said, quot;Okay, Ill take you over for five rupees.
quot; t t; do you t; t laughing.
to tman -- he had won.
After reac; do you say, my friend? e he money.
quot;
the second monk laughed uproariously.
;e crossed t because you because you could part ! e o cross t because you because you could let go of it.
quot; So t remained.
tinued, quot;I al o let go of money.
e could give it up; ts whe river.
If you o it, if you let it go, ;
So the problem remained.
t monk also joined in ter.
to their guru.
t; se a problem.
oday illustrates our differences succinctly.
One of us believes o cross because money go.
e are firm in our beliefs, and o be right.
quot;
the guru laughed a belly laugh.
;You are both crazy.
You are committing the same kind of foolishness mankind has done for ages.
quot;
quot; is t foolis; the monks asked.
t;Eac one side of truth.
It is true you could and cross t go of money -- but true: you could part o part h.
It is true, of course, t you o cross the river because you had money on you.
But t is equally true.
o cross.
You crossed because you let go of money.
So bot.
tradiction bethem.
quot;
But we ed sucomies in all levels of our lives.
And a belief in eits can provide a convincing argument in its support.
It is not difficult, because after all, a man least o dra a small matter.
It is more to argue for.
So nothing will be solved by arguing.
Life igated, knos totality.
I certainly teac t does not mean I am against life.
it means is: deateo knoo recognize life as well.
it means is: I dont see life and deatrary to eacher.
t of dying or of living -- bothing.
It depends on it.
You may ask, quot; you call it t of living?quot; t.
t tremely attaco l