Daniel Brown, on p. 6 of Pointing Out the Great Way, says this (emphasis added)...
The Pali word typically translated as “suffering” is dukkha, which could also be rendered as “reactivity.” For, as we experience events unfolding in our stream of consciousness moment-by-moment, the ordinary mind reacts based on ingrained habits. If the event is experienced as pleasant, the mind habitually gravitates toward the event. If it is experienced as unpleasant, the mind pushes it away. In Buddhism these automatic reactive tendencies are referred to as clinging and aversion, and lapses in the continuity of awareness are called nonawareness, or ignorance. Together these “three poisons” mark every moment of ordinary experience. They are habitual. They obscure the mind’s natural condition from us and in so doing become the fundamental cause of everyday unhappiness. In other words, Buddhism defines everyday unhappiness in terms of a habitual dysfunction in the way we process our experience. Seen in this way, it can be identified and corrected, and the root of everyday unhappiness can be eradicated.
My question: Is there a linguistic or philological basis for translating "dukkha" as "reactivity"?
Or is Brown being a bit loose here, reflecting the dynamic that he explains -- reactivity underlies dukkha.