It is a crystal clear fact that with the time being the unique Buddhism has been divided into different parts and each part is given a name. Theravāda and Mahāyāna are the main divisions in Buddhism. These divisions are made to suit the cultures of particular countries. In such a way we find the same divisions of Buddhism as North Buddhism and South Buddhism. According to this divisions Sri Lanka Myanmar Thailand and Cambodia belong to Theravāda or the South Buddhism where as China, Korea, Japan and Taiwan belong to Mahāyāna or North Buddhism.
Even though Theravāda and Mahāyāna are recognized as the major part of Buddhism, these two has the essence of early Buddhism which contains the main philosophical concepts and recognized as it is. The essence of Buddhism is salvation gained out of the burden the cycle of birth and death(saṃsāra). Sri lankan Theravādians follow the Vipassanā Meditation to get free from the suffering of saṃsāra while Korean Mahāyāna Jogye order follow Kanhwaseon Dhyāna Meditation system.
Dhyānas meditation was originated and developed in China according to the Chinese culture during the first part of the sixth century after the arrival of Patriach 'Bodhidharma'. The main topic of my study is the Kanhwanseon meditation system. Kanhwaseon meditation system begins by Master 'Taehye Jonggo' during the later part of the 11th century. This method of meditation has become the representative meditation system in Jogye Buddhist sect in Korea. Dhyāna meditation is called Zen Buddhism by Japanese while Koreans as Seon Buddhism. Jogye order which has been recognized as the biggest Buddhist order of Korea.
However, two questions raise in my mind with regard to the belief that the Kanwaseon Meditation originated during the later part of the eleventh century in China.
1. If the Kanhwanseon dhyāna meditation was originated in eleventh century, does it have any relation with the essence of the original Buddhism?
2. Through Hwadu(a topic conversation) observation can some one achieve the salvation or the Nibbāna?
In addition to that, their is a controversy over these two meditation systems between the traditional Korean Kanhwaseon meditators and those who practice Vipassanā meditation in the countries such as Myanmar Sri Lanka etc. They used to point their fingers to each other in the following manner.
Khanwaseon meditators, “Vipassanā suits only to those who possess low characters and basic problems can not be solved through Vippassanā and also it is an ambiguous system of meditation". Vipassanā meditators, What Vipassanā meditators say is “Kanhwaseon Dhyāna meditation system which at the later part of 11th century does not match with the early Buddhism. It is just only a system of chapter division in China".
If scholars are to make a judgment that one of the above mentioned meditation systems is true, then the other certainly not related with Buddhism. Therefore, my effort is, to find out the reality of these two. So, I thought to make a comparative study on Vipassanā and Kanhwaseon tasking Sri Lanka and Korea as the center.
Basing on this, my second chapter is reserved to discuss the history of Vipassanā meditation and its present situation in Sri Lanka. The third chapter deals with the basic philosophical concepts of Vipassanā and a clean and wide observation of 'Four Objects of Mindfulness', 'the contemplation of the body(Kāyānupassanā)', 'the feeling(Wedanānu passanā)', 'the state of mind(Cittānupassanā)', and 'the mental contents(Dhammānupassanā)', mentioned in 『Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Suttaṃ』. In the fourth chapter I tend to discuss the history of Kanhwaseon meditation and its present situation in Korea by taking into account of my understanding with regard to Kanhwaseon. A wide and clear observation on the philosophical concept of Kanhwaseon meditation is carried out in the fifth chapter.
Then comes the sixth chapter which contains the core of my study, that is the comparison between Vipassanā meditation and Kanhwaseon meditation. In this comparison much attention is paid on four major issues as mentioned below;
First, the relationship of this two-fall meditations to the basic features of Buddhist Suttās.
The second is, 'Mindfulness(Sati: 念)' of Vipassanā and 'Greate doutfulness(大疑心)' of Kanhwaseon.
And, the relationship of two-fall meditators to the cessation of defilements and the realization of the truth.
Finally, The Methodology of two-fall meditation systems.
Then similarities and dissimilarities of two-fall meditation revealed by the comparison is widely shown in the seventh chapter. In this way I was able to find out three main similarities.
1) Two-fall meditation systems concentrate on wisdom rather than 'Dhyāna-Samādhi'.
2) Destroy defilements.
3) Salvation or the ultimate objective, 'The Nibbāna' is achieved.
Different dissimilarities are also can be seen in the two-fall meditation systems. For an example the methodology and the objective used in these methods are differ. In addition to that there are some facts that the meditators should take into consideration. As an instance they should not misunderstand the relief they feel when engage in meditation as 'Nibbāna' or the salvation. Also they should not cling to the Dhyāna-Samādhi. After discussing all these my thesis is wound up.
Finally, this has to be stated here as the conclusion of this thesis. The meditators should keep in their mind to achieve the salvation or the Nibbāna the ultimate target of Buddhism. In this juncture it is worthless to categorize as either one is higher or lower. As the main purpose of both Vipassanā and Kanhwaseon is Nibbāna or the salvation and the methodologies followed by both, possess the capability to achieve the ultimate aim, one can select either one which suit to one's character and seek for the supreme bliss of salvation.

• Ⅰ. 서론 = 1
• 1. 연구 목적 = 1
• 2. 연구방법 및 자료 = 4
• Ⅱ. 스리랑카 위파싸나 수행 성립과 현황 = 7
• 1. 스리랑카 수행전통의 역사적 배경 = 7
• 1.1. 불교교단의 근본의 문제: 교학(pariyatti)인가, 수행(patipatti)인가? = 8
• 1.2. 간타두라(Ganthadhura)와 위파싸나두라(Vipassanādhura)의 승가전통 = 10
• 1.3. 가마와시(Gāmavāsi)와 와나와시(Vanavāsi)의 양대 종파 = 11
• 2. 위파싸나 부흥운동 = 13
• 2.1. 현실에서 아라한果 성취 = 15
• 2.2. 재가자와 아라한果의 관계 = 17
• 2.3. 경전 교육의 필요성 = 18
• 2.4. 위파싸나와 재가자 = 19
• 2.5. 미얀마 위파싸나 수행방법 = 20
• 3. 스리랑카 위파싸나의 현황 = 21
• 3.1. 사마타야나(Samathayāna) = 22
• 3.2. 위파싸나야나(Vipassanāyāna) = 24
• Ⅲ. 스리랑카 위파싸나 수행체계 = 28
• 1. 위파싸나 수행의 기본사상 = 28
• 1.1. 위파싸나의 개념 = 28
• 1.2. 삼학과 팔정도의 길 = 30
• 2. 사념처(四念處)의 위파싸나 = 35
• 2.1. 신관(身觀: Kaye kāyānupassanā) = 36
• 2.2. 수관(受觀: Vedanāsu vedanānupassanā) = 42
• 2.3. 심관(心觀: Citte cittānupassanā) = 43
• 2.4. 법관(法觀: Dhamme dhammānupassanā) = 43
• Ⅳ. 한국 간화선 수행법의 성립과 전개 = 46
• 1. 한국간화선의 원류 = 46
• 1.1. 중국 조사선의 성립 = 46
• 1.2. 묵조선(默照禪)과 간화선(看話禪)의 대립 = 53
• 1.3. 간화선법과 대혜종고 = 56
• 2. 선의 한국 전래와 수용 = 58
• 2.1. 구산선문의 성립 = 58
• 2.2. 보조지눌의 간화선 = 60
• 2.3. 진각 혜심과 간화선의 발전 = 64
• 3. 간화선의 정착과 확산 = 66
• 3.1. 태고보우 = 66
• 3.2. 나옹혜근 = 71
• 3.3. 백운경한 = 73
• 4. 조선조 간화선의 전승과 근대 선종 = 75
• 4.1. 조선조 간화선의 전승 = 75
• 4.2. 근대 선종 = 78
• 5. 현대 한국 간화선수행의 현황과 규칙 = 79
• 5.1. 현대 한국 간화선수행의 현황 = 79
• 5.2. 현대 한국 간화선수행의 규칙 = 82
• Ⅴ. 한국 간화선의 사상과 수행체계 = 86
• 1. 간화선의 기본사상 = 86
• 1.1. 선과 간화선의 어의 = 86
• 1.2. 삼종대발심(三種大發心) = 88
• 1.3. 십종병과 주의집중 = 90
• 1.4. 활구와 사구 = 94
• 2. 간화선의 수행체계 = 95
• 2.1. 화두의 수행대상과 간화선 = 95
• 2.2. 무자화두와 대의심 = 98
• 2.3. 화두참구와 사량분별의 번뇌망상 = 103
• Ⅵ. 위파싸나와 간화선의 수행체계 비교 = 108
• 1. 양 수행체계의 경전적 근거 = 108
• 1.1. 위파싸나의 경전적 근거 = 108
• 1.2. 간화선의 경전적 근거 = 112
• 2. 위파싸나의 사티(念: sati)와 간화선의 대의심(大疑心) = 115
• 2.1. 사티의 확립과 해탈열반 = 116
• 2.2. 대의심의 발생과 해탈열반 = 122
• 3. 수행체계상의 번뇌와 깨달음 = 128
• 3.1. 위파싸나와 아라한과 = 129
• 3.2. 불성의 개발과 성불 = 134
• 4. 위파싸나와 간화선의 수행 과정 = 141
• 4.1. 위파싸나의 점진적 수행방법과 점오 = 141
• 4.2. 간화선의 급진적 수행방법과 돈오 = 147
• Ⅶ. 양 수행체계의 동이점(同異點)과 문제점의 극복 = 159
• 1. 양 수행체계의 공통점 = 159
• 1.1. 선정과 지혜의 관계 = 159
• 1.2. 번뇌의 근본적 제거 = 165
• 1.3. 궁극적 목표의 동일성 = 172
• 2. 양 수행체계의 차이점 = 175
• 2.1. 수행대상과 그 차이 = 175
• 2.2. 수행의 과정과 닦음 = 177
• 2.3. 근기와 수행의 관계 = 180
• 2.4. 경전공부와 수행 = 183
• 3. 양 수행상의 문제 극복 방안 = 186
• 3.1. 열반에 대한 오해 = 187
• 3.2. 고요한 명상 = 191
• 3.3. 생활세계의 바른 이해 = 195
• Ⅷ. 결론 = 199
• 참고문헌 = 202
• Abstract = 209