Source? Consciousness is defined in human teleological terms, it's not axiomatic. Even world-renowned scientists struggle to define consciousness.
For the Buddha, consciousness is defined as a process that arises co-dependently in relation to a sense-organ and their corresponding objects. He separates it as visual consciousness, auditory consciousness, and so on.
“Bhikkhus, consciousness comes to be in dependence on a dyad. And how, bhikkhus, does consciousness come to be in dependence on a dyad? In dependence on the eye and forms there arises eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise; forms are impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. Thus this dyad is moving and tottering, impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise.
“Eye-consciousness is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. The cause and condition for the arising of eye-consciousness is also impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. When, bhikkhus, eye-consciousness has arisen in dependence on a condition that is impermanent, how could it be permanent?
“The meeting, the encounter, the concurrence of these three things is called eye-contact. Eye-contact too is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. The cause and condition for the arising of eye-contact is also impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. When, bhikkhus, eye-contact has arisen in dependence on a condition that is impermanent, how could it be permanent?
“Contacted, bhikkhus, one feels, contacted one intends, contacted one perceives. Thus these things too are moving and tottering, impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise.
“In dependence on the ear and sounds there arises ear-consciousness … … In dependence on the mind and mental phenomena there arises mind-consciousness. The mind is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise; mental phenomena are impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. Thus this dyad is moving and tottering, impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise.
“Mind-consciousness is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. The cause and condition for the arising of mind-consciousness is also impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. When, bhikkhus, mind-consciousness has arisen in dependence on a condition that is impermanent, how could it be permanent?
“The meeting, the encounter, the concurrence of these three things is called mind-contact. Mind-contact too is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. The cause and condition for the arising of mind-contact is also impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. When, bhikkhus, mind-contact has arisen in dependence on a condition that is impermanent, how could it be permanent?
“Contacted, bhikkhus, one feels, contacted one intends, contacted one perceives. Thus these things too are moving and tottering, impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise.
“It is in such a way, bhikkhus, that consciousness comes to be in dependence on a dyad.”
In my opinion there are only goal-oriented agents with different subclasses of fidelity. Humans are very adept at recursive introspection relative to other species because of a unique evolutionary history. Certain theories try to explain consciousness as fundamentally unique, such as Orch-OR, but I think intellectuals come with their own ego that necessitates deification of their own mental processes, so I would take their caterwauling about the transcendent mind with a grain of salt.
It is just an empty process, interdepent, conditioned by the senses and its corresponding objects, instantaneous, and it doesn't have any purpose. It is just another phenomena of experience.
This is just the difference on how the West conceives of consciousness as some sort of "ground", something we have or some sort of essence which final purpose is knowledge, control and so on.
Such a definition is vague. Would you say plants are conscious as they emit ethylene when bruised? This is pain signalling, but a different kind to the one we are accustomed to, yet they register phenomena and respond accordingly.
Well, they might as well be! I don't know really... The difference is that a plant doesn't suffer, and a human does. I mean psychological suffering of "Why is this happening to me?" and so on.
The problem with exalting consciousness is that humans have a tendency to put themselves at the apex in all regards; so deify all human cognitive traits as a form of assurance - if something is viewed as more valuable, it is more protected - humans innately understand this and extol their minds to separate themselves from the animals they slaughter.
This is why I personally dislike Buddhism: believing that human cognition can somehow uniquely eclipse itself into saintly transcendence is peak human egoism.
I agree, this might be just another form of evolutionary strategy as you might say, but the things is that all of these are just pointers in the direction of lessening suffering or motivation. Sure, it could be nice for the human ego to hear how special he or she is just because there is this aditional process happening in their brains, and this creates another sort of duality of "humans Vs not-humans", but as with all dualities, this too will also have to be left behind in order to progress along the path.
"Even the Dharma is like a raft to be discarded" (MN 22).
"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."
Even Buddhism must be let go! You could even say that the best buddhist isn't a buddhist.
You are suffering. Even if it is not consciously integrated into your vessel, your brain is still processing an outcome weighted by the suffering experience.
Suffering, but no sufferer. It is not personal, it never was.
I think you are implying that there's something flawed about humans constructing a story involuntarily (which reduces the importance of such a story, but involuntary conclusions don't come from nowhere, they come from your unique mind which is purpose-driven. The involuntary processes are still 'you', in my opinion.
You could say that Buddhism tends to be a little neurotic when it comes to the topic of reducing suffering, and I agree! One could take this step even further and see that Buddhism might not even be a religion per se, if you discard all sort of metaphysical shit, but a system to know the mind without using it or using it minimally in order to reduce suffering. If I remember well, the Buddha refused to answer metaphysical questions because he knew they are just obstacles.
Buddhism doesn’t ask you to
"believe" in no-self, it just shows how clinging to
"me" causes suffering. Even the
"path" must be seen as
empty:
"I am reducing suffering" →
"Who is reducing what?" →
"…Oh." → ?
"Be a lamp unto yourself."
