Paradox

It makes sense that in the four Noble Truths, the Buddha meant craving instead of desire as the term and its connotations are more applicable to the purpose for which it was selected. However, I am having a hard time grasping the concept that craving Enlightenment is not actually craving, but just a process of assuming the practices condusive to reaching such an end. As Williams states: "A Buddhist wants enlightenment in the sense that wanting something is a condition of freely and intentionally engaging in practices to bring it about" (44). Concordantly, it would go against Buddhist doctine for Buddhists to want enlightenment, yet is it not the object of their ideals? The logic follows in a sort of paradox, but it is there. Since the Buddhist path is designed to cease all cravings, to desire enlightenment is to desire the practices that will put an end to cravings after enlightenment. Put simply, to want enlightenment is to want the practices that will cease craving after enlightenment is reached. So in effect, normatively, enlightenment is not the object of desire, but it is the path to it that one ardently seeks. Enlightenment then is just what following the desired practices should yield if done correctly, and so it should eliminate craving thereafter. When reformatted as a syllogism, one desires an end to desire. But because it is a syllogism, the middle step prevents the ending of desire from being the object of desire. Somehow, in a twisted Buddhist way, it all makes sense.