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.