[SanderNL]

> The stated goal of Buddhism is lack of desire.

No, actually not as that is totally and utterly physically and mentally impossible. Your body and your mind are _made_ to desire and act, there is no sense in denying this and Buddha sure as hell did not.

What you're looking for is lack of attachment. Desire is no problem, it's the attachment to it (and it's the same with everything). The belief in an I that is doing the desiring, that is what is causing trouble, not desire itself. It is nature doing its thing, there is no problem there.

[throw1234651234]

The Buddha taught that the root of all suffering is desire, tanhā. This comes in three forms, which he described as the Three Roots of Evil, or the Three Fires, or the Three Poisons.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/beliefs/fo...

This is the first random "source" I pulled up, every other will say the same.

[NeuNeurosis]

Correct, but the solution he taught was not cessation of desire but detachment from that desire.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/harris/bl141.htm...

[vram22]

>not cessation of desire but detachment from that desire.

Yes, and Krishna says basically the same to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita:

Abhyaasa and vairaagya - practice and dispassion (same as detachment):

https://www.google.com/search?q=abhyasa+vairagya+bhagavad+gi...

https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/6/verse/35

[throw1234651234]

1. The Bhagavad Gita is a completely unreadable rant that provides ZERO tangible information without a 1000 interpretations, like many other religious texts. Except it's the worst offender. Though, Oppenheimer did make it sound way cooler than it is.

The 4 noble truths / the 8-fold path are a breath of fresh air in comparison.

2. Lacking desire and detachment from desire is pure semantics, as the goal is not to desire the object of your desire. See how redundant that statement is?

Essentially, Buddhism is about apathy. Why? Because poor people in India at the time of the rich-kid prince had no way to address suffering through action.

Being a Christian monk / ascetic is the same thing as being a Buddhist - escape from the real world.

--- "cessation of desire but detachment from that desire" "but detachment from that desire"

So, "a lack of desire for the object of desire", to address your quote specifically and stress what I said above.

[ta1234567890]

> 2. Lacking desire and detachment from desire is pure semantics, as the goal is not to desire the object of your desire. See how redundant that statement is?

Technically the goal is to be able to freely choose what to do when the desire arises (instead of having a knee-jerk reaction pattern), which is very different than not having the desire.

The problem I see here is that you are trying to use words to completely define something which cannot be fully expressed in words. Buddha's teaching requires practice, not intellectual or philosophical "understanding" of the words. When you start practicing and develop awareness of the things that happen within your mind and body, only then you truly get to "know" (experience) the difference between desire and detachment from desire.

> Essentially, Buddhism is about apathy. Why? Because poor people in India at the time of the rich-kid prince had no way to address suffering through action.

In a purely philosophical, sociological or historical sense, maybe you are right. But the intention and the practice of Buddha's teachings are most definitely not about apathy in any way, even if the words can be somehow thought of as meaning that. Again, the issue is that you truly need to experience these things within you to really know them.