In Buddhism, attachment leads to suffering, not desire. If the Buddha had no desire he wouldn’t get out of bed.

Having a penis leads to a lot suffering at the hands of women

I concur, a good read regarding the idea of attachment, and not desire, leading to suffering is called "The Eye of a Needle," from The Way to Love by Anthony de Mello. As surprising as it may sound, the short passage actually stems from the bible, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," Mark 10:25. In short, attachment is the constant struggle humans face by becoming emotionally attached to things, leading them to believe that - without that person, object, etc. - they are attached to, they cannot be happy.

I think most or all Buddhists believe that desire is the source of suffering — TiredThinker

The idea is broader and more nuanced than this and even the original word 'dukka' as suffering may also be translated as pain, dissatisfaction, anxiety or stress. Our mental states, our cravings, attachments and our desires undermine our serenity. We chase distractions and we mourn our inability to achieve our desires or we mourn their loss. In short the human condition seems set up for us to be in a constant state of transition, anxiety, restlessness and privation.

I'm not a Buddhist but it seems fairly apparent that people and things and the constant 'chase' are a source of people's joy and misery.

In Buddhism, attachment leads to suffering, not desire. If the Buddha had no desire he wouldn’t get out of bed. — khaled

Yes - I’d agree that it’s attachment, not desire, which leads to suffering. Desire is part and parcel of our living existence. To avoid it is to avoid existence. The ascetic follows the example of the Buddha towards non-existence, but I think the point was not necessarily to follow but to understand through this example that the limit to our existence, the limits of our capacity to desire without attachment, is much further than we think.

I’d suggest there’s something amiss in your approach or perspective, if that’s all you appear to get out of it in the hands of women...:brow:

The ascetic follows the example of the Buddha towards non-existence — Possibility

:up:

To Those Interested

The Desire Conundrum:

Buddha: Desire leads to suffering. To be free from suffering, extinguish desire.

Bikkhu: To extinguish desire, I must desire to extinguish desire. In other words, one can't extinguish desire for to do so we must desire (to extinguish desire). If I desire then I suffer and we're back to where we started: desire leads to suffering.

Regarding: ”And is it the desire of things or the possession of things that causes suffering?”.

Desire can be stressful almost to a degree of suffering in contrast to inner peace. I believe some understanding can be gained by the following quote:

”Ultimately, your every desire - the desire for material things, relationships, career success, sexual gratification - is really the desire for the peace you experience for brief moments when you attain the object of your desire” - Stephan Bodian

”Ultimately, your every desire - the desire for material things, relationships, career success, sexual gratification - is really the desire for the peace you experience for brief moments when you attain the object of your desire” - Stephan Bodian — Pax

Point! The issue seems to be about how the world is and how that usually works against you. You want something and then you realize the deck is stacked against you most of the time. The probability of getting what you want is close to zero. This simple truth is the seedbed of Gautama's warning that desire leads to suffering. Put simply, your desires aren't going to be fulfilled, the world is not designed for such a purpose. The truth is, if there's design to the world, it's to thwart all such attempts. What's the most reasonable course of action then?

Extinguish desire.

Unfortunately, a paradox results. To extinguish desire, you must desire to extinguish desire. Since where there's desire, trouble soon follows, you have to stop desiring to extinguish desire too. If so, extinguishing desire is impossible. Ergo, suffering is inevitable. Any attempt to escape invites further confinement.

The best comeback for the Buddha would be this,

To not desire to desire = to desire not to desire? Yes, precisely! — Siddhartha

The Desire Conundrum: — TheMadFool

Fool, we've been over this, at least once.

Stop confusing yourself and go study some actual Buddhist doctrine instead of relying on popular pseudobuddhist soundbites.

In Early Buddhism, there are two types of desire: the bad one (tanha) and the good one (chanda). A person is actually suposed to cultivate the desire to make an end to suffering!
There is no catch-22 like some pop-Buddhists would have us believe. — baker

Fool, we've been over this, at least once.

Stop confusing yourself and go study some actual Buddhist doctrine instead of relying on popular pseudobuddhist soundbites.

In Early Buddhism, there are two types of desire: the bad one (tanha) and the good one (chanda). A person is actually suposed to cultivate the desire to make an end to suffering!
There is no catch-22 like some pop-Buddhists would have us believe.
— baker — baker

I did consider that possibility but I was just wondering if the Buddha could extricate himself from the paradox. He can. I'm much pleased.

I did consider that possibility but I was just wondering if the Buddha could extricate himself from the paradox. He can. I'm much pleased. — TheMadFool

It's not a paradox. It is an observation of the human experience.

The advice is to lead a life of moderation.

Like cancer cells, human desires are unchecked, and are leading to the destruction of their environment that gives it life. If you need any support, just observe what is happening all over the world. Nero fiddles as Rome burns. Humans are what they are. Cancer cells.

It's not a paradox. It is an observation of the human experience.

The advice is to lead a life of moderation.

Like cancer cells, human desires are unchecked, and are leading to the destruction of their environment that gives it life. If you need any support, just observe what is happening all over the world. Nero fiddles as Rome burns. Humans are what they are. Cancer cells. — MondoR

You don't know what a paradox is then. Nevertheless, I like your analogy, comparing humans to cancer cells, but you left it half-finished. Cancer kills but, as cruel fate would have it, it's also the secret to immortality.

all Buddhists believe that desire is the source of suffering. — TiredThinker

Buddhists seem believe, there are 4 different sources of suffering.
1. Existence
2. Desire
3. Ending
4. Path

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths

I don't agree those are necessarily suffering. It is just matter of opinion.
Existence is absurd.
Existence without desire is meaningless.
Ending happens regardless wanting or not wanting to end.
If life is a journey, then path is needed.

it's also the secret to immortality — TheMadFool

Cancer cells die along with with the body that gave it life. A suicide of sorts, which is a perfect analogy for the direction of the human species.

Maybe the suffering is the knowledge that things can be scarce and can always be taken away? — TiredThinker

That seems likely. But putting it that way does not frame desire as a process we have options for. The texts suggest a course of action is recommended in spite of circumstances; not providing an explanation but proposing a degree of freedom.

If attachment is what causes suffering than would only objects that can never be taken away be the only way to desire that doesn't lead to attachment and therefore suffering? Perhaps if we were wizards and can conjure with our minds?

Cancer cells die along with with the body that gave it life. A suicide of sorts, which is a perfect analogy for the direction of the human species. — MondoR

Indeed! :up:

However, it can't be denied that cancer is one of the many ways to becoming immortal :point: The Immortal Life Of Henrietta Lacks