<p>According to the Wikipedia article <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Dharma_Seals" rel="nofollow">Four Dharma Seals</a>, some schools of Buddhism teach "Three Dharma Seals" as including Nirvana but excluding Dukkha (for example Google finds <a href="http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/G%20-%20TNH/TNH/The%20Three%20Dharma%20Seals/The%20Three%20Dharma%20Seals.htm" rel="nofollow">The Three Dharma Seals by Thich Nhat Hanh</a>) because "suffering is not an inherent aspect of existence".</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-02T14:22:32.860Z
2016-07-02T14:22:32.860Z
ChrisW
<p><strong>Is the existence of dukkha a conventional or ultimate truth?</strong></p>

<p>Existence is Dukkha.<br>
Existence is conventional.<br>
By realizing ultimate truth /(four noble truths) one can liberate  from Dukka.
 They had fully transcended all existence, and were able to perfect the awesome deportment wherever they went.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-04T15:26:03.310Z
2016-07-05T01:16:27.587Z
2016-07-05T01:16:27.587Z
Shrawaka
<p>Dukkha is one of those that have a conventional dimension and also an "ultimate" dimension--which means that it is happening at a microscopic level.</p>

<p>When speaking about the <strong>perceivable</strong> interdependent dissatisfaction especially in accordance with one's perfectionistic desires, <strong>this is regarding the conventional truth of things</strong>. For example: life being hard work, one's developments fading, not getting what one wants.</p>

<p><strong>Ultimate truth regards the principles not perceivable</strong>, the micro-moment dissatisfaction, at a level that is disregarded by "conventional truth." This could be one's cells changing, energy being stolen from place to place, the hidden war of energy exchange, inevitable dependency and weakness, etc.</p>

<p>The difference between conventional and ultimate truth <a href="http://www.trans4mind.com/personal_development/buddhist/ultimateAndConventionalTruth.htm#01bUltimate_Truths" rel="nofollow">is delineated here</a> and <a href="https://prezi.com/5wa1wxgvno-2/conventional-and-ultimate-truth-in-buddhism/" rel="nofollow">also here</a>.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-06T01:33:03.233Z
2016-07-06T01:33:03.233Z
Med
<p>There is no asymmetry because the word 'dukkha' in the context of the Three Characteristics (tri-lakkhana) does not mean 'suffering'; just as the word 'dukkha' in the context of feelings (vedana) does not mean 'suffering'. 'Dukkha' only means 'suffering' in the context of the Four Noble Truths. </p>

<p>'Dukkha' in the context of the Three Characteristics means '<strong>unsatisfactoriness</strong>'; namely, the inability of impermanent (conditioned) things to bring permanent lasting true happiness. (Only the unconditioned Nibbana can bring true lasting happiness). Thus, the teachings state: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>yadaniccaṃ taṃ dukkhaṃ, yaṃ dukkhaṃ tadanattā</p>
  
  <p>That which is impermanent is unsatisfactory; that which is unsatisfactory is
  not-self.</p>
  
  <p>SN 22.15</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In the Pali, many words, such as 'dukkha', 'dhamma', 'nirodha' &amp; 'sankhara' have different meanings in different contexts thus, in each different context, must be translated differently &amp; appropriately. </p>

<p>The Buddha was fully enlightened thus perfectly coherent. There can be no contradictions in a Buddha's teachings. It is the famous translators &amp; gurus who are misinterpreting the teachings. </p>

<p>In summary, as shown in the quotes below, only the ‘dukkha’ of attachment &amp; egoism is real ‘suffering’ (mental torment/trauma). The ‘unsatisfactoriness' of conditioned things (dukkha lakkhana) and painful feelings (dukkha vedana) are not suffering (unless they are attached to). </p>

<p>Context 1 - Dukkha as suffering</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In summary, (all) <strong>suffering</strong> is clinging to the five aggregates (as
  ‘I’, ‘me’ &amp; ‘mine’). </p>
  
  <p>1st noble truth</p>
</blockquote>

<p>~~~</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>‘I am’ is a construing. ‘I am this’ is a construing. ‘I shall be’ is a
  construing. ‘I shall not be’… is a construing. Construing is a
  disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going
  beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at peace.</p>
  
  <p>MN 140</p>
</blockquote>

<p>~~</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>He is seized with the idea that ‘I am form’ or ‘Form is mine.’ As he
  is seized with these ideas, his form changes &amp; alters, and he falls
  into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress &amp; despair over its change &amp;
  alteration.</p>
  
  <p>SN 22.1</p>
</blockquote>

<p>~~</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>By &amp; large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments,
  clingings &amp; biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or
  cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases
  or obsessions; nor is he resolved on ‘my self.’ He has no uncertainty
  or doubt that just <strong>suffering</strong>, when arising, is arising; <strong>suffering</strong>,
  when passing away, is passing away. </p>
  
  <p>SN 12.15</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Contex 2 - Dukkha as pain</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy
  life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the
  burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely
  released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties
  remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and
  disagreeable and feels pleasure and <strong>pain</strong>. It is the extinction of
  attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the
  Nibbana-element …</p>
  
  <p>Iti 44</p>
</blockquote>

<p>~~~</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>When the Blessed One had entered upon the rainy season, there arose in
  him a severe illness, and sharp and deadly <strong>pains</strong> came upon him. And
  the Blessed One endured them mindfully, clearly comprehending and
  unperturbed. </p>
  
  <p>DN 16</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Context 3 - Dukkha as unsatisfactoriness </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>“What do you think of this, O monks? Is form permanent or
  impermanent?”</p>
  
  <p>“Impermanent, O Lord.”</p>
  
  <p>“Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or
  satisfactory?”</p>
  
  <p>“<strong>Unsatisfactory</strong>, O Lord.”</p>
  
  <p>“Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is
  it proper to regard that as: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my
  self’?”</p>
  
  <p>“Indeed, not that, O Lord.” </p>
  
  <p>SN 22.59</p>
</blockquote>

<p>~~~</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A
  monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the
  break-up of the body, after death?</p>
  
  <p>Thus asked, I would answer, ‘Form is impermanent… Feeling… Perception…
  Fabrications… Consciousness is impermanent. That which is impermanent
  is unsatisfactory. That which is <strong>unsatisfactory</strong> has ceased and gone to
  its end.</p>
  
  <p>Very good, my friend Yamaka. Very good.</p>
  
  <p>SN 22.85</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Dukkha - contexts 3 &amp; 1 </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>All conditioned things are <strong>unsatisfactory</strong> — when one sees this with
  wisdom, one turns away from <strong>suffering</strong>. This is the path to
  purification.</p>
  
  <p>Dhammapada 278</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Contexts 1, 1 &amp; 2, 1 &amp; 1 and 1 &amp; 3</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Tisso imā āvuso dukkhatā, dukkhadukkhatā saṅkhāradukkhatā vipariṇāmadukkhatā.</p>
  
  <p>There are these <strong>three</strong> kinds of <strong>suffering</strong>, my friend: <strong>suffering</strong> due
  to/about <strong>pain</strong>; <strong>suffering</strong> due to/of <strong>mental concocting</strong>; and <strong>suffering</strong> 
  due to/about <strong>change</strong>. </p>
  
  <p>SN 38.14</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Note: That 'attachment is dukkha' is an ultimate truth because every experience of suffering is bound up in attachment. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-02T14:38:21.443Z
2016-07-02T20:58:18.583Z
2016-07-02T20:58:18.583Z
Dhamma Dhatu
<p>Is the existence of dukkha a conventional or ultimate truth?</p>

<p>I am confused, because on the one hand, it is usually mentioned together with two other marks of existence, which clearly look like the ultimate truth: "self" is conventional, and ultimately there is no self, and permanence of phenomena is conventional too, and ultimately everything is impermanent.</p>

<p>On the other hand, dukkha looks like something conventional: suffering, or lack of satisfaction, depends only on the existence of the sufferer, and ultimately, there is no sufferer, there are only empty aggregates.</p>

<p>Moreover, if I were the last sentient being to become enlightened, there would still be no self, and phenomena would still be impermanent. But there would be no suffering. I don't know how to wrap my mind around this asymmetry.</p>

<four-noble-truths><dukkha><truth>
Is dukkha conventional or ultimate? Is it different from the other two marks of existence?
# Is dukkha conventional or ultimate? Is it different from the other two marks of existence?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-07-02)

Is the existence of dukkha a conventional or ultimate truth?

I am confused, because on the one hand, it is usually mentioned together with two other marks of existence, which clearly look like the ultimate truth: "self" is conventional, and ultimately there is no self, and permanence of phenomena is conventional too, and ultimately everything is impermanent.

On the other hand, dukkha looks like something conventional: suffering, or lack of satisfaction, depends only on the existence of the sufferer, and ultimately, there is no sufferer, there are only empty aggregates.

Moreover, if I were the last sentient being to become enlightened, there would still be no self, and phenomena would still be impermanent. But there would be no suffering. I don't know how to wrap my mind around this asymmetry.

**Tags:** four-noble-truths, dukkha, truth


---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2016-07-02. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

There is no asymmetry because the word 'dukkha' in the context of the Three Characteristics (tri-lakkhana) does not mean 'suffering'; just as the word 'dukkha' in the context of feelings (vedana) does not mean 'suffering'. 'Dukkha' only means 'suffering' in the context of the Four Noble Truths.

'Dukkha' in the context of the Three Characteristics means '**unsatisfactoriness**'; namely, the inability of impermanent (conditioned) things to bring permanent lasting true happiness. (Only the unconditioned Nibbana can bring true lasting happiness). Thus, the teachings state:

> yadaniccaṃ taṃ dukkhaṃ, yaṃ dukkhaṃ tadanattā
>
> That which is impermanent is unsatisfactory; that which is unsatisfactory is
> not-self.
>
> SN 22.15

In the Pali, many words, such as 'dukkha', 'dhamma', 'nirodha' & 'sankhara' have different meanings in different contexts thus, in each different context, must be translated differently & appropriately.

The Buddha was fully enlightened thus perfectly coherent. There can be no contradictions in a Buddha's teachings. It is the famous translators & gurus who are misinterpreting the teachings.

In summary, as shown in the quotes below, only the ‘dukkha’ of attachment & egoism is real ‘suffering’ (mental torment/trauma). The ‘unsatisfactoriness' of conditioned things (dukkha lakkhana) and painful feelings (dukkha vedana) are not suffering (unless they are attached to).

Context 1 - Dukkha as suffering

> In summary, (all) **suffering** is clinging to the five aggregates (as
> ‘I’, ‘me’ & ‘mine’).
>
> 1st noble truth

~~~

> ‘I am’ is a construing. ‘I am this’ is a construing. ‘I shall be’ is a
> construing. ‘I shall not be’… is a construing. Construing is a
> disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going
> beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at peace.
>
> MN 140

~~

> He is seized with the idea that ‘I am form’ or ‘Form is mine.’ As he
> is seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, and he falls
> into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair over its change &
> alteration.
>
> SN 22.1

~~

> By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments,
> clingings & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or
> cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases
> or obsessions; nor is he resolved on ‘my self.’ He has no uncertainty
> or doubt that just **suffering**, when arising, is arising; **suffering**,
> when passing away, is passing away.
>
> SN 12.15

Contex 2 - Dukkha as pain

> Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy
> life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the
> burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely
> released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties
> remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and
> disagreeable and feels pleasure and **pain**. It is the extinction of
> attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the
> Nibbana-element …
>
> Iti 44

~~~

> When the Blessed One had entered upon the rainy season, there arose in
> him a severe illness, and sharp and deadly **pains** came upon him. And
> the Blessed One endured them mindfully, clearly comprehending and
> unperturbed.
>
> DN 16

Context 3 - Dukkha as unsatisfactoriness

> “What do you think of this, O monks? Is form permanent or
> impermanent?”
>
> “Impermanent, O Lord.”
>
> “Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or
> satisfactory?”
>
> “**Unsatisfactory**, O Lord.”
>
> “Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is
> it proper to regard that as: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my
> self’?”
>
> “Indeed, not that, O Lord.”
>
> SN 22.59

~~~

> Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A
> monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the
> break-up of the body, after death?
>
> Thus asked, I would answer, ‘Form is impermanent… Feeling… Perception…
> Fabrications… Consciousness is impermanent. That which is impermanent
> is unsatisfactory. That which is **unsatisfactory** has ceased and gone to
> its end.
>
> Very good, my friend Yamaka. Very good.
>
> SN 22.85

Dukkha - contexts 3 & 1

> All conditioned things are **unsatisfactory** — when one sees this with
> wisdom, one turns away from **suffering**. This is the path to
> purification.
>
> Dhammapada 278

Contexts 1, 1 & 2, 1 & 1 and 1 & 3

> Tisso imā āvuso dukkhatā, dukkhadukkhatā saṅkhāradukkhatā vipariṇāmadukkhatā.
>
> There are these **three** kinds of **suffering**, my friend: **suffering** due
> to/about **pain**; **suffering** due to/of **mental concocting**; and **suffering**
> due to/about **change**.
>
> SN 38.14

Note: That 'attachment is dukkha' is an ultimate truth because every experience of suffering is bound up in attachment.


---

### Answer by username_1 on 2016-07-02. Score: 2

According to the Wikipedia article [Four Dharma Seals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Dharma_Seals), some schools of Buddhism teach "Three Dharma Seals" as including Nirvana but excluding Dukkha (for example Google finds [The Three Dharma Seals by Thich Nhat Hanh](http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/G%20-%20TNH/TNH/The%20Three%20Dharma%20Seals/The%20Three%20Dharma%20Seals.htm)) because "suffering is not an inherent aspect of existence".


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2016-07-04. Score: 0

**Is the existence of dukkha a conventional or ultimate truth?**

Existence is Dukkha.  
Existence is conventional.  
By realizing ultimate truth /(four noble truths) one can liberate from Dukka.
They had fully transcended all existence, and were able to perfect the awesome deportment wherever they went.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2016-07-06. Score: 0

Dukkha is one of those that have a conventional dimension and also an "ultimate" dimension--which means that it is happening at a microscopic level.

When speaking about the **perceivable** interdependent dissatisfaction especially in accordance with one's perfectionistic desires, **this is regarding the conventional truth of things**. For example: life being hard work, one's developments fading, not getting what one wants.

**Ultimate truth regards the principles not perceivable**, the micro-moment dissatisfaction, at a level that is disregarded by "conventional truth." This could be one's cells changing, energy being stolen from place to place, the hidden war of energy exchange, inevitable dependency and weakness, etc.

The difference between conventional and ultimate truth [is delineated here](http://www.trans4mind.com/personal_development/buddhist/ultimateAndConventionalTruth.htm#01bUltimate_Truths) and [also here](https://prezi.com/5wa1wxgvno-2/conventional-and-ultimate-truth-in-buddhism/).


---

