@Tfmonkey Consciousness is the mediating point between the subminds. Each submind acts as a committee member within the space of consciousness, constantly voting on what objects in background awareness are interesting enough to be examined by focused attention.

It's that attention we tend to call "consciousness" and "self," but it's not. Awareness is as much a part of consciousness and "I" an not directing it...it's a series of unconscious subminds that directs it.

@Tfmonkey (Samatha) meditation is the practice of getting subminds to stop going in five different directions and get them to all vote on one object to keep in attention. Eventually the meditator switches to Satipatthana meditation to try to penetrate the real nature of things in moments of Vipassana (insight).

One of these insights is that the self was just a mental-emotional object that has been fed a lot of energy...but it's caused nothing but stress. So it's abandoned.

@philosophy That's a valid way of looking at it. I would just call the "mediator point between the subminds" the mind, which indeed mediates between the senses. I wouldn't call the senses "subminds" and call the mind "consciousness". However, it looks like we're both describing the same thing with different words, so it's whatever.

@Tfmonkey That's always the tricky, but important, part of any philosophical conversation: sussing out terminology differences.

The senses are inert and meaningless until they project their content into consciousness. Consciousness doesn't arise without an object and objects don't arise without consciousness. This is the non-dual aspect of consciousness: they arise together. Put it this way: find a pain in your body. Before you sought it out did it exist? Or did consciousness create it?

@philosophy Again, what you're calling consciousness, I simply call "mind". Mind makes sense out of the information coming in from the senses, but this happens . . . wait for it . . . Subconsciously, meaning at a different level than the consciousness.

Hence definition #2, wherein consciousness is the opposite of subconsciousness, which is intellect and deliberate thought.

I believe "mind" is the better word for the layer between senses and the self-aware ego "consciousness" (see definition 3)

@Tfmonkey I think there's another aspect to that second definition though. It's not just deliberate thought. You can direct attention toward an object that's not a thought (say, a sight), and it becomes a moment of sight-consciousness without necessarily becoming a thought object.

It's still mind in the sense that all objects appear in the mind and are cognized by the mind, but it's not what I'd call a thought. It's sight-consciousness.

@philosophy sight attention/focus can still be subconscious.

What is the opposite of subconsciousness?

If subconscious awareness if a kind of consciousness, then what is subconsciousness? What is its opposite?

Maybe there is a better word for this, but I don't think that word is consciousness. I actually hate using that word because it can mean so many different things and is caused more confusion than it solves, and thus fails the purpose of language itself.

@Tfmonkey
Consciousness {
Attention: what is intentionally directing toward an object. Meditation is mostly about keeping attention on a single object.

Awareness: those objects still being experienced but not directly attended to.
}

Subconsciousness: sensory input that remains below the threshold of being experienced at all. The things present but forgotten.

Feel your right foot. It was subconscious. Now your attention is back to this message and the foot is in awareness.

@Tfmonkey That's how I tend to use the terms, but I agree these terms get confusing. "Mind" is confusing too because people confuse it with intellectual thoughts. There's no good English words.

@philosophy awareness can be subconscious though, so consciousness can't be it's own opposite.

Thus "mind" is the better word since it is not internally contradictory.

You can continue to use the word consciousness, but I think that's sewing confusion.

@Tfmonkey Not to belabor the point, but awareness is distinct from subconsciousness. Again these aren't my terms; I'm borrowing from "The Mind Illuminated" by John Yates.

Awareness is those things experienced but not intended toward. Subconscious things aren't even experienced.

The difference can be seen in meditation. Mind-wandering is when we forget the med. object totally. Completely caught in thinking. Gross distraction is when the breath falls to the background but is not forgotten.

@Tfmonkey Subconscious objects are picked up by the sensory subminds, but they deem it so unimportant they don't even bring it to the consciousness committee. Awareness is the stuff they bring to the consciousness committee. Attention is what the committee votes to be the important things they intend to examine further.

@philosophy My terms come from Sri Bagavath Pathai. He calls it the "three types of vision": sensory vision, mental vision, and the discretionary vision.

sensory vison comes from your senses (duh).

mental vision comes from your mind identifying what your senses are experiencing without judgement.

discretionary vision is when we apply our preferences and values to what we're experiencing.

1. the eyes see a flower
2. the mind identified a flower
3. the self classifies the flower as pleasant.

@Tfmonkey This seems similar to a part of the chain of dependent origination.

Ignorance about dhamma
-> mind seeks an object
-> consciousness of the object
-> mind cognizes object (mental)
-> full contact with object (sensory)
-> mind decides object is pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral (discretionary)
-> mind craves more of same or different object
-> mind clings to what it craves
-> strong impulse to obtain
-> birth of action to obtain/sustain
-> passing away of what was obtained
-> ignorance

@philosophy I get what you're saying but using consciousness as a synonym of awareness creates confusion because you can be subconsciously aware, like a "gut feeling" based on something subtle.

The word "mind" has many definitions too, but I think people understand the subtleties of mind better than the subtleties of consciousness.

My goal is to communicate efficiently and avoid or lessen confusion where possible, which is why I avoid using "consciousness".

I understand what you mean though.

@Tfmonkey BTW, the Buddha's Pali language (and the Sanskrit) is far richer for discussing these topics. English gets all confused and it's really hard to read folks like Schopenhauer and Berkeley for this reason.

The English word "mind" can mean citta, nama, sankharas, vinnana...these all have distinct meanings in Pali but we have to use really strange phrases in English. It makes the whole subject hard to converse about.