user1046: Thich Nhat Hanh seems to deny a major teaching on dukkha/suffering common to both Theravada and Tibetan teachings -- the idea of all-perasive suffering ("the suffering of composite things",samskara dukkhata)-- found in many places in the Pali and Tibetan canons. Below are some excerpts. A link to the whole chapter is at the end.
I think his interpretation may well reflect a misunderstanding of all-pervasive suffering -- it does not deny joy; it simply says the only lasting happiness comes from addressing conditioned existence in general (or emptiness/shunyata and inherent/intrinsic existence in Mahayana terms); it cannot be found by only addressing worldly suffering directly.
Or maybe I am misunderstanding him. But he is pretty emphatic, even to the point of implying that the Pali Canon was corrupted to reflect this teaching before it got written down. He also suggests removing dukkha from the Three Dharma Seals/Marks, replacing it with nirvana (rather than just adding nirvana to make four seals, as is usually done)
My questions -- does this reflect Zen teachings in general, or is it limited to Thich Nhat Hanh and/or some schools? If some Zen schools or teachers do teach all-pervasive suffering, can someone point me to references? I'd also be interested in other Zen teachings that reflect Thich Nhat Hanh's strong objection to the doctrine of all-pervasive suffering.
Thanks.

The following quotes (with my emphasis added) are from Chapter Five, "Is Everything Suffering?", from The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching, by Thich Nhat Hanh,

Since the Buddha said that the First Noble Truth is suffering, many good
students of the Buddha have used their skills to prove that everything on
Earth is suffering. The theory of the Three Kinds of Suffering was
such an attempt. It is not a teaching of the Buddha.
The first kind of suffering is "the suffering of suffering" (dukkha
dukkhata), the suffering associated with unpleasant feelings, like the pain
of a toothache, losing your temper, or feeling too cold on a winter's day.
The second is "the suffering of composite things" (samskara dukkhata).
Whatever comes together eventually has to come apart; therefore, all
composite things are described as suffering. Even things that have not yet
decayed, such as mountains, rivers, and the sun, are seen to be suffering,
because they will decay and cause suffering eventually. When you believe that everything composed is suffering, how can you find joy? The third is "the
suffering associated with change"(viparinama dukkhata). Our liver may be in
good health today, but when we grow old, it will cause us to suffer. There is no point in celebrating joy, because sooner or later it will turn into
suffering. Suffering is a black cloud that envelops everything. Joy is an
illusion. Only suffering is real.
...
This dialogue is repeated in many sutras:

"Monks, are conditioned things permanent or impermanent?"
'They are impermanent, World-Honored One."
"If things are impermanent, are they suffering or well-being?"
"They are suffering, World-Honored One."
"If things are suffering, can we say that they are self or belong to self?"
"No, World-Honored One."

By the time the Buddha's discourses were written down, seeing all things
as suffering must have been widely practiced, as the above quotation
occurs more frequently than the teaching to identify suffering and the path
to end suffering.
...
The theory of the Three Kinds of Suffering is an attempt to justify the
universalization of suffering. What joy is left in life? We find it in
nirvana. In several sutras the Buddha taught that nirvana, the joy of
completely extinguishing our ideas and concepts, rather than suffering, is
one of the Three Dharma Seals. This is stated four times in the Samyukta
Agama of the Northern transmission. Quoting from yet another sutra, Nagarjuna
listed nirvana as one of the Three Dharma Seals.  To me, it is much easier to
envision a state where there are no obstacles created by concepts than to see
all things as suffering. I hope scholars and practitioners will begin to
accept the teaching that all things are marked by impermanence, nonself, and
nirvana, and not make too great an effort to prove that everything is
suffering.


user295: From the Theravada perspective.

Whatever is felt is included in suffering - Raho,gata Sutta & Maha Kamma,vibhaṅga Sutta

Feeling are 3 types which are related to unsatisfactoriness (everything is not satisfactory or unpleasant):

Pain is suffering on its own but pleasant when it changes (dukkha-dukkhatā) 
Pleasure in itself is not suffering but leads to suffering since it changes and ends hence Whatever is felt is included in suffering (vipariṇāma-dukkhatā)
Neutral feeling are suffering as conditioned existence birth, old age and death is unsatisfactory (Sankhara-dukkha) {what is satisfactory is Nirvana which is not associated with any sensation} and also this can very well lead to the above two types of suffering. This is painful when unknown and pleasant when known.

The main reason for our continued existance which opens us to future situation of suffering (birth, decay, mishaps and death) is craving towards pleasant feeling, aversion towards unpleasant and being ignorant of reality when experiencing neutral feelings. [Pahāna Sutta, Cūla Vedalla Sutta, Avijja Pahana Sutta 2]
Coming back to conditioned existance which associated with unsatisfactoriness of existance (Sankhara-dukkha) is suffering as you are not exempt from birth, aging and death. This is associated with ignorance. This can become a pleasure if known (eradicate ignorance) but painful when unknown (with ignorance). Conditioned existance is not unpleasant entirely but connected to it. [Cūla Vedalla Sutta]

user254: "All-pervasive suffering" is one translation of Sankhara-dukkha. Here are several other translations.
Does that analysis of dukkha comes from one sutta? Dukkha Sutta (SN 38.14) says,

There are these three forms of stressfulness, my friend: the stressfulness of pain, the stressfulness of fabrication, the stressfulness of change. These are the three forms of stressfulness.

Instead of looking for a translation of Sankhara-dukkha and instead of translating it as "everything is suffering" or "life is suffering" or "all-pervasive suffering", it might be better to figure out what sankhara means.

Note this series of comments, where Ven. Yuttadhammo implies that "life is suffering" doesn't accurately quote what the Buddha said.


I don't know of any example where the Buddha actually said "life is suffering". – yuttadhammo
Do you know a better English-language paraphrase/summary/approximation of the First noble truth? – ChrisW
the first noble truth is simply "This is the truth of suffering." Nowhere in the enumeration of what is suffering does it refer to life. – yuttadhammo



One more story, I read this somewhere:

Thich Nhat Hanh said that, when he was seven years old, he saw a picture of the Buddha on the cover of a Buddhist magazine.

He was sitting on the grass ... very peaceful ... smiling. And I was impressed. Around me people were not like that, so I had the desire to be someone like him.


I take it that we're meant to understand that the Buddha himself found a way to escape 'suffering'.

Wikipedia says,

As suffering is not an inherent aspect of existence[4] sometimes the second seal is omitted to make Three Dharma Seals.[5][6]

Those footnotes reference Thich Nhat Hanh, but also two other authors, Rulu and Hsing Yun (who I think are both Chinese).

user8809: My interpretation would be that all things are not suffering, for several reasons. 
First of all, the first Noble Truth needs to be seen in context with the other Noble Truths - it says in life there is suffering, but also that there are causes and a path to the cessation of suffering. Most composite entities are not alive and so cannot follow the path. It stands to reason that most composite things follow a natural path to physical decomposition and recomposition, which doesn't necessarily include (mental) suffering.
Second, in the sutra's the words 'conditioned things' often refers to Sankhara, which is a term that largely refers to mental phenomena. To extend this to try and construct a doctrine which implies that the whole physical world is suffering is an error in conception.
Without clinging there can be no suffering, and clinging is a property of mental formations. I would say that Thich Nhat Hanh may well be right. Others are likely better placed to comment on Zen beliefs and practices regarding suffering.

user8157: Thich Nhat Hanh made an error because he was attempting to rationalize another error. If Thich Nhat Hanh actually understood the teachings, he would not state the teaching of 'samskara dukkhata' is false but instead, simply rectify the error in the interpretation of the teaching. 
The spirit of what Thich Nhat Hanh said is correct, namely, there is no inherent or pervasive suffering in the five aggregates & there is a state of bliss & freedom living beings can experience, which is called Nirvana. The teachings explain quite unambiguous that it is attachment (upadana) to the five aggregates that is suffering rather than the five aggregates themselves. 
As for the Three Characteristics, the 2nd characteristic is not 'suffering' but 'unsatisfactory'. The five aggregates are unsatisfactory (in that because of their impermanence they cannot bring lasting happiness) but the five aggregates are not 'suffering'. 
In short, the idea of all-pervasive suffering ("the suffering of composite things",samskara dukkhata) does not exist in the Pali suttas because the term 'samskara dukkhata' does not mean "the suffering of composite things" but means "the suffering of mental constructing".
Thich Nhat Hanh has correctly said that nirvana is the joy of completely extinguishing our ideas and concepts. However, Thich Nhat Hanh does not intellectually understand that the word 'samskara' has many meanings dependent on context and, in the context of the compound 'samskara dukkhata' means 'ideas and concepts'.   
Thus, using the language of Thich Nhat Hanh, the three kinds of dukkha are translated correctly as: "suffering about pain" (dukkha dukkhata); "suffering of ideas & concepts" (samskara dukkhata) and "suffering about change" (viparinama dukkhata).
Intellectually, Thich Nhat Hanh was wrong but spiritually Thich Nhat Hanh was correct. 

1046: <p>Thich Nhat Hanh seems to deny a major teaching on dukkha/suffering common to both Theravada and Tibetan teachings -- the idea of <em>all-perasive suffering</em> (&quot;the suffering of composite things&quot;,<em>samskara dukkhata</em>)-- found in many places in the Pali and Tibetan canons. Below are some excerpts. A link to the whole chapter is at the end.</p>
<p>I think his interpretation may well reflect a misunderstanding of all-pervasive suffering -- it does not deny joy; it simply says the only lasting happiness comes from addressing conditioned existence in general (or emptiness/shunyata and inherent/intrinsic existence in Mahayana terms); it cannot be found by only addressing worldly suffering directly.</p>
<p>Or maybe I am misunderstanding him. But he is pretty emphatic, even to the point of implying that the Pali Canon was corrupted to reflect this teaching before it got written down. He also suggests removing <em>dukkha</em> from the Three Dharma Seals/Marks, replacing it with <em>nirvana</em> (rather than just adding <em>nirvana</em> to make four seals, as is usually done)</p>
<p><strong>My questions -- does this reflect Zen teachings in general, or is it limited to Thich Nhat Hanh and/or some schools? If some Zen schools or teachers do teach all-pervasive suffering, can someone point me to references? I'd also be interested in other Zen teachings that reflect Thich Nhat Hanh's strong objection to the doctrine of all-pervasive suffering.</strong></p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<hr />
<p>The following quotes (with <strong>my emphasis</strong> added) are from <a href="http://triadic.com/misc/Thich%20Nhat%20Hanh%281998%29-Is%20Everything%20Suffering,%20Chapter%205,%20The%20Heart%20of%20the%20Buddha%27s%20Teaching.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Chapter Five, &quot;Is Everything Suffering?&quot;</a>, from <em>The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching</em>, by Thich Nhat Hanh,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Since the Buddha said that the First Noble Truth is suffering, many good
students of the Buddha have used their skills to prove that everything on
Earth is suffering. <strong>The theory of the Three Kinds of Suffering</strong> was
such an attempt. It <strong>is not a teaching of the Buddha</strong>.</p>
<p>The first kind of suffering is &quot;the suffering of suffering&quot; (dukkha
dukkhata), the suffering associated with unpleasant feelings, like the pain
of a toothache, losing your temper, or feeling too cold on a winter's day.
The second is &quot;the suffering of composite things&quot; (samskara dukkhata).
Whatever comes together eventually has to come apart; therefore, all
composite things are described as suffering. Even things that have not yet
decayed, such as mountains, rivers, and the sun, are seen to be suffering,
because they will decay and cause suffering eventually. When you believe that everything composed is suffering, how can you find joy? The third is &quot;the
suffering associated with change&quot;(viparinama dukkhata). Our liver may be in
good health today, but when we grow old, it will cause us to suffer. There is no point in celebrating joy, because sooner or later it will turn into
suffering. Suffering is a black cloud that envelops everything. Joy is an
illusion. Only suffering is real.</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>This dialogue is repeated in many sutras:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;Monks, are conditioned things permanent or impermanent?&quot;<br />
'They are impermanent, World-Honored One.&quot;<br />
&quot;If things are impermanent, are they suffering or well-being?&quot;<br />
&quot;They are suffering, World-Honored One.&quot;<br />
&quot;If things are suffering, can we say that they are self or belong to self?&quot;<br />
&quot;No, World-Honored One.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>By the time the Buddha's discourses were written down, seeing all things
as suffering must have been widely practiced,</strong> as the above quotation
occurs more frequently than the teaching to identify suffering and the path
to end suffering.</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>The theory of the Three Kinds of Suffering is an attempt to justify the
universalization of suffering. What joy is left in life? We find it in
nirvana. <strong>In several sutras the Buddha taught that nirvana, the joy of
completely extinguishing our ideas and concepts, rather than suffering, is
one of the Three Dharma Seals.</strong> This is stated four times in the Samyukta
Agama of the Northern transmission. Quoting from yet another sutra, Nagarjuna
listed nirvana as one of the Three Dharma Seals.  To me, it is much easier to
envision a state where there are no obstacles created by concepts than to see
all things as suffering. I hope scholars and practitioners will begin to
accept the teaching that all things are marked by impermanence, nonself, and
nirvana, and not make too great an effort to prove that everything is
suffering.</p>
</blockquote>
 295: <p>From the Theravada perspective.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Whatever is felt is included in suffering - <a href="http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/33.6-Rahogata-S-s36.11-piya.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Raho,gata Sutta</a> &amp; <a href="http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/4.16-Maha-Kamma-Vibhanga-S-m136-piya.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Maha Kamma,vibhaṅga Sutta</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Feeling are 3 types which are related to unsatisfactoriness (everything is not satisfactory or unpleasant):</p>

<ul>
<li>Pain is suffering on its own but pleasant when it changes (dukkha-dukkhatā) </li>
<li>Pleasure in itself is not suffering but leads to suffering since it changes and ends hence <code>Whatever is felt is included in suffering</code> (vipariṇāma-dukkhatā)</li>
<li>Neutral feeling are suffering as conditioned existence birth, old age and death is unsatisfactory (Sankhara-dukkha) {what is satisfactory is Nirvana which is not associated with any sensation} and also this can very well lead to the above two types of suffering. This is painful when unknown and pleasant when known.</li>
</ul>

<p>The main reason for our continued existance which opens us to future situation of suffering (birth, decay, mishaps and death) is craving towards pleasant feeling, aversion towards unpleasant and being ignorant of reality when experiencing neutral feelings. [<a href="http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/31.1-Pahana-S-s36.3-piya.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Pahāna Sutta</a>, <a href="http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/40a.9-Culavedalla-S-m44-piya.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Cūla Vedalla Sutta</a>, <a href="http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/16.9-Avijja-Pahana-S-2-s35.80-piya.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Avijja Pahana Sutta 2</a>]</p>

<p>Coming back to conditioned existance which associated with unsatisfactoriness of existance (Sankhara-dukkha) is suffering as you are not exempt from birth, aging and death. This is associated with ignorance. This can become a pleasure if known (eradicate ignorance) but painful when unknown (with ignorance). Conditioned existance is not unpleasant entirely but connected to it. [<a href="http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/40a.9-Culavedalla-S-m44-piya.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Cūla Vedalla Sutta</a>]</p>
 254: <p>"All-pervasive suffering" is one translation of <em>Sankhara-dukkha</em>. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha#Sankhara-dukkha_.28the_dukkha_of_conditioned_experience.29" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Here are several other translations</a>.</p>

<p>Does that analysis of dukkha comes from one sutta? <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn38/sn38.014.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dukkha Sutta (SN 38.14)</a> says,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>There are these three forms of stressfulness, my friend: the stressfulness of pain, the stressfulness of fabrication, the stressfulness of change. These are the three forms of stressfulness.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Instead of looking for a translation of <em>Sankhara-dukkha</em> and instead of translating it as "everything is suffering" or "life is suffering" or "all-pervasive suffering", it might be better to figure out what <em>sankhara</em> means.</p>

<hr>

<p>Note <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/9047/how-does-one-escape-suffering-when-they-cannot-provide-for-those-they-love#comment12615_9049">this series of comments</a>, where Ven. Yuttadhammo implies that "life is suffering" doesn't accurately quote what the Buddha said.</p>

<blockquote>
  <ul>
  <li><p>I don't know of any example where the Buddha actually said "life is suffering". – <em>yuttadhammo</em></p></li>
  <li><p>Do you know a better English-language paraphrase/summary/approximation of the First noble truth? – <em>ChrisW</em></p></li>
  <li><p>the first noble truth is simply "This is the truth of suffering." Nowhere in the enumeration of what is suffering does it refer to life. – <em>yuttadhammo</em></p></li>
  </ul>
</blockquote>

<hr>

<p>One more story, I read <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/8534/254">this</a> somewhere:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Thich Nhat Hanh said that, when he was seven years old, he saw a picture of the Buddha on the cover of a Buddhist magazine.</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>He was sitting on the grass ... very peaceful ... smiling. And I was impressed. Around me people were not like that, so I had the desire to be someone like him.</p>
  </blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>I take it that we're meant to understand that the Buddha himself found a way to escape 'suffering'.</p>

<hr>

<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Dharma_Seals" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia</a> says,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>As suffering is not an inherent aspect of existence[4] sometimes the second seal is omitted to make Three Dharma Seals.[5][6]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Those footnotes reference Thich Nhat Hanh, but also two other authors, Rulu and Hsing Yun (who I think are both Chinese).</p>
 8809: <p>My interpretation would be that all things are not suffering, for several reasons. </p>

<p>First of all, the first Noble Truth needs to be seen in context with the other Noble Truths - it says in life there is suffering, but also that there are causes and a path to the cessation of suffering. Most composite entities are not alive and so cannot follow the path. It stands to reason that most composite things follow a natural path to physical decomposition and recomposition, which doesn't necessarily include (mental) suffering.</p>

<p>Second, in the sutra's the words 'conditioned things' often refers to Sankhara, which is a term that largely refers to mental phenomena. To extend this to try and construct a doctrine which implies that the whole physical world is suffering is an error in conception.</p>

<p>Without clinging there can be no suffering, and clinging is a property of mental formations. I would say that Thich Nhat Hanh may well be right. Others are likely better placed to comment on Zen beliefs and practices regarding suffering.</p>
 8157: <p>Thich Nhat Hanh made an error because he was attempting to rationalize another error. If Thich Nhat Hanh actually understood the teachings, he would not state the teaching of 'samskara dukkhata' is false but instead, simply rectify the error in the interpretation of the teaching. </p>

<p>The spirit of what Thich Nhat Hanh said is correct, namely, there is no inherent or pervasive suffering in the five aggregates &amp; there is a state of bliss &amp; freedom living beings can experience, which is called Nirvana. The teachings explain quite unambiguous that it is <strong>attachment</strong> (<em>upadana</em>) to the five aggregates that is suffering rather than the five aggregates themselves. </p>

<p>As for the Three Characteristics, the 2nd characteristic is not 'suffering' but '<strong>unsatisfactory</strong>'. The five aggregates are unsatisfactory (in that because of their impermanence they cannot bring lasting happiness) but the five aggregates are not 'suffering'. </p>

<p>In short, the idea of <strong>all-pervasive suffering</strong> ("the suffering of composite things",samskara dukkhata) does not exist in the Pali suttas because the term 'samskara dukkhata' does not mean "the suffering of composite things" but means "the suffering of <strong>mental constructing</strong>".</p>

<p>Thich Nhat Hanh has correctly said that <strong>nirvana</strong> is the joy of completely extinguishing our ideas and concepts. However, Thich Nhat Hanh does not intellectually understand that the word 'samskara' has many meanings dependent on context and, in the context of the compound 'samskara dukkhata' means '<strong>ideas and concepts</strong>'.   </p>

<p>Thus, using the language of Thich Nhat Hanh, the three kinds of dukkha are translated correctly as: "suffering about pain" (dukkha dukkhata); "suffering of ideas &amp; concepts" (samskara dukkhata) and "suffering about change" (viparinama dukkhata).</p>

<p>Intellectually, Thich Nhat Hanh was wrong but spiritually Thich Nhat Hanh was correct. </p>
