Individualism --- Gombrich and Obeyesekere hailed "lay Buddhist asceticism" and "spiritual egalitarianism" as hallmarks of the Buddhist revival, the factors that led to what they termed "Protestant Buddhism" (1988). Clearly this emphasis has continued. Although the Sangha presides over contemporary Buddhist orthodoxy, the power of the laity is expressed in the meditation and engaged Buddhism movements. The laity continue to challenge the authority of the Sangha and to assert their right to seek liberation.

p. 141

World Affirmation --- This presents another revival theme which might be seen as the corollary to Individualism. Individualism shapes the meditation movement, while World Affirmation shapes the socially engaged Buddhist movement. For both groups this theme is present in their confidence that the goal is available now, however that goal is defined. In this sense, it is also a challenge to "contemporary Buddhist orthodoxy" or at least to the classical versions of it -- where the bhikkhus dominate and teach the gradual path.

B. The more recent themes that have emerged in the last two decades and denote the flux in the Buddhist interpretations of these two movements include the following: Economic and Political Encompassment, Globalism, Increased individualism -- Personal attainment and Women's roles, Healing, social engagement, and sectarianism/ emergent religions. We will see these themes expressed in the examples of these two movements that we survey.

II. Paradigm I: The Lay Meditation Movement (Vipassana Bhavana)
　　 The lay meditation movement began at the height of the Buddhist revival around the time of the Buddha Jayanti (i.e. 1956 when the 2500th anniversary of the death of the Buddha was celebrated mainly by Buddhists in South and Southeast Asia -- ed.) [3] In its origins it expressed many of the central themes of SBF or "Protestant Buddhism." But as SBF became more identified with SBN, the meditation movement has moved in other directions which are signified by the themes mentioned above. Although I first studied this meditation movement in the early 1980s, when I returned to study it in the late 1990s I could see that the movement had evolved in that it expressed many of these themes. Another major way that this movement has evolved has been in the emergence of guru figures who lead meditation societies and informal groups of followers. At the outset of the meditation movement in the 1950s, there were teachers and leaders but they seldom had what would be called guru status. To be sure, there were a few figures with this kind of status: the Burmese founders of the Vipassana movement, such as Mahasi Sayadaw, and possibly his Sri Lankan disciple, the head of the Kanduboda meditation center, Venerable Sumathipala had this status, as did some more traditional lay figures of authority, such as Dr. Adikaram who had a small but devoted following in the 60s and 70s. What seems new, however, is the number of lay gurus today and their increasing autonomy from what Scott calls "contemporary Buddhist orthodoxy." At the present time there is a kind of "emerging market" of gurus. This escalation of the status of these teachers can be related to the increased belief in the power of ordinary meditators to reach advanced spiritual states. In this sense the increase in the number of gurus may be seen as a natural development for the lay meditation movement. Since this movement has proclaimed that lay persons can attain the goal, it was inevitable that as people went on practicing meditation for a long period some would come to be regarded as "virtuosos" who had mastered the spiritual path.

　　 This emergence of gurus can also be related to Globalism and syncretism, for today's meditators are much more aware of events in other countries, especially in their neighbor Asian countries. Seeing the emergence of gurus in India and in Thailand,

p. 142

the Sri Lankan meditators naturally tended to employ those categories and models to understand their own teachers. However we explain this phenomenon, the emergence of gurus represents one of the most important factors in the current meditation movement and the factor that is pushing the movement most clearly in the direction of sectarianism within Buddhism. These gurus subvert the role of the Sangha and challenge the ideas of contemporary Buddhist orthodoxy. In order to discuss the current meditation movement, I shall focus on some of the leading guru figures and the ways that they are constructing the paths and the goals for their followers. I shall survey the lay meditation movement and its gurus by considering them along a continuum beginning with those teaching more classical meditation practices and goals and ending with those whose teaching becomes increasingly autonomous or sectarian.

Guru A
　　 We begin with Guru A, a leading meditation teacher who is relatively "orthodox." He identifies his teachers as Venerable Sumathipala, the monk who founded the Burmese-inspired Kanduboda meditation center near Colombo and Venerable Nanaponika, the German monk who ran the Buddhist Publication Society from his forest retreat in Kandy. From this lineage it is clear that Guru A has ties to both the Burmese revival of meditation and the Orientalist influences that founded the BPS. A further influence came from Mr. D.C.P. Ratnakara, another important lay guru whom we shall discuss below.