2

The goal of the Buddha's doctrine is said to be the eradication of 'dukkha' variously translated as anguish, stress, unsatisfactoriness, pain... what is the definition of this term as given in the suttas? What is the intended scope of this term?

alex
  • 133
  • 6

1 Answers1

5

The term is mentioned and described in a large number of suttas.

Generally, dukkha it is divided into three types: dukkha-dukkha, which is what we commonly think of as suffering: pain, aging, stress, unpleasant things, etc.; viparanama-dukkha, which is the suffering of change: this includes not getting what you want, and the fact that satisfaction is always temporary; and sankhara-dukkha, the fact that everything is conditioned (i.e., impermanent and essenceless.)

The etymology of the term dukkha may be helpful here; the image is of a faulty axle alignment. In other words, life is like the supermarket cart with the wonky wheel.

The scope is all-pervasive; it refers to the fact that nothing (outside of nirvana, which is unconditioned) is completely satisfactory.

Michael Dorfman
  • 23,485
  • 1
  • 45
  • 71
  • Very good answer. Thank you. "sankhara-dukkha, the fact that everything is conditioned". Why should conditioned things lead to dukkha? Could your definition of sankhara perhaps be incomplete? – alex Jan 12 '13 at 13:34
  • Could you say a little more about the etymology of dhukkha? – Mozibur Ullah Jan 12 '13 at 13:48
  • re: etymology-- dukkha means "having a bad axle hole", as opposed to sukkha (pleasure) which means "having a good axle hole." With a bad axle hole, you are going to get a bumpy ride. – Michael Dorfman Jan 12 '13 at 13:55
  • re: sankhara-- this is a difficult and complex term in Buddhist thought; it is often translated as "mental fabrications" or "dispositions" or the like. In very schematic terms, it means that our connection to the world is constructed by a mental process; everything we experienced is impermanent and essenceless and mediated. In other words, even if there were something completely satisfactory out there, we wouldn't be able to connect to it in an unmediated, complete way. – Michael Dorfman Jan 12 '13 at 14:01
  • If everything is impermanent, then the Buddha's system would be hopelessly futile. The Buddha did not make that claim. I do not believe you mean to make that assertion either. Your explanation of sankhara is good but does not lead to an 'Ah Ha' understanding. I think by elaborating or focusing on what 'essence-less' is intended to mean, we'd be closer to an understanding of sankhara, and this will point the way to the cause and cessation of dukkha. You've provided an excellent answer to the question of dukkha above. Thank you. – alex Jan 12 '13 at 23:05
  • All conditioned phenomena are impermanent, according to the Buddha. (This is known as the dharma seal of anicca.) There is precisely one "thing" which is unconditioned: nirvana. – Michael Dorfman Jan 13 '13 at 11:31
  • There is one other thing (nirvana) that is nonself! ... Ah, but conditioning and impermanence (the English terms) do not in and of themselves lead to pain. This uninspired translation slides the binding problem under the rug. What we experience by way of the khandas through sankhara to consciousness is what the Buddha is referring to by the all (sabba). Please, it is the binding of what that is the problem of kamma, that leads to rebirth and pain? – alex Jan 13 '13 at 17:00
  • 1
    Dukkha has a larger semantic range in Buddhist doctrine than merely "pain"; as I mentioned in my answer, actual pain and suffering falls into one portion (dukkha-dukkha) of dukkha as traditional described. The unsatisfactoriness of sankhara is traditionally explained via the twelve nidanas. – Michael Dorfman Jan 14 '13 at 08:22
  • I think axle etymology is a bit humorous. Kha might as well mean sky, so good and bad sky could be sunny or dull sky. Or covered or uncovered sun. – catpnosis Jan 14 '13 at 14:06
  • The axle etymology is the one preferred by Indologists who have written on the problem. – Michael Dorfman Jan 14 '13 at 14:52