Desire

Possibly, when the Buddha suggested to relinquish desire,
He didn't intend that we should exterminate desire
Neither did he imply we should let go of it.

He simply meant we shouldn't become the desire itself, through assuming that it's controlled by us and it is only active because we choose to activate it, and that this choice is a condition in its existence (should our choice cease to continue, so will the desire cease along with it), thereby adopting it as "my choice".

If the clinging and craving is no longer considered the expression of our essence,
It will naturally cease to exist.

No idea or emotion can survive without becoming the sense of self we present it with.

It cannot even manifest itself.

I feel afraid, doesn't exist.
This claim suggests that there is an external feeling, and it is now possessing me (it suggests that the I and the fear are separate entities).

Nothing has a capacity to feel without existing first.

So how could the fear have managed to exist until you found it?

Where was the feeling (who was feeling it) until you engaged in it?

You don't pick up feelings in the grocery,
Not even on Amazon.
You generate them through transitioning​ your sense of self (ego) from one emotion to the next (or you intensify your detachment from the experience (active consciousness) that you are, so more energy is available to stimulate the ego.

So a sense of fear or is being established simultaneously with a transition of your ego.

When fear is suggested, the belief that you are the suggestion itself (cultivated through the belief that you have chosen the frightening idea, and that you continue maintaining the control to cease the selection of this option and the reason you are not abandoning this route (this choice) is, because you continue to want this), transitions into the belief that you are the emotion itself.

Your sense of self has now evolved into a sense of a frightened self.

The fear became the identifying characteristic of the self.

Your character.

And as long as the emotion tortures you, it's so because you are clinging to the torture for dear life and can't afford the catastrophy of losing it and missing it.

You want it so desperately, that you are willing to deceive yourself and claim that you hate and resent the ordeal, if this is the necessary price to stay in this life preserving (preserving the egos life) agony.

It is true that your authentic self is in a severe predicament.
But that authentic self is irrelevant in a world the ego dominates and dictates.

If your true nature would be in charge,
The agonizing emotion wouldn't exist at all.


When the Buda informs us that desire is the source of suffering,
His sole intent is, that we become conscious of this fact.

All that it implies is, that "we will" consider this view and adopt it accordingly.

Meaning, that when we are told something,
It simply means that we perceived the new knowledge.

Human Intervention doesn't exist.
There is nothing one can do about anything.

The info itself is the only one that can intervene.

You didn't choose to hear the Buda tell you this,
It simply occurred.

Once it invaded your perception by occurrence,
It will impact your habit to desire, by occurrence.

If you will rehearse this remark over and over, so that it has a greater impact,

The decisive factor that you will be rehearsing it, will derive from other info which invaded your perception without your slightest involvement.

Very likely, it will come from the view, that practice makes perfect.

If no one invents anything, where did the view that practice makes perfect originate?

Where did the Buda's remark originate from?

All opinions, remarks and views,
Are the result of observation.

None of these observers chose to observe
The info (or inspiration), that observation is appropriate here.
This very awareness, Also resulted from the unique combination of external knowledge invading the perception of the observer.

A criminal who is punished, is punished for the coincidence, his mind consists of (meaning, that the total of his involuntary perceived inspiration, dictated by pure force, that this crime will occur).

Proper punishment should be directed at his information (meaning, that the potential punishment should be utilized as motivation to influence mind transformation and the annihilation of the current mindset, so that if the criminal can prove over a certain period of time,
that his mind has transformed, the punishment should be forfeited) not his innocent physical and spiritual being.

Someone rewarded for heroic and kind behavior,

The reward should be coming from the mindset itself,
Meaning, that the possession of this mindset should constantly present itself as an indirect privilege to its owner (promote him as a teacher).

But to reward the person directly, for the performance of information he never chose to obtain and which engaged him by circumstance only,
Is actually a punishment.
Because it inspires the victim to identify himself with a book (the mind), thereby setting him up for all kinds of dysfunction and failure.

Maybe the following is true.

Desire is a killer only to its owner.
But if the desire is present but you don't assume ownership on it (just like you don't assume ownership on your perspiration),
If instead of perceiving the energy as "I want",
It is perceived as a wanting that is presently occurring just like the weather (you create the weather as much as you create your desires),

If all the "described activities" internally, are perceived with the same attitude as external coincidental circumstance,

If all identity is abandoned,

Suffering will cease.

Personally,I don't believe that choice and pre determination are contradictions,

They are simply two aspects that flow in harmony together.


Your decisions determine your behavior, but your decisions are predetermined by your behavior, and are therefore​ not chosen.


  and your behavior is determined by coincidental perception.


Therefore,

Your decisions are responsible for their effect, but you aren't responsible for your decisions.


But through "assuming an unjustified sense"  of responsibility,

That assumption will determine an improvement in your behavior.


Still, it is merely your relationship with the responsible data, that gets you involved,

But this doesn't justify guilt, shame, and the rest of the family.


There is a relationship with responsibility, but not a Trace of fault.


From this perspective,

Forgiveness isn't even necessary.


Your association with responsibility is your "privilege" to improve your existence,

"Not" at all your duty.