user1046: There's a wrinkle in the teachings about the three levels of suffering. The Pali Canon, in SN 38.14 -- Dukkha Sutta -- has it thus (leaving things uninterpreted for the moment):

the suffering of pain (dukkha-dukkhatā)
the suffering of fabrication (sankhāra-dukkhatā)
the suffering of change (vipariṇāma-dukkhatā)

The Tibetan teachings typically have it in the following order (Gampopa, Jewel Ornament of Liberation, Chapter 5, has the reverse):

the suffering of suffering -- overt, obviously painful stuff.
the suffering of change -- suffering implicit in pleasure because of impermanence, so it will end
all-pervasive suffering -- suffering due to conditioned existence itself, and the aggregates which are of the nature of suffering

The Tibetan teaching is widely interpreted as I have indicated (though a lot of the descriptions of all-pervasive suffering shade into the definition of suffering of change, which they shouldn't IMHO).
A lot of commentators (such as Guenther on Gampopa) see SN 38.14 as the source of the the Tibetan teaching, and the first items of each do seem to line up nicely, as do the suffering of change in both. But after that there are problems, mainly, why did the order change. 
Most pervasively, there is an interpretation (by contemporary teacher Bodhipaksa) of SN 38.14 where the two sufferings of change don't even totally line up, and maybe the whole correspondence is wrong and is more about the two-arrow teaching of SN 36.6 -- The Sallatha Sutta -- than levels of suffering, and referred to in this SE answer: that correct interpretation of SN 38.14 is roughly:

the suffering of pain (dukkha-dukkhatā) -- the initial pain -- the "first arrow"
the suffering of fabrication (sankhāra-dukkhatā) -- the constructed pain we add by resisting/resenting/etc the initial pain -- the "second arrow"
the suffering of change (vipariṇāma-dukkhatā) -- the suffering we get by seeking to cover the constructed pain with pleasure, which is impermanent.

The change in order, putting suffering of formations/conditioned existence in the middle, is the smoking gun, according to Bodhipaksa -- if the Tibetan interpretation of SN 38.14 were correct, then suffering of formations would absolutely have to come last.
So finally my question -- not which is "correct" but -- when did the Tibetan interpretation arise, if not an entirely new teaching, at least the change of order and interpretation of suffering of formations as universal, all-pervasive suffering rather than a personal, second-arrow kind of deal. Is is it in the Theravada anywhere?
The farthest back I can find it is Gampopa, whose Jewel Ornament of Liberation is (I believe) the first fully articulated, book-length Lam Rim text, after Atisha's Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment which is the origin of the Lam Rim, but only has 68 verses and does not go to this level of detail. Seems that those are close enough to the beginning of Buddhadharma in Tibet that the next stop back, if there is one, is probably India or maybe a Nyingma teaching.
Addendum -- Toni Bernhard, Author of How to be Sick and other books, explicates the non-Tibetan, Bodhipaksa version of three sufferings.
Addendum -- There is another sutta with the same sequence as SN 38.14, namely SN 45.165 -- The Dukkhata Sutta. Well known contemporary scholar, translator and practitioner Maurice Walshe has this translation and interpretation of SN 45.165 that accords with the Tibetan reading, despite the sequence.

user1046: Gethin, Foundations of Buddhism, footnote 4 on p. 282, lists these sources.

Visuddhimagga xvi. 34-5; Digha Nikaya iii. 216; Samyutta Nikaya iv. 259, v. 56; Nettippakarana 12.

The Visuddhimagga has them in the Tibetan order, but leaves me a little confused by 

Equanimous feeling and the remaining formations of
  the three planes are called suffering due to formations because they
  are oppressed by rise and fall.

That sounds to me like impermanence, and "rise and fall" does seem to have that meaning in the Visuddhimagga. Here it is in full -- Visuddhimagga XVI:


Its characteristic is the first genesis in any [sphere of] becoming. Its function is to consign [to a sphere of becoming]. It is
  manifested as an emerging here from a past becoming; or it is
  manifested as the variedness of suffering.
But why is it suffering? Because it is the basis for many kinds of
  suffering. For there are many kinds of suffering, that is to say,
  intrinsic suffering dukkha-dukkha), suffering in change
  (vipariṇāma-dukkha), and suffering due to formations
  (sankhāra-dukkha); and then concealed suffering, exposed suffering,
  indirect suffering, and direct suffering.
Herein, bodily and mental, painful feeling are called intrinsic suffering because of their individual essence, their name, and their
  painfulness. [Bodily and mental] pleasant feeling are called suffering
  in change because they are a cause for the arising of pain when they
  change (M I 303). Equanimous feeling and the remaining formations of
  the three planes are called suffering due to formations because they
  are oppressed by rise and fall. Such bodily and mental affliction as
  earache, toothache, fever born of lust, fever born of hate, etc., is
  called concealed suffering because it can only be known by questioning
  and because the infliction is not openly evident; it is also called
  “unevident suffering.” The affliction produced by the thirty-two
  tortures,10 etc., is called exposed suffering because it can be known
  without questioning and because the infliction is openly evident; it
  is also called “evident suffering.” Except intrinsic suffering, all
  given in the exposition of the truth of suffering [in the Vibhaòga]
  (Vibh 99) beginning


In looking for the Nettippakarana I found it described as:

an extra-canonical Buddhist scripture, ascribed to the Buddha's disciple 
  Kaccana.  It intends to be a manual for commentators on the Buddhist scriptures.

There is a Pali Text Society translation by Bikkhu Kanamoli, but it's not worth my time at this point to find my way around it. I am satisfied that the Tibetan interpretation does have Theravada branches, at least in the ordering. This may be hard to settle definitively.
Also, I can venture a personal interpretation like this -- it's the same dynamic at two levels. The two-arrow reading is an analysis of dukkha operating personally; the Tibetan (and now maybe Buddhaghosa) reading is more at the collective/universal level.

user43: The words in SN 38.14 are not even attributed to Buddha, they are Sariputra's. I don't know why Theravada took them as the basis of their analysis.
Instead, the authoritative definition of dukkha is found in SN 56.11, the first and main sutra of Buddhism, The Sutra of Setting the Wheel of Dharma in Motion:

Now this, wanderers, is the nobles' truth of dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair are dukkha; association with the unloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; unsatisfied thirst is dukkha. In short, the five heaps of fuel (upadana-skandha) are dukkha.

As I understand, in Tibetan classification "the suffering of suffering" is a generalization of the apparent dukkha such as the pains of "birth, aging, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair". "The suffering of change" is a generalization of "association with the unloved / separation from the loved" aka "the unsatisfied thirst", and "the all-pervasive suffering" stands for the "In short, the five heaps of fuel are dukkha". The sequence preserves the ordering of the original Buddha's quote.

1046: <p>There's a wrinkle in the teachings about the three levels of suffering. The Pali Canon, in <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn38/sn38.014.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 38.14</a> -- Dukkha Sutta -- has it thus (leaving things uninterpreted for the moment):</p>

<ul>
<li>the suffering of pain (<em>dukkha-dukkhatā</em>)</li>
<li>the suffering of fabrication (<em>sankhāra-dukkhatā</em>)</li>
<li>the suffering of change (<em>vipariṇāma-dukkhatā</em>)</li>
</ul>

<p>The Tibetan teachings typically have it in the following order (Gampopa, <em>Jewel Ornament of Liberation, Chapter 5</em>, has the reverse):</p>

<ul>
<li>the suffering of suffering -- overt, obviously painful stuff.</li>
<li>the suffering of change -- suffering implicit in pleasure because of impermanence, so it will end</li>
<li>all-pervasive suffering -- suffering due to conditioned existence itself, and the aggregates which are of the nature of suffering</li>
</ul>

<p>The Tibetan teaching is widely interpreted as I have indicated (though a lot of the descriptions of all-pervasive suffering shade into the definition of suffering of change, which they shouldn't IMHO).</p>

<p>A lot of commentators (such as Guenther on Gampopa) see SN 38.14 as the source of the the Tibetan teaching, and the first items of each do seem to line up nicely, as do the suffering of change in both. But after that there are problems, mainly, why did the order change. </p>

<p>Most pervasively, there is an <a href="http://www.wildmind.org/blogs/on-practice/three-forms-of-suffering" rel="nofollow noreferrer">interpretation</a> (by contemporary teacher Bodhipaksa) of SN 38.14 where the two sufferings of change don't even totally line up, and maybe the whole correspondence is wrong and is more about the two-arrow teaching of <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 36.6</a> -- The Sallatha Sutta -- than levels of suffering, and referred to in <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/13836/1046">this</a> SE answer: that correct interpretation of SN 38.14 is roughly:</p>

<ul>
<li>the suffering of pain (<em>dukkha-dukkhatā</em>) -- the initial pain -- the "first arrow"</li>
<li>the suffering of fabrication (<em>sankhāra-dukkhatā</em>) -- the constructed pain we add by resisting/resenting/etc the initial pain -- the "second arrow"</li>
<li>the suffering of change (<em>vipariṇāma-dukkhatā</em>) -- the suffering we get by seeking to cover the constructed pain with pleasure, which is impermanent.</li>
</ul>

<p>The change in order, putting suffering of formations/conditioned existence in the middle, is the smoking gun, according to Bodhipaksa -- if the Tibetan interpretation of SN 38.14 were correct, then suffering of formations would absolutely have to come last.</p>

<p><strong>So finally my question -- not which is "correct" but -- when did the Tibetan interpretation arise, if not an entirely new teaching, at least the change of order and interpretation of suffering of formations as universal, all-pervasive suffering rather than a personal, second-arrow kind of deal. Is is it in the Theravada anywhere?</strong></p>

<p>The farthest back I can find it is Gampopa, whose <em>Jewel Ornament of Liberation</em> is (I believe) the first fully articulated, book-length <em>Lam Rim</em> text, after Atisha's <em>Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment</em> which is the origin of the <em>Lam Rim</em>, but only has 68 verses and does not go to this level of detail. Seems that those are close enough to the beginning of Buddhadharma in Tibet that the next stop back, if there is one, is probably India or maybe a Nyingma teaching.</p>

<p>Addendum -- Toni Bernhard, Author of <em>How to be Sick</em> and other books, <a href="http://www.lionsroar.com/deep-dukkha-part-2-the-three-kinds-of-suffering/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">explicates</a> the non-Tibetan, Bodhipaksa version of three sufferings.</p>

<p>Addendum -- There is another sutta with the same sequence as SN 38.14, namely SN 45.165 -- The Dukkhata Sutta. Well known contemporary scholar, translator and practitioner <a href="http://www.fsnewsletter.amaravati.org/html/45/walshe.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Maurice Walshe</a> has <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.165.wlsh.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this translation</a> and interpretation of SN 45.165 that accords with the Tibetan reading, despite the sequence.</p>
 1046: <p>Gethin, <em>Foundations of Buddhism</em>, footnote 4 on p. 282, lists these sources.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Visuddhimagga xvi. 34-5; Digha Nikaya iii. 216; Samyutta Nikaya iv. 259, v. 56; Nettippakarana 12.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Visuddhimagga has them in the Tibetan order, but leaves me a little confused by </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Equanimous feeling and the remaining formations of
  the three planes are called suffering due to formations because they
  are oppressed by rise and fall.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That sounds to me like impermanence, and "rise and fall" does seem to have that meaning in the Visuddhimagga. Here it is in full -- Visuddhimagga XVI:</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="34">
  <li><p>Its characteristic is the first genesis in any [sphere of] becoming. Its function is to consign [to a sphere of becoming]. It is
  manifested as an emerging here from a past becoming; or it is
  manifested as the variedness of suffering.</p>
  
  <p>But why is it suffering? Because it is the basis for many kinds of
  suffering. For there are many kinds of suffering, that is to say,
  intrinsic suffering dukkha-dukkha), suffering in change
  (vipariṇāma-dukkha), and suffering due to formations
  (sankhāra-dukkha); and then concealed suffering, exposed suffering,
  indirect suffering, and direct suffering.</p></li>
  <li><p>Herein, bodily and mental, painful feeling are called intrinsic suffering because of their individual essence, their name, and their
  painfulness. [Bodily and mental] pleasant feeling are called suffering
  in change because they are a cause for the arising of pain when they
  change (M I 303). Equanimous feeling and the remaining formations of
  the three planes are called suffering due to formations because they
  are oppressed by rise and fall. Such bodily and mental affliction as
  earache, toothache, fever born of lust, fever born of hate, etc., is
  called concealed suffering because it can only be known by questioning
  and because the infliction is not openly evident; it is also called
  “unevident suffering.” The affliction produced by the thirty-two
  tortures,10 etc., is called exposed suffering because it can be known
  without questioning and because the infliction is openly evident; it
  is also called “evident suffering.” Except intrinsic suffering, all
  given in the exposition of the truth of suffering [in the Vibhaòga]
  (Vibh 99) beginning</p></li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>In looking for the Nettippakarana I found it described as:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>an extra-canonical Buddhist scripture, ascribed to the Buddha's disciple 
  Kaccana.  It intends to be a manual for commentators on the Buddhist scriptures.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There is a Pali Text Society translation by Bikkhu Kanamoli, but it's not worth my time at this point to find my way around it. I am satisfied that the Tibetan interpretation does have Theravada branches, at least in the ordering. This may be hard to settle definitively.</p>

<p>Also, I can venture a personal interpretation like this -- it's the same dynamic at two levels. The two-arrow reading is an analysis of <em>dukkha</em> operating personally; the Tibetan (and now maybe Buddhaghosa) reading is more at the collective/universal level.</p>
 43: <p>The words in SN 38.14 are not even attributed to Buddha, they are Sariputra's. I don't know why Theravada took them as the basis of their analysis.</p>

<p>Instead, the authoritative definition of dukkha is found in SN 56.11, the first and main sutra of Buddhism, The Sutra of Setting the Wheel of Dharma in Motion:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Now this, wanderers, is the nobles' truth of dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair are dukkha; association with the unloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; unsatisfied thirst is dukkha. In short, the five heaps of fuel (upadana-skandha) are dukkha.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>As I understand, in Tibetan classification "the suffering of suffering" is a generalization of the apparent dukkha such as the pains of "birth, aging, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair". "The suffering of change" is a generalization of "association with the unloved / separation from the loved" aka "the unsatisfied thirst", and "the all-pervasive suffering" stands for the "In short, the five heaps of fuel are dukkha". The sequence preserves the ordering of the original Buddha's quote.</p>
