Adherents of many religions or philosophies often speak of their concepts as giving meaning to their lives, or being elegant when examined by the mind. They think this is proof that their religion must be true. Followers of those religions may look at Buddhism and think it doesn't give them enough meaning or intellectual elegance.
Sometimes religions have the concept of God as a caretaker or parent, and the provider of emotional support and comfort to the adherents. They think this is proof that their religion must be true. Followers of those religions may look at Buddhism and think Buddhists must be lonely without the emotional support provided by God.
Sometimes religions have very good music, which is pleasing to the ear and addictive to the mind, and adherents of those religion love it. They think this is proof that their religion must be true. Followers of those religions may look at Buddhism and feel Buddhists are missing out on the emotional pleasure of religious music.
As far as Buddhism is concerned, emotionally meaningful concepts, intellectually elegant concepts, emotionally soothing concepts and emotionally addictive music, are all pleasurable sensations to the six senses, including ears and mind. And they mainly appeal to emotion.
What's meaningful about Buddhism, is that it's empirical, i.e. based on experience. Here's an example below.
About consciousness, the Buddha taught the following, from 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-consciousnes
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 does not exist independently connecting all beings. The consciousness in every being may be of a similar type, but it's not the same consciousness.
For example, I can say that every candle has a similar flame, but it's not the exact same flame that appears on every candle. Each flame is different.
Also useful is MN 38, in which the Buddha makes clear that it is not the SAME consciousness that wanders through one's life:
Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to
him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to
him, "Is it true, Sāti, that this pernicious view has arisen in you —
'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this
consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another'?"
"Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed
One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not
"Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?"
"This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to
the ripening of good & evil actions."
"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'? 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."
The Buddha was very clear that there is no transcendental consciousness, that is aware of something beyond the six sense media.
From The All Sutta:
"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would
say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on
what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable
to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it
lies beyond range.
The best part is that practitioners can realize this for themselves.
OP asked in the comments:
Mmm ok thanks for reply, However it doesn't explain how it happened
that You , mortal being, are part of this chaotic existence , neither
to say WHY You are here and what is this illusion that is around You.
If it was absolutely nothing then why You are living this very
existence? How You fall down to live with a body? It' all circulating
around the point, but it doesn't address the real cause, hence the
In Buddhism, there is no illusion around You. The "You" is exactly the illusion. Please see the Bahiya Sutta for this.
“Therefore, Bāhiya, this is how you are to train yourself:
“In the seen, there will be just the seen.
In the heard, there will be just the heard.
In the sensed, there will be just the sensed.
In the cognized, there will be just the cognized.
This, Bāhiya, is how you are to train yourself.
Bāhiya, when it is like this for you –
In the seen, there is just the seen,
In the heard, there is just the heard,
In the sensed, there is just the sensed,
In the cognized, there is just the cognized –
Then, Bāhiya, there will be no ‘you’ in terms of this.
When there is no ‘you’ in terms of this,
Then there is no ‘you’ there;
When there is no ‘you’ there,
There is no ‘you’ here, or beyond, or in between.
Just this is the end of suffering.”
And the question of WHY is answered by the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow. When a man is struck by a poisoned arrow, he will not have the time to ask why and where the arrow comes from. Rather he tries to find a way to remove it as soon as possible and treat himself.