On another thread I have proposed that there may be two different uses of the term dukkha, one being the technical meaning referring to negative emotional affect; the other more general term referring to things including negative sensory affect (which would be accompanied by negative emotional affect, the second arrow, by ordinary people). See here for my extensive comment on that, but perhaps we can keep discussion going here on our topic. Here’s how my discussion starts:
This may explain why dukkha is in some places actually defined as physically painful things:
MN 141 tells us:
And what is pain?
Katamañcāvuso, dukkhaṃ?Physical pain, physical displeasure, the painful, unpleasant feeling that’s born from physical contact.
Yaṃ kho, āvuso, kāyikaṃ dukkhaṃ kāyikaṃ asātaṃ kāyasamphassajaṃ dukkhaṃ asātaṃ vedayitaṃ,This is called pain.
idaṃ vuccatāvuso: ‘dukkhaṃ’.
If there is only one usage of the term dukkha, this totally contradicts the Four Noble Truths and the whole idea that arahantship is the end of dukkha, which doesn’t make sense. So this idea of two meanings solves that, also explains the two arrows teaching, and explains why arahants are never said to have dukkha, even though they do have physical pain and therefore have what I am proposing is the common, non-technical usage of the term for those who are unaware of the two arrows being separate (though connected) processes.
Cool.