meaning of "dukkha"

"dukkha" is obviously central to Buddhism; on one understanding, the purpose of Buddhist practice is to snuff out dukkha. In a more practice oriented sense, one is sometimes advised to observe the dukkha characteristic of all sensations. But what does "dukkha" mean?

Suffering? Sometimes it's translated as "unsatisfactoriness", which has a different, wider connotation. Other possibilities?

A couple of things I've come across recently suggest that "dukkha" is more about the process of pursuing, rejecting, blocking out, or generally reacting to experience so as to bring about preferred experiences rather than less preferred ones.

freestyleawakening.wordpress.com/2010/06/10/suffering/

and also this link from Jake the other day...

conscious.tv/nonduality.html?bcpid=46208...01&bctid=23850802001

Understood in this way, "dukkha" is sort of like the opposite of equanimity, the abiding acceptance of things as they are. In turn one could see how a lack of equanimity is closely related to unsatisfactoriness and suffering, although these things would not be the literal meaning of "opposite of equanimity".

This also seems to make sense for observing the dukkha characteristic of sensations. I have always kind of papered over the supposed dukkha characteristic of sensations, because it seems false that all sensations are unsatisfying. (Their satisfaction is fleeting, yes, but is that not just an expression of impermanence?) But if "dukkha" means something like wanting, averting, etc., I could see how each sensation could be construed to have an innate tendency to draw the mind into some sort of reaction such as approaching, avoiding, changing, etc. So seeing dukkha would mean seeing the natural tendency for sensations to goad one into reacting and so disrupt one's equanimity.

Good topic, Brian. I've always thought of dukkha as the weird, uncomfortable and unsettling feeling I had for years that was more or less representative of my conception of the world being out of sync with the reality. My expectations and my mental model of "how things are" was constantly being contradicted in ways I couldn't grasp and couldn't explain. Dukkha thereby manifests in all kinds of ways, from the very subtle to the very obvious. It leads to reacting, leads to suffering, leads to being out of sync and yes, leads to not accepting things as they are and thus always wanting something different, less painful, more pleasurable.

Edit - spelling

"
Good topic, Brian. I've always thought of dukkha as the weird, uncomfortable and unsettling feeling I had for years that was more or less representative of my conception of the world being out of sync with the reality. My expectations and my mental model of "howe things are" was constantly being contradicted in ways I couldn't grasp and couldn't explain. Dukkha thereby manifests in all kinds of ways, from the very subtle to the very obvious. It leads to reacting, leads to suffering, leads to being out of sync and yes, leads to not accepting things as they are and thus always wanting something different, less painful, more pleasurable.

"

Yeah it's a very different place to be at when you see the inherent fleetingness of phenomenon. To see bliss as an object is a bit strange.

genpo roshi (as far as I remember) translated 'dukkha' as 'stuck'.

He likened the overall effect to a cart trying to move where one or more of the wheels are 'stuck'...

prescription: unstick your wheels

Any quality which subtracts from perfection is dukkha. Any inclination for things to be other than as they are is dukkha.

Dukkha has always been the most elusive of the 3C's for me. Anicca is clear enough because every arising eventually ceases. Similarly Anatta is clear enough because if I can objectify it (as I can with any arising) then it's not me, not mine, not myself. But I can't say that I'm sure that I've ever directly observed Dukkha in an arising. From a direct experience perspective Dukkha is still a bit of mystery to me.

Same here Mark, which is why I was so interested in this re-interpretation. If dukkha is interpreted as "opposite of equanimity" then the propensity of any sensation to draw you in or turn you away, to make you tend to do something or want to do something in reaction to the arising/abiding/passing of the sensation, would be its dukkha aspect. Dukkha then is like a magnetic force field inherent in consciousness, the natural way sensations tend to push and pull on eachother. In particular, the manner in which mind/body sensations seem to be subjugated to the constant influence exerted upon them by moment to moment experience, and in turn the manner in which mind/body sensations seem to exert influence upon moment to moment experience.

Imagine yourself on a boat in an ocean. The ocean waves aren't you, and they are in constant motion. But they are also constantly colliding with your boat, making you drift and bob here and there, and in turn you may try to exert influence on the waters and so guide the motion of your boat by rowing. The way that the waters and the boat exert force on eachother and influence eachother's dynamics would be dukkha.

That may or may not be the technically accurate way to interpret "dukkha", but either way it's an interesting exercise to continuously see such forces at work in moment to moment experience.

"Imagine yourself on a boat in an ocean. The ocean waves aren't you, and they are in constant motion. But they are also constantly colliding with your boat, making you drift and bob here and there, and in turn you may try to exert influence on the waters and so guide the motion of your boat by rowing. The way that the waters and the boat exert force on eachother and influence eachother's dynamics would be dukkha."


Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche expresses something VERY similar as:

Rest in natural great peace
This exhausted mind
Beaten helpless by karma and neurotic thought,
Like the relentless fury of the pounding waves
In the infinite ocean of samsara.

thx for the elucidation brianm2

Dukkha reaquires sentience. Only sentient beings can feel it

I always thought Achan Naeb had wise things to say about dukkha/suffering. She teaches that the suffering characteristic is difficult to observe because it is concealed by changing into different postures. She writes:

"[W}henever we do something, we must be aware of what we are doing (that awareness is mindfulness). For example, was I allowed to clean my room? I asked the teacher if I could clean my room'”it was messy and dirty. 'Yes, you can,' he told me. 'But be aware of why you have to clean it.' That means that whatever we do'”raising the hand or whatever'”is done to relieve dukkha (suffering, discomfort). Please be aware of the truth. Because if the room is dirty, we don't feel good and so the mind is not clear."

In this case, suffering is the discomfort that motives movement. This idea isn't that unlike what was proposed this thread's starting post. In order to experience/observe dukkha, we have to be willing to be still for a while. The agitation is noticeable if we allow ourselves to see it prior to taking the action require to make it go away. And in many cases, we may be able to develop equanimity in regards to the situation that would normally motivate us to move. In that way, we can notice the possibility of freeing ourselves from the tyranny of dukkha.

It's not that we shouldn't ever move to alleviate suffering. It's really about making note of why are motivated to change our present situation.

That's one way to look at it.

~Jackson

Read more on Achan Naeb here -- roundfree.org/roundfree_achannaeb.htm

"

In this case, suffering is the discomfort that motives movement. This idea isn't that unlike what was proposed this thread's starting post. In order to experience/observe dukkha, we have to be willing to be still for a while. The agitation is noticeable if we allow ourselves to see it prior to taking the action require to make it go away. And in many cases, we may be able to develop equanimity in regards to the situation that would normally motivate us to move. In that way, we can notice the possibility of freeing ourselves from the tyranny of dukkha.

It's not that we shouldn't ever move to alleviate suffering. It's really about making note of why are motivated to change our present situation.

That's one way to look at it.

~Jackson
"

Hmm-- maybe this is my own idiosyncratic idea, but I always thought that dukkha wasn't really so much the gross suffering (which I've seen rendered somewhere as 'the suffering of suffering'), as that little movement the mind makes in identifying its preferences: ooh, yeah! THIS! / oh NO! NOT! I feel it myself as a kind of visceral wincing away from / lurching after ... impulse. And it seems to be the most basic support and 'justification' of 'myself' as a separate and entrapped entity. Maybe I'd say 'dukkha is the seed of self.'

I like 'the inverse of equanimity' very much-- the first time I've seen that.