Comments on: Chop wood, carry water

By: allen

allen — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:53:03 +0000

i think the proverb means that life is what it is and before or after enlightenment makes no difference life just is. we are all part of life and we just are. it’s only in thinking or you could say adding to ourselves with our mental concepts that complicate life. if we learn to be content and just let life be everything works the way it is supposed too. actually it does anyway.

By: John

John — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:49:53 +0000

To “chop wood and carry water” is just a reference to anything you might find yourself doing during the course of the day. Before enlightenment, this Zen Master went about his day doing whatever it was he did, but since he was not enlightened he probably split his attention and thought about a million other things while…for example…chopping wood and carrying water.

After he became enlightened, he still went about his day doing whatever is was he did, but since he was now enlightened, he was able to pay attention and just chop wood and carry water without distraction.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 02:59:30 +0000

You make some excellent points. Were you aware that Sid himself was a Prince? He lived a life of wealth and leisure - dancing girls and servants, all the luxuries money and power provide. He chose instead to live a live of noble poverty, and to follow a path of renunciation. He was 29 when he left his wife and son behind, in the care of his parents at the one of the royal palaces. One of the things I find interesting is that eventually, both his wife and his son joined him - his wife became a nun and his son a monk. Neither of them had to, they were being well provided for as members of the royal family.

There’s also nothing in Buddhism that would prevent you from making an extraordinarily rich living. In Buddhism, it’s the desire that causes a problem. So long as you are not attached to the things around you, having them around is not an issue. It’s only when you allow yourself to become deluded into thinking you own them that problems arise. The concept of “right livelihood” says only that you should do something that reduces the suffering in the world. Being a doctor and healing the sick qualifies, and if it pays well, then there is no inherent problem with that.

I’ve always lived in the West, and while I’ve made 2 trips to India, I certainly haven’t spent enough time there to really get a feel for how Buddhism is practiced where there are more Buddhists (in other words, where it is more of an “organized” religion). What I know about it I know from reading, searching out audio and video on the topic, doing some of the basic practices and learning as much as I can about it. While I think most religions can be used to oppress, Buddhism, by it’s nature as well as it’s origins, strikes me as not very well suited to the task.

To chop wood and carry water so that your basic needs are met so that you may practice the dharma is one thing. To chop wood and carry water in order to enrich someone else that is not living in a skillful way? That would not meet the criteria of right livelihood, and a Buddhist would need to find another way to make a living. This would lead to a pretty high churn rate, which would be bad for business.

I do like your interpretation of “just” in that quote. Buddhism doesn’t have a concept of “justice”, per se, because Buddhism does not have a divine law giver that defines a code of moral behavior. Buddhism has karma (cause, or action) and vipaka (result, or effect). While likely an interpretation that particular zen master hadn’t intended, it is an interesting kōan.

By: Ketjak

Ketjak — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:53:19 +0000

What I find interesting about Buddhism is the primary goal, “the end of suffering.” Suffering, essentially, is caused by the desire for anything - stuff, status, life, death and whatever else one can want. Not that this should be interpreted as cynical, but that is a fine way to make one content with a life comprised of simply carrying water and chopping wood, Or bending over a rice paddy until the sun goes down. Or pulling weeds from a roy of soy beans.

Now, bing that there really wasn’t much choice in the matter, that is ultimately good for the people doing that labor. However, it certainly does work out for the rich, against whom most of the envy and following resentment caused by that desire is applied. They have a lot to lose if the masses don’t buy good ol’ Sid’s lessons. (Or perhaps they have nothing to lose… )

Again, I am not trying to say that Buddhism is a fine tool to oppress poor workers on whose backs the rich live, nor am I saying that being rich will make one happy. It can work that way, and it can work as it is intended by Buddhists.

The above is intended as a topic for meditation related to the same issue.

That said, the word “just” seems to change meaning in your post. “If you understand, then things are just as they are. If you do not understand, then things are just as they are.”