text:
Why do we have to circulate in the circle of Samsara?
Why do we have to circulate in the circle of Samsara?
What did we do wrong for this suffering?

Here is the truth.
(According to Buddhism)

Why do we have to circulate in the circle of Samsara?

It's because you/we want that.
We only circulate in the circle of Samsara, because we wish to be so.
By wishing more stuff, happiness, friends, family.
So at the end of life, how would get what you wanted if you didn't reborn.

What did we do wrong for this suffering?

At the absolute level, we/you didn't do anything wrong. It's about what we/you want.
What you wish.
As noted above, we wish to live. But living not only you get good stuff, you get bad stuff.
You get bad stuff, because you wish bad stuff, opon you or others.
Don't take this personally(you). It's just the truth of the world.
Thanks. ☸.

I think this answer is basically correct.  See AN 10:58 as corollary.

I have quoted below the famous parable of the poisoned arrow from MN 63.
It shows how Buddhism is more interested in practically solving the problem of suffering, rather than engaging in fruitless speculation on metaphysics.

Suppose, Mālunkyāputta, a man were wounded by an arrow thickly smeared
with poison, and his friends and companions, his kinsmen and
relatives, brought a surgeon to treat him. The man would say: ‘I will
not let the surgeon pull out this arrow until I know whether the man
who wounded me was a noble or a brahmin or a merchant or a worker.’
And he would say: ‘I will not let the surgeon pull out this arrow
until I know the name and clan of the man who wounded me;…until I know
whether the man who wounded me was tall or short or of middle height;…
until I know whether the man who wounded me was dark or brown or
golden-skinned;…until I know whether the man who wounded me lives in
such a village or town or city;…until I know whether the bow that
wounded me was a long bow or a cross-bow; …until I know whether the
bowstring that wounded me was fibre or reed or sinew or hemp or
bark;…until I know whether the shaft that wounded me was wild or
cultivated;… until I know with what kind of feathers the shaft that
wounded me was fitted—whether those of a vulture or a heron or a hawk
or a peacock or a stork;…until I know with what kind of sinew the
shaft that wounded me was bound—whether that of an ox or a buffalo or
a deer or a monkey;…until I know what kind of arrowhead it was that
wounded me—whether spiked or razor-tipped or curved or barbed or
calf-toothed or lancet-shaped.’ “All this would still not be known to
that man and meanwhile he would die.
So too, Mālunkyāputta, if anyone should say thus: ‘I will not lead the
holy life under the Blessed One until the Blessed One declares to me:
“the world is eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor
does not exist,”’ that would still remain undeclared by the Tathāgata
and meanwhile that person would die. .....
“Why have I left that undeclared? Because it is unbeneficial, it does
not belong to the fundamentals of the holy life, it does not lead to
disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct
knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna. That is why I have left it
undeclared.
“And what have I declared? ‘This is suffering’—I have declared. ‘This
is the origin of suffering’—I have declared. ‘This is the cessation of
suffering’—I have declared. ‘This is the way leading to the cessation
of suffering’—I have declared.
“Why have I declared that? Because it is beneficial, it belongs to the
fundamentals of the holy life, it leads to disenchantment, to
dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to
enlightenment, to Nibbāna. That is why I have declared it.
“Therefore, Mālunkyāputta, remember what I have left undeclared as
undeclared, and remember what I have declared as declared.”
MN 63

What did we do wrong for this suffering?

The concept of original sin does not exist in Buddhism. Rather it is our choices and actions that bind us to samsara. But this point will be lost to anyone until they identify and recognise the links between their anxieties, stress, worries, fear, frustrations, anger and sufferings to their choices, decisions and actions. The greatest irony is that oftentimes, we don’t even recognise our actions as calamitous and leading to suffering until it is too late.
In the Aggañña sutta, the Buddha talked about self-illuminating beings who feed on rapture. However, these beings began to eagerly feed on earthly nectar and their cravings, subsequently, condemned them to a wretched fate.
A late family member was a habitual smoker and heavy drinker. Despite persistent warnings from us that those habits are harmful, he continued stubbornly. One night, he complained that half his body had gone numb. We didn’t realize then that he was having a stroke. The next day, he was motionless. Although I was young then, I still remember his frightened looks that evening when he related his conditions, having sensed that something was seriously amiss. Even today, many smokers cum drinkers ignored health warnings despite scientists having proven the link between smoking/drinking and early mortality.
Similarly, there are health warnings of high sugar intake and a sedentary lifestyle but many persist to ingest sweet soda drinks as a means of hydration. It is not just physical nutrients but the mental food that we choose to feed on that binds us to suffering. I have seen men and women who are so used to managing and controlling their subordinates in the office, trying to put their husbands or wives and children under their thumb. I know of an ex-classmate who was very competitive who will be awake until 1 or 2 am in the morning just thinking. He only sleeps about 5 hours a day. I suspect that mental stress prevented him from getting a good night’s rest. Later on, he was diagnosed with prediabetes despite being quite tall and slim. I believed this was caused by a metabolism gone haywire. If a person feed on outwitting, outsmarting and out scheming others then it really hard to take off that thinking cap.
It takes a lot of self-control, wisdom and courage to pause and recognise that we are in a deluded state, that we are addicted to compulsive control, nicotine, alcohol or whatever. And even more courage and wisdom to see that we are harming ourselves and others, to then turn around and change course. Unfortunately, a lot of us learned all these things the really hard way.
The Buddha pointed out that the things we feed on are mostly unskillful such as cravings for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming (or to continue experiencing in the same old way) or craving for non-becoming (or not to continue experiencing in the same old way); all leads to sufferings. Unfortunately, all these feedings/cravings are habitual and stubbornly wired in us. It is precisely because of them that we are bonded tightly to samsara. How to unlearned these habitual feeding and wanting thus loosening the bonds to samsara becomes the key to liberation.

I know it seems cliché but dont ponder upon this. This is one of the 4 imponderables. You are trying to figure out the origins of existence. Its not gonna get you anywhere.
Don't worry, we have all thought of it, but there is no answer, its the chicken and egg conundrum ad infinitum.

Please let go of the notion that circulating in samsara is bad.
Samsara is fun but as with any experience, the fun plateaus.
Samsara is about experiencing the world using different combinations of our sense organs to create fun(movies, games, food, etc.). But, the caveat is the longer you live the more boring it gets and the boredom is explicitly tied to memory. The brain always seeks newer fresher experiences. One day we'll surely invent awesome technologies that'll help us enjoy the game as much as possible while we live. Think neuralink, memory replacement, etc.
The very fact that we humans can play this game for dozen of decades is both blessing and curse.
I don't know if there are any other worlds but the current world seems excellently designed.
This world also offers Nirvana, where the mind gets to experience the most peaceful state ever where time vanishes. What more can you ask?


text:
Attachment Theory - Anxious Attachment in light of buddhism
Before I ask this question let me tell that I know that attachment in Buddhism is very different from the one in psychology. Also, I understand that attachment in psychology is just aversion or craving for certain situations/feelings/experiences etc.
That being said, I was wondering if anyone has successfully overcome anxious attachment (or knows how to)?
I ask here because if I ask anywhere else I would get the standard response "it's something that you live with for all your life and it's something very deeply rooted, which cannot be overcome. So you should get better in learning to live with it."
I understand the broad psychology etc. so please emphasize on any specific exercises and insights that have helped you. Feel free to add any other relevant info. Thanks

anxious attachment, you mean attachment toward stuff that you love, like, earn?

@Pycm anxious attachement is a form of mental state, or rather a collection of fears and beliefs. Basically it is fear of abandonment, mistrust and low self esteem/self judgement and hatred etc.

I will use the word clinging instead of attachment to address your issue. Your problem is that you cling to the feeling of anxiousness.
Anxiousness can be overcome in stages. Deep love from others can reduce your anxiety. If you have a strong sense of humour , under all circumstances, then you can overcome anxiety. If you can love the worst possible situation which can manifest in your life then also you can overcome anxiety. You should develop courage to face adverse situations by accepting the outcome of your efforts or actions wholeheartedly.Take daring tasks regularly to improve your mindset.
Best way to deal with anxiety is by developing the right mindset. Have compassion, deep compassion, for everybody. Even for your enemies and adversaries.
I personally cope with anxiety by getting in touch with reality. Reality has 3 marks of existence.

All conditioned phenomena are impermanent.
All conditioned phenomena are suffering.
All conditioned and unconditioned phenomena are not Self.

When I face adverse situation I remind myself , it will not last forever. Therefore I do not let it to depress me.
When I face favourable situation I remind myself , it will not last forever. Therefore I do not celebrate it beyond a point.
Also , the above truth is valid for all. And everyone is going to suffer because of that. So I do not try to run after anything or anyone. I am satisfied with what I have. In fact I feel happy for whatever I have. Zero expectations has helped me reduce my anxieties to minimum low. It can be further lowered but that approach I will tell you when I myself will start following it.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Is porn considered harmful sexual.activity?
I don't have a sex life because I don't have a partner and I don't wish to engage in casual sex so I use porn to quench the biological urge to orgasm. I can't see that's it's harmful because nobody is being forced into it. The actors are all paid well and claim to enjoy it etc. The only harm I can see is that it's so accessible these days on smart devices and so children may access it but I believe that this is the parents responsibility to not allow unsupervised use of devices etc. Views?

The actors are all paid well and claim to enjoy it etc. ... Porn industry reeling after five deaths in only three months

FIVE porn stars have died in the last 12 weeks alone as a crisis rocks the sex industry, with workers revealing just how badly they are treated.   https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/porn-industry-reeling-after-five-deaths-in-only-three-months/news-story/e779587b387f0ad2b3ae71ec45f0c631

If you do your research, even rich famous pornstars going back in history for many decades, often have tragedies. Drug addiction, being sex trafficed as kids,  suicide, etc. Those riches and fame have a heavy price.

Yes, there is wrong with it but not ethically in my opinion. Also it is wrong only in the pragmatic sense and not in the moral sense.
Probably I shouldn't be the one preaching, but I have come to see the bad effects myself so... Yes it is bad because every orgasm come with a possibility to get attached to it, to the pleasure. For most of us, this possibility actually materializes into attachment. This creates the mind to wander on this pleasure (automatically) which further brings up urges/craving for orgasm. so hopefully you can see that it's a spiral which can easily get out of hand, and you may get addicted to it.
Over a long time, with consistent use, it can basically destroy your will and your mental strength. you won't be able to concentrate half as long as you are able to now, you will feel lazy and sleepy more often and your IQ will drop substantially.
As per buddhism, I am not entirely sure because I'm not that well read. But I'm sure someone else can point to instances where the Buddha insists on celibacy or points to the negative effects.

Yes its harmful,
On moral ground its not hidden that porn industry most of the time forces and do not pay enough.you are indirectly fueling that cruelty.
Porn is not suggested even for Sex or masturbation. Because you are using mental power to indulge into it. Its too much for brain.
Ideally you should masturbate without porn. if possible (or later) you can masturbate even without fantasy or imagination.  This will create very less burden to brain. and body knows well what to do. Ejaculating is work of body and not mind. This way you are actually free from it.
Later when you want to go for complete celibacy, its much easier, since you have disconnected mind from this bodily act.
Staying away from porm, soft  porn or engaging mind into fantasy etc is Big NO, even for married person. Even fantasizing about your legal partner is big NO.To that extent we must follow 3rd precept. that will help greatly in achieving Deep samadhi.

Is porn considered harmful sexual activity?

Although not strictly speaking forbidden for a householder, it does have its drawbacks namely being addicted as pointed out by the other answers. It is definitely not allowed in the case of a monk which is a good reference for what is wholesome or unwholesome behaviour.
One of the possible methods to overcome compulsive or impulsive behaviour (including addiction) is perhaps to focus on the unbearable part in our life. Sometimes, we allow ourselves to be addicted to sensual pleasures like porn, sex, alcohol, vaping, caffeine and so on because we are trying desperately to escape from something.
I know it is contradictory that we are forcing ourselves to face the very thing that our instinct is telling us to run away from. Perhaps, what you find hard to reconcile is the fact that you are alone and the ensuing loneliness that the mind associate this with. By associating being alone with negative emotions like loneliness, it creates a fertile ground for other negativities like depression, anxiety, stress and so on. But it does not have to be this way.
If we observe people in relationships, sometimes, we see them feeling lonely and unhappy. I have seen my fair share of abusive relationships as well. Emotional dependencies can be both a boon and a bane. Despite the hit and miss nature of relationships, people invested a huge amount of time, effort and resources in them. Personally, I have nothing against this but I realized that the healthier relationships tend to occur amongst people who are emotionally balanced and mature to begin with.
This meant they don’t need others to be dependent on them or vice-versa. To these people, being alone is not something that needs to be associated with loneliness or any negativities. Instead of focusing on the negative aspects of a situation (being alone, poor, ordinary, not street-smart and so on), we can focus on the positive aspects. The advantage of being alone? There is a lot of freedom. The benefit of being poor? We are hungry and willing to work hard. The pros of having only average or below average intelligence? We don’t have the cleverness to scheme and hurt others for our selfish greed.
Changing our views of what’s wrong in our lives takes time and initially plays a supporting role. The first step is still to create distance and time apart from our unskillful habits. When the mind is no longer compelled or impelled all the time, there is then some calm, normalcy and room for us to relook, rethink, revise and rebalance our perceptions and thinking of what is unbearable into something that just fine and OK.

In another thread, you asked about pleasant sensations and jhāna.
I'm guessing you're young, so here's some important advice you won't get from suttas
if you're serious about jhāna.
(since monastics are already celibate by rule)
If you want to attain stable and higher jhānas,
celibacy and noble silence to the best of your ability are the feedstock and prerequiste to that.
The jhānas and other samādhi attainments are not just a mental transformation but a physical transformation as well.
Reproduction is one of the most energetically intensive operations a body can do.
You don't have enough energy to indulge in sexual activity, sensual pleasures,
and also attain higher jhānas.
It's as if you only have 1 million dollars to last your whole life,
and stable jhāna costs 600k$,
and going to the whore house, or having ethical sex with your girlfriend,
or watching porn costs 20k$ each pop.
Those 20k$ pops don't seem like much when you're young and still have close to a million dollars,
but if you don't heed this valuable advice and you're older it will be too late to change your mind.
If you follow 5 precepts and stay with moderate level of ethical sexual activity and sensual pleasures,
most likely that will put your jhāna ceiling at a mediocre first jhāna and low quality second jhāna.
If you watch a lot of porn and indulge in a lot of sexual activity and sensual pleasures like most lay people,
you're going to experience the typical problems they do.
Anxiety, depression, loss of memory, poor cognitive function,
poor immune system, head aches, body aches, irritability, etc.
Sexual urges are difficult when you're young.
Even highly attained spiritual beings find it difficult looking back, see Ajahn Chah's biography for example.
If I had things to do over and be young again, the way I would deal with urges is have intensive physical exercise as an outlet when urges are especially difficult.
If you jog for several miles for example, the energy in your body is going to circulate and when your mind is off of sex for a while, and the body tired from the exercise, then you'll have some temporary relief.
The main key though is to focus the mind on the downsides of sexual activity and sensual pleasure rather than on the subha nimitta (attractive and alluring elements of the opposite sex and sensual pleasures).
The key to long term success is once you truly see and understand the insatiability, unreliability, and lack of satisfaction in sex and sensual pleasures, you'll gradually lose interest in that.
Just as most people understand how being addicted to heroin and alcohol is a losing proposition.
Once you can file away porn and sexual activity in that same category, you'll not be attracted to it the way most people can be trained not to be attracted to heroin.

Watching and making porn is a distraction, it cultivates lobha drenched, greed-based mind states. Watching porn goes against the wholesome Dharma. It is sensual. It's the cultivation of sense pleasure and bodily juices instead of allowing the cultivation of warm wholesome joy. Foul body contemplation helps attachment to sex.

As I see, there are few downsides.
1)
According to Buddhism, thought is the primary actor. So, virtually it's equal to having actual sex.(in your mind) Though it's not intensive as actual sex. (virtual sex is less intensive, less harmful)
2)
Virtually or actually, when you do sex it leads to more sex. (virtually or actually)(a growth)
3)
It reduces purity of the mind.
4)
It adds up bad karma.
I actually don't recommend stopping it, unless you are seriously going for Nirvana. That's because, if you stop it without strengthening your mind enough, your mind and body will start to act differently / can be harmful on your social life.

I feel like it's at least healthier than having multiple casual partners and ending up catching an STD etc or becoming attached to someone who doesn't feel the same way.  It's kind of common knowledge that in some religions etc where they are celibate that their sexuality comes out in really unhealthy ways. Look at the Catholic church for example

Yes. But unless you are really considering reach Nirvana/or focus on meditation in this life, I would say to get married. That's because, unless, you would feel lost hope, purpose less. That's bad. One should always have a purpose until the moment they reach Nirvana. Otherwise they will think about things like suicide and stuff. Which Buddhism doesn't approve as good.

If porn is not harmful, why would it be harmful to children?
Porn is degenerate, addictive, ignorant and contrary to the Buddhist way of life.
Also, sexual urges are mental rather than biological.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
What are some actionable steps I can take to overcome my "Nice Guy Syndrome"
Basically this "Nice Guy Syndrome," as described by Dr. Robert Glover, refers to a pattern of behavior where individuals, often men, seek approval and avoid conflict by being overly nice, accommodating, and putting others' needs before their own. Ofthen, nice guys are seen as doormats/people pleasers and end up building resentment, unfulfillment, and difficulty in forming genuine connections.
From a Buddhist perspective, which teachings or principles can help in understanding and addressing the root causes of this syndrome? Furthermore and more importantly, what are practical, small, and specific steps that I can take to gradually overcome this pattern of behavior and develop healthier relationship dynamics? I know general mindfulness helps, and probably alone is enough to fix it overtime, but I am looking for something more doable and more direct.
Thanks for any answers

As a little bit Nice Guy Syndrome myself, I would like to see others answers too.

This doesn't strike me as something Buddhism can answer, and is also quite subjective.

But, in a nutshell, start listening to your own desires and needs as much as you listen to the desires and needs of others.

@Cdn_Dev It is a psychological condition that creates suffering - ultimately attachment and aversion to a set of specific things. As such Buddhism not only must have an answer, but the best and most effective answer.

This has been my biggest problem, though I am in a committed relationship and have a steady job. It still causes stress despite getting past any major barriers towards the life you want.
I'll tell you how I've worked to resolve it, and  I will include Buddhist thought as well.
I believe the issue is that nice guys tend to give everyone equal amounts of honor. However, in the Mahamangala Sutta, the Buddha said that blessings come to us when we honor those who are worthy of honor, and we avoid foolish people. Amongst those worthy of honor are our parents, enlightened people, monks, and those we help in a peaceful occupation.
Furthermore, everybody is due basic respect, as that Sutta says, via just being generally patient, generous, and withstanding the ups and downs of life. I believe some Mahayana and Vajrayana suttas talk about everyone having Buddha nature, so that we ought be nice to everyone... however, it is the case that being overly respectful toward someone before they've earned it is almost like treating a fool and a stranger like they're our mother or father... and they not only will they take advantage of us, but then we can't even be in a good position to help others, or even the fool himself.
Here's where it gets tricky. What if we are nice to our parents, and yet our parents are bad to us? We probably should still respect them, as the Buddha even said respecting our parents is proof of having integrity. On the other hand, a parent might not get the 100% respect that a great parent would get if they are lousy. Perhaps only 99% then.
So... don't stop being nice. Just maybe be nicer to some people than others, and then people will seek your respect as opposed to them misusing it.
I think that mental shift of accepting that being nice is always correct, but that we can tone it down either a little bit or quite significantly depending on the situation, will help a lot.
Also, you mentioned actionable steps. I think some concrete steps can include things like self control. If someone says, "Hey, be a friend, get drunk with me", the monk might keep his simple life and decline, because he knows that a fool doesn't deserve honor in that way.
If an abusive ex wants to talk to you, instead of thinking, "I'll give her a bit of time, we have a history," there's also, "A history is important, but the abuse was also real. They don't deserve my time all things considered." And so on.
In Defensive driving courses they say the way to control the road is to control yourself. I think that is a way to work on Nice Guy Syndrome in accord with the Dharma.
*I'm editing to cite that I got the major part of this thesis from a Protestant pastor named John Piper, though the advice applies to Buddhist thought equally well.

I don't know. I could only speculate, maybe a problem is desire -- wanting to be liked, wanting something (reciprocal behaviour) in return? Or the fear, of the unpleasant consequences, of saying "no"?
A fix might be to concentrate on ethics -- what is "good" behaviour?
There's the behaviour in the Zen story Is That So? for example -- where the master's behaviour is, imo, ethical towards the child (rather than driven by a desire to be liked).
Conversely there is something to be said though, though I'm not sure what, for "unselfish" behaviour: it can be enlightening.


text:
How exactly is consciousness created out of the formations, from ignorance, in the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination?
I am reading into and thinking about https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Twelve_links_of_dependent_origination and the first 3 in particular, which basically is a derivation of consciousness from nothing!
A few questions about this:

The first one, "Ignorance", is said of an individual misinterpreting reality, unaware of its true nature. So it acts out of ignorance. But there are two things in there (at least): the individuals, actions, and awareness. Where does the individual come from? As well, where can I find more information on what Buddhism says about the origin of action itself? Because the cycle assumes action and individuals as preexisting, where do they come from?
The second one, "Formations", is where the individual performs actions (mental or physical), avoiding the negative and desiring the positive, with an ignorance about true nature. This leads to a flow of experiences which leads to consciousness? How exactly does consciousness arise out of "unconsciousness" (or whatever the opposite of consciousness is)? I can imagine like a magnet repelling some things and being attracted to others. This slowly accumulates weight around the magnet, which is consciousness? I dunno, doesn't quite click with me yet.
The third is "Consciousness", the result of the actions compelling the individual into existence. Can you explain that more? I can kind of see it, but how does consciousness not exist earlier, during steps one or two?

Thank you for your help.

It is as if you are watching a television but the television has engulfed you inside. Utterly unbelievable. There might be some truth in it because I remember I had similar experiences of fading out of consciousness and then back again inside the television. What's strange is how the world seems to be created out of thin air :P just like in a video game.

When my answer is short, shall I post it as a comment instead?

The first one, "Ignorance", is said of an individual misinterpreting reality.

You got it correctly, that is not the right definition of Ignorance for the purposes of D.O. When we discuss D.O. we are speaking outside of a context of an individuum. Instead, in the impersonal context where D.O. takes place, Ignorance is a primordial lack of representational differentiation. Nothing is represented, nothing is differentiated, nothing is known. You can imagine it as a primordial soup of randomly fluctuating energy currents, forming some shapes bouncing against each other and falling apart.

The second one, "Formations", is where the individual performs actions [...] How exactly does consciousness arise out of "unconsciousness"?

Once again, there is no individual yet, no one to perform actions. Instead, as those random energy currents fluctuate, some of the shapes they form end up getting "dynamically persistent" - meaning they are not strictly static and yet they tend to get cyclically reproduced due to being parts of the causal loops. This does not happen everywhere, only in the pockets of low entropy that can fuel the dynamically persistent shapes.
These shapes or Formations bear imprints of the forces that shaped them, carrying information about them, thus being the first very primitive instances of Representation. Over time, after many, many, many cycles, many iterations of the causal loops that shape them, these dynamically persistent formations get combined into clusters of dynamically persistent formations of the higher order, giving rise to more complex Representation.
Eventually it gets to the point where these Meta-Formations grow capable of a kind of mechanical response to certain patterns in the stimuli of the energetic fluctuations they interact with. These mechanical responses are the ontological  substratum of Recognition of Signs, the basis of Semiosis. Over time these stimuli-response pairs get combined into chains, that get more and more complex, until there it becomes what we can call a very primitive kind of Consciousness, an advanced kind of pattern recognition.
All this is to say that, in its basic essence, Consciousness is nothing but an emergent property of Formations being carriers of Representation.

So far our discussion was taking place in some abstract cosmological space, before the primordial soup of energies has developed anything we can call life, let alone sentient life. In our segment of the Universe that is clearly not the case. Instead, on this planet we have a booming ecosystem of various causal loops forming dynamically persistent entities known as biological processes and life forms. As I pointed out above, all of these fall in the category of what Buddhism calls Formations. And, as I explained, these Formations inherently carry Representations of energies that shape them. I hope this makes it clear why these Formations should be considered inherently conscious in the very abstract, very rudimentary sense of the word.
Now, as you can imagine, some of these formations evolve to be capable of more complex and more cohesive Representation than others. At some point this Representation enables the level of Pattern Recognition or Semiosis that can itself act as a positive factor of causal loops -- that is to say, a positive factor of natural selection. In other words, the Formations capable of Pattern Recognition receive evolutionary advantage. They no longer randomly bounce around, they tend to gravitate towards desirable causal situations, by taking advantage of Pattern Recognition. They avoid negative causal influences and seek positive causal influences. In other words, it's almost like they (the Formations) act with greed towards the desirable and avoidance of the undesirable. Although, strictly speaking, Formations and their Actions are not subjects and verbs - remember, Formations themselves are dynamically persistent causal loops (and meta-loops of many levels). So all of it is just activity upon activity, causal loops, also known as the karmic tendencies.
To summarize what we covered so far, the primordial soup characterized by Ignorance gives rise to Formations, the Formations give rise to representation, desire, aversion, and consequently, Formations end up gravitating towards what to them are desirable states and avoiding undesirable states. The causal consequences (karma!) born from this pursuit and avoidance feed back to this overall process, creating evolutionary pressure towards more and more capable Formations with stronger capacity for Representation and Pattern Recognition.
In other words, the karma created by the afflictions of ignorance, craving, pursuit, and avoidance, causes the seed of Representation to grow into more and more capable Consciousness. This consciousness is said to dwell in the impressions produced by karma, which are then deposited within it as representations of patterns or "objects".

The above may seem like it describes the evolution of Consciousness during the early part of Earth History. However, it is important to understand that sentient beings, including humans, are themselves causal loops of dynamically persistent entities, and as such every iteration of the loop repeats the key steps of the evolution, thereby reproducing itself. In other words, every sentient being goes through the same process where it starts from Ignorance and develops capacity for Representation and Pattern Recognition by growing certain Formations supported by its body and brain.
Consciousness, thus originating, has the role of delineating individual objects, the nama-rupa. The rest of D.O. describes how this ongoing process leads to the representation of "outer" vs "inner" and the eventual delineation of Self.
I think this should be enough. I hope this will make sense to someone.

The quote in the question is merely an (erroneous) interpretation.
In early Buddhism, consciousness cannot arise without a sense object (MN 38); without the other aggregates of materiality, feeling, perception & thought (SN 22.53); without perception & feeling (MN 43).
Therefore, what happens in Dependent Origination is the impulses/fermentation ('asava') of ignorance (MN 9) cause non-volitional ('monkey-mind') thoughts based in perceptions & feelings to arise (called vaci & citta sankhara) and also causes the breathing (called kaya sankhara) to become agitated. The agitated breathing or otherwise non-volitional thoughts cause consciousness of those 'formations' to arise/occur.
For example, due to ignorance, the thought arises: "I wish to ask a question on  Buddhism Stack Exchange". With the arising of that thought there then is also the arising of consciousness of that thought.
This is all that is occurring. No rebirth or no reincarnation involved.
Similar, the ignorant mind worries, causing the breathing to become agitated. Then consciousness of that agitated breathing occurs. In summary, first there is the agitated breathing and then soon after there is consciousness of the agitated breathing. The agitated breathing occurs first. The consciousness of the breathing occurs second.
In summary, formations do not "create" consciousness. Instead, formations simply prompt consciousness to become "established" upon those formations.
For example, consciousness is established on watching TV. Then there is a loud explosion causing consciousness to stop being established on the TV and to start being established on the sound of the explosion. Then ignorance worries about the explosion and consciousness then becomes established upon those worrisome thoughts. In merely a few seconds, consciousness has moved from watching TV, to hearing an explosion, then moved to thoughts "I am going to die from terrorists".
That is all that is occurring. Formations causes consciousness to become established/focused on those formations. Its not rocket science.
For example, the ignorant thought arises: "I want to watch TV". This causes consciousness of that thought to arise. Then this causes the body-mind (nama-rupa) to decide/intend to watch TV. Therefore, consciousness of this intention occurs. Then the body & mind act to turn on the TV and consciousness of the TV arises. Consciousness of each thought, then action, then sense object is continuously arising & passing. Consciousness is just leaping upon object after object. The Buddha explained:

Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.
SN 12.61

For someone so knowledgeable in Buddhism, I always find it strange that you don't believe in karma or rebirth. I hope you will encounter one of those supernatural experiences. Reality is really stranger than what is seen by the eyes.

The suttas literally say it is ignoble speech to speak of things not directly experienced (AN  4.250). The suttas literally say the Dhamma Refuge is only that directly experienced.

These are just my two cents from what I gathered.
Consciousness arises out of mind's capacity to contrast against the properties of things like shape, size, color, etc. When the mind is in deep meditation, the mind thinks, okay this is peaceful than the normal experience of consciousness and it's desire to contrast against things diminishes. At some point, even the awareness of things also disappears because of how relaxing it is. Then, as all the tendency to measure vanishes consciousness also vanishes.
Whatever the Buddha nature might be, I can already see it's ceasing of all sorts of measurement. Which means from the perspective of NIRVANA, everything that is possible to experience by a conscious being is stress, papanca, etc.
Some checkpoints along the path to nirvana,

Utter relaxation
Sound becomes the mind(it's as if the world disappears and stuffs are happening inside), non-duality, non dual awareness, etc. It's as if the mind has become like a transparent glass or something.
Cessation of awareness
NIRVANA

What happens at step 4 is yet to be seen. But reality is already feeling a lot strange to me, it's as if I am talking to myself by writing this answer. Anyways, I assume there's SOMEONE out there apart from my imagination who is reading this.

I think the consciousness that we normally associated with, is a higher-level construct and aggregation of awareness established with the support of a body (either physical as in humans/animals or otherwise as in devas/hungry ghosts). This higher-level consciousness is something relatively stable and is not the same as the consciousness referred in the 12 links of dependent origination (DO). (A sidenote: perhaps there could be a different and/or better term. Consciousness has a conventional usage which can be confusing).
The DO consciousness is more akin to a consciousness-awareness that is tainted by the pull or push towards what is being experienced (there is a third reaction which is neutrality towards an experience. This neutrality contributes to a constant search that results in an eventual pull or push but this shall be mostly ignored in our discussion). Being pulled when what is experienced is pleasant or pushing away when it is an unpleasant experience appears to be a very rudimentary habitual reaction (I believed shaped by our mind’s inclinations and habitual tendencies). At this level, the pleasantness or unpleasantness that is experienced is largely a result of our karma. Here, the effects of karma are even more direct, immediate and impactful (i.e. scary in my opinion).
This pull and push (formation in DO) is embedded within the awareness. Upon contact (being aware), the choice is already made to like (pull towards) or dislike (push away). It is too late to be even aware of these preferences when a being is already in such low state of consciousness-awareness (e.g. in a coma or near-death experience) to try to effect changes to anything. There just isn’t any high-level consciousness (characterised in those who are living, awake and fully functional) to debate, decide or choose. At this level, the concept of self (i.e. I or me) and the associated ownership (i.e. this is mine, my thoughts, my feelings, my consciousness and so on) does not exists; everything is reactionary and habitual. So, the being does not understand that it is an individual. This concept would require a higher level of consciousness in order to grasp. I believe either the being survives and return to its old body or this pull and push eventually find an opening in the form of a new body and rebirth takes place.
But why is there such a habitual reaction (like/dislike/neutral) that seems embedded within mere awareness? My understanding is, from Buddhism’s point of view, this delusion (i.e. ignorance of the nature of reality) had been cultivated and habitualized since time immemorable, its origin is unknown. With Metta.

The standard formula of dependent origination (paṭiccasamuppāda) is given in SN 12.1. The definition of every nidana is given in SN 12.2.
In the standard formula of dependent origination, every nidana that comes after, depends on the one that comes before, as the condition for arising. When the nidana before ceases, the nidana after ceases too.
Ignorance or avijja is the force of nature that gives rise to the mind-body phenomena, and also gives rise to the underlying tendencies that drive us towards craving. It's the natural or evolutionary instinct that drives us towards survival, sensual enjoyment and individual existence.
Dependent on ignorance, volitional formations (sankhara) arises. These are the physical and mental processes. The physical processes here refers to breathing and the rest of the processes like heart beating etc. (i.e. kaya sankhara). Mental processes are of two types. One is the "input path" which processes inputs (the six types of feelings) and produces mental states or cittas (i.e. citta sankhara), while the other is the "output path" which produces actions and words (i.e. vaci sankhara). This is based on MN 44.
Dependent on volitional formations, consciousness (vinnana) arises. SN 35.93 tells us that dependent on eyes and form, eye-consciousness arises. The six types of consciousness are related to the six sense media.
The way I see it, consciousness is the mind-body connection (where mind is "name" and body is "form"), and it's supported by:

Name, reverends, is one end. Form is the second end.
Consciousness is
the middle. And craving is the seamstress,
for craving weaves one to
being reborn in one state of existence or another.
AN 6.61

Dependent on consciousness, name-and-form (namarupa) arises. Name-and-form represents a mind-body system that operates together, like software-and-hardware. And if you read the definitions of "name" (feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention) and "form" (form made up of four great elements), they read like definitions of parts of mind and body respectively.
The body is called "form" because it is the form-sensor, that senses external forms. The mind is called "name" because it is the name-assigner, that assigns names to the forms sensed by the body. So the terms name(-assigner) and form(-sensor) describe functions of the mind and the body in the combination of namarupa.
Name-and-form (mind-body) has a mutually dependent relationship with the six types of consciousness according to SN 12.67, like two sheaves of reed leaning on each other.
To put it another way, the mind-body system (name-and-form) depends on the mind-body connection (consciousness) and the mind-body connection (consciousness) depends on the mind-body system (name-and-form).
The nidana of sankhara that comes before consciousness, is defined as bodily formations, verbal formations and mental formations. These represent the basic functioning or basic operations of the body and the mind, as separated or independent operations. Then when body and mind connects, we get consciousness which gives rise to the mind-body system and the mind-body system in turn sustains consciousness.
Please see this answer for further details.

Dependent Origination clearly explains origin of all kinds of suffering(not Self). I will answer your questions.
You spoke :

Where does the individual come from? As well, where can I find more
information on what Buddhism says about the origin of action itself?
Because the cycle assumes action and individuals as preexisting, where
do they come from?

Dependent Origination does not talk about any individual or Self. It begins with Ignorance. What is ignorance? Not knowing that birth , ageing and death are suffering. Not knowing that craving is the root cause of suffering. Not knowing the path leading to the cessation of suffering. Or knowing that birth , ageing and death are the sources of blissfulness.
Here it should be noted that no individual is referred because all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena are not self. Ignorance is a phenomena which is over and above consciousness.

How exactly does consciousness arise out of "unconsciousness" (or
whatever the opposite of consciousness is)?

Opposite of consciousness is unconsciousness. Something like stone. However no self can be found here. Consciousness is impermanent. Consciousness arises if right conditions are met. Consciousness changes if right conditions are met. Consciousness vanishes if right conditions are met. Condition for consciousness is Sanskhara(conditioning). Conditioning for bodily forms , conditioning for feelings , conditioning for self , conditioning for food , conditioning for perceptions , conditioning to hear , conditioning to see , conditioning to taste , conditioning to smell , conditioning to touch , conditioning for some mental phenomena etc. Some kind of conditioning is always there to fuel the related consciousness.
For example:- If sanskhara is of a mathematician ( mental conditioning) then due to that sanskhara along with ignorance, gives rise to math consciousness.

The third is "Consciousness", the result of the actions compelling the
individual into existence. Can you explain that more? I can kind of
see it, but how does consciousness not exist earlier, during steps one
or two?

As I said dependent origination does not talk about self except for the wrong conditioning of mind to recognise sanskhara as self. Dependent origination does not talk about absolute beginning. Absolute beginning is inscrutable. If you notice the mathematician’s Sankhara was due to previous births. Sankhara is just conditioning. Conditioning comes first then related consciousness. Similarly ignorance comes first then the volitions dependent on sanskhara.


text:
Change our atomic habits to attain changes in our life
Atomic habits those are pour in our life and we could not focus on them and we get fall apart in life, So what are the various ways to focus on our atomic habits to make sustainable change or make our self better.

do you mean patterns? i think u mean patterns, like when a moment of compassion or pity followed by a moment of lust or passion?


text:
Definite places of rebirth (request of sources from Buddhas sutras)
I'm looking for sources from the 4 nikayas on where, and how to "attain" a defined place of rebirth.
Examples I know of:

Heinous actions lead to definite hell realm rebirth
Reaching sotapanna stage is defined human or above rebirth (in a noble family)
Anagami, defined rebirth in pure realm (non returner)
Higher levels of jhana, defined pure realm rebirth (this may be incorrect?)
Attainment of 4 immeasurables, defined bhrama realm rebirth (brama-vihara)

If there are any other sources anyone knows where the Buddha defined specific actions that lead to specific places of rebirth, this would be very helpful.
I know Mahayana, specifically Tibetan sects have concocted some practice known as Tulka, where apparently a high level Bodhisattva can choose where to be reborn, but I find these claims dubious at best and the practices trying to define and find the person reborn as flawed divination!
I would prefer actual Buddhas teachings on sources rather than unsubstantial claims.

An example from  the suttas is porn or "prostitutes" lead to lower realms (Snp 1.6). Hell is described by King Yama in MN 130. Otherwise, this leads to animal birth (AN 2.9).
All ten unwholesome actions can lead to hell (AN 10.211). The five heinous actions seem to refer merely to five actions an Ariyan cannot commit (MN 115). The five heinous actions do not define what leads to hell. All ten unwholesome actions can lead to hell (AN 10.211).

There is the case where a trifling evil deed done by a certain
individual takes him to hell. There is the case where the very same
sort of trifling deed done by another individual is experienced in the
here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.
Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual takes him to
hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped in
[contemplating] the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in mind,
undeveloped in discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with
suffering. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual takes
him to hell.
Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is
experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed
in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted,
dwelling with the immeasurable. A trifling evil deed done by this sort
of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part
barely appears for a moment.
AN 3.99


text:
Why can't I feel pleasant sensation?
I've been attempting to follow Leigh Brasington's instructions about entering jhana. However, I never seem to be able to find a pleasant sensation. I mean I feel just kind of warm and comfortable in places and I feel occasional subtle vibration or tingle but not enough to maintain focus on. Anyone have any advice about this?  And before you start to preach about how trying to enter jhanas will ensure you don't, I already know that. I'm just more looking for advise about why I can't seem to notice sensations much. Thanks

You don't focus, search for sensation in jhanas. When get closer and closer to jhanas, the sensation just arises inside you. You don't search, try to find it, try to feel it; it just arises inside you and you just feel it. The moment you try to find it, it disappear. That's because, you lose concentration of your mind.

Jhanas only about absolute concentration. Not feeling, trying to feel anything.

So, it only about, how oneself achieve this concentration. So there are many standard ways to practice this.(40 kasina in Buddhism)

cessation of stress is pleasant..

I have to be honest, I've never understood that approach.  I believe Brassington even states that the "jhana" experienced that way isn't even real jhana.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they're called "pleasure" jhana and not true absorption.
When it comes to jhana, don't neglect the advice in the suttas.  You want to find an object, any object will do (so breath, kasina, a candle, whatever.  Breath is probably best since there's more written on it.  First, you need to establish applied thought.  Get your attention used to "hitting" the breath.  All you're doing here is identifying a place where the breath passes - the tip of your nose, your belly, etc.  Next comes sustained thought.  When you've identified that place, observe the entire duration of the breath from that point.  Closely follow the whole inhalation and exhalation.  Do not let your mind waver, but don't use force either.  Use the lightest touch you can to keep it in that place.
While all this is going on, be mindful of any hinderances as they arise.  See them, identify them, let them go, and return to your meditation point.  You will notice your sit deepen every time you do that.
After some time, you will begin to notice a feeling of solidity.  Your mind will congregate in a single place.  You may see a light (I never have, but people report it).  For others there will be a palpable darkness like staring into an empty cave.  This is the nimitta and evidence that you have entered access concentration.  At this point, you should use that experience as your meditation object.  When you first experience it, it will likely vanish.  Just go back to the breath.  It will emerge again.  Just be patient and it will stabilize.
As you maintain attention on the nimitta, piti will arise.  This is translated as rapture, but that's a garbage translation.  Its better described as energy.  This energy may cause your body to shake, your hands to clench, your jaw to flutter, etc.  Just give into it.  Let it do to your body what it wants.  Eventually you will merge into that experience.  At that point, hooray!  First jhana.
One addendum - it will take about 6-12 months to strongly establish access concentration.  First jhana is probably more like 1-4 years and that's assuming you're getting regular feedback from a teacher.  As far as how long it takes in a single sit to get there - I've been doing this for almost 20 years and it takes me about 30-45 minutes to get to strong access concentration.  First jhana takes about 75 minutes.  If I sit for 2-2.5 hours straight, I can usually get to mature 2nd jhana.  Third and fourth jhana are only reachable after 3-4 days of retreat where we sit for 12+ hours a day.  So...I guess manage expectations accordingly?
How many downvotes can I get with that one?  I'm guessing three in under 24 hours!

Thank you for the advise. I've noticed in the last few days I'm getting this pleasant tingling sensation in my middle back area but not during meditation. Like I'm having it now reading this. Not sure why. Maybe some piti. I meditated 2.5 hours this morning.

You can safely ignore that.  Piti will be quite obvious when it arises.  When it first shows up, it usually appears in short burst of energy turning then into oppressive feelings like being under 50 feet of water or having your body wrung out like a towel.

Yes thanks i've experienced it many times before

Jhana is a superhuman state, resulting in freedom from sensuality. Leigh Brasington's instructions appear not related to the jhana described in the Pali Suttas. If jhana could be attained so easily, why are monks engaged in years of discipline, austerity & training?

I already attained once before plus had psychic premonition

yes but was the mind free from inclination towards sensuality?

Yes.  It was not something I had experienced before and haven't since. I had no idea at the time what jhana was.   It happened quite by accident and changed my life forever.

Even with a legitimate first, second, third, fourth jhāna, the body conditions are always changing and the sensations (vedana) are not going to feel the same all the time.
Let alone, if you're not even sure you can do a first or second jhāna yet.
For some good general advice, read Thanissaro's article: Jhāna Not by the Numbers
https://lucid24.org/tped/s/samadhi/book/than-breath/index.html#10.2


text:
How the Bodhisatta found the way across, vast amount of time, misguided views, by himself?
It's said that after the Bodhisatta become Buddha, he was kind of surprised how himself came to that position, across vast amount of time, alternate views, other paths, misleading views. (basically infinite number/amount of spaghetti)
So, how he did it?
What kind of thinking / practice oneself do in order to achieve / make that kind of determination?
How oneself find it's way across this vast nonsense?
How oneself fight against all odds, yet tell nobody?
Above all questions may seem different, but they all ask the same basic question. That's why they all are in same stack question.
I am not making this question up, that's what my heart is asking for few years now.

So, how he did it?

I think in the Mahayana tradition, it all begins with a vow. According to the tradition, there are many beings who make this vow but many either give up along the way or choose to attain Enlightenment instead of seeing it through to become a Sammasambuddha.

What kind of thinking / practice oneself do in order to achieve / make that kind of determination?

It is the ten paramitas although the list differs somewhat in the Theravada and Mahayana tradition. Personally, I find perfecting any of these paramitas an endeavour in self-torture; admirable but insane (sorry for the language).

How oneself find its way across this vast nonsense?

I presume you mean the nonsense as in the seemingly endless cycles of samsara. I think if you read some of the Jataka tales about our Buddha (Gautama) in his previous lives as he was perfecting the paramitas, you will realize that there was a lot of meanderings. There were times when he was lost (to greed, aversion or delusion) for a long time in samsara before regaining back the path of practice and making meaningful progress. Often, it seems like it was a process of self-realization that a certain path is a dead-end that caused the would-be Buddha to reverse course. Other times, a meeting with a Buddha and the opportunity to practice under such an enlightened being really speed up the progress. Nonetheless, the amount of time spent perfecting the paramitas is incredible.

How oneself fight against all odds, yet tell nobody?

I don’t think a Bodhisattva do this practice specifically for a particular someone. They don’t have anyone to rely on for guidance (except a rare and chance encounter with a Buddha now and then), not even fellow Bodhisattvas. They have to be a light upon themselves, trying out and learning all kinds of dhammas. It is a trial-and-error process requiring a lot of patience (one of the paramitas).
Personally, I realized as I grow older that it is precisely this willingness to help others that forces a person to learn skills and gain understanding in unfamiliar (and often uncomfortable) areas; such that one’s wisdom and skillful abilities are vastly enriched and expanded. Without this innate desire to want to save all beings and the insane amount of time to learn and perfect the necessary skills and understandings, a being just cannot reach that level of perfection in wisdom, compassion and skills needed to be a vehicle that guides and help transport other sentient beings across the vast sea of samsara to the safe shore of Nirvana.

I am not making this question up, that's what my heart is asking for few years now.

I thought of this too as I started as a Buddhist in the Mahayana tradition. Understanding the implications made me realize becoming a Buddha is just not in my DNA. But that doesn't mean I will stop actively going out of my way to help others as and when possible. Helping others really do expand our breath of wisdom, courage, patience, compassion and skillfulness....just not as a Bodhisattva.

Thank you for the answer..  "Without this innate desire to want to save all beings", how someone make something like that? what drives them to keep suffering for others? https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/50425/25614  .

The Bodhisattva vow is not a simple process. Its beginning could have been simple but subsequently it should be reinforced in the presence of a Buddha who will then make a formal prophecy (but don't ask me how the first Buddha came about). We all have this innate desire to want to help others, guide them towards a better future. But it is like a flickering flame that goes out at times to be reignited at another time. I think a Bodhisattva's flame is akin to a sun. Perhaps, how it is enlarged to such an extent is the insane part.

There was no "spaghetti", no "infinite views" and no inherent "fight". The Bodhisatta:

Simply realised when young his life was impermanent, which caused a loss of intoxication in his youth and sensuality. Refer to AN 3.38.

Simply understood sensuality (such as porn) was deadly to the development of wisdom and a peaceful mind. Refer to MN 19.

Simply examined his mind until he came to understand how suffering arises & ceases. Refer to SN 12.10, where the Bodhisatta came to understand the idea/mental concept of "aging & death" is born from ignorant self-view attachment.

The term 'Bodhisatta' originally simply meant "being seeking enlightenment". The term 'Bodhisatta' originally did not mean countless past & future lives of spaghetti. The Bodhisatta predominately used wisdom or "wise investigation" ("yoniso manasikārā"; "appropriate attention") rather than predominantly "fighting", as SN 12.10 explains.

please do not delete and repost the same answer to get around downvotes or comments that you don't like.

Downvotes and negative comments could be a result of bad karma. This answer and its suggestions offers constructive ways to address the issue.


text:
How a Bodhisattva make the choice to keep suffering for others?
It's said Bodhisattva is very kind and he decided to keep in the Samsara until he fulfill his Pāramitā and become Buddha, so others can free from Samsara by listening to him.
Even he could attain Nirvana at past Buddhas, that he didn't.
How he did it?
What kind of thinking was there?
How he decided keep suffering / keep live in Samsara, for others?
It can't be just kindness. Can be?
Reference :-
There's no linkage between people, they are just individual consciousness in vast universe. There's no actual family, friends.
So how could there be kindness?
Not normal kindness.
But to play most dangerous game of, playing in the Samsara for saving others.

This question is Mahayana rather than Theravada. In Theravada, this question has no relevance.

No. Mahayana more towards everyone becoming a Buddha. But Theravada is general. It encourage all three levels (Rahath, Pasebudu, Sammasambudu). Not just Sammasambudu / Buddha.


text:
On the latter day of the law and Nikko Shonin
I have realised the importance of establishing a trinity in Buddhism (via the mentor disciple relationship). I'd like to learn why Nikko Shonin was unable to do so in the latter day of the law despite being Nicheren's direct disciple?

Nevermind ... I figured out the answer

I don't think he failed. He managed to establish a continuity despite the latter day


text:
Using ChatGPT to submit an assignment, a Buddhist perspective
Was trying to help an undergrad with his assignment with another friend. This friend started advising the undergrad to use ChatGPT to do his assignments while the undergrad was complaining that it wasn’t very helpful for his programming module. I felt uneasy but the way the conversation went, this seems like a common thing. So, I am not sure.
I wondered what is the correct Buddhist view on this. Is it breaking any precepts like lying (this is cheating, right?). Will it lead to long lasting harm and suffering from a karmic point of view? What would be the Buddha’s advice?

Why not ask the student's teacher -- what programming tools is the student allowed to use? -- or I expect the student probably knows already. Are they allow/expected to use "AI" or is that forbidden -- because whether there's deception depends on whether it's forbidden by the teacher's rules+expectations.

Is even education acceptable by Buddhism?

Are they allow/expected to use "AI"....I get a feeling that the students today only think it is cheating if they are caught.

@Qwerty I don't know.... perhaps you can ask this question in the forum.

Wanting to "cheat" academically might be a symptom that the student wants to pass the exam or get a high grade, but without doing the work/practice and therefore learning the subject. When I was at school the purpose there seemed to be to do well at competitive exams. When I left school and began to do real, useful, interesting work, that's when I wanted to learn the subject.

Yeah, I had the same problem as a student. Perhaps, I am trying to think of a way to convince the undergrad (as well as myself) that it is the understanding part rather than the rushing to complete something (be it an assignment or project) that will put a person in good stead both now and in the future. It's just the way our society is setup (both in schools and work places) to reward speed and quantity that makes it extra difficult to come up with a convincing story.

FYI I read a psych experiment where two groups of young children were given a task, and then another more difficult task. After the first task, some were praised for their success (how well they completed it) and some were praised for their diligence (how well they focussed or how hard they worked). It was the second group that did better on the next task -- the first group would tend to give up (maybe thinking that, "If I can't succeed at this easily then this task isn't worth attempting").

Yes, they should teach this in school.  And repeat it at each level....getting the process right. The results are not always within our influence but it is usually easier to exert control on the process. And this skill of focusing on the process is also far more beneficial in the long run.

The Buddha lived 2600 years and obviously gave no advice on ChatGPT.
This said, of course it is cheating. The bad karma involved is not learning how to study & research properly, which will lead to future academic & vocational failures in (the present) life.
It is similar to those who cannot study the Pali Suttas properly. They spend their time on 'Buddhist' chatsites making bad kamma & reviling the Noble Ones. Instead of studying the words of the Buddha, they use chatsites like a ChatGPT. The Dhammapada says:

Let none find fault with others; let none see the omissions and commissions of others. But let one see one's own acts, done and
undone.

Sadly, I have to downvote this answer. Yes, ChatGPT did not exist in the Buddha’s time but the issue of cheating is the same which we can address by applying insights from the Dharma. Not learning how to study or research properly is not bad karma. There are many people in the world that are bad at studying and cannot do proper research, it is condescending to think there is something wrong with them. It is when cheating becomes habitual (which usually happens) then it becomes bad.

While it is admirable that you are knowledgeable in Pali, linking the lack of this knowledge as not studying the sutras or the words of the Buddha properly, making bad karma and reviling the noble ones are presumptuous. Learning and remembering the Dharma is good but practising it is better. Many of the Buddha's Arahant disciples were illiterate. The above is why I downvoted although I observed that you don’t extend the same courtesy when downvoting. Just a friendly advice, habit is karma and good habits lead to good karma and vice versa.

Practise cannot occur without right learning. Please avoid nonsensical advice.


text:
Help on intrusive thoughts that are disturbing and repetitive
I need some advices about unwanted intrusive thoughts. I have been living a totally normal and happy life until last week. I got random thoughts about sexual images and other unsanitary activites which are very disturbing. Those thoughts would involve around the Buddha, Bodhisattvas and other stuff that are related around the religion. Even typing this out makes me uncomfortable. Everything I do at everytime will activate my mind in some way to automatically redirects it to Buddhist-related, which is disturbing and I just want it to stop. My mind is always alerted because I'm terrified that new thoughts would pop up. There are advices that told me to ignore them thoughts and move on with my life, but then I would think about the consequences of my thoughts and stuff around it, which make my anxiety worse. I want my old life back, just living normally without any issues. I want Buddha to know that I am not disrespectful about the religion or anything, it is the random thoughts that I just cannot do anything about it. Will these thoughts lead to negative karma? I am a teenager and still live with both of my parents. They are both Buddhist and so as their relatives, so I am sure that they won't be happy listening to my problems add I can't really afford a therapy. Any help and advices would be appreciated.

Buddhas do not take offense. Buddhas have oceanlike compassion & forgiveness. Our thoughts about Buddhas do not affect the Buddhas. To the contrary, the Buddhas care about us & our welfare.
If you watch pornography, the Buddhas would recommend to stop. Anyone that watches pornography has no chance at real progress on the Buddhist Path.

I don't watch pornography anymore, but the affects of it still cause havoc to my mind

yes, it causes havoc. that is why the Buddha's do not recommend it. Best wishes for you

When I get angry, I know hatred/pride is getting angry, when I get sexually aroused I know greed is sexually aroused, when I am sad I know pride is getting sad, when I’m frightened, I know pride is threatened. Etc. pride, greed, hatred and ignorance etc are all empty of self. In this way, reminding ourselves, being aware always, I’m one with the Buddha.

Intrusive thoughts can be a symptom associated with OCD, tourettes, and anxiety. I really recommend you read about the topic in general, like the above link. Intrusive blasphemous thoughts are a specific symptom of OCD, and it's known Martin Luther experienced them, and his religiosity was profoundly influenced by such experiences.
It's great that you are asking about this, because many sufferers go through their experiences without doing so, and feel to blame for what their mind is doing. Our brains do many complex and useful things outside of our conscious awareness, the flipside of that is sometimes our brains do the wrong things and it can be hard change.
Recommended treatments include CBT, which may be available through your healthcare provider, or there are free online ways to use it. There's exposure therapy, the treatment of choice, which I think is delivered by psychological professionals. Medication can be appropriate for severe cases, but I don't think clinically you are in that category.
In terms of things you can do right now. Notice how the thoughts, and then anxiety about the thoughts, tends to make them worse. Being in a state of anxiety, tends to make us more 'jumpy', and switch to more automatic responses. Anxiety tends to make us focus our eyes and attention on less of our visual space, but conversely if we pay attention to our peripheral vision, that's a que to the body that tjis isn't a moment where the anxiety response is needed.
The general advice in meditating, is to treat thoughts as like clouds passing, not trying to push or pull them, just letting them arise, not attaching to or embellishing them, and letting them pass. That applies to what you are experiencing too. Rather than concern or discust, try to simply hold neutral curioysity: 'Oh, this is what my mind is offering me now, ok, no judgement, let it go, wait for what it offers next, and observe that and let it go too'. Meditation is not about controlling the mind, it is about learning about our own mind. Common Buddhist metaphors describe our conscious mind to our wole mind as like the mahout guiding an elephant, or the ox-herder pictures in Zen of gradually taming a wild ox, or 'monkey mind' is maybe especially appropriate for intrusive thoughts. That is, we can't treat our whole mind as something to just be told what do, but, by learning it's ways, we can come to cooperate with it.
Do you practice mantras or dharanis? They might help too.

Do you think it will work for my thoughts? Sometimes they are so disturbing that I don't ever want to think about it again. Do you think it will go away eventually? When one thought goes away, another more disturbing one pops up.

I don't know why everything I see, learned at school or do, my mind would create thoughts that is related to the Buddha and other Bodhisattvas, literally everything is sexualized weirdly and the product is so weird, like having affairs and stuff like that. Can you give me advices about that?

@Tony: I think you need to think seriously about therapy, even though it's expensive. I'm not a psychological professional, & those are the relevant people here. My experience, is that you can cultivate an attitude of non-attachment even to intrusive thoughts, just see it as a weird film, & try to maintain an attitude of equanimity. But I don't experience what sound like OCD symptoms. This exposure-therapy seems to be what is rated best, I think you should look into it.

I'l try to look for free online therapy first, until I save up enough to get the actual therapy. The thoughts are disruptive, but I can still manage it to my daily lifestyle I guess


text:
Dependent Origination and "vast emptiness"
Can emptiness due to dependent origination be logically connected to the "vast emptiness"
of Bodhidharma and Huineng?
A possible connection is that "vast emptiness" of space is the ultimate source of everything that happens into it, which is insignificant relative to its vast and empty support (container).
In this way emptiness is something vastly more substantial than the little substantialities we perceive as such using our ordinary mind, including seemingly grandiose ideas like the cyclical ever-recurring universe
or the self-referential ability of the mind that results in the ego consciousness.
So is this the main point of dependent origination? That it ultimately leads to vast empty space as the source of everything?

hi can you please be more specific on what you are referring to with "emptiness due to dependent origination"? The traditional Pali descriptions of DO make no mention of emptiness, so I can only guess you're referring to Nagarjuna's MKK?

yes I mean emptiness as lack of permanent substantiality in the manner of  "B happens only if A happens", so if we remove A then B is removed too.

You say

In this way emptiness is something vastly more substantial

then

I mean emptiness as lack of permanent substantiality

which seems contradictory.
You might like to read about the Dharmakaya, and the cosmic or primordial Buddha. I take this to be a metaphor, for how within all dependent origination, in all thought streams and situations that arise, there is also the potential for Awakening, that this is a foundational potential that co-arises with any other phenomena.
Emptiness or rather Sunyata, is about how nothing is permanent or exists in isolation. Ultimately, recognising that, frames existence in terms of potential, rather than substances or substantiality. We bring the mind of untangling and non-attachment to dependent arising, and that is the path towards Unshakable Liberation from causes and conditions, and that faces the direction of Awakening.

My 1st reference to emptiness refers to the "emptiness of the vast space" while the 2nd refers to objects that appear within that space, which acts as the container. I view the 1st emptiness as substantial in the sense that it is permanent indeed, ever-existing on its own, not as an isolated  "thing" but as the ultimate container of everything that could possibly ever appear... So I do not see any contradiction.  That way, Awakening is "seeing into" the procedure by which that seemingly "inert" container generates and holds the array of objects that appear to our senses.

@exp8j: Using the same word, for different things, in the same context, is just going to confuse things. When you say 'of the vast space', you mean space-time, the vacuum seperate to particles? Because it doesn't work like that, matter bends space, bent space changes how matter moves - whether the cosmos is closed like a bubble, or will expand forever depends how much matter there is, & we seem to be on a knife-edge between. If you mean Sunyata, or Dependent Origination, use the proper terms. Emptiness is a confusing translation from Sanskrit at best

Am I wrong in thinking that "emptiness" as regards dependent origination is customarily intended to mean "insignificance" rather than "spatial vacuity", the latter pointing to the "vast emptiness" of Bodhidharma and Huineng and incorporating both tangible objects and mental phenomena? My point in this post is to explore the view that tangible objects and mental phenomena are insignificant manifestations of a vast substratum which appears as a spatially vacuous & inert  container to the ignorant but as the fundamental living reality to the enlightened.

@exp8j: "Bodhi really has no tree
Nor is clear mirror the stand
Nothing’s there initially
So where can the dustmotes land?" Huineng's point isn't that nothing is real, or significant. But that the original ground is Awakened, which breaks the chains of causes & conditions. This is Sudden Enlightenment doctrine. Emptiness in the Buddhist context, Sunyata, is about dependence on causes & conditions, the lack of essence, permanence, or independence. While we can think this through easily for objects, turning on the nature of the self, evokes vastness, the recognition our personal borders shift

@exp8j: Do you know Alayavijnana in the Mahayana elaboration of the sense-gates into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Consciousnesses ? The Buddhist picture is not like Plato's forms: special secret sauce for the well-read. I'd compare Eighth Consciousness to the faculting accessing the 'memesphere', the space where ideas can propagate independently of medium. It's not more real, it's just one aspect. Zen cultivates the skill of multiple perspectives & framings, to liberate from dependent origination, from conditioning. 'Vast like space' is ordinary mind, known as a corner of the universe

Yes it's a vast shift of perspective to acknowledge that infinite space is not a dead container but
a living entity, a boiling ground of potentiality, which resonates well with Alayavijnana as "All-encompassing foundation consciousness" or "causal consciousness", which indeed breaks the chains of causes & conditions as perceived from an unelightened viewpoint. It's not the wind that moves the flag, it's the mind-wind-flag trio that arises with a certain "suchness"  from the original ground.

So the crucial thing is to achieve a radical qualitative breakthrough towards a higher "dimension" and keep it, as e.g. human life is relative to animal. We can be infinitely "creative" & "liberated" and still not touch the original ground.

Physicists understand the cosmos better than average, do you think they're more enlightened? "after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and waters once again waters" - Dogen. It is not about finding the 'more real', it is about a change of perspective like waking up from a dream. Understanding Alayavijnana, storehouse consciousness, cannot solve the problem of suffering. However elaborate your cosmology it can only at best help guide people towards the important thing: the cessation of the causes of suffering. Buddhist ideas only make sense as orientated around that lodestone

"guide people towards the important thing". For me that is already enough. Living in some right direction, suitable for each one's temperament. The rest will come naturally. We are not alone in the world. We are embedded in it, in its silent intelligence,  as everything is.


text:
Where is the sign?
In the book Mindfulness in Plain English, Chapter 5: The Practice, by Ven. Bhante Gunaratana, he says the following:

As you keep your mind focused on the rims of your nostrils, you
will be able to notice the sign of the development of meditation. You
will feel the pleasant sensation of a sign. Different meditators
experience this differently. It will be like a star, or a round gem,
or a round pearl, or a cotton seed, or a peg made of heartwood, or a
long string, or a wreath of flowers, or a puff of smoke, or a cobweb,
or a film of cloud, or a lotus flower, or the disc of the moon, or the
disc of the sun.

Can someone please explain what is meant by this. I’ve been meditating for years and I’ve never experienced such things. Any idea why not? How important is it?

One does not seek any signs in this meditation, they should just arises. If one seek such things, it becomes a reason for reducing concentration which results lower success in meditation.

Please see questions tagged nimitta.


text:
Zen Master verse about an ‘eternal battle on the temple steps’
I think I once read a Zen Master verse about an “eternal battle on the temple steps”, possibly it was referenced by Hakuin(?).
Please could you let me know who said this, and what the verse was?


text:
Arguments against ascetism
Buddhism is often said to prescribe a middle way - avoiding ascetism on one hand, and avoiding indulging in sense pleasures on the other.
What are some of the arguments that Buddhism offers against the efficacy of ascetism (denial of sense pleasures) to bring lasting happiness?

sounds like homework assignment tbh :)

That may be explained by MN 36. It describes him starving, until he thinks

Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the past have felt painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None have been greater than this. Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the future will feel painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None will be greater than this. Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the present are feeling painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None is greater than this. But with this racking practice of austerities I haven't attained any superior human state, any distinction in knowledge or vision worthy of the noble ones. Could there be another path to Awakening?'

SN 56.11 begins,

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Varanasi in the Game Refuge at Isipatana. There he addressed the group of five monks:

There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.

MN 26 explains the occasion when and context in which he said that,

"Then, wandering by stages, I arrived at Varanasi, at the Deer Park in Isipatana, to where the group of five monks were staying. From afar they saw me coming and, on seeing me, made a pact with one another, (saying,) 'Friends, here comes Gotama the contemplative: living luxuriously, straying from his exertion, backsliding into abundance. He doesn't deserve to be bowed down to, to be greeted by standing up, or to have his robe & bowl received. Still, a seat should be set out; if he wants to, he can sit down.' But as I approached, they were unable to keep to their pact. One, standing up to greet me, received my robe & bowl. Another spread out a seat. Another set out water for washing my feet. However, they addressed me by name and as 'friend.'
"So I said to them, 'Don't address the Tathagata  by name and as "friend." The Tathagata, friends, is a worthy one, rightly self-awakened. Lend ear, friends: the Deathless has been attained. I will instruct you. I will teach you the Dhamma. Practicing as instructed, you will in no long time reach & remain in the supreme goal of the holy life for which clansmen rightly go forth from home into homelessness, knowing & realizing it for yourselves in the here & now.'
"When this was said, the group of five monks replied to me, 'By that practice, that conduct, that performance of austerities you did not attain any superior human states, any distinction in knowledge & vision worthy of a noble one. So how can you now — living luxuriously, straying from your exertion, backsliding into abundance — have attained any superior human states, any distinction in knowledge & vision worthy of a noble one?'
"When this was said, I replied to them, 'The Tathagata, monks, is not living luxuriously, has not strayed from his exertion, has not backslid into abundance. The Tathagata, friends, is a worthy one, rightly self-awakened. Lend ear, friends: the Deathless has been attained. I will instruct you. I will teach you the Dhamma. Practicing as instructed, you will in no long time reach & remain in the supreme goal of the holy life for which clansmen rightly go forth from home into homelessness, knowing & realizing it for yourselves in the here & now.'
A second time... A third time, the group of five monks said to me, 'By that practice, that conduct, that performance of austerities you did not attain any superior human states, any distinction in knowledge & vision worthy of a noble one. So how can you now — living luxuriously, straying from your exertion, backsliding into abundance — have attained any superior human states, any distinction in knowledge & vision worthy of a noble one?'
"When this was said, I replied to the group of five monks, 'Do you recall my ever having spoken in this way before?'
"'No, lord.'
"'The Tathagata, monks, is not living luxuriously, has not strayed from his exertion, has not backslid into abundance. The Tathagata, friends, is a worthy one, rightly self-awakened. Lend ear, friends: the Deathless has been attained. I will instruct you. I will teach you the Dhamma. Practicing as instructed, you will in no long time reach & remain in the supreme goal of the holy life for which clansmen rightly go forth from home into homelessness, knowing & realizing it for yourselves in the here & now.'
"And so I was able to convince them. I would teach two monks while three went for alms, and we six lived off what the three brought back from their alms round.

In summary I don't think "ascetism" in this context means, "denial of sense pleasures" -- that's still true -- what it means is more like, "starving" isn't very useful (perhaps that's in contrast with e.g. Jainism).
Instead, eating is permitted -- perhaps not as a "sense pleasure" but as a "requisite".

MN 12 shows that extreme asceticism did not help the Bodhisattva.

"Sariputta, I recall having lived a holy life possessing four factors. I have practiced asceticism — the extreme of asceticism; I
have practiced coarseness — the extreme of coarseness; I have
practiced scrupulousness — the extreme of scrupulousness; I have
practiced seclusion — the extreme of seclusion.

"Such was my asceticism, Sariputta, that I went naked, rejecting conventions, licking my hands, not coming when asked, not stopping
when asked; I did not accept food brought or food specially made or an
invitation to a meal; I received nothing from a pot, from a bowl,
across a threshold, across a stick, across a pestle, from two eating
together, from a pregnant woman, from a woman giving suck, from a
woman lying with a man, from where food was advertised to be
distributed, from where a dog was waiting, from where flies were
buzzing; I accepted no fish or meat, I drank no liquor, wine or
fermented brew. I kept to one house, to one morsel; I kept to two
houses, to two morsels;... I kept to seven houses, to seven morsels. I
lived on one saucerful a day, on two saucerfuls a day... on seven
saucerfuls a day; I took food once a day, once every two days... once
every seven days, and so on up to once every fortnight; I dwelt
pursuing the practice of taking food at stated intervals. I was an
eater of greens or millet or wild rice or hide-parings or moss or
ricebran or rice-scum or sesamum flour or grass or cowdung. I lived on
forest roots and fruits, I fed on fallen fruits. I clothed myself in
hemp, in hemp-mixed cloth, in shrouds, in refuse rags, in tree bark,
in antelope hide, in strips of antelope hide, in kusa-grass fabric, in
bark fabric, in wood-shavings fabric, in head-hair wool, in animal
wool, in owls' wings. I was one who pulled out hair and beard,
pursuing the practice of pulling out hair and beard. I was one who
stood continuously, rejecting seats. I was one who squatted
continuously, devoted to maintaining the squatting position. I was one
who used a mattress of spikes; I made a mattress of spikes my bed. I
dwelt pursuing the practice of bathing in water three times daily
including the evening. Thus in such a variety of ways I dwelt pursuing
the practice of tormenting and mortifying the body. Such was my
asceticism.

"Such was my coarseness, Sariputta, that just as the bole of a tinduka tree, accumulating over the years, cakes and flakes off, so
too, dust and dirt, accumulating over the years, caked off my body and
flaked off. It never occurred to me: 'Oh, let me rub this dust and
dirt off with my hand, or let another rub this dust and dirt off with
his hand' — it never occurred to me thus. Such was my coarseness.

"Such was my scrupulousness, Sariputta, that I was always mindful in stepping forwards and stepping backwards. I was full of pity even
for (the beings in) a drop of water thus: 'Let me not hurt the tiny
creatures in the crevices of the ground.' Such was my scrupulousness.

"Such was my seclusion, Sariputta, that I would plunge into some forest and dwell there. And when I saw a cowherd or a shepherd or
someone gathering grass or sticks, or a woodsman, I would flee from
grove to grove, from thicket to thicket, from hollow to hollow, from
hillock to hillock. Why was that? So that they should not see me or I
see them. Just as a forest-bred deer, on seeing human beings, flees
from grove to grove, from thicket to thicket, from hollow to hollow,
from hillock to hillock, so too, when I saw a cowherd or a shepherd...
Such was my seclusion.

"I would go on all fours to the cow-pens when the cattle had gone out and the cowherd had left them, and I would feed on the dung of the
young suckling calves. As long as my own excrement and urine lasted, I
fed on my own excrement and urine. Such was my great distortion in
feeding.

"I would plunge into some awe-inspiring grove and dwell there — a grove so awe-inspiring that normally it would make a man's hair stand
up if he were not free from lust. When those cold wintry nights came
during the 'eight-days interval of frost,' I would dwell by night in
the open and by day in the grove. In the last month of the hot
season I would dwell by day in the open and by night in the grove. And
there came to me spontaneously this stanza never heard before:

Chilled by night and scorched by day, Alone in awe-inspiring groves,
Naked, no fire to sit beside, The sage yet pursues his quest.
51. "I would make my bed in a charnel ground with the bones of the dead for a pillow. And cowherd boys came up and spat on me, urinated
on me, threw dirt at me, and poked sticks into my ears. Yet I do not
recall that I ever aroused an evil mind (of hate) against them. Such
was my abiding in equanimity.

"Sariputta, there are certain recluses and brahmans whose doctrine and view is this: 'Purification comes about through food.' They
say: 'Let us live on kola-fruits,' and they eat kola-fruits, they eat
kola-fruit powder, they drink kola-fruit water, and they make many
kinds of kola-fruit concoctions. Now I recall having eaten a single
kola-fruit a day. Sariputta, you may think that the kola-fruit was
bigger at that time, yet you should not regard it so: the kola-fruit
was then at most the same size as now. Through feeding on a single
kola-fruit a day, my body reached a state of extreme emaciation.
Because of eating so little my limbs became like the jointed segments
of vine stems or bamboo stems. Because of eating so little my backside
became like a camel's hoof. Because of eating so little the
projections on my spine stood forth like corded beads. Because of
eating so little my ribs jutted out as gaunt as the crazy rafters of
an old roofless barn. Because of eating so little the gleam of my eyes
sank far down in their sockets, looking like a gleam of water which
has sunk far down in a deep well. Because of eating so little my scalp
shriveled and withered as a green bitter gourd shrivels and withers in
the wind and sun. Because of eating so little my belly skin adhered to
my backbone; thus if I touched my belly skin I encountered my
backbone, and if I touched my backbone I encountered my belly skin.
Because of eating so little, if I tried to ease my body by rubbing my
limbs with my hands, the hair, rotted at its roots, fell from my body
as I rubbed.

53-55. "Sariputta, there are certain recluses and brahmans whose
doctrine and view is this: 'Purification comes about through food.'
They say: 'Let us live on beans'... 'Let us live on sesamum'... 'Let
us live on rice,' and they eat rice, they eat rice powder, they
drink rice water, and they make various kinds of rice concoctions. Now
I recall having eaten a single rice grain a day. Sariputta, you may
think that the rice grain was bigger at that time, yet you should not
regard it so: the rice grain was then at most the same size as now.
Through feeding on a single rice grain a day, my body reached a state
of extreme emaciation. Because of eating so little... the hair, rotted
at its roots, fell from my body as I rubbed.

"Yet, Sariputta, by such conduct, by such practice, by such performance of austerities, I did not attain any superhuman states,
any distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones. Why
was that? Because I did not attain that noble wisdom which when
attained is noble and emancipating and leads the one who practices in
accordance with it to the complete destruction of suffering.
MN 12

I recall an argument (though I do not remember its source) which goes something like :

If we would be purified by suffering, then we should have all been
liberated already. This is because, we have been in Samsara since
beginingless time, and we have experienced huge amount of suffering in
it.  Therefore causing ourselves suffering does not purify us.

Technically, this is not on ascetism, but it is similar enough.
However, I think that this argument is true and effective (1) If we have indeed been in Samsara for a long amount of time, suffering greatly (2) If the argument is presented to a person that accepts this worldview. For example, such a person would be a Hindu or a Jain debate opponent.

I have found the following argument in Venerable Bodhi Bhikkhu's The Noble Eightfold Path:

The other extreme is the practice of self-mortification, the attempt
to gain liberation by afflicting the body. This approach may stem from
a genuine aspiration for deliverance, but it works within the compass
of a wrong assumption that renders the energy expended barren of
results. The error is taking the body to be the cause of bondage, when
the real source of trouble lies in the mind — the mind obsessed by
greed, aversion, and delusion. To rid the mind of these defilements
the affliction of the body is not only useless but self-defeating, for
it is the impairment of a necessary instrument. Thus the Buddha
describes this second extreme as "painful, ignoble, not leading to the
goal."

Buddhism offers no arguments against the denial of sense pleasures; except in the case of unenlightened laypeople with a genetic disposition for abiding in the realm of sex & reproduction, who ideally should get married rather than be monks & nuns. About this, Christianity has a handy unambiguous verse:

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay
unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should
marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with lust/passion.
1 Corinthians 7

Therefore, as found in many Buddhist suttas (such as AN 4.62 & AN 10.91), Buddhism does not discourage ordinary laypeople from moderate ethical forms of sensuality. However,  these teachings for laypeople are not related to the Middle-Way.
The Middle Way is explicitly defined in SN 56.11 as avoidance of devotion to sensual pleasures (kāmasukhallikānuyogo) and avoidance of devotion to self-torment (attakilamathānuyogo). The Middle Way is also explicitly defined in SN 56.11 as for those who have left the household life of family, sex & reproduction. In other words, the Middle Way was not originally taught for the sake of ordinary laypeople.
The specific word used above is 'kilamathā', which refers to punishing oneself with pain. The word 'kilamathā' does not mean 'denial of sensual pleasures'.
In short, the word 'ascetism' is to broad for the subject of this question.
For example, in his sloppy translation of MN 12, the Venerable Thanissaro appeared to translate the following Pali words as 'ascetism':

tapassī = mortifier

dukkarakārikāya = difficult to do

Again, the above Pali words are too broad to be translated as 'ascetism'. For example, the word 'tapassī' above has its linguistic root in the word 'tapo'. The word 'tapo' is used in the following verse about the Noble Eightfold Path.

Patient endurance is the supreme austerity.
Khantī paramaṁ tapo titikkhā
Dhammapada 184

In summary, the question of this topic is based in an incorrect understanding of terminology and the Buddhist teachings. Buddhism is completely in favour of denial of sensual pleasures (except in the case of ordinary people for whom the higher Buddhist teachings are not for).