Vedantic Self Or Buddhist Non-Self?
This question is impossible to answer as it depends on a person’s view. There is consciousness; we are consciousness, and we can agree on that.
If consciousness relates to external events or to itself, then there is a self.
If consciousness does not relate, then there is just consciousness, and no self.
Both can be experienced.
What experience?
Conscious can experience time and timelessness – duality and non-duality.
The Vedanta and Buddhism are not different; it is only how they are realised that is different.
In Buddhism, there are many traditions. Are they different? Only in their form.
It all depends on what works for the individual.
The Buddha’s teaching is no teaching – just realisation beyond teaching.
BUDDHA IN THE MUD is a blog - a living book based on the Dzogchen teachings. Our teacher is life, and life is karma. We are all Buddhas in the mud of concepts. 
I see them as same…the Vedantic Self refers to the same pure consciousness, as the Buddhist Non-self. They are only 2 ways of pointing out to the same reality, the words seem to mean opposite only because of our conventional association (identification) with this word ‘self’ has to be negated, which is what Buddhist ‘non-self’ is doing (I see this ‘non’ as negation of the identification, with the conventional sense of self). Then what remains as our absolute reality is the ‘real Self’, which is the Vedanta’s Self.