Rod,

There are a huge number of different methods of meditation or contemplation, even within a particular tradition, like Buddhism, and also within each of its many subdivisions.  Vipassana is an attractive one because of its simplicity, and in that way it forms a relatively easy entry into a particular Buddhist approach. I have a great respect for Vipassana, as a technique, and I have had a fair amount of experience with related practices.

Phenomenological bracketing, as proposed by Husserl, is another technique which I have extensively explored.  I think it has great potential as a form of contemplative practice, even though it was not presented as such by Husserl.  However, when I read the collection of Husserl's letters, soon after they were published some ten years ago, I noticed how he effectively viewed the phenomenological reduction as a way of life, a dramatic departure from the way we normally view the world.

A traditional contemplative curriculum would start with one or more introductory methods, Vipassana being one of them, and then continue for decades under the guide of an accomplished teacher, typically going through various more and more advanced practices.

A modern lay-person practice would necessarily keep things simpler, and Vipassana is an interesting choice as a starting technique, and, depending on your preference, a main practice.

The working-hypothesis method that I am proposing here, as our WoK experiment, bypasses both of these types, longer and shorter paths of contemplative practice.  You could say that it starts at the end.

Instead of trying to walk a long path, it postulates that the goal of a long path of practice is already here, and that there is nothing to reach, nothing to accomplish, nothing to find that is not already here.  In that sense, it has similarities with the Tibetan practice of dzogchen and the Chinese practice of ch'an (zen in Japanese).  However, the latter two still have long curricula of training, and my idea of just working with a working hypothesis is even more radical -- or perhaps more foolish, we'll have to see whether it can work.  This is really an open-ended experiment.

You asked for a definition of the working hypothesis.  I'm not sure whether I can give a one-liner.  I can say `no limits are absolute' or `everything is complete' or more provocatively `future, past, and present don't exist', `there is no self', and so on, but each of those characterizations would point to only part of it, and would certainly not capture it; we'd have to unpack each word in such a sentence.  Perhaps we should just let the idea of the working hypothesis unfold as part of our unfolding discussions.

Piet