Return to Answer

I'm going to tackle this question from a few different angles.

First, is it desire or clinging to desire that causes suffering? If it's clinging to desire, then it's possible to not cling to a desire to not cling to desire. No problem there.

However, let's say desire is the problem. What then?

Is this "paradox" just a verbal game? Doesn't the desire to end desires automatically exclude the desire to end desire as one of the desires to be ended? Even if it didn't, once the other desires ended, wouldn't the desire to end desire end as well (thus strongly implying it was excluded in the first place)? Why would that desire still be active if I ended all my other desires? Does it make sense to say I have a desire to end desires when I have no other desires?

So let's go ahead and rephrase the goal as the desire to remove all other desires and continue from there.

Can you gradually benefit from the path? If so, then the question is irrelevant. Even if you end up with a left-over desire, you are still much better off. At this point, the question becomes equivalent to worrying about whether you'll get $99 or $100. In fact, now the problem becomes worrying about this sort of question itself, as it seems to be a symptom of clinging to concepts that could cause you far more pain than the existence of a desire.

Put another way, the question itself is a symptom of clinging :)

Also, why do desires cause suffering? Because..

1. They can be thwarted
2. The object of the desire can be lost
3. We worry about 1 & 2

1-3 are largely a function of how much the object of our desires is out of our hands. Well, isn't the desire to remove desire more in my hands than anything else? If so, then it would seem that it's much less susceptible to 1-3 than other desires. So it seems this is a relatively innocuous desire, and to the extent that it supersedes or replaces other desires, is a good thing to have.

Finally, a version of this question made up the bulk of Archie Bahm's "Philosophy of the Buddha". He didn't phrase things in absolutist terms, but rather wrote of desiring that which would not be attained, then took the "desiring to stop this desiring more than that stopping will be attained" head-on, deriving (his interpretation of?) The Middle Way as the result of this apparent paradox.

I'm going to tackle this question from a few different angles.

First, is it desire or clinging to desire that causes suffering? If it's clinging to desire, then it's possible to not cling to a desire to not cling to desire. No problem there.

However, what if desire is the problem -- what then?

Is this "paradox" just a verbal game? Doesn't the desire to end desires automatically exclude the desire to end desires as one of the desires to be ended? Even if it didn't, once the other desires ended, wouldn't the desire to end desire end as well? Why would that desire still be active if I ended all my other desires? Does it make sense to say I have a desire to end desires when I have no other desires?

So really, isn't the goal the desire to remove all other desires -- which is not paradoxical? But assuming this isn't so, where does this leave me?

Can I gradually benefit from the path? If so, then it doesn't matter if there's a left-over desire, because I am still much better off. At this point, the question becomes equivalent to worrying about whether I'll get $99 or $100 -- it's such a trivial thing, it doesn't matter.

Also, why do desires cause suffering? Because..

1. They can be thwarted
2. The object of the desire can be lost
3. I worry about 1 & 2

1-3 are largely a function of how much the object of my desires is out of my hands. Well, isn't the desire to remove desire more in my hands than anything else? If so, then it would seem that it's much less susceptible to 1-3 than other desires. So it seems this is a relatively innocuous desire, and to the extent that it supersedes or replaces other desires, is a good thing to have.

A version of this question made up the bulk of Archie Bahm's "Philosophy of the Buddha". He wrote of desiring that which would not be attained, then took the "desiring to stop this desiring more than that stopping will be attained" head-on, deriving (his interpretation of?) The Middle Way as the result of this apparent paradox.

Finally, why does this question matter? At worst, it's not a real problem, just a play on words. At best, it's a trivial matter that's not worth worrying about. Yet if it still seems important, then maybe it's a sign of clinging to concepts, of reifying, of taking either/or distinctions too seriously. If so, then that clinging is the real problem, one that will cause pain, so energy is better spent addressing that, rather than worrying about the possible ramifications of a possible minor residual desire.

Put another way, the question itself may be a symptom of clinging :)

I'm going to tackle this question from a few different angles.

First, is it desire or clinging to desire that causes suffering? If it's clinging to desire, then it's possible to not cling to a desire to not cling to desire. No problem there.

However, let's say desire is the problem. What then?

Is this "paradox" just a verbal game? Doesn't the desire to end desires automatically exclude the desire to end desire as one of the desires to be ended? Even if it didn't, once the other desires ended, wouldn't the desire to end desire end as well (thus strongly implying it was excluded in the first place)? Why would that desire still be active if I ended all my other desires? Does it make sense to say I have a desire to end desires when I have no other desires?

So let's go ahead and rephrase the goal as the desire to remove all other desires and continue from there.

Can you gradually benefit from the path? If so, then the question is irrelevant. Even if you end up with a left-over desire, you are still much better off. At this point, the question becomes equivalent to worrying about whether you'll get $99 or $100. In fact, now the problem becomes worrying about this sort of question itself, as it seems to be a symptom of clinging to concepts that could cause you far more pain than the existence of a desire.

Put another way, the question itself is a symptom of clinging :)

Also, why do desires cause suffering? Because..

1. They can be thwarted
2. The object of the desire can be lost
3. We worry about 1 & 2

1-3 are largely a function of how much the object of our desires is out of our hands. Well, isn't the desire to remove desire more in my hands than anything else? If so, then it would seem that it's much less susceptible to 1-3 than other desires. So it seems this is a relatively innocuous desire, and to the extent that it supersedes or replaces other desires, is a good thing to have.

Finally, a version of this question made up the bulk of Archie Bahm's "Philosophy of the Buddha". He didn't phrase things in absolutist terms, but rather wrote of desiring that which would not be attained, then took the "desiring to stop this desiring more than that stopping will be attained" head-on, deriving (his interpretation?) of The Middle Way as the result of this apparent paradox.

I'm going to tackle this question from a few different angles.

First, is it desire or clinging to desire that causes suffering? If it's clinging to desire, then it's possible to not cling to a desire to not cling to desire. No problem there.

However, let's say desire is the problem. What then?

Is this "paradox" just a verbal game? Doesn't the desire to end desires automatically exclude the desire to end desire as one of the desires to be ended? Even if it didn't, once the other desires ended, wouldn't the desire to end desire end as well (thus strongly implying it was excluded in the first place)? Why would that desire still be active if I ended all my other desires? Does it make sense to say I have a desire to end desires when I have no other desires?

So let's go ahead and rephrase the goal as the desire to remove all other desires and continue from there.

Can you gradually benefit from the path? If so, then the question is irrelevant. Even if you end up with a left-over desire, you are still much better off. At this point, the question becomes equivalent to worrying about whether you'll get $99 or $100. In fact, now the problem becomes worrying about this sort of question itself, as it seems to be a symptom of clinging to concepts that could cause you far more pain than the existence of a desire.

Put another way, the question itself is a symptom of clinging :)

Also, why do desires cause suffering? Because..

1. They can be thwarted
2. The object of the desire can be lost
3. We worry about 1 & 2

1-3 are largely a function of how much the object of our desires is out of our hands. Well, isn't the desire to remove desire more in my hands than anything else? If so, then it would seem that it's much less susceptible to 1-3 than other desires. So it seems this is a relatively innocuous desire, and to the extent that it supersedes or replaces other desires, is a good thing to have.

Finally, a version of this question made up the bulk of Archie Bahm's "Philosophy of the Buddha". He didn't phrase things in absolutist terms, but rather wrote of desiring that which would not be attained, then took the "desiring to stop this desiring more than that stopping will be attained" head-on, deriving (his interpretation of?) The Middle Way as the result of this apparent paradox.

I'm going to tackle this question from a few different angles.

First, is it desire or clinging to desire that causes suffering? If it's clinging to desire, then it's possible to not cling to a desire to not cling to desire. No problem there.

However, let's say desire is the problem. What then?

Well, let's go ahead and rephrase our goal so that we have the desire to remove all other desires. Now what?

Well, can you gradually benefit from the path? If so, then the question is irrelevant. Even if you end up with a left-over desire, you are still much better off. At this point, the question becomes equivalent to worrying about whether you'll get $99 or $100. In fact, now the problem becomes worrying about this sort of question itself, as it seems to be a symptom of clinging to concepts that could cause you far more pain than the existence of a desire.

Put another way, the question itself is a symptom of clinging :)

Also, why do desires cause suffering? Because..

1. They can be thwarted
2. The object of the desire can be lost
3. We worry about 1 & 2

1-3 are largely a function of how much the object of our desires is out of our hands. Well, isn't the desire to remove desire more in my hands than anything else? If so, then it would seem that it's much less susceptible to 1-3 than other desires. So it seems this is a relatively innocuous desire, and to the extent that it supersedes or replaces other desires, is a good thing to have.

I'm going to tackle this question from a few different angles.

First, is it desire or clinging to desire that causes suffering? If it's clinging to desire, then it's possible to not cling to a desire to not cling to desire. No problem there.

However, let's say desire is the problem. What then?

Is this "paradox" just a verbal game? Doesn't the desire to end desires automatically exclude the desire to end desire as one of the desires to be ended? Even if it didn't, once the other desires ended, wouldn't the desire to end desire end as well (thus strongly implying it was excluded in the first place)? Why would that desire still be active if I ended all my other desires? Does it make sense to say I have a desire to end desires when I have no other desires?

So let's go ahead and rephrase the goal as the desire to remove all other desires and continue from there.

Can you gradually benefit from the path? If so, then the question is irrelevant. Even if you end up with a left-over desire, you are still much better off. At this point, the question becomes equivalent to worrying about whether you'll get $99 or $100. In fact, now the problem becomes worrying about this sort of question itself, as it seems to be a symptom of clinging to concepts that could cause you far more pain than the existence of a desire.

Put another way, the question itself is a symptom of clinging :)

Also, why do desires cause suffering? Because..

1. They can be thwarted
2. The object of the desire can be lost
3. We worry about 1 & 2

1-3 are largely a function of how much the object of our desires is out of our hands. Well, isn't the desire to remove desire more in my hands than anything else? If so, then it would seem that it's much less susceptible to 1-3 than other desires. So it seems this is a relatively innocuous desire, and to the extent that it supersedes or replaces other desires, is a good thing to have.

Finally, a version of this question made up the bulk of Archie Bahm's "Philosophy of the Buddha". He didn't phrase things in absolutist terms, but rather wrote of desiring that which would not be attained, then took the "desiring to stop this desiring more than that stopping will be attained" head-on, deriving (his interpretation?) of The Middle Way as the result of this apparent paradox.