Suffering is not a satisfactory translation for the Pali word "Dukkha"?

[Sam Vara]

AN 3.136

But I don't see any reason to think that the Buddha was talking about ontology

So when AN 3.136 appears to say the Three Characteristics inherently exist in relation to conditioned things (such as the five aggregates) regardless of whether or not they are perceived; and are law of nature, regularity of natural principles, invariance of natural principles; this is not "ontology"?

There's nothing in AN 3.136 which talks about whether things are perceived or not. But no, I don't see this as ontology. In general, I quite like Sue Hamilton's contention that the Buddha was a proto transcendental idealist in the mould of Kant.

Personally, I can't see the English "dissatisfaction" as a fitting translation for any of the three contexts of dukkha.

That's fine. Each to his own. I'm just offering my personal opinion, rather than trying to persuade anyone.

1. When eye sees a form, dissatisfaction vedana arises?

2. The five aggregates clung to as one's own are dissatisfaction?

3. The earth element, the eye, sounds, are dissatisfaction?

Yes, that's right. I don't think there's all that much to distinguish the three, but dissatisfaction is fine to me.

"Dissatisfaction" sounds like something Mick Jagger & Keith Richards experience due to too many groupies.

Yes, they've probably been a little more active in the realm of sensual indulgence than me, but it's good to know that dukkha applies universally.

Incidentally, we used to live a couple of miles away from Richards, but I never saw him. He's rather reclusive these days.

[Spiny Norman]

But I don't see any reason to think that the Buddha was talking about ontology

So when AN 3.136 appears to say the Three Characteristics inherently exist in relation to conditioned things (such as the five aggregates) regardless of whether or not they are perceived; and are law of nature, regularity of natural principles, invariance of natural principles; this is not "ontology"?

There's nothing in AN 3.136 which talks about whether things are perceived or not. But no, I don't see this as ontology. In general, I quite like Sue Hamilton's contention that the Buddha was a proto transcendental idealist in the mould of Kant.

Personally, I can't see the English "dissatisfaction" as a fitting translation for any of the three contexts of dukkha.

That's fine. Each to his own. I'm just offering my personal opinion, rather than trying to persuade anyone.

1. When eye sees a form, dissatisfaction vedana arises?

2. The five aggregates clung to as one's own are dissatisfaction?

3. The earth element, the eye, sounds, are dissatisfaction?

Yes, that's right. I don't think there's all that much to distinguish the three, but dissatisfaction is fine to me.

"Dissatisfaction" sounds like something Mick Jagger & Keith Richards experience due to too many groupies.

Yes, they've probably been a little more active in the realm of sensual indulgence than me, but it's good to know that dukkha applies universally.

Incidentally, we used to live a couple of miles away from Richards, but I never saw him. He's rather reclusive these days.

But if dukkha applies universally, then how is cessation of dukkha possible?

[Sam Vara]

But if dukkha applies universally, then how is cessation of dukkha possible?

In the context, I meant universally applicable to the likes of Keith Richards and I....

The fact that it is not applicable to nibbana is one of the reasons why I like translating it as I do.

[Spiny Norman]

But if dukkha applies universally, then how is cessation of dukkha possible?

In the context, I meant universally applicable to the likes of Keith Richards and I....

The fact that it is not applicable to nibbana is one of the reasons why I like translating it as I do.

So experience is unsatisfactory while ignorance persists? Something like that?

[Sam Vara]

So experience is unsatisfactory while ignorance persists? Something like that?

Yes, I like that formulation and the approach it gives rise to. If we get rid of ignorance and find that there is still dissatisfaction, then we'll know that we were wrong. But until then...

I prefer "dissatisfaction" to "unsatisfactoriness", because it points to the subjective component.

[SarathW]

Buddha said Rupa also Dukkha.
That is earth, air, water, and fire also suffering.

“Mendicant, knowing and seeing the eye, sights, eye consciousness, and eye contact as suffering, identity view is given up. …
“Cakkhuṃ kho, bhikkhu, dukkhato jānato passato sakkāyadiṭṭhi pahīyati.
Rūpe dukkhato jānato passato sakkāyadiṭṭhi pahīyati.
Cakkhuviññāṇaṃ dukkhato jānato passato sakkāyadiṭṭhi pahīyati.
Cakkhusamphassaṃ dukkhato jānato passato sakkāyadiṭṭhi pahīyati … pe …

https://suttacentral.net/sn35.166/en/sujato

[santa100]

That is earth, air, water, and fire also suffering.

Remember the 3 levels of Dukkha: dukkha-dukkha, viparinama-dukkha, and sankhara-dukkha. It's the 3rd type which says that dukkha pervades all conditioned phenomena, because they're all changing, impermanent, and without susbtance.

[SarathW]

So, your preferred word for Dukkha is “changing”?

[Spiny Norman]

That is earth, air, water, and fire also suffering.

Remember the 3 levels of Dukkha: dukkha-dukkha, viparinama-dukkha, and sankhara-dukkha. It's the 3rd type which says that dukkha pervades all conditioned phenomena, because they're all changing, impermanent, and without susbtance.

So how does cessation of dukkha happen with this view of sankhara-dukkha?

[DooDoot]

AN 3.136

There's nothing in AN 3.136 which talks about whether things are perceived or not.

Mendicants, whether Realized Ones arise or not (uppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ), this law of nature persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural principles... AN 3.136

[Sam Vara]

AN 3.136

There's nothing in AN 3.136 which talks about whether things are perceived or not.

Mendicants, whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural principles... AN 3.136

That'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.

[sunnat]

Percieve actually means to see with understanding, or just understand, not just see.

[Spiny Norman]

AN 3.136

There's nothing in AN 3.136 which talks about whether things are perceived or not.

Mendicants, whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural principles... AN 3.136

That'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.

So these natural principles (the 3 marks) are phenomenological, rather than ontological, ie descriptive of experience?

[Sam Vara]

So these natural principles (the 3 marks) are phenomenological, rather than ontological, ie descriptive of experience?

As a general point I would say so, but AN 3.136 doesn't address that issue. It's about the truth of something whether or not there are enlightened beings to point it out, rather than what the truth applies to.

[dharmacorps]

Thanissaro 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".