Most often translated as "suffering", dukkha describes something that is a little different from what we ordinarily consider to be "suffering." I once heard a Therevada monk say that the image of dukkha is that of a wheel of an ox-cart getting stuck in the mud, and just spinning in place. Those who drive will probably know this image well with their motorized vehicle. It's frustrating, to say the very least. Wikipedia says:
Quote:
A central concept in Buddhism, the word roughly corresponding to a number of terms in English including sorrow, suffering, affliction, pain, anxiety, dissatisfaction, discomfort, anguish, stress, misery, and aversion. The word frustration is probably a better synonym than suffering. The term is probably derived from duḥstha, "standing badly," "unsteady," "uneasy."
In classic Sanskrit, the term dukkha was often compared to a large potter's wheel that would screech as it was spun around, and did not turn smoothly. The opposite of dukkha was the term sukkha which brought to mind a potter's wheel that turned smoothly and noiselessly. In other Buddhist-influenced cultures, similar imagery was used to describe dukkha. An example from China is the cart with one wheel that is slightly broken, so that the rider is jolted now and again as the wheel rolls over the broken spot.
In classic Sanskrit, the term dukkha was often compared to a large potter's wheel that would screech as it was spun around, and did not turn smoothly. The opposite of dukkha was the term sukkha which brought to mind a potter's wheel that turned smoothly and noiselessly. In other Buddhist-influenced cultures, similar imagery was used to describe dukkha. An example from China is the cart with one wheel that is slightly broken, so that the rider is jolted now and again as the wheel rolls over the broken spot.
So, in the First Noble Truth, when the Buddha said that life, by nature has or is difficult; has suffering; is frustrating, disatisfying, or any number of other translations, the word that is being translated or expressed in English is dukkha.
Both that Wikipedia article, and a book I'm re-reading ("Awakening the Buddha Within" by Lama Surya Das) talks about the sub-divisions of dukkha. Because, as we all know from experience, there isn't just one broad "suffering" out there. There are different kinds, and different severities, and they all have their own sub-divisions. (Samsara sure can be complicated.)
So, the first kind that they mention (I'm drawing from the Wikipedia article here) is dukkha-dukkha. This can be translated as the "suffering of suffering" or the "suffering of pain." You know how you can't just be physically injured, you also suffer from the pain itself. We often notice ourselves, before being hurt, suffering more from anticipation of an injury than the injury itself. Dukkha-dukkha is things like suffering from physical pain, old age, sickness, death, et cetera.
Then there's the ever-familiar Viparinama-dukkha, which is where the whole "cylic existence" thing seems to really become relevant. It's suffering because of alterations and change. Because we have attachment to impermanent things, we suffering viparinama-dukkha. Everything changes, and so when they do, our attachments cause us suffering. Attachment to people, places, ideas, opinions, objects, sense-pleasure. The emphasis with viparinama-dukkha is not the people or objects or ideas themselves, because those are just negated objects, it's on the attachment itself. It's on you.
And finally there is Sankhara-dukkha, or the suffering of formations, which is said to be much more subtle and less obvious that the previous two. This really deals with the subtle discomfort we get from simply having a form, from simply being in samsara with aggregates, of being causal. Since cyclic existence is inherently disatisfactory, and our aggregates are samsaric, we're interpenetrated with these subtle disatisfactory conditions. Perhaps. I'm not precisely sure about this one, to be honest. I think this one is a good way to point out Buddha-nature.
