Thread by @shrikanth_krish

One of the central concepts in Buddhism is its critique of "Desire"

The cliche goes - "Desire is the root cause of sorrow"

Attributed to the four "noble truths" in the early Pali canon that traces its origins to the Buddha's own teachings

The word used for "Desire" in the Pali canon is "Taṇhā"

A Pali word that means "Thirst" / "Longing"

Taṇhā of course survives in modern Hindi, with a slightly altered meaning often implying loneliness in addition to thirst

In its origins, Taṇhā is closely related to the Sanskrit word "Tṛ́ṣṇā" which itself is related to an Old Indo European root (maybe "Ters") implying dryness and "thirst"

So you see this in similar sounding words in IE cultures elsewhere

Thirst in English
Durst in Old German

But this critique of Desire is not something that originated with Buddhism or the Buddha himself

It is a view with a very long intellectual history in the Hindu world, going back to the earliest Vedic literature

It features in Upanishads (pre 6th cen BCE, and hence pre-Buddha)

It features in the Gita (likely pre-Buddhist)

It features in Hindu Smriti texts like Manu Smriti (contemporaneous with the high noon of Indian Buddhism

So it is likely that TathAgata (Buddha) picked up this critique of "Desire" from the intellectual environment around him

It was a part of the intellectual zeitgeist of his time, and unlikely to have been something that he originated.

While the word "Taṇhā" does not often feature in the Hindu canon, the word preferred in the Sanskrit literature is either "kAma" (also implying desire) and sometimes "Tṛ́ṣṇā" (which we have alluded to)

But the critique of "Desire" is very much there right from the start

The most famous articulation of it is in the Bhagavad Gita - a canonical Vedantic text, whose early layers most likely predate Buddha

Here's verse 62 from Chapter 2 :

"ध्यायतो विषयान्पुंस: सङ्गस्तेषूपजायते |
सङ्गात्सञ्जायते काम: कामात्क्रोधोऽभिजायते || 62||"

Here's the paraphrased translation from RK Mutt's Swami Gambhirananda

"When a person dwells on objects, there arises attachment for them. From attachment grows hankering. From hankering springs anger"

(Contd..)

""From anger follows delusion. From delusion, failure of memory. From failure of memory, loss of understanding. From loss of understanding he perishes"

Note that the word here used is "kAma" to imply hankering in this context, which in turn causes anger

So clearly this is a very unequivocal critique of material hankering and is by no means an isolated verse.

Several other parts of the Gita dwell on this very theme, especially in the subsequent third chapter

Chapter 3, verse 37 -

"काम एष क्रोध एष रजोगुणसमुद्भव: ||
महाशनो महापाप्मा विद्ध्येनमिह वैरिणम् || 37||

This verse is in response to a question from Arjuna who asks Krishna - "what causes man to commit sin against his wish"

Krishna responds in this verse -

"This desire, this anger, born of the quality of rajas, is a great devourer, a great sinner. Know this to be the enemy"

Here rajas refers to one of the three GuNas (attribute / quality) associated with "passion" and "activity"

In the next verse (3.38)

"धूमेनाव्रियते वह्निर्यथादर्शो मलेन च
यथोल्बेनावृतो गर्भस्तथा तेनेदमावृतम्

Translation:
As fire is enveloped by smoke, as a mirror by dirt, as a fetus is enclosed in a womb, so is "this shrouded by that"

"This" here refers to the mind
"That" (desire")

Ofcourse several other parts of the Gita elaborate more on this - in fact musing on how to rein in the inexorable power of kAma, is one of the Gita's singular pre-occupations

But this is by no means limited to the Gita. The critique of Desire is found in several other texts

In the early Vedic literature, the power of Desire is acknowledged, though not explicitly critiqued

E.g. In a Shruti text like Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (dating to perhaps 7-8 centuries before Common Era), there is an early theory on how "Desire" impels man inexorably

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.4.5)

"'The self is identified with desire alone. What it desires, it resolves; what it resolves, it works out; and what it works out, it attains."

But this observation evolves into a critique in later literature

In Manu Smriti (likely a pre-Common era text) (verse 2.94) it is stated

न जातु कामः कामानामुपभोगेन शाम्यति
हविषा कृष्णवर्त्मैव भूय एवाभिवर्धते

Translation (Ganganath Jha)

Never is desire appeased by enjoyment of desires
It only waxes stronger, like fire by clarified butter

In Srimad Bhagavatam, an important Vaishnava text likely dating to mid 1st millennium CE, it is mentioned in verse 9.19.13

"Knowing that all the paddy, barley, gold, cattle, and women that are in the world are not sufficient for a single man, one should resort to desirelessness"

In early medieval times (likely 8th - 9th century), Sureshwara in his meta commentary on Brhadaranyaka Upanishad says -

"One proceeds along the path of transmigration (as opposed to liberation) even while being aware of its being productive of evil."

"This kind of behavior is not seen anywhere unless one is under the control of something else. Hence that which impels a person desirous of the highest good to undesirable actions has to be mentioned, so that it can be eliminated"

So what you see here is an acknowledgment of the hold of "desire" over man. A certain scepticism of Free Will. As well as the encouragement to liberate oneself from the "nescience" that envelops us

Having said that, a lot of what I've cited is from Advaitin sources

It might be worthwhile to examine commentaries on these bRhadAraNyaka upaniSad extracts from a Visishtadvaitin or a Dvaitin lens

Do they have a different take? A more sanguine view of desire? Worth exploring

So to conclude the main thrust of this thread is to emphasize that cogitation on Desire is hardly a Buddhist preserve

Hindu thought has grappled with Desire for much longer, cutting across Shruti texts, itihAsa texts, PurANas and of course Smriti texts as well

What we see in Buddhism is not necessarily novel, but perhaps a less nuanced more categorically negative view of desire than what is observed in the Hindu tradition

Post-script : Elsewhere in the Hindu tradition kAma (desire) is viewed less sceptically, and acknowledged as one of the four purushArthas (goals of life so to speak)

But in the Vedantic context of this thread kAma is used somewhat differently and is mostly critiqued in my view

Post-script 2 : Another reader brought to my notice that perhaps one of the motivations behind the atheism (or rather lack of interest in creation) of Jains and maybe even Buddhists is that Creation implies Desire

And desire is not such a great thing

In fact this point of view finds mention even in the Hindu tradition. Most notably in Chapter 2 of Brahma Sutras -

न प्रयोजनवत्त्वात्।।2.1.32।।

This literally translates as follows –

“Not on account of having a motive”

So the view here is - there cannot possibly be a brahman (supreme being) as he cannot possibly have a motive being bereft of desire

But unlike in the Jain / Buddhist tradition, there is a counter here in the very next Sutra of the same work -

(Contd..)

लोकवत्तु लीलाकैवल्यम्।।2.1.33।।

Translation: “But (it is) mere sport, as in ordinary life.”

So the counter here is -

Sure. brAhman is bereft of motive. But the supreme being can still engage in creation as a mere play / sport.

This is perhaps the first use of the term "Leela" in Indian religious literature

Where the act of creation is justified as the play of the Lord.
Giving birth to the later emphasis on "Leelas" in Indian theology most notably Krishna Leelas

Postscript 3 : While quoting Gita (2.62-63), I didn't cite 2.63 (translation covered both)

Here are both

ध्यायतो विषयान्पुंस: सङ्गस्तेषूपजायते
सङ्गात्सञ्जायते काम: कामात्क्रोधोऽभिजायते

क्रोधाद्भवति सम्मोह: सम्मोहात्स्मृतिविभ्रम:
स्मृतिभ्रंशाद् बुद्धिनाशो बुद्धिनाशात्प्रणश्यति