3 types of dukkha

[Spiny O'Norman]

Hello all, I hope you are well.

I've been revisiting dukkha again recently (!) and in particular the 3 types traditionally described:

a) dukkha-dukkha: ordinary suffering;
b) viparinama-dukkha: suffering due to change;
c) sankhara-dukkha: suffering due to formations;

I still don't get the distinction between (b) and (c) - any ideas?

I have an old Buddhist dictionary which says that these 3 types of dukkha relate to painful, pleasant and neutral feelings respectively - the first 2 make sense to me but not the third - have you come across this classification?

I'm also wondering whether there is a relationship between these 3 types of dukkha and:
(i) the usual formula for dukkha in the First Noble Truth, eg sankhara-dukkha relating to the 5 aggregates subject to clinging;
(ii) the 3 characteristics, eg viparinama-dukkha relating to the first characteristic ( anicca ).

I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Spiny

[ground]

Three likeness'

a) dukkha-dukkha: ordinary suffering;

When an painfully inflamed boil makes contact with an irritant such as salt water.

b) viparinama-dukkha: suffering due to change;

The pleasure felt when cool water is applied to an inflamed boil: as the temporary feeling fades, the pain reasserts itself.

c) sankhara-dukkha: suffering due to formations;

An inflamed boil which is in contact neither with soothing nor irritating substances.


Kind regards

[santa100]

A wonderful article by Bhikkhu Bodhi on the subject:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ay_43.html

[rowyourboat]

Hi Spiny,

Thank you for revisiting dukkha! Often Buddhists want to learn about the way out of dukkha, but not about dukkha itself. The Buddha said he taught only suffering and the cessation of suffering. I think it is understandable why people do not want to understand about dukkha- unpleasant as it is. But it is a crucial thing In my humble opinion. Without really getting to grips with dukkha it is nigh on impossible to remove the cause of dukkha, and hence find peace. So it is important to explore dukkha in all it's complexity.

Dukke dukkha refers to unpleasant feelings (physical pain, the PAIN of mental suffering)
Viparinama dukkha - literally the suffering that arises due to something we like changing or us loosing it (this is directly caused by attachment). Incidentally, those people who are attached strongly to phenomena and Self are going to suffer this type of dukkha more, when they do deep vipassana.
The dukkha of fabrications refer to not so much an emotional suffering but a wise understanding (ie more thinking/cognition than emotion) that the impermanent state of phenomena is just unsatisfactory. Hence the unsatisfactoriness of impermanent phenomena becomes a quality of that phenomena rather than our craving induced reaction to it- to say it in another way - even an arahanth would feel that what is impermanent is unsatisfactory (as the Buddha himself always repeated).

With metta

Matheesha

[whynotme]

Thank you rowyourboat, great opinions

[rowyourboat]

you are welcome whynotme.

[Spiny O'Norman]

An inflamed boil which is in contact neither with soothing nor irritating substances.

Thanks, a useful analogy. It occured to me that neutral feeling can be regarded as the "default setting" for feeling, and it's the one we experience most of the time. But because conditions are continually shifting, neutral feeling sooner or later "tips over" into painful or pleasant feeling - which leads to ordinary suffering or the suffering of change.
It might be interesting to explore how this corresponds with dependent origination, where craving and aversion arise dependent on pleasant and unpleasant feeling.

Spiny

[dhammapal]

...the Buddha is speaking of dukkha in two different senses. Ajaan Suwat's mountain metaphor helps to explain how they are related. The heaviness of the mountain stands for dukkha as a common characteristic: the stress inherent in all compounded experiences. The fact that the mountain is heavy only for those who try to lift it stands for dukkha as a noble truth: the stress that comes only with clinging — the clinging that turns physical pain into mental pain, and turns aging, illness, and death into mental distress.
From: The Weight of Mountains By Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Check out my dukkha website archives:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dukkha

With metta / dhammapal.

[Spiny O'Norman]

...the Buddha is speaking of dukkha in two different senses. Ajaan Suwat's mountain metaphor helps to explain how they are related. The heaviness of the mountain stands for dukkha as a common characteristic: the stress inherent in all compounded experiences. The fact that the mountain is heavy only for those who try to lift it stands for dukkha as a noble truth: the stress that comes only with clinging — the clinging that turns physical pain into mental pain, and turns aging, illness, and death into mental distress.
From: The Weight of Mountains By Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Check out my dukkha website archives:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dukkha

With metta / dhammapal.

Thanks. I've come across this idea before, but is there any support for it in the suttas? I can see that the suffering of the formations ( (c) above ) could be described as "potential" dukkha, as opposed to actual dukkha experienced - but isn't it all really just dukkha?
And is Thanissaro Bhikku saying that an Arahant still experiences suffering of the formations? That seems to be the logical conclusion of his analysis.

Spiny

[Spiny O'Norman]

Hence the unsatisfactoriness of impermanent phenomena becomes a quality of that phenomena rather than our craving induced reaction to it- to say it in another way - even an arahanth would feel that what is impermanent is unsatisfactory (as the Buddha himself always repeated).

So an Arahant sees the potential suffering in the aggregates, but doesn't actually experience the suffering of formations ( sankhara dukkha )?

Spiny

[santa100]

An Arhant still has a body that's subjected to aging, sickness, and death, so he could still feel the physical pains as a results of these processes. But he won't "suffer". After all, he's mastered the Nonself - Anatta training, so who is there to suffer?

[daverupa]

It seems to me that experiencing the five clinging-aggregates is dukkha, while experiencing the five aggregates is not dukkha.

[rowyourboat]

It seems to me that experiencing the five clinging-aggregates is dukkha, while experiencing the five aggregates is not dukkha.

So by that definition arahanths can't experience the five clinging aggrgates?

"An arahant should attend in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. Although, for an arahant, there is nothing further to do, and nothing to add to what has been done, still these things — when developed & pursued — lead both to a pleasant abiding in the here-&-now and to mindfulness & alertness."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

With metta

Matheesha

[rowyourboat]

Hence the unsatisfactoriness of impermanent phenomena becomes a quality of that phenomena rather than our craving induced reaction to it- to say it in another way - even an arahanth would feel that what is impermanent is unsatisfactory (as the Buddha himself always repeated).

So an Arahant sees the potential suffering in the aggregates, but doesn't actually experience the suffering of formations ( sankhara dukkha )?

Spiny

Mm.. I think the arahanth has gotton rid of viparinama (change) dukkha, is unshaken by dukke (pain) dukka, and can experience the dukkha of formations (sankhara dukkha) if he wants to (by doing vipassana). But since I am not enlightened this is just a best guess.

With metta

[kirk5a]

It seems to me that experiencing the five clinging-aggregates is dukkha, while experiencing the five aggregates is not dukkha.

So by that definition arahanths can't experience the five clinging aggrgates?

"An arahant should attend in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. Although, for an arahant, there is nothing further to do, and nothing to add to what has been done, still these things — when developed & pursued — lead both to a pleasant abiding in the here-&-now and to mindfulness & alertness."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

With metta

Matheesha

I guess I don't understand that because elsewhere it says that the "clinging-aggregates" are the aggregates "accompanied with mental fermentation." Yet the arahant has no mental fermentation.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[daverupa]

It seems to me that experiencing the five clinging-aggregates is dukkha, while experiencing the five aggregates is not dukkha.

So by that definition arahanths can't experience the five clinging aggrgates?

"An arahant should attend in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. Although, for an arahant, there is nothing further to do, and nothing to add to what has been done, still these things — when developed & pursued — lead both to a pleasant abiding in the here-&-now and to mindfulness & alertness."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

With metta

Matheesha

It seems, in the quote you provide, the arahant is experiencing the five aggregates, and dukkha is not present, precisely as stated.

[chownah]

In an attempt to ask a question to clarify the discussion:
Is it that there are five aggregates and most people cling to them and this is dukkha but arahants while "having" or "experiencing" or "attending" to these aggregates do not cling to them but rather just fully see the folly of doing so and as a result of their non-clinging to this it is not dukkha?

chownah

[Spiny O'Norman]

In an attempt to ask a question to clarify the discussion:
Is it that there are five aggregates and most people cling to them and this is dukkha but arahants while "having" or "experiencing" or "attending" to these aggregates do not cling to them but rather just fully see the folly of doing so and as a result of their non-clinging to this it is not dukkha?

chownah

Yes, that seems to be consistent with the second Noble Truth and dependent origination. An Aharant "sees the danger" inherent in the aggregates ( ie sankhara dukkha ) and does not grasp at them. I think.....

Spiny

[shoel]

Hello all, I hope you are well.

I've been revisiting dukkha again recently (!) and in particular the 3 types traditionally described:

a) dukkha-dukkha: ordinary suffering;
b) viparinama-dukkha: suffering due to change;
c) sankhara-dukkha: suffering due to formations;

I still don't get the distinction between (b) and (c) - any ideas?

I have an old Buddhist dictionary which says that these 3 types of dukkha relate to painful, pleasant and neutral feelings respectively - the first 2 make sense to me but not the third - have you come across this classification?

I'm also wondering whether there is a relationship between these 3 types of dukkha and:
(i) the usual formula for dukkha in the First Noble Truth, eg sankhara-dukkha relating to the 5 aggregates subject to clinging;
(ii) the 3 characteristics, eg viparinama-dukkha relating to the first characteristic ( anicca ).

I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Spiny

What of suffering is this? If my and get cuts and i get allot of pains. on the way, while i am driving my car, i dont have mind at the present on my cut hand but my mind is at the front of the road and i am concentrated. then when its traffic, i look at my hand and when i bring my mind to my cut hand, then i feel suffering and pain in....what is this and what kind of suffering is that? but when i was driving i was feeling hurt or suffering. please help me understand
thanks
Namaste

[rowyourboat]

I've been revisiting dukkha again recently (!) and in particular the 3 types traditionally described:

a) dukkha-dukkha: ordinary suffering;
b) viparinama-dukkha: suffering due to change;
c) sankhara-dukkha: suffering due to formations;



What of suffering is this? If my and get cuts and i get allot of pains. on the way, while i am driving my car, i dont have mind at the present on my cut hand but my mind is at the front of the road and i am concentrated. then when its traffic, i look at my hand and when i bring my mind to my cut hand, then i feel suffering and pain in....what is this and what kind of suffering is that? but when i was driving i was feeling hurt or suffering. please help me understand
thanks
Namaste

Hi Shoel,

This because it is a direct experience of something unpleasant (craving has no direct say..), it is dukkha dukkha, as I understand it. The other types of dukkha require to crave, or to be doing vipassana (to understand).

with metta

Matheesha