Hmm. Who wrote this sutta and do you think they knew the mind of the Buddha? Did the Teacher himself write it or instruct it to be written? Same question for all such passages where the Buddhas thoughts are described as opposed to his speech or acts of body… Hmm. 
Perhaps you are not aware of this Dhammapada verse?
All conditions are suffering—
“Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā”ti,
when this is seen with wisdom,
yadā paññāya passati;
one grows disillusioned with suffering:
Atha nibbindati dukkhe,
this is the path to purity.
esa maggo visuddhiyā.
To be fair, the dukkha in the 4 noble truths is more akin to mental suffering (and physical), for the justification of 5 clinging aggregates.
But the dukkha in the Dhammapada verse above, is more of the pervasive dukkha of change and conditionality, where even the 5 unclung to aggregates are also dukkha.
The Dhammapada verse says it’s the way to end dukkha, which is to let go of whatever is seen as suffering. Since all attachments is the causes of suffering, all has to be abandoned, and thus all conditioned things has to be seen as dukkha. And Nibbāna has to not be clung to, but actually, the right view of nibbāna as cessation of all conditioned things, means nothing can be clung to in parinibbāna.
Perhaps there’s a disconnect here as well. When you keep on thinking of dukkha as mental suffering, you have to link it to a mind to evaluate the dukkha. But for the Dhammapada verse, it’s not that kind of dukkha. It’s the property of the object itself which is unsatisfactory, just because it cannot bring happiness forever.
More like we have the potential, if conditions are right. same with the brahma realm, the mere potential to have dukkha makes it imperfect, thus dukkha in the unsatisfactory sense. Maybe imperfect is the better word.
This verse states that sankhara are suffering.
And the noble truth of suffering:
… in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging (rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara, vinnana) are suffering. This is called the noble truth of suffering
I see that Dhammapada verse mentions only sankhara while the noble truth of suffering mentions other kinds of as well.
I do not see that objects can bring happiness - or that happiness, satisfaction, unsatisfaction, contentment or discontent are properties of objects. Why is that? Because the same object at the same time can bring happiness and satisfaction to one person and dissatisfaction and unhappiness to another person. If happiness/satisfaction was property of object itself - this would not be possible. But it is: for example: the results of a football game, or news - there is a single result but the some people are happy and some are not.
1 Like
From DPD. In Dhammapada, it means conditioned things, in 5 aggregates, it means volitional formations.
saṅkhāra 1 masc. intention; volitional formation; choice; karmic activity; lit. making together ►
saṅkhāra 2 masc. function; activity; process; lit. making together ►
saṅkhāra 3 masc. mental formation; mental activity; thought processes; fourth of the five aggregates; lit. making together ►
saṅkhāra 4 masc. condition; conditioned thing; construction; fabrication; concoction; lit. making together ►
saṅkhāra 5 masc. constituency; construction; condition; state; lit. making together ►
Perhaps the usage of the word imperfect to describe dukkha is better. There’s no perfect thing in the world, other than nibbāna.
Just in case you’re not convinced about the conditioned thing as the right translation for saṅkhāra in Dhammapada verse, here’s the full thing:
Aniccalakkhaṇavatthu
All conditions are impermanent—
“Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā”ti,
when this is seen with wisdom,
yadā paññāya passati;
one grows disillusioned with suffering:
Atha nibbindati dukkhe,
this is the path to purity.
esa maggo visuddhiyā.Dukkhalakkhaṇavatthu
All conditions are suffering—
“Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā”ti,
when this is seen with wisdom,
yadā paññāya passati;
one grows disillusioned with suffering:
Atha nibbindati dukkhe,
this is the path to purity.
esa maggo visuddhiyā.Anattalakkhaṇavatthu
All things are not-self—
“Sabbe dhammā anattā”ti,
when this is seen with wisdom,
yadā paññāya passati;
one grows disillusioned with suffering:
Atha nibbindati dukkhe,
this is the path to purity.
esa maggo visuddhiyā.
Unless you’re saying that the other 4 aggregates are not impermanent, we shouldn’t map the saṅkhāra here to a subset of the 5 aggregates, but the superset of it.
But the potential in the case of Rupa Loka lies with just one single being who is alone.
While for us humans the potential lies in all of us humans as in a collective effort, if we just made sure to follow the precepts.
It is such a striking difference.
- Those feelings felt by one single being are only felt once and not experienced when other beings end up there, (or maybe I should say end ”down” there).
After this event these feelings are never replicated again until the next time the universe contracts and then again by only one single being.
Not only that, we buddhists prefer seclusion so there is no way we would have such feelings of wanting any company, even in Rupa Loka! 
Now compare this to if we humans actually followed the precepts.
- We follow the precepts on an individual basis, but despite this there is not a single guarantee that some fool will not kill us, steal from us, lie to us and so on.
So the imperfection in Rupa Loka is a very trivial thing that any individual, especially a buddhist, can overcome since we already prefer seclusion/isolation.
While the imperfection in Kama Loka is a complete disaster, all due to the actions of fools.
Well, as long as there’s imperfection, it’s enough. It’s not nibbāna.
I’m not saying it is Nibbāna, Rupa Loka still involves engagement and feelings - Nibbāna does not involve feelings, at all.
I don’t have any more time to post on the forum, but this post of mine earlier is a good summary of the key elements:
But who made such distinction? Are there suttas that support such claim?
If this were the case the noble truth of suffering only mentions sankhara in the context of the 4th grasping aggregate and would miss this type of suffering.
If it is not the case, the noble truth of suffering includes this kind of suffering and does not miss it.
How did you reach this conclusion? Why wouldn’t the Dhammapada verse make sense with sankhara translated as 4th grasping aggregate?
PS: After doing a quick search Sujato states SuttaCentral
Choices (saṅkhārā)
Intention, will, or volition (cetanā); the choice to perform an act, especially one with an ethical dimension. It is choices that create the five aggregates (SN 22.79).Later forms of Buddhism, starting with the Abhidhamma texts, treated this aggregate as if it were a catch-all, whose purpose was to include everything not mentioned under the other aggregates. However this is not the case in the early texts, where there is no indication that saṅkhārā in this context means anything other than “volition, choice”.
See the dhammapada verses I quoted.
Same saṅkhāra for both impermanence and dukkha.
If you insist to say that only volitional formations of 5 aggregates is dukkha, and thus only it is impermanent, then you’re claiming that the other 4 aggregates are permanent. Which is not the case.
Thus the only logical conclusion is to say that saṅkhāra in the dhammapada verses is not limited to one part of the aggregates, but to whatever that is impermanent, basically, all conditioned things.
Eternal unconditional Karuna and Metta towards all beings fully and equally, such that is not able to provoke jealousy or grief in others, unlike the kind of passionate relationships we find in ordinary human beings, does not create Dukkha and is not a source of Dukkha. The Brahmaviharas as experienced by a Buddha are not Dukkha, even though there is even a Higher Path than that for an Enlightened One with regards to Metta and Compassion.
The Buddha is speaking to you, I’m the Suttas, words of kindness and Compassion, from a Heart of Nibbana. Is this Dukkha?
Dukkha doesnt mean there is only 1 instant of dissatisfaction and agitation for a brahma god in aeons of lifespan or 1 instant of suffering for a human being in 100 years of lifespan . It refers to the continuous cycles of birth and death without ending with all its side effects whether it is pleasant or unpleasant . Furthermore , your thinking is not inline with the Noble Truth of Dukkha , as you are trying to say the aggregates are not dukkha but in actually they are all Clinging Aggregates and as long as they are the outcome of clinging and craving they are called dukkha . Your present aggregates are Clinging Aggregates . Similarly aggregates of a brahma god are Clinging Aggregates too , therefore calling it Noble Truth Of Dukkha .
1 Like
Precisely the point of my post. 
Taking care of oneself blamelessly, is perhaps our greatest service to others. By cultivating a peace so that we’re not harmful to others. By preserving our energy and not wasting it. By setting a virtuous example so that others may take care of themselves. So on and so on.
And perhaps attitudes like this is why I made this post.
Karuna and Metta are not unconditional.
‘Ayampi kho mettācetovimutti abhisaṅkhatā abhisañcetayitā.’
Whatever is conditioned, impermanent, is dukkha.
Loving detachment, detach from love. Detached from love, love detachment.
Without Love you can’t even lift a finger to do the Right thing.
Love’s a raft to the other shore; with release there’s no more things to do.
Extinguishing the lack of Love is what you’re truly looking for. But I’m talking about having Holy Love.
The purpose of that Sutta is showing that things are impermanent. Yes, the Brahmaviharas are subject to cessation, that is a purpose of Love. I really want to say that what you’re looking for is something greater than Love. That’s Enlightenment. You have to keep believing in it. But ultimately, even the Buddha can meditate in the Brahmaviharas and not suffer. Yet they can be temporary. But there is such a thing as unconditional Eternal full Maitri for all beings, and having such a thing, one has a foothold on climbing the mountain towards the Highest Enlightenment, and holding onto that foundation. We cannot let go of Love. But we must let go of all lust and false attachment to Samsara. That is the purpose of Buddhism, the Noble Eightfold Path, and understanding the Four Noble Truths. But there is a difference between the End to something and an Eternal Enlightenment. We do not reach an Enlightenment that is liable to cease, my friend. Enlightenment is forever if it is real.
Love depends on distance, distinction, lover and the loved. Internal, External, movement and flow. Without distinction, without internal and external, without distance there is only peace.
Well there is the Formless Realm which Transcends such things. I’m not only talking about mere human connections. But even in them there’s echoed of the Highest Ways which we will all one day reach, no matter how near or how far some are, we will get there!