What is the best translation for Dukkha?

[Deeele]

@suci1

Dukkha is not seeing rightly that the dhamma (nature) of each & every saṅkhāra is anatta (not continual).

‘Not seeing rightly’ sounds like ‘ignorance’ rather than ‘dukkha’.

[suci1]

@Deeele

@suci1

Dukkha is not seeing rightly that the dhamma (nature) of each & every saṅkhāra is anatta (not continual).

‘Not seeing rightly’ sounds like ‘ignorance’ rather than ‘dukkha’.

Yeah, ok. What I meant is:
Dukkha is the result of blabla.

You know what they say: “ignorance is bliss”!
Well in Buddhism , it’s the opposite: “Ignorance is dukkha”.

[Deeele]

[quote=“suci1, post:22, topic:5025”]
Dukkha is the result of blabla (not seeing rightly).[/quote]

It think this is what SN 23.1 is also saying.

[suci1]

@suci1

paśyati and passanti have the same meaning; (√dṛś floating around).

[quote=“Deeele, post:23, topic:5025, full:true”]

@suci1

Dukkha is the result of blabla (not seeing rightly).[/quote]

It think this is what SN 23.1 is also saying.

And as I said before, “paśyati and passanti have the same meaning; (with that good old √dṛś floating around)”.

[Deeele]

@suci1

Here, paśyati and passanti have the same meaning; (√dṛś floating around).

What does ‘floating around’ have to do with the subject (since ‘samma passanti’ means ‘seeing rightly’) ? You lost me here. Thanks

[suci1]

@Deeele

What does ‘floating around’ have to do with the subject (since ‘samma passanti’ means ‘seeing rightly’) ? You lost me here. Thanks

√Paś is linked to √dṛś.

Forget about it and read that instead. This is the logical continuity of the "paśyati and passanti have the same meaning.

[Mat]

There is a sutta (which I cant find right now) where Ven. Sariputta seems to suggest that Dukkha doesn’t quite exist (my paraphrasing). The Buddha says don’t say that, Sariputta, dukkha does exist.

I understood it to mean that we need to engage with the emotional material in the Dhamma (even though dukkha might be a Truth, and not just suffered through emotionally) at an emotional level, too.

We don’t need to suffer, but need to empathize with the suffering I am putting myself through in this life and in lives to come. This is on a conventional level.

This doesn’t mean that there is a self -that suffers. There is only aggregates mistaken for a self, which is arising and passing away, when seen through vipassana. The Buddha said there is only suffering that arises and passes away.

with metta

Matheesha

[Nikolas]

@Gabriel_L

“There are these three forms of dukkha, my friend: the dukkha of pain, the dukkha of fabrication, the dukkha of change. These are the three forms of dukkha.”

What is the dukkha of formations, and what is the difference between the suffering of formations and the suffering of changes?

[Nikolas]

@Deeele

Thus, SN 38.14 states there are three sources or types of suffering, namely: (i) suffering due to pain; (ii) suffering due to change (impermanence); (iii) suffering due to mental concocting/proliferating. SN 22.1 seems to suggest all of these three types of suffering only occur due to attachment.

But then we must throw out the suttas in which the Buddha calls clinging to aggregates clinging to suffering. But before clinging, in your opinion, they were not suffering, which means we need to change the words of the Buddha - there is clinging to aggregates that are neutral in nature, and clinging in turn makes them suffering. You cited different suttas, but one of them does not support your position. For example, it is said that physical pain is one dart, and mental pain is another dart. You can’t call a dart a good or neutral thing. Mental pain is also called a dart. That is, both are dukkha to the same extent. There are other suttas that talk about how clinging to what is passive (rather than neutral in nature) leads to joy and pain.

[thomaslaw]

I think the best translation for dhkkha is suffering.

[Gabriel_L]

Not all formations (aka choices, deeds, preparations, etc) are about change and not all changes are about formations.
SuttaCentral’s search function is your friend and these questions are a nice way to explore the texts.

[Nikolas]

The Buddha’s word is not on your side. Sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe sankhara dukkha.

[Gabriel_L]

Ok. Share with us the answers to your questions from what you end up finding in the texts.

[Adutiya]

@dharmacorps

I still feel that the most modern, relatable translation is “stress” a la Thanissaro Bhikkhu. But on an inner level when I conceptualize it, there is a cloying, kind of unsatisfactory tinge to it.

To me, “stress” can be one feature of dukkha but not a good translation. I think using stress takes away from the complex, rich and nuanced weight of dukkha.