The three kinds of suffering as mentioned in SN45.165 : > [1] Suffering caused by pain, > [2] suffering caused by the formations > suffering due to change. Does the EBT (and elsewhere) suggest, or give examples of a mixture, or juxtaposition of the three types of dukkha? Sallatha Sutta: The Arrow might fit the bill, but where else?

Caucasian skin is peachy and sandy (due to having no pigmentation) while the great man's body in nibbana is, according to the 32 perfections of a great man , "his skin is the color of gold". White skin requires some pigmentation. Currently my journey with white skin represents the Trix rabbit's (1994 commercial) attempt to take his own cereal. All he gets is "silly rabbit Trix are for kids!" And the fact that some saints may have received such a miracle to change their skin color forever makes the pain that much more serious. And what should I do regarding the psychologist? I am visiting one to drain my emotions of this, and that might make my eternity as a yellow man all that much more permanent!

I read the following on the internet: > Sunyata is absolute reality. Emptiness. There are also the 3 marks of > existence, suffering, impermanence and non self. This is ultimate > reality for a being in samsara. Are anicca, dukkha & anatta the marks of existence for a being in samsara?

I often see the first noble truth (*duḥkha*) stated as "life is suffering". I have yet to come across a passage in a Buddhist text which phrases it like this - mostly they don't talk about "life" in this sense. So where does the idea that "*life is suffering*" come from? There's been some discussion about the definition and translation of the word "*dukkha*" also. Is there a definitive definition?

Having learned and gained complete mastery from the two most famous teachers of his time, he decided to apply extreme austerities for some six years. With these skills acquired, driving a powerful concentration, he abandoned it all in favour of a skill he discovered when as a child at the Kings Plowing Ceremony, where he entered the first jhana [Dhyāna] quite effortlessly. Furthermore, added to this cache of tools, he prior added a powerful determination to not move from that spot, even if his blood should dry up, etc, etc. The subsequent release of this energy resulted in a spectacular display of meditative attainment. In the first watch of the night investigating Kamma with respect to successive past lives, revealing causal sequence. In the second watch of the night, investigating Kamma with respect to consequences of currently available choices. In the third watch of the night, the realisation of deliverance. Not much is said about the results of the third watch. It is a fairly common experience where insights coming from seeing a new possibility after examining two different phenomena with a common factor giving rise to a eureka moment. But what may have happened in this case, such a eureka event further resulting in a realisation that Dukkha had ceased? The Buddha's quest finally achieved. During the next eight weeks, the problem of describing a way of enabling others to achieve this result, though necessarily _not_ in the same way, given the death of the two teachers, plus avoiding austerities, plus the absence of psychic powers. In developing a tangible expression for the inexpressible, the Buddha further developed the right view, that Dukkha exists, arises and ceases according to conditions. Enabling the further development of the 'noble eightfold path'. According to tradition, all this happened in an instant, that is to say, the sequence happened very rapidly: the problem is to give it coherent expression. The result: the four noble truths.

This may be an unusual question but I'm wondering if any monk or scholar has written work or made lectures about the spiritual obstacles of Capitalism. Namely the atomization, alienation, crippling entertainments, omnipresent advertising, the uncertainty of holding jobs and fluctuating markets, the need to wage wars to reduce the overall wealth of the society and obtain resources. We are not living in the time of Shakyamuni, Padmasambhava or Athisha. This is a spiritually confused, decadent world. Our spiritual obstacles are more complicated and strange than the obstacles of previous times. Any ideas? Sadhu.

I have an anxiety disorder and I sometimes wonder if Dukkha could be viewed as anxiety. In other words in the four noble truths: This is anxiety. This is the cause of anxiety. This is the cessation of anxiety. This is the path of practice of anxiety. Isn't Dukkha really just a form of anxiety? Anxiety about emotional pain and even the suffering associated with physical pain is probably anxiety, horror at the pain and the risk of death. I don't know. I think this could be a translation of Dukkha. But maybe I should just use it myself because I have an anxiety disorder...

In the conventional sense, views on dukkha (stress/hardships/difficulties/suffering) are rather mixed. We have the saying, [“No pain, no gain”](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/no-pain-no-gain) that implies that suffering is needed to make progress. There is also the saying, [“Whatever doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger”](https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/what-doesnt-kill-you-makes-you-stronger/) , again implying how difficult experiences make a person more resilient. Yet, it is known today [many diseases are stress-related](https://www.webmd.com/balance/stress-management/features/10-fixable-stress-related-health-problems) . I have friends/acquaintances who suffered from diseases which I strongly suspect is a result of their stressful lifestyles. What is strange from my observations is that most of the time, they are either not aware or simply feel that everything is normal. I suspect that over the years and decades even though the stress had reached [chronic level](https://www.yalemedicine.org/conditions/stress-disorder) , their mind had grown used to it even though their bodies did not. In fact, one of them appeared nonchalant when I implied that there might be a link between her illness and stress. Sometimes, I wish doctors are just as good at curing the mind as they are with the body. 1. How should lay Buddhists view and make use of dukkha such that it is helpful not only spiritually but also allow them to make meaningful progress in the world? 2. Is there a way to strike a balance with stress in our personal and professional lives? 3. What advice would you give to non-Buddhist friends who are suffering from chronic stress?

This applies to all superstitious people in general, but especially to someone very close. My mom is extremely ignorant and superstitious. She comes from an uneducated village background from a third world country. Due to ignorance of facts and lack of experience, she falls for any hearsay and produces strong emotions based on them, chiefly fear and worry. Example, she would read in the newspaper that somewhere in the Western world there was a homicide of someone from our country and she would get worried for me. she doesn't understand I am thousands of miles away from the place she has read about. The way she would spin stories out of what is actually written is truly fascinating. For example, 'A homicide of our countryman in the West' becomes 'the people in the West kill our countrymen and throw them out on the streets!' She also, unconsciously, tries to nudge me and manipulate me into seeing the bad aspects of the western world - when in fact the "bad" aspects she tries to tell me are due to her lack of understanding of facts and they are unfounded in reality. An example, she would tell semi-fabricated stories like that to me over call like the homicide one above. I have pointed out this mechanism to her multiple times to make her conscious of the fact-manipulation etc. even with examples. But I am now thinking she doesn't have the awareness to grasp this kind of "theoretical" understanding. Anyways, usually I just point out the falsehoods and switch topics. But last call I was dumbfounded by the extent of this and in order to really make her aware of this I may have said some words which were true but may be hurtful. Something like "you are acting like a 5 yo child who doesn't understand the basic knowledge and gets scared like that". I remember persisting on it a little because I wanted her to see the mistake there, and I feel pity towards her for suffering constantly on these untrue things. Now she is hurt from me because of this incident. I feel guilty and sad to hurt her with words and I have been crying. But at the same time I feel sorry for her for tormenting herself day after day and year after year due to ignorance of basic understanding of science and world. What should be done in this case? Should I ignore her manipulating and let her suffer although that doesn't seem right..? But I can't either try to show her truth for that either is ineffective or it involves hurt. Have you been in similar situation before?

SN38.14 describes three types of duhkha: > “Reverend, there are these three forms of suffering. “Tisso imā, > āvuso, dukkhatā. The suffering inherent in painful feeling; the > suffering inherent in conditions; and the suffering inherent in > perishing. Dukkhadukkhatā, saṅkhāradukkhatā, vipariṇāmadukkhatā—These > are the three forms of suffering.” I have found a few instances that allude to vipariṇāmadukkhatā being the stress associated with being wrong, having wrong view, wrong perception, not knowing, etc. > Thag 21.1 “Your mind is on fire “Saññāya vipariyesā, because of a > perversion of perception. > > an3.117 It’s when someone has right view, an undistorted > perspective, such as: > > AN 10.85 ‘My dear friend, I didn’t lie or speak hollow words. But > I had gone mad, I was out of my mind.’ There are other like usages (see DN33 ). So why is vipariṇāmadukkhatā translated as stress of change or disappearance of happiness - these seem to be within the scope of saṅkhāradukkhatā (impermanence of conditions)? I have not found any usage that resembles the 'stress of change'. can you point it out?

A little context to describe what I am looking for and why I am looking for it: It is my strong intuition that "suffering" is a label that we give to a phenomenon that, upon deeper inspection, we discover to be an "inner conflict" between (1) a part of us that craves a particular sensory experience (kāma) and (2) a part of us which desires to see things as they actually are (yathabhutañanadassana) and that the resolution of these inner conflicts by relinquishing sense-desires in favor of clear seeing is the means by which suffering is ended and that the āsava are the biases which keep us clinging to sense-desires until we are strong enough to relinquish them and that each resolution of an inner conflict of this nature results in a destruction of the āsava (asavakkhaye ñana) and that each such destruction brings us closer and closer to full awakening wherein all āsava have been removed inner conflicts no longer go unresolved because avijjā (the choice to ignore uncomfortable truths) has been destroyed i.e. we no longer respond to dukkha (the arrow in the heart who purpose is to alert us to that the map of the world we have constructed has made a misprediction that should be corrected) by ignoring evidence that our views are compelling us to make bad decisions in favor of clinging to sense-desires. and that this works because the sensory motor wherein all āsava have been removed inner conflicts no longer go unresolved because avijjā (the choice to ignore uncomfortable truths) has been destroyed i.e. we no longer respond to dukkha (this discomfort of misprediction) by ignoring evidence that our views are compelling us to make bad decisions. brain evolved because it enabled beings to respond to sensory experience with moves in the world that improved the probability of gene survival i.e. the trait of making accurate predictions (saṅkhāra) originally served the master of the zero-sum game of gene-survival (aka "Māra) but the zero-sum game intensified competition which created selection pressure for ever more accurate predictions leading to the point where clinging to the original gene-survival compulsions actually become an impediment to clear seeing and that the choice to relinquish this impediment in favor the welfare of all living beings was the choice the Buddha made when he renounced Māra and attained nibbana. Although everything is a hypothesis, and all hypotheses should be considered impermanent (sabbe saṅkhāra annicā), and all hypothesis are subject to the discomfort of misprediction (sabbe saṅkhāra dukkha), I have a very high degree of certainty that this hypothesis is correct. Nevertheless, the "fly in the ointment" is the uncomfortable truth that I am not familiar with a Pali term to represent the concept of an "inner conflict" between these 2 parts. My best guess is that (1) I am attributing an incorrect meaning to a term that I already know which represents this concept or (2) The term was removed from the canon by the same forces who removed the 4 resolves (adhiṭṭhāna: sacca, pañǹa, cāga, upasama; which described how to actually resolve the unresolved conflict). I'm hoping that (1) is true and that someone here can point me in the right direction.

According to Buddhist teachings, we suffer because of the moment to moment impermanence of all experience. As I understand it, this is caused by clinging to experiences we feel positive about. But wouldn't the impermanence of experiences we try to avoid, by the same logic, involve a similar subtle kind of bliss?

It's clear right view is the foremost factor as without the right view one would not go for practicing the noble eightfold path at all. But when the rest is considered, is there a real sequence? My physical actions are generally good and my speech is fine but needs to be improved as I'm vulnerable to idle chatter. But controlling speech the action is difficult to me. But when I realize that idle chatter(rather idle communication, not just idle chatter alone) leads to more dukkha I am abstaining from it. It's kind of right concentration. Am I following the noble eight foldpath correctly in that scenario?

This question is a sequel to my previous question about First Noble Truth. It seems that there is discord about the exact rendering of the word 'dukkha'. Sorry if I sound like a pedantic dou*h. I am just trying to understand it clearly. So the answer I received in this link and this link translates it as 'stress'. (I personally think it's wrong, but I am not any authority or scholar). The Wikipedia page for dukkha gives the following translations: "suffering", "unhappiness", "pain", "unsatisfactoriness" or "stress". So what's the exact meaning? I am asking because the exact rendering changes the meaning and its effectiveness as teaching a lot.

**The Vinegar Tasters** is a very interesting subject in Chinese art. It depicts Confucius, the Buddha and Laozi tasting vinegar. A common interpretation is the following: > Confucius is depicted with a sour face, because in confucionism life is "sour", that's why we need rules etc. The Buddha is depicted with a bitter face, because the Buddha saw life as full of suffering etc, while Laozi is depicted smiling, because the vinegar is sweet to him, because he understands "the perfect nature of vinegar". Despite the point of view of the Buddha (that life is full of *dukkha*), he understood that vinegar is vinegar, just as Laozi; and, knowing that, why would he have a bitter face? Is this depiction raising the image of Laozi and daoism and mistreating buddhism as pessimistic? Or is it more like a "Buddha sees the vinegar as it is" thing while Laozi sees it as sweet and thus "lying to himself"?

I was thinking about whether the goal of a wholesome action is to reduce suffering (dukkha) or to "shrink" the roots of suffering, namely craving, desire or aversion (the three poisons). In fact, there are actions that temporarily create more suffering with the ultimate goal of eliminating its roots---This is the case with exposure therapy, where a psychotherapist exposes a patient to the object of their phobia in order to train them to let go of the aversion towards it. This leads me to three questions: 1. Is it sometimes wholesome to perform actions that can temporarily lead to suffering with the goal of "shrinking" its roots? 2. If so, how much suffering is allowed in order to "shrink" its roots? For example, can a Master lead someone towards a path that includes a lot of suffering in this lifetime if they know it to be necessary to eliminate the roots of suffering in the next? 3. Do wholesome actions always lead to a "shrinking" of the roots of suffering (ignorance, craving, and aversion)? It seems possible to me that this is not the case. Take for example the case of a Master who---with the best of intentions---exposes someone to an advanced insight. Two scenarios: - This person was not ready for the teaching and ends up developing more ignorance, craving and aversion. Did he perform an unwholesome action? - He didn't realize that five other people were listening to this teaching through the door and they were not ready for it. Unwillingly, he ends up creating more ignorance, aversion, and desire in these five. Did he perform an unwholesome action?

Thich Nhat Hanh seems to deny a major teaching on dukkha/suffering common to both Theravada and Tibetan teachings -- the idea of *all-perasive suffering* ("the suffering of composite things",*samskara dukkhata*)-- found in many places in the Pali and Tibetan canons. Below are some excerpts. A link to the whole chapter is at the end. I think his interpretation may well reflect a misunderstanding of all-pervasive suffering -- it does not deny joy; it simply says the only lasting happiness comes from addressing conditioned existence in general (or emptiness/shunyata and inherent/intrinsic existence in Mahayana terms); it cannot be found by only addressing worldly suffering directly. Or maybe I am misunderstanding him. But he is pretty emphatic, even to the point of implying that the Pali Canon was corrupted to reflect this teaching before it got written down. He also suggests removing *dukkha* from the Three Dharma Seals/Marks, replacing it with *nirvana* (rather than just adding *nirvana* to make four seals, as is usually done) **My questions -- does this reflect Zen teachings in general, or is it limited to Thich Nhat Hanh and/or some schools? If some Zen schools or teachers do teach all-pervasive suffering, can someone point me to references? I'd also be interested in other Zen teachings that reflect Thich Nhat Hanh's strong objection to the doctrine of all-pervasive suffering.** Thanks. --- The following quotes (with **my emphasis** added) are from Chapter Five, "Is Everything Suffering?" , from *The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching*, by Thich Nhat Hanh, > Since the Buddha said that the First Noble Truth is suffering, many good > students of the Buddha have used their skills to prove that everything on > Earth is suffering. **The theory of the Three Kinds of Suffering** was > such an attempt. It **is not a teaching of the Buddha**. > > The first kind of suffering is "the suffering of suffering" (dukkha > dukkhata), the suffering associated with unpleasant feelings, like the pain > of a toothache, losing your temper, or feeling too cold on a winter's day. > The second is "the suffering of composite things" (samskara dukkhata). > Whatever comes together eventually has to come apart; therefore, all > composite things are described as suffering. Even things that have not yet > decayed, such as mountains, rivers, and the sun, are seen to be suffering, > because they will decay and cause suffering eventually. When you believe that everything composed is suffering, how can you find joy? The third is "the > suffering associated with change"(viparinama dukkhata). Our liver may be in > good health today, but when we grow old, it will cause us to suffer. There is no point in celebrating joy, because sooner or later it will turn into > suffering. Suffering is a black cloud that envelops everything. Joy is an > illusion. Only suffering is real. > > ... > > This dialogue is repeated in many sutras: > > > "Monks, are conditioned things permanent or impermanent?" 'They are impermanent, World-Honored One." "If things are impermanent, are they suffering or well-being?" "They are suffering, World-Honored One." "If things are suffering, can we say that they are self or belong to self?" "No, World-Honored One." > > **By the time the Buddha's discourses were written down, seeing all things > as suffering must have been widely practiced,** as the above quotation > occurs more frequently than the teaching to identify suffering and the path > to end suffering. > > ... > > The theory of the Three Kinds of Suffering is an attempt to justify the > universalization of suffering. What joy is left in life? We find it in > nirvana. **In several sutras the Buddha taught that nirvana, the joy of > completely extinguishing our ideas and concepts, rather than suffering, is > one of the Three Dharma Seals.** This is stated four times in the Samyukta > Agama of the Northern transmission. Quoting from yet another sutra, Nagarjuna listed nirvana as one of the Three Dharma Seals. To me, it is much easier to envision a state where there are no obstacles created by concepts than to see all things as suffering. I hope scholars and practitioners will begin to > accept the teaching that all things are marked by impermanence, nonself, and > nirvana, and not make too great an effort to prove that everything is > suffering.

In SN68 Pihitasutta ; > Kenassu pihito loko, > kismiṁ loko patiṭṭhito; > Kenassu uḍḍito loko, > kenassu parivāritoti. > > Maccunā pihito loko, > dukkhe loko patiṭṭhito; > Taṇhāya uḍḍito loko, > jarāya parivāritoti. Translation : > By what is the world shut in? > On what is the world established? > By what is the world ensnared? > By what is it enveloped?” > > “The world is shut in by death; > The world is established on suffering; > The world is ensnared by craving; > It is enveloped by old age. What is meant by 'dukkhe loko patiṭṭhito'? **why is it said that *"The world is established on suffering?"*** ---- EDIT: The same is repeated in, SN67 Uḍḍitasutta which may be much clearer. > Kenassu uḍḍito loko, > kenassu parivārito; > Kenassu pihito loko, > kismiṁ loko patiṭṭhitoti. > > Taṇhāya uḍḍito loko, > jarāya parivārito; > Maccunā pihito loko, > dukkhe loko patiṭṭhitoti. Translation > By what is the world ensnared? > By what is it enveloped? > By what is the world shut in? > On what is the world established?” > > The world is ensnared by craving; > It is enveloped by old age; > The world is shut in by death; > The world is established on suffering.

While meditating today, I realized that I am very very far away from attaining any kind of relief from suffering. In particular, I am referring to suffering from the endless/insatiable human condition of wanting something else/new. I kind of see how me wanting to feel better about this goes in opposition to the realistic view proposed by Buddishm, in which suffering must be accepted as a inherent part of life. Nevertheless, there is something still not clicking in my head, which makes me feel at constant unease. I saw this answer , in particular the part > Existence is dukkha is not a decree, it's a diagnosis, and you can smile that it's already been diagnosed, and there is a cure and **many people have already gotten cured.** but I can only think that getting "cured" may take decades and is only attainable by monks and people devoted solely to getting cured. How can I approach this situation? Thanks in advance. For context, I am new to meditation and Buddhism.

Dukkha is traditionally translated as suffering, but I heard from a scholar of Eastern history that it's better translated as being unexpected. In my interpretation (not just in what I heard), that suffering only describe what you feel, not the reason making it. Therefore, being unexpected is a better translation. Is this reasonable? If suffering is still a good fit, then what would be the equivalent Pali/Sanskrit word for being unexpected?