Cartesian dualism does that, and it is something analysed in depth by Husserl in his Cartesian Meditations. He says that Descartes on the one hand recognises the fundamental role of consciousness, but on the other, mistakenly reifies it by designating it ‘res cogitans’, a ‘thinking thing’, which, says Husserl, makes it a ‘little tag-end of the world’:
Descartes had correctly identified the ego as ‘the greatest of all enigmas’ (C 80; K 82) but unfortunately went on to misconstrue it in naturalistic fashion as an objective substance in the world. Descartes, as Husserl puts it in his Cartesian Meditations, treated this ego as a ‘little tag-end of the world’ (ein kleines Endchen der Welt, as he says in CM § 10, p. 24; Hua I 63)—a real entity rather than as the condition for the possibility of unified experience and as a domain of meaning-constitution. Or, as Husserl puts it in the Crisis, Descartes treated the pure subject or ego as a ‘residuum’ (Residuum, C 79; K 81) left in the objective world ~ Dermot Moran, Husserl’s Crisis, p 293
But I agree, the consequences of Descartes’ dualism have been profound and often harmful, subject of an earlier thread, Descartes’ Ghost.
Fasching’s essays are on the topic of comparing Advaita (non-dualist) principles to arguments in philosophy of mind — and there is a history of comparisons of Kantian and Indian philosophy (e.g. an addendum to Bryan Magee’s ‘Schopenhauer’s Philosophy’.) So again the relation of phenomenology and ‘transcendental subjectivity’ in Kant is something that can be documented.
There are also cross-cultural comparisons of Heidegger and Eastern philosophy (although Heidegger also resisted any easy identification of his work with Asian philosophy, saying that European culture has it’s own destiny to consider — with which I agree .)
‘Consciousness is being itself’ is characteristic expression of popular Vedanta. For example Swami Sarvapriyananda of the New York Vedanta Society, who has many online lectures (ideal complement to Fasching’s essays.) The phrase he returns to repeatedly is prajnanam brahma — consciousness is Brahman — one of the four ‘Mahavakyas’ or great sayings of the Upanishads.
So there are convergences, but also differences, between idealism, phenomenology, and Vedanta, in that all three agree on the fundamenal reality of consciousness (sat-chit-ananda in Vedanta), but that doesn’t mean they are all the same or saying the same things. But none of them subscribe to materialism in any way shape or form.
(Also I’ll note again that what empiricism denotes by ‘sensation’ and phenomenology by ‘consciousness’ are very different.)