[Buddha-l] Vipassana?

[curt]

Sorry - if you thought I was saying that Theravada rejects the doctrine 
of "anatta" that must have been quite a shock. Obviously for any 
Buddhist to hold that something has "inherent existence" (which might be 
a lousy way of putting it) this must not mean that it has a "self". I 
will go back and check my sources and correct or clarify what I was 
trying to say.
- Curt

Hugo wrote:

>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>buddha-l mailing list
>buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
>http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>
>
>  
>