again, this seems to be claiming, "all you need to do is see and know the truth, and you'll act accordingly" which i think contradicts the bit from eight stanzas on the pure that says that you can't become pure by mere views and beliefs – but forming views and beliefs are a natural consequence of learning the truth about desire, which has to happen if one is to act accordingly.

Doesn't this assume that you can perceive without a concept attached to the percept?

I guess this makes sense given that the text is pre-madhyamakarika but wouldn't giving up all desire entail a life that is strictly austere and ascetic, and not on the "middle path"?

what does this mean?

is this "should" used like a prediction or to say "ought"?

So if you've understood the nature of clinging and why it happens, you would automatically start curbing your desires and stop clinging?

I hate to bring up the tired question of the is-ought gap again, but it is apparent here. Yes, this is the way things are, but why ought we seek liberation?

This makes sense to me because to possess something in the present is to prevent it from leaving your grasp in the future. If one's idea of satisfaction in the present is attached to something contingent, and, trivially, the present moment never really "ends" and the future never really "gets here", one will never be satisfied. I'm curious to read more about Buddhist metaphysics and their philosophy of time.

So is the claim here that it's easy for small desires to grow to the extent that they harm you, so you should avoid desire altogether?