Every now and then, a Buddhist teaching catches my attention for some reason. Often, it’s because I’m not fully satisfied with the traditional interpretation. Even the most common teachings, like the four foundations of mindfulness or the twelve links of dependent origination, sometimes feel a bit off to me. I find myself reinterpreting them in ways that make more sense to me.
Recently, this happened with the teaching on the “Three Forms of Suffering (dukkha).” Traditional interpretations seemed a bit random to me, and this bothered me. Here’s one version of this teaching:
1. Suffering or Pain (dukkha-dukkhatā): This includes physical, emotional, and mental pain, as described by the English word “suffering.”
2. Impermanence or Change (vipariṇāma-dukkhatā): Anything that isn’t permanent and is subject to change is considered suffering. Happiness is included here because it isn’t permanent.
3. Conditioned States (sankhāra-dukkhatā): Being conditioned means being dependent on or affected by something else. According to dependent origination, all phenomena are conditioned and affect each other.
The third type of suffering is usually described as “the suffering of conditioned existence,” indicating that unenlightened life is inherently unsatisfactory.
Initially, I couldn’t pinpoint why this bugged me, but I eventually realized it felt repetitive. The third category encompasses the other two. Impermanence or change is just an example of “conditioned states,” as is ordinary suffering. This untidiness bothered me.
Additionally, the author had changed the traditional order of terms, which is common when there’s uncertainty about the meaning of a Buddhist formula. Historically, the order is always dukkha-dukkhatā (ordinary pain), sankhāra-dukkhatā (conditioned states), and then vipariṇāma-dukkhatā (pain of reversal of fortune). Later traditions, including the author from about.com, have switched the last two terms, placing “conditioned states” last, as it’s the most general form of suffering. But in the original scriptures, this isn’t the case, which is puzzling.
One day, I realized this teaching on three forms of suffering collided with another teaching on dukkha from the Sallasutta (Discourse on the Arrow). In it, the Buddha mentions two “arrows” of suffering: the initial pain and the pain we create by resisting, whining, and wishing things were otherwise.
The first arrow, or pain, is unavoidable. The second is not, summarizing the idea that “pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.” The passage also mentions clinging to pleasure as another response to the first arrow, leading to more suffering:
The Sallasutta made me think we actually have three forms of suffering in this context. For example, I feel lonely because my family is away for the weekend. This loneliness is “dukkha-dukkhatā,” experienced physically as a heartache and a sense of emptiness. Then, I might start moping around and lamenting my situation, causing more suffering, which is “sankhāra-dukkhatā.” Alternatively, I might try to suppress my loneliness by eating potato salad. The temporary pleasure from eating is followed by the return of loneliness, representing “vipariṇāma-dukkhatā.”
The Cūḷadukkhakkhandhasutta (Shorter Discourse on the Mass of Suffering) also illustrates these forms of suffering using examples:
1. Dukkha-dukkhatā: The businessperson experiencing inevitable suffering from conditions like heat or cold while working.
2. Sankhāra-dukkhatā: The self-pity from failing to achieve wealth.
3. Vipariṇāma-dukkhatā: The fear and subsequent suffering from losing the gained wealth.
Sensual pleasure goes beyond just physical experiences; it includes the pleasure derived from wanting and possessing material things.
The teachings align perfectly in these discourses, and the terms are in the same order. Removing the redundant “conditioned states” category and understanding “sankhāra” in its basic sense of “constructed” makes the teaching more practical and relatable.
I believe this interpretation makes more sense than the commonly accepted ones. The teachings of the two arrows and the three forms of suffering may have originally been related, either as illustrations or distillations of each other. This realignment clears up small misunderstandings and helps us appreciate what the Buddha taught more accurately.
However, the influence of commentarial literature often makes it hard to fully grasp the original teachings. We learn Buddhism from secondary sources that sometimes misinterpret the Buddha’s words. This happens with the teaching of the “two arrows,” as many books explain them but omit the third form of suffering. Consequently, even if we read the sutta, we might overlook this additional suffering.
In the end, clarifying the concept of “the conditioned” brings relief. People often treat it as a metaphysical term, contrasting it with “the unconditioned.” If the Buddha in the Sallasutta was not speaking metaphysically, we might be misinterpreting many teachings. The terms might simply mean “created” or “not created,” making them more practical rather than metaphysical.