death, the information that the brain-damaged individual lost access to (including memory areas rendered inaccessible on account of brain injury) is present to him/her once again, as the self (or mindstream) leaves the body.
Innerfire81
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-22T16:09:17.363Z
As you may already know, there are numerous reports of veridical perceptions (i.e. later verified)  had by people who were in cardiac arrest and lacking brain activity.  Although I'm not yet prepared to say these are irrefutable proof of post-mortem survival, many cannot be proven to be the effect of physiological events.
Innerfire81
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-22T16:10:51.507Z
In any case, the real root SELF in itself is not a particular personality at all...It is the direct non-conceptual knowing of being and the witness of arising and passing of thoughts, feelings, body, and world, which, while not completely identical to the Self, are of the same essence of existence. It is the already existing consciousness aspect of existence that, together with the shaping influence of brain, body, and world, makes all the impermanent (and RELATIVELY stable) selves possible.
Innerfire81
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-16T15:54:16.987Z
2018-08-16T16:22:03.287Z
2018-08-16T16:22:03.287Z
Innerfire81
<p>If you want to know the truth about reality, you have to learn how to make impartial observations of nature. When you ask questions like "Who is waking up? Who is witnessing?", you have already made the assumption that there is an entity involved. The moment you do that, you drift away from reality and the experiment becomes biased. It's the same as asking "Who is making it rain? Who is making the sun rise from the east? Who is making the fruits fall to the ground?".</p>

<p>To take an example, if you impartially analyse the experience of seeing, you wouldn't be asking the question "who is seeing?". You would ask something like "what are the different aspects of seeing?". That question does not add anything assumed/fabricated/artificial to the test environment. Then you will notice a physical aspect and a mental aspect to the experience that took place. Physical aspect is the light, eye and the mental aspect is the awareness of it. Upon further investigation, you will notice that these experiences do not just happen magically. You will notice that they arise due to causes. You will notice that the awareness aspect of the experience is also something that arises due to causes and that it is impersonal.</p>

<p>Likewise, if you want to know reality, throw all of  the assumptions out of the window and take each experience as it is. If you do not hypothesize or fabricate, the truth will reveal itself.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-16T16:52:30.290Z
beautiful. And perfectly summarised the right Buddhist inquisitive spirit - the Viriya and the no need of any doctrine.
But when I study Advaitha Vedanta, my Vipassana becomes much more deeper and stronger.
lprsd
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-08-16T17:25:43.057Z
Advaitha Vedanta talks about a true soul and does not lead to understanding of reality.
Sankha Kulathantille
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-20T09:55:12.517Z
Sure. That helps to inspire me to work deeper.
lprsd
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-21T12:39:53.603Z
That doesn't make sense to me. But if you are inspired to practice proper Vipassana, it's good.
Sankha Kulathantille
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-12T07:14:48.443Z
2018-01-12T12:38:38.053Z
2018-01-12T12:38:38.053Z
Sankha Kulathantille
<p>I hesitate between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. 
Buddhism pleases me very much for its willingness to seek an end to suffering, being depressed it speaks to me a lot.
But intellectually, philosophically, I find the Advaita Vedanta logically more convincing.
I don't understand the emptiness that Buddhism gives to consciousness. 
The Advaita vedanta teaches us that we are pure consciousness, and that there is no self in the sense that we hear it. If Buddhism teaches that there is no self in this sense, I can understand it. But Buddhism seems to indicate that there is no self at all, no conscience.
I find that illogical; who lives the Nirvana? Who's waking up?
If there is no self, there is at least one conscience witness, one spectator.</p>

<p>You don't think so ?</p>

<p>Yours sincerely.</p>

<philosophy><anatman><self><comparative-religion><consciousness>
Hesitation between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta
# Hesitation between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-01-12)

I hesitate between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.
Buddhism pleases me very much for its willingness to seek an end to suffering, being depressed it speaks to me a lot.
But intellectually, philosophically, I find the Advaita Vedanta logically more convincing.
I don't understand the emptiness that Buddhism gives to consciousness.
The Advaita vedanta teaches us that we are pure consciousness, and that there is no self in the sense that we hear it. If Buddhism teaches that there is no self in this sense, I can understand it. But Buddhism seems to indicate that there is no self at all, no conscience.
I find that illogical; who lives the Nirvana? Who's waking up?
If there is no self, there is at least one conscience witness, one spectator.

You don't think so ?

Yours sincerely.

**Tags:** philosophy, anatman, self, comparative-religion, consciousness


---

## 7 answers

### Answer by username_8 on 2018-01-12. Score: 8

If you want to know the truth about reality, you have to learn how to make impartial observations of nature. When you ask questions like "Who is waking up? Who is witnessing?", you have already made the assumption that there is an entity involved. The moment you do that, you drift away from reality and the experiment becomes biased. It's the same as asking "Who is making it rain? Who is making the sun rise from the east? Who is making the fruits fall to the ground?".

To take an example, if you impartially analyse the experience of seeing, you wouldn't be asking the question "who is seeing?". You would ask something like "what are the different aspects of seeing?". That question does not add anything assumed/fabricated/artificial to the test environment. Then you will notice a physical aspect and a mental aspect to the experience that took place. Physical aspect is the light, eye and the mental aspect is the awareness of it. Upon further investigation, you will notice that these experiences do not just happen magically. You will notice that they arise due to causes. You will notice that the awareness aspect of the experience is also something that arises due to causes and that it is impersonal.

Likewise, if you want to know reality, throw all of the assumptions out of the window and take each experience as it is. If you do not hypothesize or fabricate, the truth will reveal itself.

> **Comments:**
> **username_9**: beautiful. And perfectly summarised the right Buddhist inquisitive spirit - the Viriya and the no need of any doctrine. But when I study Advaitha Vedanta, my Vipassana becomes much more deeper and stronger.  
> **username_8**: Advaitha Vedanta talks about a true soul and does not lead to understanding of reality.  
> **username_9**: Sure. That helps to inspire me to work deeper.  
> **username_8**: That doesn't make sense to me. But if you are inspired to practice proper Vipassana, it's good.  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2018-01-12. Score: 3

> **I don't understand the emptiness that Buddhism gives to
> consciousness.**

The word 'emptiness' ('sunnata') means 'empty of self'.

> **The Advaita vedanta teaches us that we are pure consciousness**

Buddhism teaches there is no "we" or "self" in pure consciousness.

> **But Buddhism seems to indicate that there is no self at all, no conscience.**

Conscience (moral sense of right and wrong) does not require a self.

> **I find that illogical; who lives the Nirvana? Who's waking up?**

The mind (*citta*) abides in Nirvana; the mind (*citta*) wakes up.

> **If there is no self, there is at least one conscious witness, one
> spectator.**

The mind is the witness & spectator.

What is known as "self" is a product of thinking (thought fabrication) rather than of consciousness.

> *There is the case where a person **assumes** form, feeling, perception, fabrications &/or consciousness to be the **self**. **That assumption is a fabrication**. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that.*
>
> [*Parileyyaka Sutta*](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.081.than.html)

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I can only suggest to focus on the present rather than imagine things about the future that have not occurred (such as "left the mind"). This said, the mind attains nirvana, per Dhammapada 154.  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2018-01-12. Score: 2

**I find that illogical; who lives the Nirvana? Who's waking up? If there is no self, there is at least one conscience witness, one spectator.**

I think that Buddhism talks of several consciousnesses: for example, seeing a deer running would be "eye consciousness"; hearing a sound there will be "ear consciousness"; etc.

I think that grammar (language, or "logic" i.e. words) encourages reification, e.g. sentences are expected to have a verb, and verbs need a noun or pronoun as subject, e.g. "I run", "You run", etc. Some languages don't require that and might say something like "Running in the mountains" without being specific about who or what is running. Similarly I don't think it's necessary (except to be grammatical) to assume that when there's a verb (e.g. "seeing") there must be a reified subject, a who or what that is seeing.

Buddhism's reluctance to postulate a "self" is at least partly for [soteriological](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteriology#Buddhism) reasons, not metaphysical reasons -- e.g. according to the answers to [this topic](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/15898/254) it's because views-of-self result in suffering (or "are unsatisfying" or "are confusing" etc.).


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2018-01-12. Score: 2

I used to admire and subscribe to the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta which speaks of a universal consciousness.

Chuang Tzu once dreamt that he is a butterfly flying through a garden. When he woke up, he wondered whether Chuang Tzu dreamt that he is a butterfly, or whether the butterfly is dreaming that it is Chuang Tzu. The only thing common between the two is "I" (consciousness), hence this "I" must be the "permanent" thing?

There are many beings, but only one "I" (consciousness) according to Advaita. The "I" (consciousness) is identical between beings that Advaita says is the same Supreme Consciousness, that is the silent witness behind and beyond all beings. And this is also the Atman, the Self, which manifests as the Supreme Consciousness through all beings.

As nice as that sounds, when I read the Buddha's description of consciousness, it met my observation of my own consciousness more accurately than Advaita's.

From [MN 38](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html):

> "Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in
> dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood
> is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence
> on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that
> burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a
> fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a
> cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified
> simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is
> classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness
> is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which
> it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms
> is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises
> in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as
> ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose
> & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness
> that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply
> as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on
> the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as
> body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the
> intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.

Think about it. How can the silent witness witness anything except through one of these media: eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind? There was never a time, when there was consciousness being aware of something except through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind. There is therefore no independent consciousness.

Consciousness is dependent on and conditioned upon these six media. It was a "aha" moment for me when I read that, and realized that the Buddha's analysis of consciousness is more accurate than Advaita's.

In terms of self, the Buddha never said that there is no self. There is a self. But this self is not permanent, not standalone. It arises by the inter-working of the five aggregates (form, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness). It is not independent. In normal day to day circumstances, there is obviously a self, but if you examine deeply, the five aggregates (and
everything else) are themselves ultimately empty of a self.

From [AN 6.38](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.038.niza.html) (shows that there is a self for all practical purposes):

> “So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring
> beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer,
> this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a
> doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving
> forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no
> self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”

From [Dhammapada 160](http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=160) (shows that you use your self to reach the fruit of liberation - arahatta phala):

> One indeed is one's own refuge; how can others be a refuge
> to one? With oneself thoroughly tamed, one can attain a refuge (i.e.,
> Arahatta Phala), which is so difficult to attain.

From [SN 44.10](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.010.than.html):

> "Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a
> self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming
> with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism
> [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being
> asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer
> that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans &
> contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that
> death is the annihilation of consciousness]. **If I — being asked by
> Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that
> there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of
> knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"**
>
> "No, lord."
>
> "And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no
> self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered
> Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: **'Does the self I used
> to have now not exist?'**"

From [MN 2](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html):

> "As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view
> arises in him: **The view I have a self arises in him as true &
> established, or the view I have no self**... or the view It is precisely
> by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely
> by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is
> precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as
> true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of
> mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of
> good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant,
> everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it
> is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of
> views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views.
> Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is
> not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain,
> distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering &
> stress.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: I like the metaphor of Chuang Tzu dreaming of butterfly since a little child. However, your *"There was never a time, when there was consciousness being aware of something except through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind"* this is but also isn't so. The Dhyana/Jhana practice, higher level is to shut down these. These are the limitations, instead. But Form, Sound, Smell, Taste, Sensation and Concepts are "materials" to build the "world", true.  -- Chinese Canon has Sutras explaint it, not sure the Pali Suttas though since I've not read the Agamas yet.  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2018-01-31. Score: 0

The sense of being present - pure, empty or bare awareness - arises and subsides. That which is always already there to witness it arising is the Self. The Self is not aware of itself, that is, it is never an object of its own awareness. It simply is without effort, motion, form or characteristics of any kind. What we 'are' we are without any effort or doing on our part. I am that by which I know that I am, but I am never anything conceivable of perceivable.


---

### Answer by username_6 on 2018-01-31. Score: 0

If you are looking for a logical breakdown of the "self" in Buddhism, then look no further than [the Five Aggregates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha). This wikipedia article however doesn't go into enough detail into the Volition aggregate (4th skandha). In Abhidhamma this skandha is broken down into 82 different factors... I'd recommend the book "How to Measure and Deepen Your Spiritual Realization" for a lucid, motivating rundown on it. The author references texts of all traditions including some vedanta.

I.e.: the "observer" is composed of multiple factors.

I also like Vedanta and you do not have to choose one or the other.
However, Buddhism is often more scientific in its analysis. Which is not to say that Vedanta is not the right energy for you and may definitely give you what is needed to Awaken. I certainly have Vedantic texts/commentary on my to-read list...


---

### Answer by username_7 on 2018-08-16. Score: -2

You are thinking clearly. If there were no Atman (the consciousness principle), which is not a spatial being at all, no signals coming in through ANY of the sense organs would ever result in any perception at all. Light would fall on the eyes, but there would be no seeing. Sounds would enter the ear, but there would be no hearing. Sugar could be placed on your tongue, but nothing would be tasted. Someone could pinch you, but nothing would be felt. Fumes could enter the nose, but nothing would be smelled. It is because of the Atman aspect of matter that matter, in the form of organisms, could ever be sentient at all. No amount of totally unconscious matter could ever be arranged into an organism and then consciousness arises out of this dumb, dead stuff. It is only because consciousness (which has both a passive mode and active mode) pulsates and masquerades as matter itself (and may well start out relatively dumb, but not completely and utterly insentient), that your eyes see, ears hear, etc. This consciousness is ultimately unbound and free. Lastly, to any of you Buddhist critics (with the exception of many, but not all Dzogchen and Zen folks) who like to speak of grasping at a self, please take note of the following, which is a statement by Greg Goode, which I once read on some forgotten web forum, "The Self can't do grasping."

Furthermore, I would like to suggest that without the Atman, you would never have anything like a stable identity over time. With each passing moment, you would feel like a different person, but I trust that is not how you feel. I also reccomend looking into Pratyabhijna philosophy of Kashmir Shaivism.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: You wrote, "*without the Atman, you would never have anything like a stable identity over time*." When a person has an accident and injures his head, he may have a totally different identity or personality due to brain injury. Does that mean, his Atman has changed or become damaged?  
> **username_7**: I may have pushed things too far with that statement. It is conceivable, though, that the information (memories, skills, insights) underlying personality being expressed up until the time of brain injury remains intact, but cannot be accessed. Perhaps the brain and its states act as a filter for consciousness and that, at death, the information that the brain-damaged individual lost access to (including memory areas rendered inaccessible on account of brain injury) is present to him/her once again, as the self (or mindstream) leaves the body.  
> **username_7**: As you may already know, there are numerous reports of veridical perceptions (i.e. later verified)  had by people who were in cardiac arrest and lacking brain activity.  Although I'm not yet prepared to say these are irrefutable proof of post-mortem survival, many cannot be proven to be the effect of physiological events.  
> **username_7**: In any case, the real root SELF in itself is not a particular personality at all...It is the direct non-conceptual knowing of being and the witness of arising and passing of thoughts, feelings, body, and world, which, while not completely identical to the Self, are of the same essence of existence. It is the already existing consciousness aspect of existence that, together with the shaping influence of brain, body, and world, makes all the impermanent (and RELATIVELY stable) selves possible.  

---

