Sometimes, the teachings from the Buddhist tradition challenge me, and it’s usually because the traditional interpretations leave me unsatisfied. Even foundational teachings like the four foundations of mindfulness or the twelve links of dependent origination can sometimes feel off to me, leading me to reinterpret them in ways that resonate more.
Recently, I found myself pondering over the teaching on the “Three Forms of Suffering (dukkha).” The traditional interpretations seemed random and left me feeling uneasy.
Here’s a standard explanation of this teaching:
1. Suffering or Pain (dukkha-dukkhatā): Ordinary suffering includes physical, emotional, and mental pain.
2. Impermanence or Change (vipariṇāma-dukkhatā): Anything that is not permanent and subject to change is also considered suffering. This means even happiness is dukkha because it doesn’t last.
3. Conditioned States (sankhāra-dukkhatā): To be conditioned is to depend on or be affected by something else. All phenomena are conditioned, meaning everything influences everything else. This aspect is crucial for understanding Buddhism, even if it’s the hardest to grasp.
The third form of suffering is often described as the “suffering of conditioned existence,” indicating that unenlightened life is inherently unsatisfactory.
After some reflection, I realized what bothered me: the repetitiveness. The third category of suffering actually includes the other two. Impermanence or change is just one example of “conditioned states,” and so is ordinary suffering. I find this untidy.
It also bugs me that the author I referred to switched the traditional order of these terms, which is actually a common practice when meanings are unclear. The scriptures list them as dukkha-dukkhatā (ordinary pain), sankhāra-dukkhatā (conditioned states), and then vipariṇāma-dukkhatā (pain of reversal of fortune). However, later interpretations, like hers, flipped the last two terms, likely because “conditioned states” is the most general. This rearrangement might make sense logically, but it doesn’t match the scriptures, which is puzzling.
One day, the teaching of three forms of suffering collided in my mind with another teaching on dukkha from the Sallasutta (Discourse on the Arrow), where the Buddha spoke about two “arrows” of suffering: the initial pain and the pain we create by resisting it. The initial pain is unavoidable, but the second is optional. The Buddha explained that when we experience pain, we often react by grieving and lamenting, thus feeling both physical and mental pain—akin to being struck by two arrows.
Furthermore, the same passage mentions that clinging to pleasure in response to initial pain leads to more suffering, showing that seeking pleasure can also be a form of suffering.
In practice, this means there are three forms of dukkha:
1. Dukkha-dukkhatā: The immediate pain we feel, like loneliness when loved ones are away.
2. Sankhāra-dukkhatā: The additional suffering we create by, for example, moping around or telling ourselves negative stories.
3. Vipariṇāma-dukkhatā: The suffering we experience when our strategies to avoid pain (like overeating) fail, leaving us still facing the original pain.
These concepts are mirrored in the Cūḷadukkhakkhandhasutta, where the Buddha explains how sensual pleasures can lead to suffering.
1. Dukkha-dukkhatā: The unavoidable pains of life, like being too hot or cold.
2. Sankhāra-dukkhatā: The self-inflicted suffering from unmet desires or negative thinking.
3. Vipariṇāma-dukkhatā: The fear and suffering from losing what we have.
The alignment of these three forms of suffering in both the Sallasutta and the Cūḷadukkhakkhandhasutta clarifies the teaching and removes the redundancy. It suggests that “conditioned states” should be understood in a straightforward, practical way rather than metaphysically.
I believe this reinterpretation provides a more cohesive understanding of the teachings, showing that the two arrows and the three forms of suffering are essentially the same teaching, just expressed differently. This minor adjustment helps eliminate confusion and makes the teachings more accessible.
This exercise highlights how our reliance on commentaries and secondary sources can obscure the original teachings of the Buddha. Many of us learn about Buddhism from books, but these often restate interpretations without referring directly to the scriptures. This can lead us to misunderstand core teachings, such as the three forms of suffering.
I find it refreshing to move past the complex notion of “conditioned existence” and focus on the direct experiences of suffering we create and face. Perhaps by reexamining these terms more practically, we can gain a clearer, more grounded understanding of the Buddha’s teachings.