[Gem]

Nicely said, Pixie. I like rewording the 4NTs, and instead of saying 'there is suffering' as abstract knowledge, saying 'this is suffering' as acknowledgement of the immediate, subjective apprehension.

I think the thread is very interesting, 'desire'. I have no idea what 'innate desire' is, but can maybe break things down in a way that semantically differentiates 'desire' (tanha) from 'suffering' (dukkha).

The Western concept considers aversion and desire to be two different things, but the Eastern concept sees aversion as the desire for something not to be. Aversion (Pali: dosa) is also tanha. They coexist like two sides of the same coin. We use 'tanha' for want or lust and 'dosa' for what we don't want or hate. 'Craving' pertains to both what we want and don't want because, semantics aside, these are inseparable. Hence, we attribute the cause of suffering to aversion-and-desire, or 'craving'.

This contradicts another section which says 'pain is suffering' in that pain is a physical sensation whereas craving, and therefore dukkha, is psychological, but it has been explained that even the heights of pleasant feelings will not be satisfactory, so although 'dukkha' still pertains to the physical pain (or pleasure) in a more abstract way, suffering is completely psychological, especially considering its fundamental origin: ignorance.

In the meditation there can be pain but no suffering because you don't mind and have no aversion toward it (or desire for some other kind of feeling). In this sense pain is not suffering, except to say that no sensation of any kind can be satisfactory.