Every so often, a Buddhist teaching will stick with me and won’t let go. It’s often because I find myself unsatisfied with the usual interpretation. Even well-known teachings like the four foundations of mindfulness or the twelve links of dependent origination can seem a bit off to me, so I end up reinterpreting them in a way that feels more logical.
Recently, the teaching on the “Three Forms of Suffering” caught my attention. The traditional interpretations felt somewhat scattered to me. Here’s a brief explanation of this teaching:
1. Ordinary Suffering (dukkha-dukkhatā): This is the suffering we commonly know—physical, emotional, and mental pain.
2. Impermanence or Change (vipariṇāma-dukkhatā): This form of suffering comes from the fact that nothing is permanent. Even happiness is considered suffering because it doesn’t last.
3. Conditioned States (sankhāra-dukkhatā): Everything is interdependent, meaning everything affects everything else. This is the hardest part of dukkha to grasp but crucial for understanding Buddhism.
The last type is often described as the suffering of conditioned existence, implying that unenlightened life is inherently unsatisfactory. Initially, I wasn’t sure what bothered me about this teaching, but then it hit me—it’s repetitive. The third category of suffering seems to encompass the other two. Change, in the sense of a reversal of fortune, and ordinary suffering are both examples of “conditioned states.”
Another issue is the rearrangement of terms seen in various interpretations. Traditionally, the order goes dukkha-dukkhatā (ordinary pain), sankhāra-dukkhatā (conditioned states), and then vipariṇāma-dukkhatā (suffering from change). Some later interpretations flip the last two terms, possibly to make the concept of “conditioned states” a more general term for suffering. This departure from the original order as seen in the scriptures puzzles me.
These thoughts collided one day with another teaching on suffering, the two “arrows” of suffering from the Sallasutta (Discourse on the Arrow). The Buddha described how our unavoidable initial pain is often followed by additional suffering caused by our reactions—how we resist, lament, and wish things were different. The first of these pains is inevitable, but the second is not, echoing the saying, “pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.”
Moreover, clinging to pleasure can also cause suffering. When someone doesn’t see any escape from pain other than seeking sensual pleasure, this attachment can lead to obsession and further suffering.
To explain these three forms of suffering with an example: I feel lonely because my wife and kids are away. This loneliness is dukkha-dukkhatā, the ordinary mental pain that feels very physical. When I start feeling sorry for myself or think I should be more detached, I create unnecessary suffering, or sankhāra-dukkhatā. Trying to drown my loneliness by overeating is an avoidance mechanism that brings temporary pleasure, which ends, leaving me still lonely—this is vipariṇāma-dukkhatā.
A well-known discourse, the Cūḷadukkhakkhandhasutta, illustrates these forms of suffering with real-world examples like a businessperson facing simple discomforts (ordinary suffering), the disappointment when efforts don’t succeed (fabricated suffering), and the fear or actual loss of gained wealth (suffering from change).
This interpretation aligns well with the teaching of the two arrows and makes the concept of suffering more straightforward and practical. It removes the redundancy of having “conditioned states” as a separate type of suffering and simplifies it to mean “constructed” rather than some universal phenomenon. This alignment also makes me think that the teachings of the two arrows and the three forms of suffering were originally related or meant to complement each other.
This reinterpretation, while minor, alleviates some of my unease with the traditional teachings. It also highlights how our exposure to various commentaries and interpretations can sometimes obscure the Buddha’s original teachings. Often, contemporary books and teachings introduce complex terms like “the conditioned” that might not have been intended as metaphysical. Understanding terms in their simplest forms—as something created or not—may bring us closer to the practical essence of the Buddha’s teachings.