From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Buddhism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

There's an NPOV issue with this article, and I don't really have the fluency in Buddhism to rewrite it. It sounds like this is being proposed as the ultimate truth on the concept of "desire," rather than Buddhism's take on it. StellarFury 05:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a cogent and pertinent criticism, even 7 years later. The article reads like religious instruction and it is devoid of neutral context. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Extensive discussion of the concepts of Tanha and addiction developed at Talk:Addiction, Buddhist Definition of.


I got here following my clicking on a link clearly labled "craving" in the "Online pornography addiction" article.

Typing "craving" in the search bar takes you to this page, while it should probably direct to the same page as "crave." Chachilongbow 22:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and redirected. Richard001 (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

愛 =/= Craving[edit]

I have some dispute with the notion that 愛 is equivalent of tanha. Can someone cite where in the Sanskrit agamas that this term was used to translate tanha, or provide a clear etymology for this Chinese character that links the two? My understanding of 愛 is that it means love, though not necessarily in the erotic sense (other characters are used there). Second, with regard to passions and craving, Japanese Mahayana Buddhism, probably through Chinese Buddhism, uses the term bonbū (凡夫) instead. This is describing one who is caught up in passions and cravings. --Ph0kin (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ph0kin - In case it might be of use, here's a link to the edit that inserted the Mahayana translations into this article: 21:30, 1 May 2006. You may want to invite originating editor to comment here or on their talk page. (Also, FWIW, here's the Chinese wiki page related to the character: .) Hope this might help. Best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"Taṇhā is far-reaching and covers all desire..."[edit]

Thanks so much for your contributions to Buddhist ideas. To my thinking the above quote (along with the rest of the sentence) might be improved. In both both the Theravadin and Mahayana Abhidhamma traditions, there is a kind of desire that is ethically variable or indeterminate. I am looking at the Abhidammatta Sangaha, by Acariya Anuruddha (translation revised and edited by Bhikkhu Bodhi, along with an explanatory guide by U Rewata Dhamma & Bhikkhu Bodhi.) This is published by BPS Pariyatti Editions, Seattle. In this book, the mental factors that are neither wholesome nor unwholesome are called "Ethically Variable." Number 13 is Chanda, also translated as desire. In the commentary (page 82): "Chanda here means desire to act (kattu-kamata), that is to perform an action or achieve some result. This kind of desire must be distinguished from desire in the reprehensible sense, that is, from lobha, greed and raga, lust. Whereas the latter terms are invariably unwholesome, chanda is an ethically variable factor which, when conjoined with wholesome concomitants, can function as the virtuous desire to achieve a worthy goal. The characteristic of chanda is desire to act, its function is searching for an object, its manifestation is need for an object and that same object is its proximate cause. It should be regarding as the stretching forth of the mind's hand towards the object." To my mind it is quite possible to have a wholesome desire rooted in non-hatred or non-greed or wisdom (e.g., to teach the dhamma, or feed a hungry person) without being caught in tanha.

I would not edit the page, but would like to put this out as a thought. metta, dennis --Routerdog (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Routerdog (talkcontribs) 17:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added this info on chanda to the article Chanda (Buddhism). - Dorje108 (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the discussion is perhaps obscuring the meaning of the concept of Taṇhā, which seems more like the impulse towards an object, rather than desire itself. Without desire, we would not eat or drink, and thus cease to be... without desire, as the Dalai Lama has said, there would be no idea of a path, or anyone trying to follow one (more abstract notions of there being no path aside). Taṇhā is therefore it's own thing, without specific translation in this context, but which we all struggle with every moment. That impulse to obtain or avoid which occurs, and which is attempted to be fulfilled blindly by those remaining in delusion. So although Taṇhā is linked with desire, it is not desire, nor the object of any desire.. it is that momentary impulse that drives us towards a desire. If we then form our intention around that desire, we make ourselves vulnerable to frustration and anxiety. If, on the other hand, we form intention based upon none of these things, and Taṇhā is acknowledged but not acted upon, then we are less vulnerable.Knomegnome (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Craving does not mean pali word "Taṇhā " . Emotion is the real word for "Taṇhā "[edit]

"Taṇhā " is translated as craving. But in Buddhism it is the emotion( in sinhala -තන්හාව,තෘෂ්ණාව,උපාදාන) that is doing the creation ( Bhava භව), not the craving.--RsEkanayake 17:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Any WP:RS? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
no It is empirical. Buddha did not speak "English",the problem is there. There is a problem in understanding pali words. Different people translate pali words in deferent way according to their understanding. Most of these translations do not really convey the real meaning of Pali words and is distorting the Dhamma. I am just trying to correct the translation of the pali word. the common translation completely misleading readers.some people just grab hold of one point(source) and think that is everything ,because of their ignorance of Dhamma. It is something like “blind men touching an elephant” so it is very important to understand the teaching of Buddha properly then you begin to see proper perspective. Craving means a powerful desire for something.Emotion means “instinctive or intuitive feeling as distinguished from reasoning”.very funny to see the translation of pali word "Taṇhā " as "Craving". why don't you see it ?--RsEkanayake 13:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
@Rsekanayake: Please read and respect wikipedia's WP:RS and WP:NOR guidelines. Your OR in this and other Buddhism articles space, along with repeated dismissal of published scholarly work, is increasingly disruptive. In this case, Richard Gombrich is a well known and respected scholar of Buddhism, and tanha is craving on page 246 of his text cited in this article. Others such as Peter Harvey and Phillip Moffitt concur with this view of Richard Gombrich. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ms Sarah Welch . Please refer here I suppose you have got the wrong end of the stick. Are you trying to tell me that I do not have right to discuss matters in the discussion page? I think this page is the discussion page and not the article page where WP:RS is directly applicable. Please note I have not attempted to edit the article. Do you want me to edit the article instead of discussing? Also I think you cannot categorize this under WP:NOR because I have not done any researches. The original research done by Buddha. On behalf of Buddha I simply trying to give reasonable explanation to some misinterpreted pali words for betterment of common readers. I think there is nothing could do with WP:RS as it is WP:BLUE . Also I am aware about the policy on reliable sources. Everybody respect that policy . but so called published scholarly work is not reliable to me. Do not ask me to move with the crowd. In this case I will explain what went wrong and please try to get to the points.
  • Original Sutta Pitaka was in Sinhalese language then Sinhala commentaries were translated into Pāli for the preservation. Later on pali canon translated into English by Thomas William Rhys Davids (1843) , I. B. Horner ( 1896) and Frank Lee Woodward for Pali Text Society. Rhys Davids also has published "Pali-English dictionary". Therefore I think so called scholars ,Richard Francis Gombrich (1937) ,Peter Harve and Phillip Moffitt (1946) are just the followers of those original translators.There are some mistakes made by initial translators.Because they didn’t fully or properly understand what was said by Sinhalese Monks.
  • Now I’ll come to the point .In "Pratītyasamutpāda" , I’ll quote a part from “The Twelve Nidanas”. Nama rupa නාමරූපං( Mind & Matter) =>Salayatana සලායතනං ( Six Sense) => Phasa ඵස්සෝ ( Contact ) =>Vedana වේදනා( Feeling ) => Tanha තණ්හා ( Craving ) . Here, Buddha is speaking about a series of antecedent concurrence that occur at the same time, simultaneously.The 5 sences when stimulated by the envirment the sences react(not rational respnd it is an automatic reacation) to that stimulant ,that reaction is what is called විඤ්‍ඤාණ Vijñāna unfortunately it is also treanslated as conciousness ,it is not correct It is really perception. The formation of an object is what is called Phasa ඵස්සෝ ( Contact ) , Phasa ඵස්සෝ ( Contact ) also translated as contact but “Phasa ඵස්සෝ’ is not the contact ,it is “The formation of an object” the object is formed by making use of 6 senses(including mind) ,not just one. Once the object is formed we are going to make use of feeling in the object, we may get pleasant feeling in the object or get unpleasant feeling in the object ,and the moment we get the feeling we react(not respond) to that object with a desire or hatred .The emotional reaction ,The Buddha called it Tanha තණ්හා ( Craving but not ) .but People use the word “Craving” for ” Tanha” තණ්හා. The Craving is wanting something, but here we not only wanting, if we dislike(hatred) something we don’t want it, we want to get rid of it. My question is to "Mr. Ms Sarah Welch" . Does the word Craving imply something similar to hatred or dislike? Where is the missing part of Buddha’s teaching? Does it really convey the meaning? Doesn't make it funny?.On behalf of so called scholars please answer?--RsEkanayake 04:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Rsekanayake: Please see WP:FORUM and WP:TPNO. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch Please see WP:NPOV --RsEkanayake 01:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@Rsekanayake: You too, particularly the "that have been published by reliable sources" part. Also, I urge you to end your "but so called published scholarly work is not reliable to me", and "so called scholars" for Richard Gombrich, Peter Harvey, et al, that you wrote above, as such premises are not constructive for this or any other wikipedia article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)