Two monks were walking back to their temple after heavy rain. They had taken the same vows on the same morning, years earlier, and among those vows was one forbidding them to touch a woman.
They came to a crossing where the road ran through a river, and the river was high and brown and moving fast. A young woman in fine clothes stood at the edge, unable to cross without ruining them, and unwilling to turn back.
The older monk did not discuss it. He bent down, lifted her onto his back, walked into the water, carried her across, set her down on dry ground, accepted her thanks, and kept walking.
The younger monk followed him. He said nothing for the rest of the afternoon. He said nothing as the road turned uphill, nothing as they passed the fields, nothing as the light went orange and then grey.
He was not, in fact, silent. Inside his head he was saying a great deal. He was assembling the case. He was rehearsing the sentence he would use, and then improving it, and then improving it again.
By the time they reached the gate he had carried her further than his brother had, and over rougher ground, and she had not even been there.
At the temple gate the words finally came out. "We are not permitted to touch a woman," he said. "You picked her up. You carried her. How could you do that?"
The older monk looked at him with what may have been amusement or may have been pity.
"I put her down at the river," he said. "Are you still carrying her?"
The Lesson of the Monk Who Put Her Down
The grievance costs the holder, not the offender. The older monk spent thirty seconds in the water. The younger spent an entire day in the argument, and only one of them arrived tired.
Rehearsing is not resolving. Turning the sentence over and over feels like working towards a confrontation. It is usually just practising the injury until it fits more comfortably.
Say it at the river. If it matters enough to carry, it mattered enough to raise while you were both standing in it. Most resentment is a conversation that was available and got declined.
Where this actually comes from
The version most people know comes from Zen Flesh, Zen Bones, the 1957 collection assembled by Paul Reps and Nyogen Senzaki, where it is called "Muddy Road" and the two monks are named Tanzan and Ekido. Tanzan was a real Japanese Zen priest of the nineteenth century, and he was famous for treating monastic rules as servants rather than masters, so the story sits well on him whether or not it happened.
Reps was drawing on the Shaseki-shu, a collection of Zen tales written in Japan in the thirteenth century, and stories of this shape were circulating in monastic communities long before that.
One detail usually gets lost in the retelling. The younger monk is not a fool in the original, and the story does not mock him. He is the one keeping the rule properly. That is what makes it uncomfortable rather than merely clever: he is right about the vow, and it does not help him at all.
The rest is for seekers
Keep reading free. Log in and every article on Reality Awake opens for you.
