user-1: In the following excerpt from the book Yoga Sutras by Edwin Bryant, the author is arguing that the fundamental difference between Buddhist and Hindu philosophy is that Buddhists believe that when 'all the objects of consciousness are removed, consciousness vanishes'

I think it is wrong. When we leave all the objects of consciousness and enter in the first Jhnana then we are not conscious of any - 'sense-object' but we are conscious nonetheless otherwise it will be like sleeping or unconscious. 
Also there is a plane of 'infinity of consciousness' which is the 3rd Jhnana so we are experiencing something that is infinite, so there is a human experience so consciousness is there. 

So is the author right or  wrong?
What is the Buddhist take about the existence of consciousness apart
from human brain? 
Does the Consciousness exist in the universe apart from living beings? (IMO even if that exists that does not contradict with Annatta.. So we have space for Idealism.  

Small Edit: I am trying to defend the position of 'monistic idealism' within the framework of Buddhism. Also, check this paper 

user10100: In abihdhamma (chapter 1-5 for mind&mind factor, chapter 6 for matter&nibbāna, chapter 8 for paṭiccasamuppāda&paññatti):
1 moment can separate to 3 sub-moments: arising, standing, and vanishing (upāda, ṭhiti, bhaṅgha).
1 matter moment =  17 mind/mind factor moments.
Paṭiccasamuppāda = cycle system of matter, mind, and mind factor.
Nibbāna = the opposite side of paṭiccasamuppāda.
Paññatti = imagination of mind&mind factors about paṭiccasamuppāda or nibbāna (everything).

So, paññatti has no 3 sub-moments, we can't count it's moment.
I.E. you can imagine "I get wings to fly", but it doesn't mean you really get wings. If the wings never get 3 sub-moments, arising/standing/vanishing, it is just imagination, not truth. However, something is imagination bases on truth, such as bird's wings. Because wings are imagination as well, but they base on the matter, which can get 3 sub-moments. So, bird can fly.

The explanation

Most of jhāna object is paññatti. No one can count paññatti-object's moment, because it never arise/standing/vanish.
Another, some jhāna has mind or perception as object. But that object is the past, which already vanished. Mind can know the present object as the present while it is taking a present moment (still in arising, standing, or vanishing state). but for the past or future object, mind can know it as it is unlimited. Similitude as we can see the present passing through car just the moment it is in our vision. But we can think of that passed/coming car, which being out of vision, unlimited.

By both case above, although the object is not present, the mind still can know it.
If mind have to arise depend on only object, we must know everything even when we are sleeping.

user-1: Life is an ongoing stream of one consciousness appearing and disappearing after the next.
Every moment of consciousness exists of two things:
the knowing and the known.
Or consciousness and the object of consciousness. It's a one-on-one relationship, so to speak.
It's not:

'all the objects of consciousness are removed, consciousness vanishes'

Each moment of consciousness has one object.
Mind objects (thoughts, memories, images in the mind and so on) appear together and cease together with the accompanying consciousness. Rupa objects 'live' a bit longer: seven mind moments. It's a bit more complex, but for now this will do.
There can only be one consciousness at a time. So, a consciousness has to disappear after appearing, otherwise a new consciousness could not come up.
As mere mortals we can't see every single consciousness cease, but we can, with training, see an object of a consciousness arise together with its accompanying consciousness and cease with it's accompanying consciousness.
It's interesting when this happens. You can actually see consciousness cease together with thought, or nose consciousness together with smell. And like all sense consciousnesses mind consciousness with its accompanying mind object can also cease, or all five aggregates simultaneously (nirodha). That one will blow your mind.
I'm not really wild about the idea of an object generating consciousness. They come up together, in dependence (there you have a bit of dependent arising). But object is not always the cause, if memory serves.
(Dive into the Abhidhamma for more detail!)
Also: Buddhism holds that the brain and the universe exist in the mind, not the other way around.
The 

'infinity of consciousness'

is, I think, also meant the other way around. It's not that we experience something that is infinite. But consciousness itself is infinite.
That's my take on it.
Hope it helps.

user8157: 
I think it is wrong.

It is is right. What you think is wrong. 

When we leave all the objects of consciousness and enter in the
  first Jhnana then we are not conscious of any - 'sense-object' but we
  are conscious nonetheless otherwise it will be like sleeping or
  unconscious.

Your mind has never entered jhana therefore why are you creating a belief system about jhana? Jhana is a sense object; just as Nibbana is a sense object (ayatana; Udana 8.1). The factors of jhanas, such as rapture & happiness, are sense objects. 

Also there is a plane of 'infinity of consciousness' which is the 6th Jhnana so we are experiencing something that is infinite, so there
  is a human experience so consciousness is there.

All jhanas are sense objects. 

So is the author right or wrong?

The author is right. 

What is the Buddhist take about the existence of consciousness apart from human brain?

SN 22.53; SN 12.67 and MN 38 will answer your questions and show that the author is right. 

Does the Consciousness exist in the universe apart from living beings? (IMO even if that exists that does not contradict with
  Annatta.. So we have space for Idealism

There can be no arising of consciousness without sense organs, sense objects & other aggregates. That is why there is no such thing as reincarnation. Refer to SN 22.53; MN 38; and SN 12.67. 

"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently
  co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is
  no coming-into-play of consciousness'? [2] But you, through your own
  poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root]
  and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your
  long-term harm & suffering."
Then the Blessed One said to the monks, "What do you think, monks? Is this monk Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, even warm in this Dhamma &
  Vinaya?"
"How could he be, lord? No, lord."
When this was said, the monk Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, sat silent, abashed, his shoulders drooping, his head down, brooding, at a loss
  for words.
Then the Blessed One, seeing that the monk Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, was sitting silent, abashed, his shoulders drooping, his head down,
  brooding, at a loss for words, said to him, "Worthless man, you will
  be recognized for your own pernicious viewpoint. I will cross-question
  the monks on this matter."
Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, "Monks, do you too understand the Dhamma as taught by me in the same way that the monk
  Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, does when, through his own poor grasp [of
  the Dhamma], he not only slanders us but also digs himself up [by the
  root] and produces much demerit for himself?"
"No, lord, for in many ways the Blessed One has said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is
  no coming-into-play of consciousness.'"
"It's good, monks, that you understand the Dhamma taught by me in this way, for in many ways I have said of dependently co-arisen
  consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no
  coming-into-play of consciousness.' But this monk Sāti, the
  Fisherman's Son, through his own poor grasp [of the Dhamma], has not
  only slandered us but has also dug himself up [by the root], producing
  much demerit for himself. That will lead to this worthless man's
  long-term harm & suffering.
MN 38

Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of
  consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from
  fabrications,' that would be impossible
SN 22.53


user254: According to Buddhism does the Consciousness vanish when the objects of consciousness are removed?
There are different types of consciousness, or different things which are all translated as "consciousness".
I gather from answers and comments to this question that:

There are five sense-consciousness (e.g. eye-consciousness) which arise when there's a sense-object and attention
There's a sixth, analogous to the five, where the mind becomes conscious of thoughts (like the eye becomes conscious of sights)

Later forms of Buddhism posit two further consciousness (see e.g. Eight Consciousnesses).
I suspect that early Buddhism might do something similar but perhaps using different names -- my (poor) understanding is that the function of the (early) sankhara aggregate might be similar to the function of the (later) ālāya vijñāna consciousness.
So is the author right or wrong?
I think he's right that there's no sense-consciousness when there's no sense-object.
Wrong in that there are longer-lived aspects of the mind.
Also I think that the (or a) difference between Buddhism and Hinduism is that consciousness, whether short or long, isn't viewed as "self" or "soul".
What is the Buddhist take about the existence of consciousness apart from human brain?
I don't know, "sentient beings" aren't necessarily human -- they may be animal, ghost, or in a hell or a heaven.
I think that Tibetan Buddhism also posits a Bardo, and existence after death and before the next birth, whereas I think that Theravada assumes that consciousness exists in a body.
Does the Consciousness exist in the universe apart from living beings?
I don't know; that sounds like it might be Hindu "Brahman" -- I don't think it's a feature of the Pali suttas, maybe it's (I don't know) in any of the later doctrines.
Also there's e.g. Brahma (a God), not to be confused with Brahman -- Brahma exists (according to the suttas) -- probably a living being but not a human being, a human body.

-1: <p>In the following excerpt from the book <a href="https://books.google.co.in/books?id=yivABQAAQBAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=edwin%20bryant%20yoga%20sutra&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjct972757dAhVVXisKHarcDQAQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=conscious&amp;f=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Yoga Sutras</a> by Edwin Bryant, the author is arguing that the fundamental difference between Buddhist and Hindu philosophy is that Buddhists believe that when 'all the objects of consciousness are removed, consciousness vanishes'</p>

<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/E8Bqt.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/E8Bqt.png" alt="from yoga sutras about consciousness"></a></p>

<p>I think it is wrong. When we leave all the objects of consciousness and enter in the first <em>Jhnana</em> then we are not conscious of any - 'sense-object' but we are conscious nonetheless otherwise it will be like sleeping or unconscious. </p>

<p>Also there is a plane of 'infinity of consciousness' which is the 3rd Jhnana so we are experiencing something that is infinite, so there is a human experience so consciousness is there. </p>

<ul>
<li><p>So is the author right or  wrong?</p></li>
<li><p>What is the Buddhist take about the existence of consciousness apart
from human brain? </p></li>
<li><p>Does the Consciousness exist in the universe apart from living beings? (IMO even if that exists that does not contradict with <em>Annatta.</em>. So we have space for Idealism.  </p></li>
</ul>

<p><strong>Small Edit:</strong> I am trying to defend the position of 'monistic idealism' within the framework of Buddhism. Also, <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/consciousness-goes-deeper-than-you-think/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">check this paper</a> </p>
 10100: <p><strong>In abihdhamma</strong> (chapter 1-5 for mind&amp;mind factor, chapter 6 for matter&amp;nibbāna, chapter 8 for paṭiccasamuppāda&amp;paññatti):</p>

<p><strong>1 moment</strong> can separate to <strong>3 sub-moments</strong>: arising, standing, and vanishing (upāda, ṭhiti, bhaṅgha).</p>

<p><strong>1 matter moment</strong> =  17 mind/mind factor moments.</p>

<p><strong>Paṭiccasamuppāda</strong> = cycle system of matter, mind, and mind factor.</p>

<p><strong>Nibbāna</strong> = the opposite side of paṭiccasamuppāda.</p>

<p><strong>Paññatti</strong> = imagination of mind&amp;mind factors about paṭiccasamuppāda or nibbāna (everything).</p>

<ul>
<li><strong>So, paññatti has no 3 sub-moments, we can't count it's moment.</strong></li>
<li>I.E. you can imagine "I get wings to fly", but it doesn't mean you really get wings. If the wings never get 3 sub-moments, arising/standing/vanishing, it is just imagination, not truth. However, something is imagination bases on truth, such as bird's wings. Because wings are imagination as well, but they base on the matter, which can get 3 sub-moments. So, bird can fly.</li>
</ul>

<h2>The explanation</h2>

<ol>
<li>Most of jhāna object is paññatti. No one can count paññatti-object's moment, because it never arise/standing/vanish.</li>
<li>Another, some jhāna has mind or perception as object. But that object is the past, which already vanished. Mind can know the present object as the present while it is taking a present moment (still in arising, standing, or vanishing state). but for the past or future object, mind can know it as it is unlimited. Similitude as we can see the present passing through car just the moment it is in our vision. But we can think of that passed/coming car, which being out of vision, unlimited.</li>
</ol>

<p><strong>By both case above, although the object is not present, the mind still can know it.</strong></p>

<p>If mind have to arise depend on only object, we must know everything even when we are sleeping.</p>
 -1: <p>Life is an ongoing stream of one consciousness appearing and disappearing after the next.</p>

<p>Every moment of consciousness exists of two things:
the knowing and the known.
Or consciousness and the object of consciousness. It's a one-on-one relationship, so to speak.</p>

<p>It's not:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>'all the objects of consciousness are removed, consciousness vanishes'</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Each moment of consciousness has one object.</p>

<p>Mind objects (thoughts, memories, images in the mind and so on) appear together and cease together with the accompanying consciousness. Rupa objects 'live' a bit longer: seven mind moments. It's a bit more complex, but for now this will do.</p>

<p>There can only be one consciousness at a time. So, a consciousness has to disappear after appearing, otherwise a new consciousness could not come up.</p>

<p>As mere mortals we can't see every single consciousness cease, but we can, with training, see an object of a consciousness arise together with its accompanying consciousness and cease with it's accompanying consciousness.
It's interesting when this happens. You can actually see consciousness cease together with thought, or nose consciousness together with smell. And like all sense consciousnesses mind consciousness with its accompanying mind object can also cease, or all five aggregates simultaneously (nirodha). That one will blow your mind.</p>

<p>I'm not really wild about the idea of an object generating consciousness. They come up together, in dependence (there you have a bit of dependent arising). But object is not always the cause, if memory serves.
(Dive into the Abhidhamma for more detail!)</p>

<p>Also: Buddhism holds that the brain and the universe exist in the mind, not the other way around.</p>

<p>The </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>'infinity of consciousness'</p>
</blockquote>

<p>is, I think, also meant the other way around. It's not that we experience something that is infinite. But consciousness itself is infinite.</p>

<p>That's my take on it.
Hope it helps.</p>
 8157: <blockquote>
  <p><strong><em>I think it is wrong.</em></strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>It is is right. What you think is wrong. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong><em>When we leave all the objects of consciousness and enter in the
  first Jhnana then we are not conscious of any - 'sense-object' but we
  are conscious nonetheless otherwise it will be like sleeping or
  unconscious.</em></strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Your mind has never entered jhana therefore why are you creating a belief system about jhana? Jhana is a sense object; just as Nibbana is a sense object (<em>ayatana</em>; Udana 8.1). The factors of jhanas, such as rapture &amp; happiness, are sense objects. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong><em>Also there is a plane of 'infinity of consciousness' which is the 6th Jhnana so we are experiencing something that is infinite, so there
  is a human experience so consciousness is there.</em></strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>All jhanas are sense objects. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong><em>So is the author right or wrong?</em></strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>The author is right. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong><em>What is the Buddhist take about the existence of consciousness apart from human brain?</em></strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>SN 22.53; SN 12.67 and MN 38 will answer your questions and show that the author is right. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong><em>Does the Consciousness exist in the universe apart from living beings? (IMO even if that exists that does not contradict with
  Annatta.. So we have space for Idealism</em></strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>There can be no arising of consciousness without sense organs, sense objects &amp; other aggregates. That is why there is no such thing as reincarnation. Refer to SN 22.53; MN 38; and SN 12.67. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently
  co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is
  no coming-into-play of consciousness'? [2] But you, through your own
  poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root]
  and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your
  long-term harm &amp; suffering."</em></p>
  
  <p><em>Then the Blessed One said to the monks, "What do you think, monks? Is this monk Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, even warm in this Dhamma &amp;
  Vinaya?"</em></p>
  
  <p><em>"How could he be, lord? No, lord."</em></p>
  
  <p><em>When this was said, the monk Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, sat silent, abashed, his shoulders drooping, his head down, brooding, at a loss
  for words.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>Then the Blessed One, seeing that the monk Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, was sitting silent, abashed, his shoulders drooping, his head down,
  brooding, at a loss for words, said to him, "Worthless man, you will
  be recognized for your own pernicious viewpoint. I will cross-question
  the monks on this matter."</em></p>
  
  <p><em>Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, "Monks, do you too understand the Dhamma as taught by me in the same way that the monk
  Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, does when, through his own poor grasp [of
  the Dhamma], he not only slanders us but also digs himself up [by the
  root] and produces much demerit for himself?"</em></p>
  
  <p><em>"No, lord, for in many ways the Blessed One has said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is
  no coming-into-play of consciousness.'"</em></p>
  
  <p><em>"It's good, monks, that you understand the Dhamma taught by me in this way, for in many ways I have said of dependently co-arisen
  consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no
  coming-into-play of consciousness.' But this monk Sāti, the
  Fisherman's Son, through his own poor grasp [of the Dhamma], has not
  only slandered us but has also dug himself up [by the root], producing
  much demerit for himself. That will lead to this worthless man's
  long-term harm &amp; suffering.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>MN 38</em></p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p><em>Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of
  consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from
  fabrications,' that would be impossible</em></p>
  
  <p><em>SN 22.53</em></p>
</blockquote>
 254: <p><strong>According to Buddhism does the Consciousness vanish when the objects of consciousness are removed?</strong></p>

<p>There are different types of consciousness, or different things which are all translated as "consciousness".</p>

<p>I gather from answers and comments to <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/28902/254">this question</a> that:</p>

<ul>
<li>There are five sense-consciousness (e.g. eye-consciousness) which arise when there's a sense-object and attention</li>
<li>There's a sixth, analogous to the five, where the mind becomes conscious of thoughts (like the eye becomes conscious of sights)</li>
</ul>

<p>Later forms of Buddhism posit two further consciousness (see e.g. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Consciousnesses" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Eight Consciousnesses</a>).
I suspect that early Buddhism might do something similar but perhaps using different names -- my (poor) understanding is that the function of the (early) <em>sankhara</em> aggregate might be similar to the function of the (later) <em>ālāya vijñāna</em> consciousness.</p>

<p><strong>So is the author right or wrong?</strong></p>

<p>I think he's right that there's no sense-consciousness when there's no sense-object.</p>

<p>Wrong in that there are longer-lived aspects of the mind.</p>

<p>Also I think that the (or a) difference between Buddhism and Hinduism is that consciousness, whether short or long, isn't viewed as "self" or "soul".</p>

<p><strong>What is the Buddhist take about the existence of consciousness apart from human brain?</strong></p>

<p>I don't know, "sentient beings" aren't necessarily human -- they may be animal, ghost, or in a hell or a heaven.</p>

<p>I think that Tibetan Buddhism also posits a Bardo, and existence after death and before the next birth, whereas I think that Theravada assumes that consciousness exists in a body.</p>

<p><strong>Does the Consciousness exist in the universe apart from living beings?</strong></p>

<p>I don't know; that sounds like it might be Hindu "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Brahman</a>" -- I don't think it's a feature of the Pali suttas, maybe it's (I don't know) in any of the later doctrines.</p>

<p>Also there's e.g. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Brahma</a> (a God), not to be confused with Brahman -- Brahma exists (according to the suttas) -- probably a living being but not a human being, a human body.</p>
