I don't know why you are confused, but what you suggest is simply wrong.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 12:58 pmI do indeed remember, and I scratch my head somewhat at it. "Saṅkapparāgo purisassa kāmo;" establishes that greedy desire is a person's lust. ‘‘Na te kāmā yāni citrāni loke," establishes that the kāmā whichever are beauties in the world are not. The kāmā remain as they are, but a person should do away with lust. The message is clear. The external objects are not the problem per se, lust is.
This confuses me further."They are not lusts the ones which are beautiful in the world.
Na: Not
te: Those
kāmā ?
yāni: whichever
citrāni: beauties
loke: world
Not those kāmā whichever beauties world
Not those kāmā whichever are beauties in the world
The verse states the complete opposite. Kāmo is a person's subjective lust.And the sentence does not make sense, if you take kāmo in the second line as an "object of pleasure"
Kāmā in the first line must be the same thing with the same meaning that kāma in the second. Otherwise there cannot be contrast (but it is). If in the second line it is "lust", it must be "lusts" in the first line. Q.E.D.
And Ceiswir, we are on the Buddhist forum ! Forget this "subjective, personal", "objective, in the world". Nothing is subjective and nothing is objective. Everything is the way it is.