the nature of dukkha is dukkha!
Also what is anicca is dukkha.
Since aggregates even of an arahant are anicca,
Therefore they are also dukkha.
I believe that analysis is too simplistic, ignoring the multi-faceted nature of the word dukkha
Does the fact that the arahant is aware of the dukkha nature of what is anicca, that is, that it is unsatisfactory because of it's unreliability, mean that he also experiences dukkha on that account? Just 'cos he does, weather there's upadana in the equation or not?
It's true that in many suttas we have the simple progression of "what is anicca is dukkha and what is anicca and dukkha is anatta) etc., which is perfectly fine as short expression of the gist of it all, but the reason that I am unconvinced that the fact of anicca causes dukkha even without the help of upadana is that, in more precise teachings on the nature of dukkha and its origination (and cessation), craving/tanha/upadana/whatever-term-you-prefer is always part of the equation, as far as I have seen. For this reason it seems to me as if, when the shorter teachings are taken in context with the longer ones, it is not being said that impermanence itself causes dukkha regardless of weather attachment is involved, just because it does.
Mahasatipatthanasutta, Thanissaro's translation wrote:Now what is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful; separation from the loved is stressful; not getting what one wants is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.
Five clinging aggregates, that is, pañcupādāna
kkhandhā, not pañcakkhandhā.
(This is ignoring the exception of dukkha as simple bodily pain, that of course just happens inevitably whenever bodies are involved.)
But then, if impermanence itself leaves an inherent scrap of suffering somehow, it doesn't seem like a huge deal in the end. We still have a picture of arahants dwelling happily, equanimously, at ease, even with that residue. So if it's there it mustn't be so terrible, I suppose. Sounds pretty good to me.