Desires can be either negative or positive.

[icy]

If I desire to acquire something for myself--let's say I desire good health when I am ill, or a bowl of rice when I am hungry--such a desire is perfectly justified. The same applies to selfishness, which can be either negative or positive.

In most cases, asserting oneself only leads to disappointment, or to conflict with other egos that feel as exclusively about their existence as we do about our own. This is especially true when a strongly developed ego indulges in capricious or demanding behavior. The illusion of having a permanent self is a secret danger that stalks us all: "I want this," "I want that." It can even lead us to kill. Excessive selfishness leads to uncontrollable perversions, which always end badly. But on the other hand, a firm confident sense of self can be a very positive element. Without a strong sense of self, that is, of one's skills, potential, and convictions, nobody can take on significant responsibilities. Responsibility requires true self-confidence. How could a mother without hands save her child from the river?
--from The Dalai Lama's Little Book of Inner Peace

[Q]

When we speak of desire in the context of Buddhism, we must understand that even in Buddhism we recognize two type of desires and it is actually acknowledged.

The desire that we say is 'wrong' or detrimental for spiritual growth is called Tanha, which is desires that propels us to be so attached to sensory stimulation and pleasures. In short, this is the type of wrongly directed desire that causes much morale downfall and halt or cause our spiritual growth to spiral down. Tanha always stems from a self-centered mind and therefore it cannot be the right path towards enlightenment for removing the self-cherishing mind is part and parcel enlightenment.

However, not all desire is labeled as wrongly directed. A more positive noted desire within the Buddhist context is known as Chanda, and these are wholesome desires that help one to strive for one's spiritual growth and therefore not considered to be within the context of Tanha. Take for example, the desire to attain Nirvana, the wish that everyone is free of suffering and desire for others to be happy, all these examples are Chanda.

So when we see the example of desiring good health when we are ill... we should check our motivation if the desire of this good health is for us to be able to do Dharma, or so that we have health to go deeper into samsara.

[Big Uncle]

Strictly speaking, all forms of desire is tainted by the self-cherishing, self-grasping mind. This type of mind creates karma and eventually leads to more suffering. The only desire that is leaning towards positive is those that leads to benefiting others. However, at our level, it is still not a pure motivation or desire because it is still acting out of the self-cherishing mind and that makes it somewhat contrived but that is still way better than actions and motivations to benefit oneself alone.

Hence, in Buddhism, the path to the destruction of the self-cherishing and self-grasping mind is to engage in the accumulation of merits (including purification practices), study and contemplation. With the three sufficiently established, one can develop closer and closer to the point where we do have pure desire and practice for the Dharma. One way to gauge our motivation is to check if our Dharma practice is based on any of the 8 worldly Dharmas:-

- Getting what you want, and avoiding getting what you do not want
- Wanting (instant) happiness, and not wanting unhappiness
- Wanting fame, and not wanting to be unknown
- Wanting praise, and not wanting blame.

[apprenticehealer]

Desiring is a strong feeling of wanting something or wishing something to happen. Desiring is a state of mind. Most times , wanting is not as good as having.

What is behind the motivation of wanting something so badly : is it to satisfy one's own self cherishing mind or is it to benefit someone else ? Either way, it also depends on the karma of both these people, as to whether that desire or wish is granted.

Desiring comes with great expectations, and if that expectation is not met, the disappointment will be equally great. Yes, we do have a lot of 'wanting, needing, having, wishing, desiring ' but if it is not in our karma that we should have it, then all the desiring in the world will not make it happen. We have formed in our minds that we 'really need this, that we really desire that ' and that becomes an obsession , and it becomes an attachment - and attachment causes suffering.

[Dondrup Shugden]

If there are 2 types of desires which may be positive or negative, then judgement and integrity will play a big part in our being.

Then motivation and intentions are major factors resulting our desires.  Interesting to note that desire which is a need to have what is not necessary can be negative and desire to survive may be positive. Knowing this difference, let be clear of a good desire. The desire to cultivate good motivation and intentions is what we need to conscious about and practise on it.

[Matibhadra]

Excessive selfishness leads to uncontrollable perversions, which always end badly.

Which means that the evil dalai is now teaching some kind of “good, moderate selfishness”. This opinion lacks any Buddhist lineage. Any selfishness is evil, and leads to uncontrollable perversions, which always end badly.

But on the other hand, a firm confident sense of self can be a very positive element.

How could a firm confident sense of what does not exist be a positive, let alone “a very positive” element?

For Buddhists, what is a very positive element is rather a firm confident sense of selflessness, or of the lack of a self.

That's why Buddhists invoke the “power of truth”, which is selflessness, in their prayers, in order to enhance confidence in their effectiveness.

On the other hand, a firm confident sense of what does not exist, which is ignorance, is only negative, and only brings suffering to oneself and others.

Without a strong sense of self, that is, of one's skills, potential, and convictions, nobody can take on significant responsibilities. Responsibility requires true self-confidence.

Rather the opposite. No one takes on more significant responsibility than the bodhisattva, the one who has generated stable bodhichitta, and the very generation of bodhichitta is not possible without understanding selflessness.

On the other hand, those who develop a strong sense of self will never develop bodhichitta, will never take on any responsibility for the welfare of others, but rather will become selfish monsters, ugly politicians capable of every lie and cruelty, as exemplified by the evil dalai.

Therefore, the evil dalai himself, contradicting every single Buddhist teaching, shows the path to become the evil monster he became: develop a strong sense of self, and disgrace your Buddhist gurus.

[eyesoftara]

It is the attachment to the sense of self ie the self cherishing mind that keep one in the cyclic existence of suffering or samsara. It is also this very same mind that has to lead us from the same existence. Hence, it is not wrong to say anything in samsara can be positive or negative (or neutral), including desire. Desire to attain Liberation and Enlightenment is an example of positive desire. This desire then can lead to actions that is needed to bring one to these positive states. This includes the practice of the 6 paramita that the Dalai Lama mentioned in the passage above.
Any other desire that sustain this effort including food and rest must be a measured kind. We cannot justify this kind of desire and say this is for the path.

[Matibhadra]

It is the attachment to the sense of self ie the self cherishing mind that keep one in the cyclic existence of suffering or samsara. It is also this very same mind that has to lead us from the same existence.

Then, according to you, as according to the evil dalai, self-grasping and self-cherishing are the causes of liberation from samsara. This distorted opinion is no Buddhist teaching.

Hence, it is not wrong to say anything in samsara can be positive or negative (or neutral), including desire.

Totally wrong. Self-grasping and self-cherishing are never positive, but only and always harmful, unskilful, and negative.

Desire means wish, aspiration, which can be positive, neutral, or negative, depending on what is wished or aspired for. Desirous attachment, which is the wish or aspiration for objects of attachment, and based on self-grasping and self-cherishing, is always negative.

Desire to attain Liberation and Enlightenment is an example of positive desire. This desire then can lead to actions that is needed to bring one to these positive states. This includes the practice of the 6 paramita that the Dalai Lama mentioned in the passage above.

There is no mention to the 6 paramitas by the evil dalai in the passage above. You are seeing too much. The evil dalai is not concerned with bodhichitta or with the bodhisattva deeds. Just what the evil dalai says is that “selfishness can be either negative or positive”, which shows that he shamelessly gave up Buddhadharma, and fully adhered to the non-Buddhist, materialistic tenets of his Jewish sponsor, the financial terrorist George Soros, whose puppet he became.

[yontenjamyang]

If the Dalai Lama is evil then we must say that he harms all and not just Shugden Practitioners. We cannot deny that there are many who have benefitted from teachings. Mull on it. The only conclusion is that he is NOT EVIL. Then we have a conundrum of why the persecution of Shugden?
We use the Dharma and logic. Assume he is not evil, we ask why? What are the benefits of the persecution? We may find some repose in this type of thinking. It certainly benefit us not to disparage a Guru of many.

[Matibhadra]

If the Dalai Lama is evil then we must say that he harms all and not just Shugden Practitioners.

The evil king Langdarma harmed Buddhists alone, not Bönpos and everyone else, but still was an evil king worth being thrown in the garbage bin of history. The same applies to the evil dalai.

In the same way, Boko Haram or Islamic State terrorists are harming African and Middle Eastern people, not Australian Aboriginals, but they are still evil enough to be called “evil”, unless you enjoy and find virtuous their decapitations, crucifixions, and other gruesome executions.

An evil person is any harmful person. It is not necessary that the evil person harms just everyone in order to be evil. Your attempt to save the evil dalai from the epithet “evil” is preposterous.

We cannot deny that there are many who have benefitted from teachings. Mull on it.

Which teachings? That only under bankster-controlled Capitalism one can become a buddha? Or that selfishness can be very good? Or that disgracing one's guru is the way to go? There is no Buddhist teaching without lineage, and, since the evil dalai, having disgraced his Buddhist gurus, lacks any Buddhist lineage, and merely holds the lineage of his materialistic guru and sponsor, the Jewish financial terrorist George Soros, there is no one benefiting from his “teachings”.

It certainly benefit us not to disparage a Guru of many.

There is no disparagement in recognizing the evil as such. But one does disparage authentic Gurus calling the evil criminal a “Guru”.
 

[MoMo]

Extract from “The wheel of sharp weapons”:
In the jungle of poisonous plants strut the peacocks,
Though medicine gardens of beauty lie near.
The masses of peacocks do not find gardens pleasant,
But thrive on the essence of poisonous plants.
In similar fashion, the brave Bodhisattva
Remain in the jungle of worldly concern.
No matter how joyful this world’s pleasure gardens,
The brave ones are never attracted to pleasure’
But thrive in the jungle of suffering and pain.

It is said that from the very same ground one fell, one rely on it to stand up.
Since desirous attachment was the nature of an untrained mind, this was the same mind that we relied on to transcend it.
Our mind are trained and habituated to desire worldly pleasure since countless eons, this is something that we are so well-versed at. Now we can use this energy to change and divert the object of our desire from worldly pleasure and fun to cultivating of virtuous and the desire to be liberated from it.
Conventionally within the limit of human communication method, we use the labels of “I” and “you”, “good” or “Bad”, “positive” or “negative” to denote relativity between objects.
Just as Lord Buddha who had transcended the mundane world would still use the label “I” or “Tathagata” to denote himself to others.
Within the context of Buddhism if the result of one desire leads to liberation and omniscience, we will label it to as “desirable” or “positive”. If it leads to more worldly pleasure, the source of suffering, then it will label as “undesirous” or “negative”.