What I THINK the Buddha Said

Note: Before reading this, please note the title. I am offering my interpretation of what the Buddha said. I do this from my experiences and view of life, and think it is the most useful one to me personally. I put it my interpretations bluntly, but it is not meant to offend, rather to provide a contrast to the language usually used and thereby provide insight. In short, no offence, mate.



I am asked from time to time about the Four Noble Truths that the Buddha discovered in his experience of enlightenment. Most Buddhists today would rank this one of the fundamental tenets of their religion. I talk about it here because I think it has value for everyone, regardless of religion or path.

So, to quote Wikipedia:

Truth Numero Uno: The Nature of Suffering (Dukkha): "Now this ... is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering."^[8]
My interpretation: Life sucks.

That's it. The experience of suffering is very closely bound up with life. The very act of traversing life will bring up the potential for the experience of suffering. Why? Because life's intrinsic nature is cyclical. It has ups and downs. "Good" things happen and "bad" things happen. Simple as that.

Truth Number Two:
Suffering's Origin (Samudaya): "Now this ... is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination."^[8]

My interpretation: Life sucks because you want things.

The second truth is actually remarkably profound. It points out that it is not the intrinsic nature of existence which creates suffering. Rather, it is the emotional push-pull of want that creates pain. When reality exceeds our wildest dreams, we experience joy. When reality falls below our hopes, we experience suffering. It's rather silly, but there we are.

The proposition is actually obvious once you think about it: It's not life that is out to get you. You get yourself by setting desires and expectations one way or the other. Hence the saying, "Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional."

Truth Number Three:
Suffering's Cessation (Nirodha): "Now this ... is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it."^[8]

My interpretation: So stop wanting things. Then life won't suck anymore.

This is where it gets tricky. To stop wanting things is different from stopping to have goals and causes. It simply is an exhortation to free yourself of the chains of want. At no point was it said that you have to stop moving towards an end, or to stop choosing to create ends. I somehow doubt Buddha wanted us to become rocks, not even bothering to move or eat. A more likely interpretation is: You can have a destination, but enjoy the journey and quit going on those ego trips.

Truth Number Four:
The Way (Mārga) Leading to the Cessation of Suffering: "Now this ... is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: it is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration."^[9][10]

My interpretation: Deal with it.

I actually think Buddha pulled a quick one here. No kidding. I know he gave the path as the Noble Eightfold Path, but I have yet to see a clear exposition of what the right view, right intention, etc actually are. My own experience is that what is "right" changes as you advance through different life experiences. Thus, someone on the Hinayana (Lesser Vehicle) path would act in one way. The Mahayanist (practitioner of the Mahayana/Greater Vehicle path) would act in another. The Vajrayana/Tantrayana (Diamond Vehicle) path practitioner might do something totally different. Interestingly enough, each is likely to tell the other they've gotten it wrong.

So how do we deal with it? Hey, if Buddha saw fit to fudge that one, I'm not going to contradict him! (Actually, it's because I'd launch into a lecture, and we don't want that...)

PostScript: After I wrote this piece, I found this on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXmdKWVirUA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoMJ2B3v1iU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3t0uMdPT6g&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTs6HnSqHmo&feature=related
The Dalai Lama on the subject of the Four Noble Truths. If anyone is qualified to speak on the subject, he is.

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche's Words...My Interpretation

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche was one of the leading figures of Tibetan Buddhism in the West. His many exploits can be reviewed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%B6gyam_Trungpa

His education at Oxford University must have been up to the usual mark, for his lucid accounts of what can be a religion shrouded in mystery are well known. The controversies he embroiled himself in suggest the acts of a Tibetan heyoka, a contrarian who by his very nature and behaviour forced those about him to examine their beliefs and perspectives.

His book "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism" touches on a subject that was certainly close to his heart. Excerpts of this volume are available here. Quoting from his book:

"Walking the spiritual path properly is a very subtle process; it is not
something to jump into naively.  there are numerous sidetracks which
lead to a distorted, ego-centered version of spirituality; we can
deceive ourselves into thinking we are developing spiritually when
instead we are strengthening our egocentricity through spiritual
techniques.  This fundamental distortion may be referred to as
spiritual materialism."

This doyen of spirituality goes on to define spirituality:

"According to the Buddhist tradition, the spiritual path is
the process of cutting through our confusion, of uncovering the
awakened state of mind."

The basis of the message, as I view it, is of not being fooled by ourselves. Disregarding the religion and tradition, the heart of the message is an important one. The pursuit of spirituality is an aim of many, but the attainment of but a few. Part of the reason, one suspects, is that the typical follower gets embroiled in the trappings of a given path and forgets to ask the simple question: What's this all about?

The answer varies (apparently) from path to path:

Enlightenment
Mastery
To be saved
Freedom from suffering
To be one with the universe
The middle way
To unlock the secrets of life
All of the above
All of the above and more

There is a certain glint of Hollywood glamour in each phrase. But what is enlightenment? What does it mean to be saved? Quite a few People-Who-Had-A-Clue had followings. (Of course, so did quite a few People-Who-Saw-An-Opportunity-To-Make-A-Quick-Buck with God, a credible partner who doesn't take a cut. Yes, I confess, I watch Frasier.)

My own experiences suggest that this "thing" which we consider the Ultimate Goal is quite a different beast from popular imagination. Trungpa says it is ending the confusion to get the awakened state of mind. In fact, this is not too different from what Hui-Neng, the Sixth Patriarch of Buddhism said in the verse that got him that particular position (read all about it in the link):

Bodhi is no tree,

nor is the mind a standing mirror bright.

Since all is originally empty,

where does the dust alight?

So, there is no "getting", no grasping at something which isn't there. Rather, it is becoming awakened to what already is within. Continuing our interview with Trungpa:

"When the awakened state of mind is crowded
in by ego and its attendant paranoia, it takes on the character of
an underlying instinct.  So it is not a matter of building up the
awakened state of mind, but rather of burning out the confusions
which obstruct it.  In the process of burning out these confusions,
we discover enlightenment."

So enlightenment is basically uncovering the bright mirror that already exists. It is cutting through to find a basic sense of sanity in this apparently mad world of ours. Nothing more becoming aware of what is already there. If the mirror is bright, then what we have discovered is unchangeable nature, or unconditioned awareness. Ironically, Lao Zi, founder of Taoism, seems to agree. To quote from the Tao Te Ching, the key text of that lineage:

The Tao that can be Taoed is not the Tao. There have been numerous expositions of that profound sentence, but in this context, it becomes clear. By its very nature, that which is true nature has nothing (hence the term "emptiness") and everything. To point to any one thing to say that it is "Tao" excludes something else, whereas everything is included.

Thus, in the path of seeking Truth, whatever that is, it seems that the Masters of each tradition have all hinted that there is a process of losing, not of gaining. The Bible tells us what is lost through the beloved Beatitude:

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Matthew 5:5

It seems to be pride. Pride as in loss of ego. Ego is not the condemned thing that it is usually made out to be, but rather it is an interlocking of consciousness that prevents us from seeing past the ends of our own noses.

Jesus tells us, again, that in discovering heaven, there is this fundamental price. Yet, it is not a penalty, I don't think, but simply the throwing of the sandbags over the side of the hot air balloon so that it may rise higher.


Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get into the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24