Becoming “churchless” doesn’t mean that someone has given up the search for meaning in life. Quite the opposite.
Speaking personally -- as if I had a choice -- I don’t feel that the intensity of my quest for ultimate answers concerning the nature of the cosmos has lessened a bit since I turned away from organized religion and spirituality.
All that has changed is the style of my search. I’m more open now to wandering in the open fields of mysticism and philosophy, being less concerned about staying on a well-defined path.
Still, I enjoy learning about how other pathless (or semi-pathless) wanderers look upon reality from their vantage point. I don’t want to follow in someone else’s footsteps, but it’s nice to meet up with like-minded travelers for a friendly get-together around a literary campfire.
These days, when I walk into a bookstore or browse through my own library I usually head for the Taoism and Buddhism sections. This is where my churchless soul finds the most Yes, Yes, Yes resonance.
So Ray Grigg’s “The Tao of Zen” is right up my reading alley, since it features a discussion of both philosophical systems.
I’ve read the book several times. Each re-reading offers up new insights, with some thoughts popping out of a page with much greater vigor than before.
Browsing through “The Tao of Zen” the past few days, I’ve been struck by the distinction Griggs makes between (1) Zen, and (2) Zen Buddhism. I’ve tended to see these terms as being virtually synonymous. But there’s good reason to argue that genuine Zen has little if anything to do with Buddhism.
And a lot to do with Taoism.
Makes sense to me. I’m a big fan of philosophical, as opposed to religious, Taoism. I also enjoy Zen literature, unless it is heavily tainted with the religious side of Buddhism.
Grigg’s notion is that Zen minus Buddhism equals Taoism. Or at least is virtually identical.
As much as I’m attracted to Buddhism, the most churchless world religion, it’s other-worldly aspect often leaves me with a Huh?
I mean, Buddhist meditation practice emphasizes mindfulness in the here and now. Yet much of Buddhist philosophy stresses the goal of detaching from this illusory world of maya, getting off the wheel of rebirth, and experiencing some sort of transcendent reality.
This reading time around, some previously non-highlighted passages in “The Tao of Zen” got a heavy dose of yellow.
...For Buddhism, however, enlightenment creates a metaphysical disconnectedness; for Taoists it creates an earthy reconnectedness. At a superficial level the two forms of awakening seem similar. Both cultivate an attitude of separation, of detachment, but at a deeper level they are quite different.
For Buddhism the separation is an objective; for Taoism it is a means. Buddhism separates from the world to transcend it; Taoism dissolves back into the world to become one with it. Later, in Japanese Zen Buddhism, this difference is clearly expressed in the distinction between Buddhist and Zen attitudes.
I’ve always liked the Buddhist adage, “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.” So nicely non-fundamentalist. You won’t find many Christians advising, “If you meet Jesus, kill him.” They’re eager to have Jesus return, not to get rid of him.
Griggs, though, writes:
Why is it important for Buddhists to kill the Buddha? Or for Christians to kill Jesus, for Muslims to kill Muhammad, for Jews to kill Moses, for Taoists to kill Lao Tzu, for Sikhs to kill Guru Nanak, or for adherents of any other religion to kill the founder or current leader? (metaphorically, of course -- this is a killing of outwardly directed devotion and intellectuality, not of a body)
Because natural reality doesn’t have well-defined boundaries, whereas human belief systems do. So if we want to know what’s real, we have to kill the artificial concepts and forms that obscure our universal vision.
Much of Taoist literature is an admonishment against becoming caught in any system, whether moral, political, philosophical, linguistic, or religious. With such freedom, belief is replaced by experience. A traditional Buddhist dialogue reflects the same principle:
The Buddha was asked, “Are you God?” “No,” he said.
“Well, then, what are you?”
“Awake,” said the Buddha.
To become a pure Buddhist, a Buddhist must ultimately renounce Buddhism just as the Buddha renounced self and all attachment. This principle pervades Taoism as well. Taoists cannot live Taoism if they hold to the system called Taoism.
Individuals who practice either Taoism or Buddhism are inevitably inclined toward inconspicuousness and, finally, invisibility as the system that contains them dissolves itself.
Churchlessness isn’t viewed as a movement away from “divinity” in Zen and Taoism. Rather, it is a necessary step toward it. Which in the end is realized as being exactly where each of us is now.
But wandering can teach us a lot. Mainly, I’ve found, that no matter how many different places I go to, I always find the same person there.
My understanding is that Zen Buddhism is Taoist-influenced Buddhism.
I readily agree with your statement that "I enjoy learning about how other pathless (or semi-pathless) wanderers look upon reality from their vantage point. I don’t want to follow in someone else’s footsteps, but it’s nice to meet up with like-minded travelers for a friendly get-together around a literary campfire."
One point I reiterate constantly on my blog -- since a lot of folks arrive there based on a Google search of "taoist blog" -- is that they won't find THE way there. The way must be found by each individual. My sincere hope is that when people visit this blog, mine or a number of others that our own personal ruminations will spur them to seek their own solitary path.
Posted by: The Rambling Taoist | May 04, 2009 at 12:51 AM
> Zen has little if anything to do with
Not only that... but true Zen has little if anything to do with Zen!
That is, the Zen tradition points to awareness of this moment, what you perceive and what you're doing right now. It's about this experience... not words and ideas like "Buddha" or "Zen" or "Tao."
Sometimes, someone is suffering, and you can help them with words and concepts from Buddhism etc. Zen style is to use words and ideas like a tool or a medicine... but never to cling to them as Truth.
> I mean, Buddhist meditation practice
> emphasizes mindfulness in the here and
> now. Yet much of Buddhist philosophy
> stresses the goal of detaching from this
> illusory world of maya, getting off the
> wheel of rebirth, and experiencing some
> sort of transcendent reality.
I'm sure some of these ideas are prevelent in some schools that call themselves "Buddhist" or even "Zen."
The Zen tradition I've practiced, though, has got nothing to do with holding ideas about maya or illusion. "Transcendent" doesn't matter; the only experience of reality we need is the one right in front of us.
When Zen Master Nam Cheon was asked "What is Buddha?" he happened to be weighing flax. So he replied, "Three pounds of flax."
That's why we say things like, "The sky is blue. The grass is green. When you're hungry, eat; when you're tired, sleep; when someone is suffering, help them."
Posted by: Stuart | May 04, 2009 at 04:56 PM
"That is, the Zen tradition points to awareness of this moment, what you perceive and what you're doing right now. It's about this experience... not words and ideas like "Buddha" or "Zen" or "Tao."
---This is it, in a nutshell.
Posted by: Roger | May 05, 2009 at 07:34 AM
I'm afraid the author of this book seems to be deeply misguided in his/her understanding of BOTH Taoism and Zen.
In actual matter of fact, Taoism is a purely esoteric school with numerous graduated levels of 'attainment'. Anything with graduated levels of attainment is by neccessity deeply embedded within a conceptual cosmological paradigm.
Taoism entails a 'course' of meditation type practices that, apparently, can take 12 years or more to master; to eventually attain the 'immortal body'.
Zen, on the other hand, completely discards all conceptual paradigms, be they Buddhist or otherwise, on it's pathless path. If you think there's *any* conceptual overlay in Zen, then you haven't yet grasped it's essence, imo.
Whereas ultimately, the 'realisation' of both schools may be identical, with the identical mental & phsyical experiences along the way, Zen places absolutely no importance or emphasis on them whatsoever, thereby by-passing the humanistic tendency to lose the forest for the trees.
Anyone with a deep understanding of Taoism & Zen, and with no axe to grind or preference for either, would know this is clearly the case.
I'm afraid to say, much like a whole host of your recent blogs, you're way off the 'truth' here.
And more into your own 'mind', and how you *want* things to be.
Posted by: manjit | May 11, 2009 at 06:48 AM
Dear Rambling Taoist,
Just reading your comment, I am struck by:
"My understanding is that Zen Buddhism is Taoist-influenced Buddhism."
Where & how did you come to this understanding?
Having studied the tantric & mahayanist roots of Zen / Ch'an practice, I would have state you have come to a completely misguided understanding?
There are far more links of Zen to Dzogchen and Indian Tantric practices, than there is a connection (if any at all whatsoever) to Taoism? The geo-historical evidence I'm aware of all points to this quite strongly?
Though I'm open to any new info? Any sources for your understanding?
Posted by: manjit | May 11, 2009 at 06:57 AM
If you desire, write a comment, regarding a comparison of taoism, dzogchen and zen/ch'an buddhism.
Would be interesting to read something in a general format.
I have no opinions, for or against.
Posted by: Roger | May 11, 2009 at 08:33 AM
Manjit, I know a lot about Taoism. I disagree with you. But hey, Taoism is a very accepting, flow with it philosophy. You look upon Taoism your way, and I'll look upon Taoism my way.
That's the wonderful thing about Taoism. It encourages happy, hang loose diversity. Each to his own Way, smiling.
Posted by: Brian | May 11, 2009 at 09:24 AM
It's a good question, perhaps better suited to some kind of Religous history scholar or some such.
My interest in these matters was/is purely non-scholarly, so therefore I have made absolutely no notes, have no attachments to precise names & places etc. All I have is this vague awareness in my head of diverse sources, and only the essence remains/is of importance to me!
Sat here at work, with not even my humble selection of books, all I could say is that Dzogchen / Ch'an / Tantra appear to have all originated in the same geographical area, around the same time, and with the same 'teachers'. That area used to be called Uddiyana, or something? I believe today that region is known as Kashmir.
Also, I can state the actual practices themselves are very similar in conceptual elaboration of the 'transformations' that occur.
I'm sorry I cannot be of more help, but if you are genuinely interested, I hope there's some pointers in there? Sometimes there's much more fun & *insight* to be had in the journey to understanding, rather than the 'destination' itself?...
Nowadays, all so-called sacred & secret texts have been fully opened and revealed widely. So much so that we go to our local bookstore, pick up a copy of, say, the Upanishads, read it in a few hours, put it down, and forget about it, totally unmoved.
Two thousand or more years ago, a potential student would first have to prepare for potentially decades before their teacher would deem them fit to hear an Upanishad. And, apparently, with that one hearing of the text, they would attain en-lighten-ment.
I think there's a subtle lesson in there, somewhere. Perhaps.
Dear Brian - Fair enough. I take it then you are aware that 12 years + of Taoist cultivation is a neccessity for the 'higher' levels of 'attainment'? In my opinion, Taosim minus graduated stages of 'attainment', time-lines of achievment etc, equals Zen :oP
Dear Tao - That was a wonderfully expressed sentiment in your post yesterday about being a benign force etc. I hope you stick to it. And much Kudos to you if you do.
Posted by: manjit | May 15, 2009 at 07:23 AM
Thanks for your reply.
"Two thousand or more years ago, a potential student would first have to prepare for potentially decades before their teacher would deem them fit to hear an Upanishad. And, apparently, with that one hearing of the text, they would attain en-lighten-ment."
---I can see that a message could come from this passage.
---My concern would be with the kind of "preparation" the student would be put through.
---Likewise, what kind of "enlightenment" One gets from a particular type of preparation.
---Interesting, that "enlightenment" can be obtained from hearing. I wonder, can One obtain enlightenement from smelling, or feeling something?
---If my sense of smelling, hearing, etc. is off, will the quality of my enlightenement be off too?
Posted by: Roger | May 15, 2009 at 08:43 AM
"Interesting, that 'enlightenment' can be obtained from hearing."
In pretty much every Zen school, we do a chant every day that makes it clear that there's no obtaining, with nothing to obtain. In this moment, right in front of you, what do you perceive? What are you doing? That's all.
"Enlightenment" is a teaching word that's used in special situations to help and inspire people. "Zen" is a name for a particular tradition that uses various means to point directly to the truth of your just-now experience.
Posted by: Stuart | July 27, 2009 at 09:13 AM
Why do ppl have to be trained to appreciate 'just this'?
when you are hungry, eat.
when you are tied, sleep.
when someone is suffering, help them.
Surely ppl do this already without Zen, Taoism or Buddism.
Posted by: George | October 09, 2009 at 09:46 AM
Re George's Oct 9 post:
People eat when they're hungry, etc, whether or not they're trained in Zen etc. People frequently hold and cultivate thinking of the sort, "I want to get something," in addition to just doing what they do.
Holding such "I want" thinking is called "painting legs on a snake." A picture of a snake is complete as it is. It's mistaken to believe you need to add legs to it.
So... training in Zen etc does affect the extent to which you make "I want to get something" thoughts, and/or whether you cling to the thoughts when they appear. When there isn't such clinging, then you just eat when hungry, sleep when tired, etc.
Posted by: Stuart | October 24, 2009 at 12:02 PM
i wonder if you could explain buddha nature, which i understand forms part of both buddhism and zen.
in general, these traditions seem to aspire to knowing one's true nature or original mind without ego (or the i-self).
But is this buddha nature unique or the same for each individual?
all these traditions appear to require meditiation (chan, zen, dhyana) to experience the supposed undivided, inseperable interconnectedness of ultimate reality (tao, oneness, budha nature, dzogchen).
Posted by: George | October 25, 2009 at 02:02 PM
Hmm posted back in May '09 eh? Glad a web search brought it up, very nice piece.
Posted by: Tao (the one with the blog) | November 02, 2009 at 04:24 AM
Tao, glad you enjoyed this post. Grigg's book helped me understand why I both enjoy and am bothered by Zen literature. I resonate with the non-dogmatic side of Zen, but get turned off by the overly religious Buddhist side.
Like, the notion that only a Zen master can affirm or confirm that a practitioner has realized whatever the heck it is that Zen practitioners realize.
The whole koan thing seems pretty ridiculous to me. You go along trying to use your non-conceptual Buddha mind to figure out a koan, suddenly get an "aha!" realization, and then head off to the Zen master to have him give a thumbs up or down to it.
If your realization matches with his, then yes, it's authentic. If not, then head back to the meditation cushion until you really, really have a real realization. A good way to keep Zen masters in business, but I much prefer the hang-looser, much more egalitarian Taoist sensibility.
Posted by: Blogger Brian | November 02, 2009 at 09:38 AM
I'm quite interested in Taoism and Zen, which have the least theology.
The Grigg's book looks interesting. Alan Watts is very good here. Watts has the unique ability of explaining chinese thought to a more linear western mind.
Watts describes that Zen is as much Taoist as Buddhist, but its flavour is more chinese than indian. I think this means that with Taoism and Zen there is an emphasis on instantaneous awakening and naturalness, as opposed to Buddhism's staged approach to enlightenment.
The other aspect i prefer of taoism and zen is its connectedness to nature, rather than transcendental to it where so many others tend to dissapear into Nevernever land. Buddhism and hindu traditions seems to encourage a dissasociation with the things of this world, whereas taoism and zen instead seem to encourage a connection with nature and to roll with experiences and go with the flow of life Wu-Wei.
Posted by: George | December 29, 2009 at 07:03 AM
George, you hit on points about Taoism and Zen that also appeal to me. I like Griggs' book because he discusses the connections between the two, concluding that Taoism is more fundamental (which, of course, many Buddhists and Zen types would disagree with).
Posted by: Blogger Brian | December 29, 2009 at 08:21 PM
Brian, yes i do wonder tho if taoism lacks that which all the great mystics stressed, i.e. self enquiry?
Tho taoism teaches understanding self before interfering with other things, there is not a formal system of self enquiry set out. This is perhaps in keeping with the very essence of the Tao, flexibility free from rigid confines - of naturalness and spontenaity - free from conceptualization.
If Taoism is a practical philosophy for living life, then Zen (which retains the essence of Tao) must be that which additionally borrows some formal medititave training teachniques for self enquiry from buddhism to provide a slightly more cultivated approach.
If one is of a more pantheistic bent, which i believe Einstein was, then something like Taoism is about as close as one might get to describing some unfathomably esoteric absolute reality pervading all. The properties of the Tao as best conveyed by Lao Tzu seem more intuitively plausible than a personal god or set of deities operating within a system of morals or karmic laws.
Roger's query above concerning the possible overlap re Zen and Dzogchen is also interesting, both appear to be from the Mahayana Biddhist tradition. tAo might be able to shed more light if around.
Posted by: George | December 29, 2009 at 11:09 PM
This sounds like an oversimplification, like saying Me Minus my Father Equals My Mother. If you read the Chinese masters, they constantly reference the Buddhist Sutras, but not Taoist scriptures. However, if you read some Taoist scriptures (Secret of the Golden Flower comes to mind), they DO reference Buddhist scriptures. These Zen masters presuppose a background in Buddhism, but not Taoism. Why is that?
Also, Zen is a continuation of Indian Buddhism. Indian Buddhism is about a deep investigation into the nature of reality. It consists in calming and focusing the mind, and turning it to phenomenon. Eventually, one discovers the true nature (or dharma) of things. Zen is a similar investigation, as you can see in koan study and zazen practice.
Posted by: Matt J | February 01, 2010 at 03:10 PM
Matt, I found Griggs' book to be persuasive about the history of Taoism and Buddhism, but I'm no expert in this area.
It struck me, though, that perhaps one reason Taoists cite Buddhist writings, but not the reverse, is that Taoism seemingly is quite a bit more relaxed, unorganized, inclusive, and light-spirited than Buddhism.
I mean, Buddhism takes itself much more seriously than Taoism does. So it could be that Taoists find it easier to quote Buddhist writings, since they aren't attached to defending Taoism as a "religion" (which it isn't, at least in its philosophical guise).
I have a lot of fondness for Buddhism. But I prefer the crazier, who knows?, non-hierarchical style of Taoism more.
Buddhists go in for a lot of highly disciplined spiritual exercises and submission to spiritual masters in order to realize their freedom. Taoists go more directly to freedom without all (or most) of the organizational trappings.
Posted by: Blogger Brian | February 02, 2010 at 11:11 AM
Thanks for making this information available.
What is the title of the Briggs book?
I just found Qi- Gong with Master Mingtong Gu
And how and where does qigong fit in with Taoism
Posted by: Jon | June 26, 2011 at 08:17 AM
Jon, it's "Griggs." HIs book is mentioned in this blog post. It's called "The Tao of Zen." I like it a lot.
I do some qi gong in my tai chi class, but don't know a whole lot about it. Tai Chi is speeded up qi gong, according to my instructor. And Tai Chi is a reflection of Taoism. So there are connections all over here. I just don't know how to describe them very well.
Posted by: Blogger Brian | June 26, 2011 at 08:46 PM
I have only just begun my journey, into what I first thought was Taoism. I am finding that I am by entering the "world of Taoism", I am not necessarily following Taoism, I am following myself. As I began my search to learn more about Taoism, I found there is not much in my area, however, I did find a Zen Buddhist Center. I had been struggling with whether I should go or not, if I was somehow being "unfaithful" to the Tao. Like a Christian going to worship in a Synagogue. So, I started researching the differences between Zen/Buddhism/Taoism and I have had an epiphany. I can follow my self, by wandering and intermingling between any and all practices that I find interesting or helpful in my journey. There is no right and wrong in the journey, there is only the journey itself.
By the way...I love the title, "The Churchless Church" It says it all !
Posted by: Brad | October 14, 2011 at 08:00 AM
"I can follow my self, by wandering and intermingling between any and all practices that I find interesting or helpful in my journey. There is no right and wrong in the journey, there is only the journey itself."
--This statement sounds nice. However, what would be the 'self' that one is following? This 'journey' is what? A journey of dualistic right and wrong? How would a 'journey' become an it-self? Do I need to engage in a practice to follow correctly? I don't know much about stuff.
Please help me correctly wander and intermingle on my journey of myself. Thanks Roger
Posted by: Roger | October 14, 2011 at 08:42 AM
it is a journey of discovery. Seeking to discover the "ultimate reality/God" etc, that is within each of us. By saying there is no right or wrong, I mean that nobody can say for instance, that this practice, or that practice, or this belief or that belief is right or wrong. Proof, thus far, is an impossibility in spirituality. What we have, in various practices, such as Taoism,Buddhism etc...is people who have followed these practices, saying "This worked for me". You can then try them out for yourself. What practice works for me, may not for you.
Posted by: Brad | October 14, 2011 at 09:09 AM
Thanks for your reply. Ok, I now properly understand that Taoism/Buddhism is a collection of various practices, that I can decide which is right/wrong for me. The practice that I find that works for me will give me the discovery of 'ultimate reality' that I am seeking. Is all of this seeking, what spirituality is all about? Thanks for your continued messages. Roger
Posted by: Roger | October 14, 2011 at 09:25 AM
Roger, i would say it may or may not give you the discovery that you are seeking, but it certainly COULD. Only you will know.
That is a pretty good "definition" of what I believe spirituality to be. however, I also believe it is up to each person to determine on their own.
Listen to me...I sound like I am a Master speaking, and I am far from it ! Please take my posts with a grain of salt, as I am very new to this myself !
Posted by: Brad | October 14, 2011 at 11:48 AM
"just as the Buddha renounced self"
To renounce the self is to fight it.
To laugh at the self is to kill it.
Posted by: Mike Williams | October 15, 2011 at 04:30 PM
Hi Brian, It is a pleasure to find this post. It's nice to know there are like minded folk out there.
Posted by: Ervin | August 28, 2012 at 05:25 AM
Simply to Be, covers zen, buddhism & taoism. Religions & philosophies perpetuate the desire to pose the question of How to be...suggesting that being has not been found, that a search must be instigated. You are already Here.
Posted by: Zaroff | June 13, 2013 at 01:34 PM
This is interesting to me. For a number of years I have found myself on the path of myself. I understand little, but sense the direction the path is taking. I meditate to embrace the moment. I watch the trees bend and see the beauty of the world. I wish to hold no connection to myself other than to see the world like an ever opening crysanthemum. But ever I find myself marking the moment to unmark it.
Am I zen or Taoist? Perhaps I am neither or both, or just myself.
Posted by: PS | October 07, 2013 at 12:02 PM
If you are just yourself, then you could be the zenist or taoist. Does the (-ist) mean you are a follower?
What is this moment, you mediate to embrace? Your self(myself) is sensing the direction the path is taking. Nothing wrong with watching the trees bend and seeing the beauty of the world. Seeing the crysanthemum may/may not involve a connection to yourself.
No problem there.
Posted by: Roger | October 07, 2013 at 12:47 PM
Speaking with a retired teacher about history we had different opinions about whether cave art of prehistoric man indicated some elevated awareness related to conceptual reasoning. We arrived at some agreement that language and art may or may not. Maybe the reliance on koans and masters was due to some recognition that verbal language wasn't the vehicle for transmitting the understanding Zen practitioners were shooting for. I have read literature on Zen for many years and am not sure I 'grasp' it. I believe there are elevated forms of awareness and understanding - not all is scientific or intellectual, but some is.
Posted by: JD | December 27, 2013 at 05:53 PM
I like both of these "religions" or more correct way of life. Taoism and Buddhism are completely different, of course there are similarities just like you will find in any culture in the world. Taoism is connected to nature. It also has to do with a lot of exercise, health and immortality is emphazied and working with chi energy. They also have their philosophy to explain it. Buddhism has nothing to do with this.
Taoism was the way of life for many Chinese in ancient times, its how they grew up with. When they accept buddhism, they did it with the taoist mentality. Of course it has Taoist influence and for zen, it has aspects Shinto because Shinto was the way of life for the Japanese. Nothing is going to go to a foreign land and stay pure, especially throughout the years. Nothing in human history has stayed pure when "something" was brought to a foreign land. History is full of many examples.
Posted by: Christian | February 11, 2015 at 06:37 PM
I love this piece. I'm so glad I found it.
Posted by: Ginger | August 14, 2015 at 02:42 PM
Religion is the scaffolding of a building under constriction. Once you are done building, you remove the scaffolds.
Spirituality is a rock used to knock on a door. Once the door is answered and you walk through, you leave the rock outside.
Both are a raft you ride to cross a river. Once you've crossed it, you do not carry the raft with you, you leave it behind and go about your merry way.
Posted by: Eric | October 31, 2015 at 06:10 PM
I am tempted to say that I "think" is a very good, clear, and helpful description and distinction but, to be more genuine e, I'm more inclined to say the it "feels" right to me. I get what is said about the relative difference between the Buddhism of Zen and the way of the Tao, so I got what I was asking myself about, how similar are Zen and Taoism and how do they differ. Thanks, nice clear but also deep narration.
And, I particularly like the shared orientation of both Zen and Taoism of allowing the experience of that which is beyond all words, and thoughts to unfold, if allowed to in the absence of the descriptions and teachings. Pretty much reminds me of Joseph Campbell's teachings about ensuring that the teachings (mask of God) stay transparent to the transcendent. NICE, great article, feels just right.
Posted by: Bill Bulloch (Four Crows) | November 22, 2015 at 02:22 PM
♥ my only interest in anything is betterment
♥ the path is only the history of each improvement
♥ all the words, teachings and paradigms are only to stimulate my thoughts.
♥ enlightenment is not a goal, but only incremental betterment
♥ compassion is only to recognize how to help
Posted by: nobody | May 01, 2020 at 08:16 AM
Zen minus Buddhism = Taoism Zen
Posted by: nobody | December 03, 2020 at 03:19 AM