Since you ask, and instead of relying on feeling, how about we check the suttas if when translated with ‘discernment’ we find obvious problems, we can quickly and safely discard such idea. However, if we do not find obvious paradoxes with it and rather find paradoxes with the translation of ‘consciousness’ then we can put more effort into this endeavor.
Let’s start our analysis based on suttas
For example how about we check MN140 (for translation as ‘consciousness’ click on the link, here let’s attempt to place ‘discernment’)
It starts with mentioning elements:
And what is the earth element?
The earth element may be interior or exterior. And what is the interior earth element? Anything hard, solid, and appropriated …
…
This should be truly seen with right understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’
When you truly see with right understanding, you become disenchanted with the earth element, detaching the cittaṁ from the earth element.
… water … fire … air … space
When you truly see with right understanding, you become disenchanted with the space element, detaching the cittaṁ from the space element.
Immediately after this comes the segment containing the word viññāṇa:
Athāparaṁ viññāṇaṁyeva avasissati parisuddhaṁ pariyodātaṁ.
There remains only discernment, pure and bright.Tena ca viññāṇena kiṁ vijānāti?
And what does that discernment discerns?‘Sukhan’tipi vijānāti, ‘dukkhan’tipi vijānāti, ‘adukkhamasukhan’tipi vijānāti.
it discerns ‘pleasure’, it discerns ‘pain’, it discerns ‘neutral’.
So far there does not seem to be any obvious paradox in the previous segment were it to be translated ‘consciousness’ or ‘discernment’. Let’s continue a bit:
Pleasant feeling arises dependent on a contact to be experienced as pleasant. When they feel a pleasant feeling, they know: ‘I feel a pleasant feeling.’ They know: ‘With the cessation of that contact to be experienced as pleasant, the corresponding pleasant feeling ceases and stops.’
Painful feeling arises … Neutral feeling arises …
This segment says that feeling depends on contact to be experienced as pleasant, and the following segment gives a simile of rubbing two sticks together - a form of engagement, which when is stopped - when the sticks are placed apart - it ceases and stops.
When you rub two sticks together, heat is generated and fire is produced. But when you part the sticks and lay them aside, any corresponding heat ceases and stops.
In the same way, pleasant feeling arises dependent on a contact to be experienced as pleasant. …
They know: ‘With the cessation of that contact to be experienced as neutral, the corresponding neutral feeling ceases and stops.’
And what follows after is:
Athāparaṁ upekkhāyeva avasissati parisuddhā pariyodātā mudu ca kammaññā ca pabhassarā ca.
There remains only equanimity, pure, bright, pliable, workable, and radiant.
Now - a careful reader has probably spotted quite an interesting fact that was just stated in the last sentence. Have we found a paradox? Feel free to reread it and figure it out before reading next.
To recapitulate:
After detaching cittaṁ from earth, water, fire, air, space…
Athāparaṁ viññāṇaṁyeva avasissati parisuddhaṁ pariyodātaṁ.
There remains only (consciousness OR discernment), pure and bright.There remains only equanimity, pure, bright, pliable, workable, and radiant.
The sutta seems to state that there remains only equanimity. The viññāṇa, whether we translate it as ‘consciousness’ or ‘discernment’ is gone at this stage.
However, a general definition of the English word ‘consciousness’ according to Wikipedia is:
Consciousness, at its simplest, is awareness of internal and external existence.
Thus, the question to be asked then is, if we translated viññāṇa as ‘consciousness’, which would imply awareness, which according to the sutta ceased at this stage, how would one be aware of the equanimity or anything at all? That is a paradox. If one knows an answer to explain this or there is a mistake made somewhere, I would be grateful for the correction.
What about ‘discernment’? If we translated viññāṇa as ‘discernment’ and the role of this ‘discernment’ is only to discern between ‘pleasant’, ‘painful’, ‘neutral’, thus if it ceased, we would end up with ‘equanimity’. There does not seem to be any problem with this translation in this particular case.
Finally, we cannot make any conclusions by checking just one sutta, however we managed to find one paradox that requires investigation or clarifying by someone who is skilled in this domain.