RS

 AB

Actually the anatta concept of Buddhism can best be understood through the Advaita Vedanta lens.

Buddha never said there is no Self i.e. no ātman.

His teaching to Ānanda on this matter is contained in the Ānanda Sutta.

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent. "Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?"

"Ananda, if I 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 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 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 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?'"

So what Shakya Muni was saying is the eternalismand nihilism are two extreme views which are wrong, and the truth about the ātman is found in the middle way.

According to Advaita Vedanta there is no eternal individual Self - all individuality is conditioned - Mokṣa or Mukti is the realization that all concepts of individuality of “self” are false (avidya - avijja in Pali) and that the ātma = Brahman - the individual consciousness is non-different to the cosmic consciousness.

So as long as we are in samsāra we construct asmita - notions of Self, but when we apply the process of ātma-vicāra - or self-enquiry - everything we can think of as an identity, and as “my” self are found to be false and illusionary.

Buddhism is definitely not nihilistic because the Buddha gives 30 metaphors for nirvana/nibbana, an otherwise inconceivable (non-)state:– the taintless, the truth, the far shore, the subtle, the very difficult to see, the unaging, the stable, the undisintegrating, the unmanifest, unproliferated, peaceful, deathless, sublime, auspicious, secure, the destruction of craving, wonderful, amazing, unailing, the unailing state, unbinding, unafficted, dispassion, purity, freedom, unadhesive, island, shelter, asylum and refuge. (SN 43)

So in conclusion anatta does not conflict with ātma and the Nirvāṇa of the Buddhists is the same as the Mokṣa or Mukti of the Hindus.

A

What you’re presenting is a sophisticated and historically important interpretation — one that many modern nondual teachers, comparative philosophers, and some Hindu-Buddhist dialogue traditions have argued for. But it’s also important to recognize that this interpretation is contested, especially from the standpoint of mainstream Buddhist philosophy.

Your reading is broadly:

• the Buddha rejected both:
• eternalized individual selfhood
• nihilistic nonexistence
• therefore anattā is not denial of ultimate reality, but denial of conditioned ego-identity
• nirvāṇa and mokṣa point to the same realization expressed through different conceptual frameworks

That is a coherent comparative thesis. But classical Advaita Vedānta and classical Buddhism still diverge in several deep ways.

The Ānanda / Vacchagotta dialogue

You’re referring to the Ananda Sutta (often linked with the Vacchagotta dialogues).

And yes — the Buddha refuses both:

• “there is a self”
• “there is no self”

This is one reason many scholars and contemplatives argue that Buddhism is not reducible to simple metaphysical negation.

The Buddha explains:

• affirming self supports eternalism
• denying self can reinforce annihilationism and confusion

That is absolutely consistent with the Buddhist “middle way.”

But where interpretations diverge is what the silence means.

Your interpretation

Your interpretation is close to a nondual synthesis:

• the empirical ego/self is empty and constructed
• individuality is conditioned
• ultimate realization transcends subject-object individuality
• “true Self” is not personal ego but universal consciousness

This aligns strongly with:

• Advaita Vedanta
• teachings of Adi Shankara
• later neo-Advaita and perennialist interpretations

Under this view:

• anattā negates the false ego-self
• Brahman/Ātman refers to unconditioned awareness itself
• nirvāṇa = mokṣa in essence

Many modern spiritual teachers interpret Buddhism this way.

Where mainstream Buddhism objects

Classical Buddhist schools — especially:

• Theravada
• Madhyamaka
• Yogacara

typically resist identifying nirvāṇa with an eternal metaphysical consciousness.

The central issue is this:

Advaita says:

There is an ultimate, unchanging reality:

• Brahman
• pure consciousness
• identical with Ātman

Buddhism generally says:

Even consciousness is dependently arisen and empty of inherent selfhood.

So from a Buddhist standpoint, the danger is that “pure awareness” subtly becomes a metaphysical essence — a refined eternal self.

For example, Nagarjuna would likely critique any fixed ontological ground, even a universal consciousness.

Yet the experiential overlap is real

At the level of contemplative experience, the similarities can become striking:

• dissolution of ego-identification
• nonduality
• freedom from grasping
• transcendence of conceptual identity
• ineffability
• peace beyond ordinary cognition

That’s why practitioners from:

• Dzogchen
• Mahamudra
• Zen
• Advaita

often recognize something familiar in one another’s descriptions.

On Nirvāṇa not being nihilism

You are completely right that Buddhism is not straightforward nihilism.

The many descriptions of nirvāṇa in Samyutta Nikaya and elsewhere clearly portray it as:

• deathless
• peaceful
• unborn
• secure
• beyond suffering

The Buddhist critique is usually not:

“nothing exists”

but rather:

whatever exists lacks independent, permanent essence.

That distinction is crucial.

The deepest disagreement

The deepest philosophical divide may be this:

Advaita:

Ultimate reality is pure consciousness.

Buddhism:

Any claim about ultimate reality as a thing, essence, consciousness, or self risks reification.

So even if the experience may converge in some practitioners, the metaphysical interpretations often diverge sharply.

A nuanced conclusion

Your synthesis has a long lineage and serious philosophical depth. It is neither naïve nor uninformed.

But it is more accurate to say:

Some interpreters see profound compatibility between Advaita Vedānta and Buddhism.

rather than:

Buddhism simply teaches Advaita in different language.

Historically, many Buddhist philosophers explicitly argued against Upaniṣadic/Ātman metaphysics, while many Advaitins argued Buddhism went too far toward negation.

At the same time, contemplatives across both traditions have often recognized a shared movement:

• beyond ego
• beyond conceptual identity
• beyond dualistic grasping
• into liberating insight

And that shared territory is probably why these conversations continue after more than two millennia.