https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1je8ipq/i_wholeheartedly_agree_with/
created by Disastrous-Exam-6859 on 18/03/2025 at 16:05 UTC
20 upvotes, 18 top-level comments (showing 18)
... author, psychiatrist and Buddhist Mark Epstein when he says, "Dukkha is ordinarily translated as suffering, which is not the best translation. What the word connotes is more like a sense of pervasive unsatisfactoriness in life." Furthermore, he correctly translates the cause of Dukkha, tanha, not as desire but thirst or craving, which can connote clinging.
What does everyone here think about that? And judging from the fact that most scholars and people still use the terms suffering and desire when speaking of these most basic teachings of the Buddha, is it then correct to assume that Epstein's exegesis has not been heard my most or that they have but do not agree?
Comment by htgrower at 18/03/2025 at 16:14 UTC
10 upvotes, 1 direct replies
The common translation of “suffering” and “desire” are mainly used by those outside of Buddhism or with a superficial understanding, when you dig into the serious scholarship and monastic literature you’ll find that translations like “stress” “unsatisfactoriness” and “craving” “clinging” “thirsting” are much more common because they are indeed closer to the true meanings of dukkha and Tanha. So while it may be correct that those with only a basic understanding of Buddhism are not familiar with the more nuanced translations, it’s not correct to assume that most in general are not familiar or do not agree. In serious Buddhist circles you’ll see most are aware of and use the more subtle translations or just the original Pali themselves.
Comment by aviancrane at 18/03/2025 at 16:16 UTC*
4 upvotes, 1 direct replies
My view is that words are compressions. It doesn't matter which word you pick, you are compressing a real experience down to particular perspective.
My compression of suffering is that it is a misalignment.
The more suffering you have, the more out of alignment you are, the less suffering, the more alignment you have.
This kind of model gives me an active algorithm to follow in meditation: tune my direct experience to reduce suffering.
But most people don't think in mathematical and process terms like this and need human words to relate. When you get all the right words and see the pattern between them (new york times, washington post, wallstreet journal -> newspaper businesses) you see the phenomenal experience of suffering not as a single-word expression, but a lived experience that can be viewed from all those angles but is not captured by any one of them.
This is why there are several different words to describe what we're talking about and no one can find the perfect one.
Comment by Minoozolala at 18/03/2025 at 16:46 UTC*
3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Epstein's translation for duhkha fits better with the second type of duhkha, namely, viparinama-duhkhata, the suffering of change, i.e., the fact that things are impermanent, happiness doesn't last, and so forth. Then you could say that "unsatisfactoriness" is ok. But it's still rather weak, and there's nothing wrong at all with the translation "suffering".
Most Buddhist teachings focus on the first type of duhkha (duhkha-duhkhata), which is used to explain why samsara is problematic. And in this case, the translation "suffering" is definitely the best, because it takes in to account ALL sentient beings' duhkha, including those being tortured in the hells, being eaten alive by animals, and being killed in wars, starved by famine, dying of cancer, and so forth. In this case, the translation "pain" is also just fine. Epstein seems to have a very limited view of duhkha.
To answer your final question, scholars are of course aware of the translation "unsatisfactoriness" but most don't accept it because of its limitations in reflecting the Buddhist understanding of the word duhkha.
Comment by WxYue at 18/03/2025 at 16:18 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
There are Venerables in my region pointing out Dukkha need not be translated but its context should be fleshed out when explaining. Pervasive dissatisfaction isn't that easy to remember perhaps.
Have not heard of Mark's name before your post.
Comment by Traditional_Kick_887 at 18/03/2025 at 16:20 UTC*
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Part of the challenge with all translations are that words are conventional and the emotional weight or meaning of a word like suffering or desire can differ between people. Even a word like stress, people’s interpretation of a word like that, how bad, important or heavy they perceive it, is very one’s mileage may vary.
You’ve likely also seen dukkha be translated as misery, sorrow, unease, discomfort. If we are going by the bad axel or bad standing etymologies, then stress, unease, discomfort can work. But dukkha is also used to describe pain.
Academically we would probably want to translate dukkha as negative valence, becomes negative valence refers to the “badness" unpleasantness or averseness of an emotional stimulus, experience, or outcome.
But negative valence just doesn’t roll off the tongue and is a psychological jargon ordinary people don’t know.
Comment by genivelo at 18/03/2025 at 16:34 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
He is very not alone in saying this, and probably was not the first one either.
Furthermore, the craving that leads to dukkha is not just generic craving, but more precisely craving for becoming, non becoming, or sense pleasures as sources of lasting fulfilment to counteract dukkha.
Comment by sockmonkey719 at 18/03/2025 at 16:42 UTC
2 upvotes, 2 direct replies
His understanding is basically what is understood
Using a one word for one word translation is unhelpful and almost every teacher has a talk somewhere where they explain that. So it’s not novel
A better translation is that it is a range of unsatisfactory this from things being not quite as good as they could be all the way to suffering.
Comment by heikuf at 18/03/2025 at 17:34 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Yes, suffering is not at all translating the meaning of Dukkha. But “dissatisfaction” and “unsatisfactoriness” also completely fail to convey the seriousness of the matter.
The solution is to use the word Dukkha.
Comment by Kitchen_Seesaw_6725 at 18/03/2025 at 17:34 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
opposite of dukkha is sukkha, which is usually translated as happiness, bliss...
Comment by frank_mania at 18/03/2025 at 17:57 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I first encountered that translation and commentary by the late Barry Lopez in Tricycle 30ish years ago. Do you know when Epstein's writing dates to? I'm curious who (may have) influenced whom.
Lopez also had a neat view of the word sansara coming from, I think it was, the literal Sanskrit of off-center. He was also a fiction writer of some pretty good stuff, earlier on, before his academic writing took off in the popular press. Is academic writing, by the way it wasn't about Buddhism. His Buddhist writing as far as I know was constrained only to some articles and tricycle. But memory could be failing me now.
Comment by krodha at 18/03/2025 at 18:06 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
There are three forms of dukkha. “Suffering” is appropriate.
Comment by PeaceTrueHappiness at 18/03/2025 at 16:17 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
This is in line with the teachings of the Buddha. Dukkha could be unsatisfactoriness, discomfort, stress etc.
Tanha is translated as thirst. But there is also lobha, which is desire. Then you have chanda, which is also desire, but desire based on wisdom.
Comment by Sea-Dot-8575 at 18/03/2025 at 16:20 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I think the term ‘suffering’ can be problematic in the sense that in our everyday understanding (outside Buddhism) if we have a relatively comfortable life one would say they’re not suffering all the time, maybe not even a lot of the time depending on your disposition.
But I would say that regardless of what I do I am never ultimately satisfied, never really fulfilled, never really at peace.
Comment by No-Tip3654 at 18/03/2025 at 17:36 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Out of sheer curiousity ... aren't people that work in mental health looked down upon if they work with concepts from spiritual teachings such as buddhism? Like, psychology in the West is technically neurobiology, materialistic that is. So ... ?
Comment by twoeggssf at 18/03/2025 at 18:14 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
For me, my practice is more about gaining insight into how my mind works. The words we use as signposts are less important than the journey. I enjoy the richness of reading how different seekers describe the process but try not to get hung up on any particular word. I guess I would say that my Buddhist practice is more Jazz than marching band :-)
Comment by twoeggssf at 18/03/2025 at 18:14 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
For me, my practice is more about gaining insight into how my mind works. The words we use as signposts are less important than the journey. I enjoy the richness of reading how different seekers describe the process but try not to get hung up on any particular word. I guess I would say that my Buddhist practice is more Jazz than marching band :-)
Comment by Jordan_the_Hutt at 18/03/2025 at 16:45 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Dissatisfaction I think is the closest translation, though i think it exists some where between that word ans suffering
Comment by LotsaKwestions at 18/03/2025 at 17:39 UTC
0 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I would say that's a better than average presentation in general, when it comes to a general presentation of such principles. Part of 'unsatisfactoriness' of note can relate to a more coarse, obvious 'suffering', but indeed it is a bigger term, basically, than simply that.