user-1: How do Buddhists account for unhappiness without negative vedana? Is there no way to do so except future feeling (and so moral agency) and enlightenment?
e.g. while there's a lot of things I want to change, there's nothing much I would say I'm "unhappy about" in addition to that: does that latter claim mean anything more than feeling?
What about unhappy relationships, groups and ideologies, are they just vedana and enlightenment?

user43: Dukkha is a mismatch or a conflict between expectation and reality.
If you have such conflict, it means you have dukkha, and you are not happy.
Normally, people always have this conflict but oftentimes they just don't see it. When they don't see it - there's no vedana, no experience of pain, but the splinter is there in the heart and it makes one restless.
Enlightened Buddha does not have a conflict between reality and expectation. He sees things as they are (yatabhuta). He sees problems as problems, understanding why it is this way and not expecting it to be otherwise at this point. It is as it is. Therefore we don't call this "happiness", we call it "suchness".
When Buddha acts, the action is the best possible response to the situation, to maximize the good for everyone. Buddha does not act out of frustration or because he wishes things to be different. He acts a certain way just because acting another way would be suboptimal, that's it.
For example, Buddha does not have a desire to teach or to improve people because he is unhappy with how they are. Instead, he meets people coming at him and responds in the best possible way. In Chinese Buddhism this is called no-action, wu-wei. It is no-action because it is not based on a desire, it's just a response.
To summarize, an unenlightened person acts because he wants things to be different, because his world does not match his expectations, therefore he wants to improve it. While Buddha works with things as they are, with full understanding of why they are this way, not wishing things to be otherwise but simply responding in the best possible way.

-1: <p>How do Buddhists account for unhappiness without negative vedana? Is there no way to do so except future feeling (and so moral agency) and enlightenment?</p>
<p>e.g. while there's a lot of things I want to change, there's nothing much I would say I'm &quot;unhappy about&quot; in addition to that: does that latter claim mean anything more than feeling?</p>
<p>What about unhappy relationships, groups and ideologies, are they just vedana and enlightenment?</p>
 43: <p>Dukkha is a mismatch or a conflict between expectation and reality.</p>
<p>If you have such conflict, it means you have dukkha, and you are not happy.</p>
<p>Normally, people always have this conflict but oftentimes they just don't see it. When they don't see it - there's no vedana, no experience of pain, but the splinter is there in the heart and it makes one restless.</p>
<p>Enlightened Buddha does not have a conflict between reality and expectation. He sees things as they are (yatabhuta). He sees problems as problems, understanding why it is this way and not expecting it to be otherwise at this point. It is as it is. Therefore we don't call this &quot;happiness&quot;, we call it &quot;suchness&quot;.</p>
<p>When Buddha acts, the action is the best possible response to the situation, to maximize the good for everyone. Buddha does not act out of frustration or because he wishes things to be different. He acts a certain way just because acting another way would be suboptimal, that's it.</p>
<p>For example, Buddha does not have a desire to teach or to improve people because he is unhappy with how they are. Instead, he meets people coming at him and responds in the best possible way. In Chinese Buddhism this is called no-action, wu-wei. It is no-action because it is not based on a desire, it's just a response.</p>
<p>To summarize, an unenlightened person acts because he wants things to be different, because his world does not match his expectations, therefore he wants to improve it. While Buddha works with things as they are, with full understanding of why they are this way, not wishing things to be otherwise but simply responding in the best possible way.</p>
