Hello @Vaddha,
I apologize if I was not clear. I’m going to stick to our discussion, because it is possible I’m getting confused by other discussions going on as well.
I didn’t mean to imply that for me “lack of inherent satisfactoriness” was the operative definition for my understanding. You asked me if rocks depended upon the absence of desire for them to have a lack of inherent satisfactoriness and I said no and then we went with “lack of inherent satisfactoriness” as the definition of “dukkha” for the sake of the discussion to see if that would help us clarify understanding.
Let’s leave “inherent” out of whatever definition we use, okay? I think since we’ve both agreed to dispense with substantialism that this might lead to a more lucid discussion.
In keeping with my earlier contention of not insisting upon my own definitions let’s use this one:
or
NOTE: I literally just put ‘unsatisfactory’ and ‘unsatisfactoriness’ in google and this is what came up. If you wish to use another common dictionary definition that would be fine as well.
Dukkha is when things are “unacceptable because poor or not good enough.”
Dukkha is the state of “the quality of being inadequate or unsuitable.”
