The Four Ignoble Truths

Here's my humorous (and simplistic) notion of the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism:

1. Shit Happens
2. Someone/something is to blame
3. You can have an excuse
4. Just buy my book "The Eight Habits of Highly Enlightened™ People" by Sid Buddha, sold on Amazon

The Four Noble Truths

To give a little context, the real Four Noble Truths are often popularized like this:

1. Suffering does exist
2. Suffering arises from attachment to desires
3. Suffering ceases when attachment to desire ceases
4. Freedom from suffering is possible by practicing the eightfold path

However, the Sanskrit and Pali words satya and sacca, respectively, mean both "truth" and "real" or "actual thing." With that in mind, one could argue that the Four Noble Truths are not asserted in the way they just have been above, as propositional truths or creeds. Instead, they can be seen as "true things" or "realities" that the Buddha experienced.
In other words, the first version may be overstating it a bit (okay, a lot, really). Perhaps these Four Noble Truths are also capable of becoming calcified by human beings over time too. So, to tweak the modernized version a bit and make it a bit less doctrinal:

1. Suffering exists.
2. Suffering has an origin.
3. Suffering can end.
4. The Eightfold Path is one way to end it.

If the Buddha Was 'Merican

I read this one libertarian perspective (he called himself the Jeffersonian Critic) that put them like this (notice the additions from his clearly dismal POV):

1. Life is suffering.
2. All suffering is caused by ignorance.
3. Suffering can be ended by overcoming ignorance and attachment.
4. To suppress suffering Buddha recommended the Noble Eightfold Path, which consists of right views, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right-mindedness, and right contemplation.

This is a really Westernized view! And, in my opinion, very pessimistic. I'd say almost nihilistic and certainly cynical. Words matter, and the interpretation and injection of the words used here is what a lot of Westerners skeptical of Buddhism tend to think. Ultimately, it was the conclusion of this blogger that Buddhism was not as good as good old American Freedom™.
"Although dukkha is often translated as "suffering", its philosophical meaning is more analogous to "disquietude" as in the condition of being disturbed. As such, "suffering" is too narrow a translation with "negative emotional connotations", which can give the impression that the Buddhist view is one of pessimism. But Buddhism is neither pessimistic nor optimistic, but realistic. Thus in English-language Buddhist literature dukkha is often left untranslated, so as to encompass its full range of meaning." (Jeffrey Po)
“Eating, like all other conditioned experiences is deemed "unsatisfactory in and of itself".” Eventually, you will get hungry again. Eating is “not necessarily "suffering" as it's used in English.” In fact, eating is often quite a pleasure to the body because it satisfies hunger. But the act of eating itself is rather fruitless because you will eventually get hungry and have to eat again. “So "eating" is not worth grasping at (as self or grouped self) being impermanent, not self, and empty.”

If the Buddha Went to a Rave

Finally, I like this version I heard from electronic dance music:

1. All composite phenomena are impermanent.
2. All contaminated things and events are unsatisfactory
3. All composite phenomena are empty and selfless
4. Absence of contaminated things and events is True Peace

See? I'm not the only one with a sense of humor! ☺ While creative, it's actually not a bad characterization (although it lacks the ethical system on Number Four).

Gabriel Marcel

I read another article long ago where the writer analyzed the philosophy of a French existentialist playwright named Gabriel Marcel. I noted how much this summarized list seemed to have in common with the Four Noble Truths. How much of that is from the writer and how much from Mr. Marcel, I don't know. But it is an interesting summary which seems to have some interesting parallels.

1. I become aware of myself as a person only in relationship to others;
2. I must pop the bubble of the illusion that I am the center of the universe;
3. What makes me a person is not this illusion that I am the center of the universe, but rather, two things:
   1. first, I behave as one who assumes responsibility for his or her actions, and
   2. second, I believe in the existence of others and permit this belief to influence my conduct;
4. We were meant to be opposed to this illusion in full personhood—available.

Certainly not a one-to-one comparison, but I note that part of Marcel's aim is to understand the I-Thou relationship in terms of the illusion of self-centeredness. In Marcel's conclusion, I notice how the aim of becoming "available" in "full personhood" is very similar, if not identical, to the Buddhist concept of being "present in the moment". As the popular teacher of Engaged Buddhism, Thích Nhất Hạnh, likes to say: "I have arrived."
Holding Marcel's philosophy next to the Four Noble Truths does one thing that is either nonexistent or non-evident in the Buddhist statement. Just taking these four as the "gospel truth" of Buddhism can lead to a kind of selfishness. There's nothing about relationship in these four statements. One can become a very self-centered Buddhist and still be called a Buddhist. Now, a lot of modern teachers would eventually point out things like inter-relatedness and the "refuge" of the Sangha (community), but at this entry level alone, Buddhism could be narrowly considered ambivalent, at best, or even hostile, at worst, to relationship.

Ignoble?

Buddhism is perhaps the only major world religion today that has a capacity for transformative humor. It seems that anyone in a religion today engages in some kind of humor, it is aimed at a religion or philosophy they hate in order to make fun of it. Even atheists make a lot of fun of religion, but get very defensive when someone criticizes their scientism.
Humor, for some of the indigenous communities I know, use humor in a transformative manner. Often the use of "sacred clowns" or contrarian figures poke fun at certain people and concepts in power as a means to deflate their status of being put upon a pedestal.
Here, the title is like a sacred clown—outrageous and meant to grab your attention. But the aim of the clown isn't meant to "prove" that something is wrong. Instead, the cartoonish foolishness helps to highlight the essence of something or someone. What makes these truths mentioned in the first list above as "ignoble" isn't the core tenet of Buddhism, but rather the characterization of how a Western mind can take even those simple statements and turn them into something wrong.
Thus another interesting, paradoxical statement from Engaged Buddhism: "Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth."
Can you imagine a devout Christian priest or preacher saying that the words of Jesus aren't the gospel truth? Or an imam saying that Muhammad maybe didn't hear Allah right? Or an Orthodox rabbi that the Law of Moses is "meh...take it or leave it"? Or even a scientist saying "ignore the data"? (Okay, this last one happens a lot, especially when money, fame, or tenure is involved, but I hope you get my drift).
The Four Noble Truths become Ignoble when they are locked untouchable behind glass. They become ignoble when they are something you passively "believe" or "objectively know". When the I-Thou relationship is realized...when I realize that a concept like this is in relationship to myself and perhaps a projection of myself to the point where it becomes a sacred cow...I pop the bubble of illusion that It-Me is the center of the universe. I take responsibility for my own thawts and actions in relationship to All My Relations, and let it be what it is. I become present to All My Relations. Thus, I have arrived, and what was ignoble becomes Noble again.