[Buddha-l] Vipassana?

[Hugo]

Hello Curt,

On 10/16/05, curt <curt at cola.iges.org> wrote:
> There is an underlying theoretical difference between Vipassana and Zen
> that helps to explain their different "meditations". In both Vipassana
> and Zen one could say that meditation is a tool for "investigating the
> dharmas", and in Vipassana there are lots of "dharmas", but in Zen there
> is, at most, only one. What "dharma" means here is "a thing that has
> inherent existence".

According to Theravada, no thing has inherent existence.

In Pali: Sabbe dhamma anatta

Even Nibbana lacks inherent existence.


> Vipassana meditation tends to be somewhat
> complicated precisely because it assume that there are actually lots of
> these things ("dharmas") to investigate. Zen on the other hand reflects
> either a Madhyamaka approach - in which there is "nothing" or "no thing"
> to investigate (as in "all dharmas are marked with emptiness"),

"In Vipassana" all dhammas are empty too, empty of a self, empty of
inherent existence.


--
Hugo