So the above appears to claim puthujjana discern anicca, dukkha & anatta (when there are no Buddhas and no Buddhism).Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2019 12:25 pmThat's not about whether things are perceived or not; the difference between the objective existence of something and our awareness of it. That's about the arising of enlightened beings, presumably because those enlightened beings point out the characteristics of what we perceive. We can certainly perceive things without the arising of enlightened beings.
I suggested there are three contexts of dukkha where each translation is different.dharmacorps wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2019 6:15 pmThanissaro Bhikkhu's preferred translation is "stress". Although nothing in English seems to perfectly translate the word "Dukkha", that does come pretty close in most scenarios. You could even say "breaking my leg is stress" and it won't sound silly like "breaking my leg is unsatisfactory".
1. Your leg is "unsatisfactory" because it cannot be relied on for lasting happiness. This is "dukkha lakkhana".
2. When your leg breaks, this is "painful" or a "painful feeling". This is "dukkha vedana".
3. When you cling to that painful feeling or that unsatisfactoriness (for example, your leg becomes permanently injured or disabled), that clinging is "suffering" or "torment". This is "dukkha" as "noble truth" or "upadana".