Two monks were involved in an ongoing dispute. One believe that it is good to have some money on you, that it can be useful in emergencies. His friend, other monk, used to argue, "Why do we need money? we are renunciate, what do we need money for? Only worldly people keep money. " Both used to put forward arguments in support of their respective views, and it seem like their arguments were correct.
The great mystery of this universe is that you can present any equal number of arguments in support of any of the opposing bricks used in its creation, and the dispute can never end because both bricks are used equally. Anyone can point out, " Look, the universe is created of my bricks," while someone else can argue against this, saying, " No, the universe is made of my bricks. "
And life is so vast that very few people evolved enough to see that the whole doorway is made of opposing bricks. The rest merely see the bricks that fall within the range of their view. The say, " You are right, the universe is a creation of Sanyaas. You are right,
Brahama is the source of the universe. You are right, the universe is made of
Atma." Other people say, " The universe is made of matter, it is made of nothing but dust. Everything will eventually turn into dust - 'dust unto Dust' " these people can also show only the bricks that falls within their particular view. In this whole affair neither the theist nor the atheist wins the argument, neither the materialistic nor spiritualist wins. They cannot. Their statements are coming from dichotomised view of life.
So there was a great dispute between these monks. One maintained it is necessary to have money while other disagreed. One evening, in a great hurry, they arrived at a river. It was close to night fall. One of the monks approached the boat man, who was tying up his boat for the night, and said, " please don't tie your boat up yet, bring us across the river. Night is approaching and we must reach to the other side."
The boat man said, " Sorry, I am finished for the day and now I have to go back to my village. I will take you across in the morning."
The monk said, " No, we can't wait until morning. Our guru, with whom we lived, who taught us what life is all about, is close to dying. The news is, he will be dead by morning. He has summoned us. We can't stay overnight."
The boat man said,"Ok", I will take you over for five rupees." The monk you argued in favour of carrying money laughed and, looking at the other monk, said, " what do you think my friend ? is carrying money worthless or meaningful?" the other monk simply kept laughing the monk paid five rupees to the boat man - he had won. After reaching the other shore, the monk said again, " What do you say, my friend? we would have been unable to cross the river if we hadn't had the money."
The second monk laughed uproariously. He said, " We crossed the river not because you had the money, but because you could part with it! we were able to cross the river not because you had the money but because you could let go of it. " So the argument remained. the second monk continued, "I always said a monk must have the courage to let go of money. we could give it up that is why we could cross the river. If you had kept holding on to it, if you had not let it go, how could we have crossed the river?"
So the problem remained among the monks. The same problem is with the mankind too for ages. There is no contradiction between both the monks. But we have created such dichotomies in all levels of our lives and a belief in either of the two parts can provide a convincing supporting argument. It is not difficult because, after all, a man has at least half of life to draw upon- he is living half his life, thats not the small matter. It is more than enough to argue for. Arguing will resolve nothing. Life will have to be investigated, known in its totality.
