user19211: having studied Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, I've seen that the differences between the two are almost non-existent.
This video does a good job at fleshing out the Vedanta and Buddhist perspective and he himself seemingly states that the differences between the two are trivial at best. 
I'd be interested to hear some input from those more familiar with Buddhism. 

user8157: In merely the first 10 seconds, the video refers to alien ideas, such as "immortality" & "Self".
The video then talks about finding happiness & ending suffering, which is the aim of many philosophies; including hedonism. Even monkeys seek to avoid suffering & find pleasure.
The video then says "if you knew yourself as you truly are all your suffering would be overcome". It says "the real Self is the witness consciousness- the one unchanging experiencer - the real me"... "The witness consciousness is freedom from the person & what is witnessed". These ideas are alien to Buddhism, particularly the permanence of consciousness and the idea of a "real me". 
Also, the speaker never stops referring to a "you", as though there is a "you". 
The video then says "when you [lol] stop there saying all things I am not, you [lol] have Buddhism and fall short of Vedanta". This is wrong. Buddhism does not have the doctrine of "I AM NOT". The doctrine of Buddhism is "this is not a me; this is not a mine; this is not a self". 
Then the video wrongly said Hindu Atman & Buddhist Anatta are the same thing from a non-dualistic perspective. In actuality, original Buddhism does not teach self (atta; atthattā) & not-self (anatta) are a "duality". Original Buddhism teaches "I am" ("atthattā") and "I am not" ("natthattā") are dualities because both ideas still believe in an "I", i.e. an "I" that is and an "I" that is not. "Not-self" ("anatta") is not part of any duality that is transcended into non-duality. "Not-self" ("anatta") is the inherent characteristic of everything, without exception. Both the "dual" & "non-dual" are "anatta".  
Then the video falsely says Buddhism does not believe there are "things". This is wrong and confused. The original Buddhism of the Buddha says there are "things" ("dhammas"). It is the Mahayana Buddhism of the philosopher Nagarjuna that purports there are no things. The speaker actually quotes Nagarjuna, which shows the speaker falsely believes Nagarjuna is the Buddha. 
In conclusion, there is nothing I heard in the video that is related to Buddhism. The goal of Buddhism is to perfect something called DISPASSION and END CRAVING. The speaker in the video appears devoted to, delighting in & even worshiping the delusion of a silent unchanging witness. This is not Buddhism. Buddhism does not delight in anything. Buddhism says delight is the root of suffering. Buddhism says any type of consciousness, gross or subtle, is dukkham (unsatisfactory; not warranting delight). 

user11009: Buddhism teaches Anatta (not self) and the Nibbana is the final goal. You can't find them in Advaita Vedanta. Buddism also has Noble Eightfold Path with a clear set of instructions as to how to attain Nibbana. In my opinion, it is just more than semantics. The only way to be sure is to study and practice both.

user471: In the video, the speaker said:

Vedanta is about Atma (the Self). ... the next word is Sakshi (Witness) ... What
  is the Self? Is it this bundle of flesh and blood? Is this person in
  the body? The mind, the intellect, the memory, the likes and dislikes,
  the knowledge, the person I think I am - is that the Self? Or is it
  something beyond that? According to Vedanta, you are the real Self, is
  the Witness-Consciousness. It is that which experiences. It is that
  which experiences in the waking state, in the dream state, in the deep
  sleep state. The one unchanging experiencer, which enables all
  experience. What does that mean?
Take a simple methodology. It's a philosophical enquiry into who am I?
  ... This technique is called the seer and the seen. ... Remember, the
  purpose is to discover the Atma, the real Self. It's about discovering
  who you really are. ... It says: You are that which experiences. That
  which is experienced, is not you (the Atma). ...

The speaker goes on to explain how the body, sensory organs, feelings, thoughts, and mind is that which is experienced, so it is not the Self. He says the Self is the Witness-Consciousness. He says you are not the person (which is the ego-identity or ego-personality constructed by the mind)  - you are that which is aware of the person. He calls it the illuminer of the body-mind. He calls the Atma unchanging, while all the changing things are that which is experienced, not the experiencer.
Somewhere further in the video, he says Buddhist Madhyamaka has emptiness but even that emptiness must be experienced by a Witness-Consciousness.
Then further on, he goes on to explain what Advaita teaches, which is that all the changing things are not separate from Brahman, but rather manifested from Brahman and experienced by it. He provides the example that one witnesses the contents of one's dream, but the dream is also part of the mind and not separate from it. Then he says that God is the experiencer through all beings.

OP: Are the differences between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism merely semantic/perspective? ... having studied Buddhism and Advaita
  Vedanta, I've seen that the differences between the two are almost
  non-existent.

The answer depends on what you define as Buddhism.
If you look at Mahayana Buddhism, I would say different Mahayana schools have different opinions.
From the following statement from this page, we see an explanation of Yogacara philosophy that sounds similar to Advaita Vedanta, yet is not exactly the same. This answer shows how Yogacara is different from Advaita.

The central thesis in the Yogācāra philosophy, the theory of the two
  truths echoes is the assertion that all that is conventionally real is
  only ideas, representations, images, creations of the mind, and that
  there is no conventionally real object that exists outside the mind to
  which it corresponds. These ideas are only objects of any cognition.
  The whole universe is a mental universe. All physical objects are only
  fiction, they are unreal even by the conventional standard, similar to
  a dream, a mirage, a magical illusion, where what we perceive are only
  products of our mind, without a real external existence.
All these arguments based on the facts of experience show that
  objects do not exist really outside the mind, that they are products
  of mental creation and that their appearance is entirely mind
  dependent. Therefore the Yogācāra's theory of the two truths concludes
  that the whole world is a product of mind—it is the collective mental
  actions (karma) of all beings. All living beings see the same world
  because of the identical maturation of their karmic consequences.
  Since the karmic histories of beings are same, there is homogeneity in
  the way in which the world is experienced and perceived. This is the
  reason there is an orderly world instead of chaotic and arbitrariness.
  This is also the reason behind the impressions of the objectivity of
  the world.
... The idealism of Yogācāra holds nondual mind as the only ultimate
  reality and the external world as merely conventional truths.

The same page explains Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka (below). Based on the following, it is clear that Advaita Vedanta is incompatible with Madhyamaka, because Madhyamaka advocates groundlessness i.e. everything is empty of intrinsic essense, including consciousness and emptiness itself. On the other hand, in Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is the substratum or ground for everything (see Vivekachudamani 225-231, 289).
There is absolutely nothing that has intrinsic essence in Madhyamaka, not even consciousness, not even emptiness. Empty of intrinsic essence does not mean unreality or non-existence, but is rather because everything is conditioned, changing and dependently originated.

On Nāgārjuna's Madhyamaka all things including ultimate truth are
  ultimately unreal, empty (śūnya) of any intrinsic nature (svabhāva)
  including the emptiness (śūnyatā) itself, therefore all are
  groundless. In this sense a Mādhyamika (a proponent of the Madhyamaka
  thought) is a an advocate of the emptiness (śūnyavādin), advocate of
  the intrinsic unreality (niḥsvabhāvavādin), groundlessness,
  essencelessness, or carelessness. Nevertheless to assert that all
  things are empty of any intrinsic reality, for Nāgārjuna, is not to
  undermine the existential status of things as simply nothing. On the
  contrary, Nāgārjuna argues, to assert that the things are empty of any
  intrinsic reality is to explain the way things really are as causally
  conditioned phenomena (pratītyasamputpaṅhā)
Nāgārjuna's central argument to support his radical
  non-foundationalist theory of the two truths draws upon an
  understanding of conventional truth as tied to dependently arisen
  phenomena, and ultimate truth as tied to emptiness of the intrinsic
  nature. Since the former and the latter are coconstitutive of each
  other, in that each entials the other, ultimate reality is tied to
  being that which is conventionally real. Nāgārjuna advances important
  arguments justifying the correlation between conventional truth
  vis-à-vis dependent arising, and emptiness vis-à-vis ultimate truth.
  These arguments bring home their epistemological and ontological
  correlations ([MMK] 24.14; Dbu ma tsa 15a). He argues that wherever
  applies emptiness as the ultimate reality, there applies the causal
  efficacy of conventional reality and wherever emptiness does not apply
  as the ultimate reality, there does not apply the causal efficacy of
  conventional reality (Vig.71) (Dbu ma tsa 29a). According to
  Nāgārjuna, ultimate reality's being empty of any intrinsic reality
  affords conventional reality its causal efficacy since being
  ultimately empty is identical to being causally produced,
  conventionally. This must be so since, for Nāgārjuna, “there is no
  thing that is not dependently arisen; therefore, there is no such
  thing that is not empty” ([MMK] 24.19, Dbu ma tsa 15a).

From this page (quoted below), Candrakirti (a Madhyamika) criticizes Yogacara:

One further Buddhist movement that Candrakīrti criticizes is the
  Yogācāra school, which he presents as advocating a form of subjective
  idealism. Their claim that the world of experience is consciousness
  only and that the contents of consciousness cannot be objects external
  to consciousness itself is supported by several texts within the
  Mahāyāna scriptural tradition. Candrakīrti explains these scriptures
  as examples of teachings that the Buddha gave to counter a particular
  kind of commonly held wrong view. There are, says Candrakīrti, those
  who mistakenly believe that all their suffering is due to causes
  outside themselves; they see themselves as unfortunate victims of a
  hostile world. The Buddha, wishing to make it clear that the
  predominant factor in dissatisfaction is the way one thinks about
  one’s experiences, said, in effect “It’s all in the mind.” It would be
  a mistake to take that statement literally and to conclude that
  nothing but consciousness exists and that the world of experience that
  feels as though it is external to consciousness is in fact produced by
  consciousness or is inseparable from consciousness. The Yogācāra
  offers good reasons to show that the contents of consciousness are
  conditioned and therefore are empty of inherent existence, but they
  fail to appreciate that exactly the same can be said of awareness
  itself. In other words, says Candrakīrti, the Yogācāra philosophers
  fail to acknowledge that everything, including consciousness itself,
  is empty.

Also the same page (quoted below), mentions Santideva's (a Madhyamika) criticism of Yogacara:

Although beautifully written, Bodhicaryāvatāra does not display much
  philosophical originality. Its principal contribution is in offering a
  concise recapitulation of the currents of Madhyamaka thought and of
  Madhyamaka arguments against Yogācāra monism, which portrays
  consciousness as the ultimate source of all realities.

But what did the Buddha himself teach? From his own words in the Pali Canon (MN 38):

"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.

The Buddha rubbished any notion of a permanent independent universal consciousness and explained how consciousness is linked to the six senses (including intellect).
From the same sutta:

The Blessed One then asked him: “Sāti, is it true that the following
  pernicious view has arisen in you: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught
  by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and
  wanders through the round of rebirths, not another’?”
“Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the
  Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders
  through the round of rebirths, not another.”
“What is that consciousness, Sāti?”
“Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here
  and there the result of good and bad actions.”
“Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in
  that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness
  to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no
  origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have
  misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored
  up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a
  long time.”

Here, the Buddha says there is no such thing as permanent consciousness that experiences everything. Rather, it is dependently originated. Please also see this question.

19211: <p>having studied Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, I've seen that the differences between the two are almost non-existent.</p>

<p>This <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJfM0tyOwjc" rel="nofollow noreferrer">video</a> does a good job at fleshing out the Vedanta and Buddhist perspective and he himself seemingly states that the differences between the two are trivial at best. </p>

<p>I'd be interested to hear some input from those more familiar with Buddhism. </p>
 8157: <p>In merely the first 10 seconds, the video refers to alien ideas, such as "immortality" &amp; "Self".</p>

<p>The video then talks about finding happiness &amp; ending suffering, which is the aim of many philosophies; including hedonism. Even monkeys seek to avoid suffering &amp; find pleasure.</p>

<p>The video then says "<em>if you knew yourself as you truly are all your suffering would be overcome</em>". It says "<em>the real Self is the witness consciousness- the one <strong>unchanging</strong> experiencer - the real me</em>"... "<em>The witness consciousness is freedom from the person &amp; what is witnessed</em>". These ideas are alien to Buddhism, particularly the permanence of consciousness and the idea of a "real me". </p>

<p>Also, the speaker never stops referring to a "you", as though there is a "you". </p>

<p>The video then says "when <strong>you</strong> [lol] stop there saying all things <strong>I am not,</strong> <strong>you</strong> [lol] have Buddhism and fall short of Vedanta". This is wrong. Buddhism does not have the doctrine of "I AM NOT". The doctrine of Buddhism is "<strong>this</strong> is not a me; <strong>this</strong> is not a mine; <strong>this</strong> is not a self". </p>

<p>Then the video wrongly said Hindu Atman &amp; Buddhist Anatta are the same thing from a non-dualistic perspective. In actuality, original Buddhism does not teach self (atta; atthattā) &amp; not-self (anatta) are a "duality". Original Buddhism teaches "I am" ("atthattā") and "I am not" ("natthattā") are dualities because both ideas still believe in an "I", i.e. an "I" that is and an "I" that is not. "Not-self" ("anatta") is not part of any duality that is transcended into non-duality. "Not-self" ("anatta") is the inherent characteristic of everything, without exception. Both the "dual" &amp; "non-dual" are "anatta".  </p>

<p>Then the video falsely says Buddhism does not believe there are "things". This is wrong and confused. The original Buddhism of the Buddha says there are "things" ("dhammas"). It is the Mahayana Buddhism of the philosopher Nagarjuna that purports there are no things. The speaker actually quotes Nagarjuna, which shows the speaker falsely believes Nagarjuna is the Buddha. </p>

<p>In conclusion, there is nothing I heard in the video that is related to Buddhism. The goal of Buddhism is to perfect something called DISPASSION and END CRAVING. The speaker in the video appears devoted to, delighting in &amp; even worshiping the delusion of a silent unchanging witness. This is not Buddhism. Buddhism does not delight in anything. Buddhism says delight is the root of suffering. Buddhism says any type of consciousness, gross or subtle, is dukkham (unsatisfactory; not warranting delight). </p>
 11009: <p>Buddhism teaches Anatta (not self) and the Nibbana is the final goal. You can't find them in Advaita Vedanta. Buddism also has Noble Eightfold Path with a clear set of instructions as to how to attain Nibbana. In my opinion, it is just more than semantics. The only way to be sure is to study and practice both.</p>
 471: <p>In the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJfM0tyOwjc" rel="nofollow noreferrer">video</a>, the speaker said:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Vedanta is about Atma (the Self). ... the next word is Sakshi (Witness) ... What
  is the Self? Is it this bundle of flesh and blood? Is this person in
  the body? The mind, the intellect, the memory, the likes and dislikes,
  the knowledge, the person I think I am - is that the Self? Or is it
  something beyond that? According to Vedanta, you are the real Self, is
  the Witness-Consciousness. It is that which experiences. It is that
  which experiences in the waking state, in the dream state, in the deep
  sleep state. The one unchanging experiencer, which enables all
  experience. What does that mean?</p>
  
  <p>Take a simple methodology. It's a philosophical enquiry into who am I?
  ... This technique is called the seer and the seen. ... Remember, the
  purpose is to discover the Atma, the real Self. It's about discovering
  who you really are. ... It says: You are that which experiences. That
  which is experienced, is not you (the Atma). ...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The speaker goes on to explain how the body, sensory organs, feelings, thoughts, and mind is that which is experienced, so it is not the Self. He says the Self is the Witness-Consciousness. He says you are not the person (which is the ego-identity or ego-personality constructed by the mind)  - you are that which is aware of the person. He calls it the illuminer of the body-mind. He calls the Atma unchanging, while all the changing things are that which is experienced, not the experiencer.</p>

<p>Somewhere further in the video, he says Buddhist Madhyamaka has emptiness but even that emptiness must be experienced by a Witness-Consciousness.</p>

<p>Then further on, he goes on to explain what Advaita teaches, which is that all the changing things are not separate from Brahman, but rather manifested from Brahman and experienced by it. He provides the example that one witnesses the contents of one's dream, but the dream is also part of the mind and not separate from it. Then he says that God is the experiencer through all beings.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>OP:</strong> Are the differences between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism merely semantic/perspective? ... having studied Buddhism and Advaita
  Vedanta, I've seen that the differences between the two are almost
  non-existent.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The answer depends on what you define as Buddhism.</p>

<p>If you look at Mahayana Buddhism, I would say different Mahayana schools have different opinions.</p>

<p>From the following statement from <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/twotruths-india/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this page</a>, we see an explanation of Yogacara philosophy that sounds similar to Advaita Vedanta, yet is not exactly the same. <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/13793/471">This answer</a> shows how Yogacara is different from Advaita.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The central thesis in the Yogācāra philosophy, the theory of the two
  truths echoes is the assertion that all that is conventionally real is
  only ideas, representations, images, creations of the mind, and that
  there is no conventionally real object that exists outside the mind to
  which it corresponds. These ideas are only objects of any cognition.
  The whole universe is a mental universe. All physical objects are only
  fiction, they are unreal even by the conventional standard, similar to
  a dream, a mirage, a magical illusion, where what we perceive are only
  products of our mind, without a real external existence.</p>
  
  <p>All these arguments based on the facts of experience show that
  objects do not exist really outside the mind, that they are products
  of mental creation and that their appearance is entirely mind
  dependent. Therefore the Yogācāra's theory of the two truths concludes
  that the whole world is a product of mind—it is the collective mental
  actions (karma) of all beings. All living beings see the same world
  because of the identical maturation of their karmic consequences.
  Since the karmic histories of beings are same, there is homogeneity in
  the way in which the world is experienced and perceived. This is the
  reason there is an orderly world instead of chaotic and arbitrariness.
  This is also the reason behind the impressions of the objectivity of
  the world.</p>
  
  <p>... <strong>The idealism of Yogācāra holds nondual mind as the only ultimate
  reality and the external world as merely conventional truths.</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>The same page explains Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka (below). Based on the following, it is clear that Advaita Vedanta is incompatible with Madhyamaka, because Madhyamaka advocates groundlessness i.e. everything is empty of intrinsic essense, including consciousness and emptiness itself. On the other hand, in Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is the substratum or ground for everything (see <a href="http://www.shankaracharya.org/vivekachudamani3.php" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Vivekachudamani</a> 225-231, 289).</p>

<p>There is absolutely nothing that has intrinsic essence in Madhyamaka, not even consciousness, not even emptiness. Empty of intrinsic essence does not mean unreality or non-existence, but is rather because everything is conditioned, changing and dependently originated.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>On Nāgārjuna's Madhyamaka all things including ultimate truth are
  ultimately unreal, empty (<em>śūnya</em>) of any intrinsic nature (<em>svabhāva</em>)
  including the emptiness (<em>śūnyatā</em>) itself, therefore all are
  groundless.</strong> In this sense a Mādhyamika (a proponent of the Madhyamaka
  thought) is a an advocate of the emptiness (<em>śūnyavādin</em>), advocate of
  the intrinsic unreality (<em>niḥsvabhāvavādin</em>), groundlessness,
  essencelessness, or carelessness. Nevertheless to assert that all
  things are empty of any intrinsic reality, for Nāgārjuna, is not to
  undermine the existential status of things as simply nothing. On the
  contrary, Nāgārjuna argues, to assert that the things are empty of any
  intrinsic reality is to explain the way things really are as causally
  conditioned phenomena (<em>pratītyasamputpaṅhā</em>)</p>
  
  <p>Nāgārjuna's central argument to support his radical
  non-foundationalist theory of the two truths draws upon an
  understanding of conventional truth as tied to dependently arisen
  phenomena, and ultimate truth as tied to emptiness of the intrinsic
  nature. Since the former and the latter are coconstitutive of each
  other, in that each entials the other, ultimate reality is tied to
  being that which is conventionally real. Nāgārjuna advances important
  arguments justifying the correlation between conventional truth
  vis-à-vis dependent arising, and emptiness vis-à-vis ultimate truth.
  These arguments bring home their epistemological and ontological
  correlations ([MMK] 24.14; Dbu ma tsa 15a). He argues that wherever
  applies emptiness as the ultimate reality, there applies the causal
  efficacy of conventional reality and wherever emptiness does not apply
  as the ultimate reality, there does not apply the causal efficacy of
  conventional reality (Vig.71) (Dbu ma tsa 29a). According to
  Nāgārjuna, ultimate reality's being empty of any intrinsic reality
  affords conventional reality its causal efficacy since being
  ultimately empty is identical to being causally produced,
  conventionally. This must be so since, for Nāgārjuna, “there is no
  thing that is not dependently arisen; therefore, there is no such
  thing that is not empty” ([MMK] 24.19, Dbu ma tsa 15a).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>From <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/madhyamaka/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this page</a> (quoted below), Candrakirti (a Madhyamika) criticizes Yogacara:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>One further Buddhist movement that Candrakīrti criticizes is the
  Yogācāra school, which he presents as advocating a form of subjective
  idealism. Their claim that the world of experience is consciousness
  only and that the contents of consciousness cannot be objects external
  to consciousness itself is supported by several texts within the
  Mahāyāna scriptural tradition. Candrakīrti explains these scriptures
  as examples of teachings that the Buddha gave to counter a particular
  kind of commonly held wrong view. There are, says Candrakīrti, those
  who mistakenly believe that all their suffering is due to causes
  outside themselves; they see themselves as unfortunate victims of a
  hostile world. The Buddha, wishing to make it clear that the
  predominant factor in dissatisfaction is the way one thinks about
  one’s experiences, said, in effect “It’s all in the mind.” It would be
  a mistake to take that statement literally and to conclude that
  nothing but consciousness exists and that the world of experience that
  feels as though it is external to consciousness is in fact produced by
  consciousness or is inseparable from consciousness. The Yogācāra
  offers good reasons to show that the contents of consciousness are
  conditioned and therefore are empty of inherent existence, but they
  fail to appreciate that exactly the same can be said of awareness
  itself. <strong>In other words, says Candrakīrti, the Yogācāra philosophers
  fail to acknowledge that everything, including consciousness itself,
  is empty.</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Also the same page (quoted below), mentions Santideva's (a Madhyamika) criticism of Yogacara:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Although beautifully written, Bodhicaryāvatāra does not display much
  philosophical originality. Its principal contribution is in offering a
  concise recapitulation of the currents of Madhyamaka thought and of
  Madhyamaka arguments against Yogācāra monism, which portrays
  consciousness as the ultimate source of all realities.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>But what did the Buddha himself teach? From his own words in the Pali Canon (<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>The Buddha rubbished any notion of a permanent independent universal consciousness and explained how consciousness is linked to the six senses (including intellect).</p>

<p>From the <a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/bodhi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">same sutta</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The Blessed One then asked him: “Sāti, is it true that the following
  pernicious view has arisen in you: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught
  by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and
  wanders through the round of rebirths, not another’?”</p>
  
  <p>“Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the
  Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders
  through the round of rebirths, not another.”</p>
  
  <p>“What is that consciousness, Sāti?”</p>
  
  <p>“Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here
  and there the result of good and bad actions.”</p>
  
  <p>“Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in
  that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness
  to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no
  origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have
  misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored
  up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a
  long time.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Here, the Buddha says there is no such thing as permanent consciousness that experiences everything. Rather, it is dependently originated. Please also see <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/30688/471">this question</a>.</p>
