Arahat and dukkha

[RobertK]

@zerotime

. There is no possibility of dukkha without the clinging to an existing -self to sustain dukkha. We can name that TV image “dukkha” but this is just the sustaining of a concept, this is not the description of a reality with dukkha.

The three marks (characteristics), tilakkhana only apply to actual dhammas, realities. Concepts like TV or self are not included.

@zerotime

Dukkha is not a dhamma

Right, the three marks, anicca, dukkha and anatta are characteristics of dhammas, the nature of dhammas, not dhammas themselves:

Vism XXI note 4.“These modes, [that is, the three characteristics,] are not included in the aggregates because they are states without individual essence (asabháva-dhammá); and they are not separate from the aggregates because they are unapprehendable without the aggregates. But they should be understood as appropriate conceptual differences (paññatti-visesá) that are reason for differentiation in the explaining of dangers in the five aggregates, and which are allowable by common usage in respect of the five aggregates” (Vism-mhþ 825).