The idea that suffering is caused by 'craving an illusion' is one of the core propositions of buddhism. I'd like to dissect this with the help of this discussion group.
I have always found the selection of the word 'craving' to be interesting and worthy of discussion. To quote a dictionary "A consuming desire; a yearning.".
Stephen Batchelor sums this up in his interesting but over-compressed 'Buddhism without beliefs' as 'Craving for life to be other than it is.' To expand 'A consuming desire for life to be other than it is'.
In many cases, this analysis makes perfect sense to me. For a trivial example: getting upset about having a disagreement with someone is an example of 'a consuming desire for everyone to agree with me' - which is unrealistic. If we accept the world view that others absolutely do have different views from our own, then we can still have the debate, but the 'pain' of the dispute is removed.
Where I have trouble is with the apparent lack of acknowledgement of 'agency' on the part of the 'craver'. If the world 'is other than I would like it to be', I can conclude that I am craving an illusion and (to use the relevant Buddhist phraseology 'let go' of the craving), or I can attempt to do something to change the world such that my 'craving' is not (any longer) for an illusion.
Because I think that the general principle is sound, I think this consideration simply places an onus on the dharma practitioner to distinguish between the two cases, and it also says that the practitioner should simply 'let go' of any bad feelings that result when they encounter something unchangeable. ie "It's no use crying over spilt milk".
I'd be very interested to hear the views of others on this forum.