按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
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 evolve 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。
they say； 〃you are right； the universe is a creation of sannyas。
you are right； brahman is the source of the universe。
you are right； the universe is made of atman。
〃 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 fall within their particular view。
in this whole affair neither the theist nor the atheist wins the argument； neither the materialist nor the spiritualist wins。
they cannot。
their statements are ing from a dichotomized view of life。
so there was a great dispute between these monks。
one maintained it is necessary to have money； while the other disagreed。
one evening； in a great hurry； they arrived at a river。
it was close to nightfall。
one of the monks approached the boatman； who was tying up his boat for the night； and said； 〃please dont tie your boat up yet； bring us across the river。
night is approaching and we must reach the other side。
〃
the boatman said； 〃sorry； i am finished for the day and now i have to go back to my village。
ill take you across in the morning。
〃
the monks said； 〃no； we cant 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 cant stay overnight。
〃
the boatman said； 〃okay； ill take you over for five rupees。
〃 the monk who had argued in favor 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 boatman …… 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 hadnt had the money。
〃
the second monk laughed uproariously。
he said； 〃we crossed the river not because you had money； but because you could part with it！ we were able to cross the river not because you had 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； thats 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。
the first monk also joined in the laughter。
they came to their guru。
they asked him； 〃what shall we do？ this has bee quite a problem。
what happened today illustrates our differences succinctly。
one of us believes we crossed the river because we had money on us； while the other says we were able to cross because we let money go。
we are firm in our beliefs； and we both seem to be right。
〃
the guru laughed a belly laugh。
he said； 〃you are both crazy。
you are mitting the same kind of foolishness mankind has done for ages。
〃
〃what is that foolishness？〃 the monks asked。
the guru said； 〃each one of you is looking at one side of the truth。
it is true you could hire the boat and cross the river only because you let go of money …… but the other side is equally true： you could part with your money because you had money to part with。
it is true； of course； that you were able to cross the river because you had money on you。
but the other part is equally true。
had you not had any money you wouldnt have been able to cross。
you crossed because you let go of money。
so both things are right。
there is no contradiction between them。
〃
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 argument in its support。
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 a small matter。
it is more than enough to argue for。
so nothing will be solved by arguing。
life will have to be investigated； known in its totality。
i certainly teach death； but that does not mean i am against life。
what it means is： death is the gateway to know life； to recognize life as well。
what it means is： i dont see life and death as contrary to each other。
whether i call it the art of dying or whether i call it the art of living …… both mean the same thing。
it depends on how we look at it。
you may ask； 〃why dont you call it the art of living？〃 there are reasons for it。
the first thing is； we have bee extremely attached to life。
and this attachment has bee very unbalanced。
i can call it the art of living too； but i wont； because you are too attached to life。
if i should say； 〃e learn the art of living；〃 you would e running because you would want to strengthen your attachment to life。
i call it the art of dying so you can regain your balance。
if you learn how to die； then life and death will stand before you equally； they will bee your left and right foot。
then you will attain to the ultimate life。
in its ultimate state life contains neither birth nor death； but it is made of the two aspects we call birth and death。
of course； if there is a town where people are suicidal； where no one wants to live； i wont go there and talk about the art of dying。
there i will say； 〃learn the art of living。
〃 and as i tell you； 〃meditation is the gateway to death；〃 i would tell the people of that town； 〃meditation is the gateway to life。
〃 i would tell them； 〃e； learn how to live； because unless you have learned how to live； you wont know how to die。
if you wish to die； then let me teach you how to live …… because once you have learned how to live you will have learned how to die as well。
〃 only then would the people