user-1: I have an intuitive agreement with the idea that impermanence does mean that everything either is or ends in suffering.
But I am not sure it makes rational sense.
Can anyone explain the arguments for and against this characterization of dukkha?
E.g. perhaps something has innate value, is its own end, but only relative to some time and place, such that we are not separated from the value of it when it passes. Surely, one might cliam, that would mean it is not dukkha.

user7311: After you eat the sandwich you will be hungry again.
After years of enjoying a loved ones company they or you will die.
After paying your electric bill you will have to do it again next month.
After having good physical health for several years you will get heart disease or cancer.
After buying your new car it will eventually need a new transmission and you will have to buy anothet car.
After a major promotion at work you will eventually become to old to work and you will retire.
After enjoying a sunset, it will become dark outside.
It is all impermanent.  

user-1: There is a convolution of meanings for dukkha which depends on context. One translation for dukkha is "unsatisfactoriness". 
Of course, it is not stated there is no feeling of satisfaction or pleasure born of impermanent things, as that would be absurd. I just ate a big sandwich and I can tell you I don't feel hungry, I feel satisfied with respect to hunger. I also would be lying if I said it was a painful experience.
In the introduction of the Majjhima Nikāya translation, Bhikkhu Bodhi writes:

The unsatisfactoriness of the conditioned is due to impermanence, its vulnerability to pain and its inability to provide complete and lasting satisfaction.

So, one may find satisfaction on conditioned things. But that satisfaction is doomed to be  be partial and/or temporary. Therefore, it is not satisfactory in its greatest sense; it's, thus, dukkha.

-1: <p>I have an intuitive agreement with the idea that impermanence does mean that everything either is or ends in suffering.</p>

<p>But I am not sure it makes rational sense.</p>

<p>Can anyone explain the arguments for and against this characterization of dukkha?</p>

<p>E.g. perhaps something has innate value, is its own end, but only relative to some time and place, such that we are not separated from the value of it when it passes. Surely, one might cliam, that would mean it is not dukkha.</p>
 7311: <p>After you eat the sandwich you will be hungry again.</p>

<p>After years of enjoying a loved ones company they or you will die.</p>

<p>After paying your electric bill you will have to do it again next month.</p>

<p>After having good physical health for several years you will get heart disease or cancer.</p>

<p>After buying your new car it will eventually need a new transmission and you will have to buy anothet car.</p>

<p>After a major promotion at work you will eventually become to old to work and you will retire.</p>

<p>After enjoying a sunset, it will become dark outside.</p>

<p>It is all impermanent.  </p>
 -1: <p>There is a convolution of meanings for <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca1/dukkha.html" rel="noreferrer">dukkha</a> which depends on context. One translation for dukkha is "unsatisfactoriness". </p>

<p>Of course, it is not stated there is no feeling of satisfaction or pleasure born of impermanent things, as that would be absurd. I just ate a big sandwich and I can tell you I don't feel hungry, I feel satisfied with respect to hunger. I also would be lying if I said it was a painful experience.</p>

<p>In the introduction of the Majjhima Nikāya translation, Bhikkhu Bodhi writes:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The unsatisfactoriness of the conditioned is due to impermanence, its vulnerability to pain and its inability to provide complete and lasting satisfaction.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So, one may find satisfaction on conditioned things. But that satisfaction is doomed to be  be partial and/or temporary. Therefore, it is not satisfactory in its greatest sense; it's, thus, dukkha.</p>
