Attempts to understand and control the longing
that leads to disappointment and pain form an im-
portant dimension of ascetic and philosophical ideals
in the West among the Stoics and their Christian heirs,
and in several strands of Indian religious thought.
Among these strands, the principle of the primacy of
desire takes a particularly important place among Bud-
dhist traditions, where it assumes the position of a
canonical creed: Desire is the root of REBIRTHand suf-
fering. In its strongest form the doctrine may state that
“the world is lead by thirst (tanha), the world is
dragged around by thirst; everything is under the
power of this single factor, thirst” (Suttanipata1. 7. 3
Tanhasutta,vol. 1, p. 39).
The “burden” of the SKANDHAS(AGGREGATES) is de-
fined as craving, an unquenchable “thirst that leads to
repeated birth, is tied to delight and passion, desires
now this now that. This is the thirst of sense desire, the
thirst for existence, the thirst for cessation” (Suttani-
pata,3. 1. 3 Bharasutta,vol. 1, p. 26).
The juxtaposition of formulas of this kind suggests
that the central concept is not “desire” in its normal,
restricted sense, but “desire” in the broad sense of the
drive or impulse that makes us want to achieve or pos-
sess, including the drive to live on and the wish to stop
the pain of living. Although the dominant theme in
Buddhist traditions has been desire as sense desire, it
is often presented in complementary contraposition to
displeasure (hatred, animosity, disgust), and indiffer-
ent ignorance (cognitive stupor or blindness). These
three modes of thinking, feeling, and acting may be
summarized in the three terms: desire, disgust, and
unawareness—a triad known as the “three poisons” or
the fundamental kles ́as (defiling afflictions). These
three summarize or epitomize the factors that lead to
suffering and REBIRTH.
Thirstis therefore a superordinate term that in-
cludes and signifies primarily passionate desire, but
that also includes the drive to hate or repel, and the
wish not to know (the drive to remain unaware). It is
willful desire and passionate desire and delight, but
it is also the mental act of holding on to that which
is wanted (upayupadana cetaso) and the complex
process of claiming possession, dwelling on some-
thing, and being inclined or predisposed to something
(adhitthanabhinivesanusaya; Suttanipata, 3.1. 3.1
Bharasutta,vol. 1, p. 26).
As the tradition shifts emphasis to either one of the
fundamental kles ́as,its understanding of desire changes
in important ways. Desire as concupiscence is associ-
ated with the ascetic leanings of the monastic tradition;
an emphasis on the noxious effects of disgust and dis-
pleasure is associated with the bodhisattva’s compas-
sion and toleration for the vicissitudes of SAMSARA;
and, more consciously in the development of the tra-
dition, an understanding of desire as unawareness is
associated with the idea that insight liberates from
craving and suffering. Thus, the famous lines from
the MAHAVASTU, “desire I know your root, you arise
from conceptual representation,” is quoted by the
MADHYAMAKA SCHOOLas proof that the royal road to
vanquishing suffering and craving is seeing through the
emptiness of the constructions that underlie the ob-
jects of desire.This particular turn in the Buddhist understanding
of desire is characteristic of MAHAYANAand is also ex-
pressed in more radical and paradoxical statements,
such as the idea that awakening is nothing but the
kles ́asthemselves. Such notions may be seen as lead-
ing naturally into the doctrinal rethinking of the body
and desire in the tantric tradition, where earlier ascetic
concerns with the body and the passions are trans-
formed into new ways of turning the profane human
being into the sacred body of a buddha.See also:Path; Pratltyasamutpada (Dependent Origi-
nation); PsychologyBibliography
Olson, Carl. Indian Philosophers and Postmodern Thinkers: Di-
alogues on the Margins of Culture.New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 2002.LUISO. GO ́MEZDEVADATTADevadatta is the paradigmatically wicked and evil per-
sonality in Buddhist tradition and literature. One
scholar, Reginald Ray, calls him a “condemned saint,”
pointing out the somewhat contradictory description
of his personality in the canonical literature. There are
various major and minor legends about Devadatta’s
actions against the Buddha and the Buddhist com-
munity. He seems to fill the role of the scapegoat in
Buddhist literature; all bad action condemned by Bud-
dhist moral and monastic rules is heaped upon him.
The three most serious acts leading to Devadatta’s
fall into hell, described by the Buddhist commentaryDEVADATTA