The contemporary lay meditation movement and lay gurus in
Sri Lanka
George D. Bond*
Department of Religion, Northwestern University, 1940 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208-4050, USA
Received 5 November 2001; revised 5 April 2002; accepted 23 October 2002
Abstract
This article examines the lay meditation movement occurring in contemporary Buddhism in Sri Lanka.
The lay meditation movement represents a different perspective from the nationalistic Sinhala Buddhism
that has dominated the discourse in the wake of the intractable ethnic conflict in the country. The lay
meditation movement reflects the contemporary ferment in Buddhist discourse among the laity. One of the
key themes in this movement is the privileging of experience because it gives the lay groups authority to
challenge contemporary orthodoxy and it has empowered a new class of spiritual leaders, the lay gurus.
Paraphrasing Stirrat, we can say that these lay gurus are leading the lay meditation movement towards `a
series of different interpretations of what it means' to be a Buddhist today. In its overall effect the lay
meditation movement not only reconstructs what it means to be a Buddhist today but also points in the
direction of establishing new forms of sectarianism that could be considered to be `new religious
movements' under the umbrella of Buddhism.
 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
The colonial and post-colonial resurgence of Buddhism, often called the Buddhist revival, which
began in the late nineteenth century in Sri Lanka and several other Buddhist countries and reached
its peak in the Buddha Jayanti of 1956, proclaimed the goal of `restoring Buddhism to its proper
place'.1
If we ask today what the legacy of this revival has been in Sri Lanka, we might conclude
that the primary legacy has been the rise of a form of Sinhala Buddhist nationalism that has been
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-847-491-5488; fax: +1-847-467-2062
E-mail address: gbond@northwestern.edu (G.D. Bond).
1
The Buddha Jayanti celebrated the 2500th anniversary of the Buddha's entry into Parinibbana or final Nirvana. This
date acquired significance for the Buddhists because of their belief that the Buddha had predicted that his Dhamma
would last for five thousand years and would undergo a resurgence at the mid-point in the cycle.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Religion 33 (2003) 23­55
RELIGION
www.elsevier.com/locate/yreli
0048-721X/03/$ - see front matter  2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0048-721X(02)00077-5
described as `fundamentalistic Buddhist nationalism' because of the way that it blends chauvinistic
elements with a `simplified core teaching' of Buddhism (see Swearer 1991, p. 649).2
This expression
of Buddhist discourse seems to dominate the contemporary context in the wake of the intractable
ethnic conflict. Nationalist statements by militant monks compete with dharmic pronouncements
by politicians in the headlines of the government newspapers. Militant monks and government-
sponsored Buddhist festivals seem to represent the dominant direction of Buddhism forty years
after the Buddha Jayanti. If we look more closely, however, we get a somewhat different idea of the
dynamics at work in Buddhism today. R. L. Stirrat has observed that in the present context
dominated by Sinhala Buddhist nationalism there is a state of flux concerning the meaning of
Catholic identity in Sri Lanka and that `a series of different interpretations of what it means to be
a Catholic have been and are developing' (Stirrat 1995, p. 157). Somewhat paradoxically, perhaps,
a similar state of flux can be found among the Buddhists in Sri Lanka whom one might assume
would be united behind the banners of Sinhala Buddhist nationalism. C.R. de Silva has shown that
the apparent unity of the Sangha in Sri Lanka belies the great variety of views that exist among the
monks (see de Silva 1998). Among the laity, however, there is possibly even greater variety and
some significant departures from what David Scott has termed `contemporary Buddhist ortho-
doxy', a designation he uses to denote the dominant forms of Buddhist discourse and practice
today.3
The lay Buddhist meditation movement represents one important expression of the ferment
in Buddhism today behind the facade of Sinhala Buddhist nationalism and contemporary ortho-
doxy. If we wish to understand how Buddhists are constructing `what it means to be a [Buddhist]'
at this point in history, we should pay attention to movements such one as this as much as to the
more visible Buddhist nationalism.
The resurgence of meditation among the laity represents a somewhat diverse movement that is
united by a number of themes and goals. To be sure, it is not a monolithic movement having
central organisation, but it comprises numerous meditation teachers and their followers who
express in various ways the themes that differentiate this movement from traditional Buddhism.
Some of the themes expressed by the current teachers have continuity with themes from the earlier
revival, such as individualism and lay Buddhist asceticism; Orientalist rationalism, which rejects
the ritualistic and devotional elements of Buddhism in the same way that Olcott and Dharmapala
did a century ago, and universalism based on `spiritual egalitarianism' that criticises and largely
rejects the orthodox Sangha.4
These themes all had pivotal importance in the colonial and
post-colonial resurgence and continue to shape the discourse of the meditation movement. Other
more recent themes, however, also influence the contemporary movement and have given a new
configuration to the current discourse. These themes, most of which are cross-cultural in nature,
include economic and political encompassment, globalisation, increased individualism, new roles
for women, healing, and social engagement. The privileging of experience represents another key
2
Tambiah has also referred to this form of `fundamentalistic Buddhist nationalism' as a `Sinhala religio-nationalism'
which he describes as follows: `In this changed context, Buddhism in its militant, populist, fetishised form, as espoused
by certain groups, seems to some observers to have been emptied of much of its normative and humane ethic, denuded
of its story-telling homilies through the Jataka stories, and to function as a marker of crowd and mob identity, as a
rhetorical mobiliser of volatile masses, and as an instigator of spurts of violence.' (Tambiah 1992, p. 92).
3
Scott explains `contemporary Buddhist orthodoxy' further as `that complex of religious power organised through the
sangha' (Scott 1994, p. 190).
4
For a further summary of the characteristics of the revival, see Sharf 1992, p. 252; Gombrich and Obeyesekere 1988;
and Bond 1988.
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­5524
theme of the contemporary movement that is, in part, a continuation from the earlier revival that
receives new emphasis today. In this way the contemporary meditation movement in Sri Lanka
conforms to the pattern delineated by Sharf, who argues that `the emphasis on meditative
experience in Buddhism may well be of recent provenance, a product of twentieth-century reforms
inspired in part by Occidental models' (Sharf 1992, p. 259). The privileging of experience
constitutes a significant theme for the recent meditation movement because it shapes the
movement in several ways. (1) The emphasis on experience serves to rationalise Buddhism further
in order to enable it to withstand the secular critique. Sharf comments that through this emphasis
on experience `Buddhist practice is thus rendered a rational attempt to alter our perception and
response to the world, rather than a "magical" attempt to alter the world as such' (Sharf 1992,
p. 267). (2) Buddhist experience further empowers the groups within this movement to claim
authority that they can use to challenge the orthodoxy of the Sangha. This use of experience
agrees with the function that Sharf outlines: `the Buddhist rhetoric of meditative experience would
appear to be both informed by, and wielded in, the interests of legitimation, authority, and power'
(Sharf 1992, p. 265). And (3) largely through the privileging of experience, this movement has
generated a new form of religious leadership within Sinhala Buddhism, the meditation guru.
These new gurus lead the movement in challenging contemporary orthodoxy. Taking all of these
factors together, one might argue that in its overall effect, the lay meditation movement not only
reinterprets what it means to be a Buddhist today but also points in the direction of establishing
new forms of sectarianism which might even be considered to be `new religious movements' under
the umbrella of Buddhism.
1. Background of the Contemporary Meditation Movement
The lay meditation movement in Sri Lanka began at the height of the post-independence
resurgence of Buddhism, around the time of the Buddha Jayanti. This movement, inspired by the
renaissance of meditation in Burma (Myanmar), reflected the two major strands of the Burmese
movement.5
The first strand represented what has been called the `New Burmese Method'
originated by U Narada and developed by his pupil, Mahasi Sayadaw (1904­82). This new
method of meditation was enjoying great success in Burma around the time of the Buddha Jayanti
as Mahasi Sayadaw presided over the government sponsored meditation centre, Thathana
Yeiktha, in Rangoon. Since Burma was hosting the Sixth Buddhist Council at this time (1955),
Buddhists in Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) were attracted to the developments there, including the new
lay meditation movement. Individual Sinhala Buddhists went to Burma to learn these new
methods of meditation and upon their return they formed a society, the Lanka Vipassana
Bhavan Samitiya, and invited the leading Burmese monastic meditators including Mahasi
Sayadaw to come to Sri Lanka. When the Burmese teachers arrived, the society held classes and
retreats that attracted large numbers of laity. Eventually the society went on to establish a large
meditation centre outside of Colombo near Kelaniya. This centre, Kanduboda, became the hub
of the vipassana movement in Sri Lanka and the source from which the new gospel of lay
5
Since I have described the origins of this movement in detail elsewhere and others have also, I give only the outlines
of it here in order to explain contemporary developments. See Bond 1988, pp. 131­76; also Gombrich and Obeyesekere
1988, Ch. 6; and Sharf 1992.
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­55 25
meditation would be carried to all parts of the island. Thousands of people came to Kanduboda
to learn how to practise meditation in the Burmese style. These people went back to their homes
and told their friends about the value of meditation in their daily life. Meditation became a
popular topic among the laity and even many traditional temples began offering `meditation
courses' because of Kanduboda's influence.
To understand what was new about the `new Burmese method', we can note the two features
of the method that Sharf highlights (see Sharf 1992, p. 255f.). First, this method claims that the
meditator can bypass the stage of samadhi or concentration and proceed directly to the practice
of vipassana. This change represented a major reinterpretation of the classical teachings about
meditation and was vigorously disputed by orthodox Sri Lankan monks who argued for retaining
the essential pattern of sila, samadhi, and pan~n~a. The orthodox monks, such as the elders from the
Vajirarama temple in Colombo, regarded the new method as a dangerous shortcut because it
omitted the stage of concentration, samadhi.
The second key feature of the new method was its promise that meditators could attain quick
results. Classical Theravada teachings had stressed the remoteness of Nirvana and the necessity of
following the gradual path as delineated in the Visuddhimagga, and contemporary orthodoxy
adhered to this teaching. Mahasi Sayadaw, however, abandoned this gradual path, promising, `It
will not take long to achieve the object, but possibly in a month, or twenty days, or fifteen days;
or on rare occasions even in seven days for a selected few with extraordinary Perfection' (Mahasi
Sayadaw 1971, preface). As Sharf notes, `The "object" of which Mahasi speaks is none other than
the experience of nibbana' (Sharf 1992, p. 256). Orthodox monks protested this innovation, but
Mahasi's followers defended their interpretation by referring to the closing verses of the
Satipat*t*hana Sutta, which declare that if people practise mindfulness for as little as seven days
they can attain the goal. This promise of higher spiritual attainments and even the supreme
spiritual experience, became an important feature of the lay meditaion movement in Sri Lanka as
ordinary people began to aspire to attain both supramundane goals and mundane benefits
through meditation.
The popularity of meditation among the laity received a further boost in the late 1970s and
early 1980s when the second major strand of the Burmese meditation revival began to attract
attention in Sri Lanka through the teachings of S.N. Goenka, a disciple of U Ba Khin. U Ba Khin
( 1898­1971) was a powerful Burmese civil servant who taught a practical method of meditation
that could be followed by lay people living in the world. U Ba Khin had studied vipassana in the
lineage of the monastic scholar and meditator, Ledi Sayadaw (1846­1923). S.N. Goenka is an
Indian layman who learned vipassana meditation while living in Burma around the time of the
Buddha Jayanti in the 1950s. He first became interested in meditation because he suffered from
severe migraine headaches and had heard that vipassana might provide some relief. In searching
for a cure for his problem, he met U Ba Khin whose approach to meditation differed in significant
ways from both the classical methods or the `new Burmese method'. When Goenka was
authorised by U Ba Khin in 1959 to teach this method of vipassana, he left Burma, went to India
and began teaching in Bombay. Some Sri Lankans, such as Brindley Ratwatte the leader of
Goenka's centre in Sri Lanka, encountered Goenka in India in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Ratwatte and others learned Goenka's method of vipassana and began teaching it in Sri Lanka.
The influence of Goenka in Sri Lanka was greatly magnified in 1980 and 1981 when the guru
visited the island in person and led vipassana retreats. After those initial visits, Goenka returned
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­5526
several times over the next decade to conduct further retreats, and in 1991 he broke ground for a
permanent centre, the Dhammakuta, near Hindagala and Peradeniya.
Goenka's meditation techniques attracted much attention from the laity and the media.
Although Goenka, like the earlier meditation reformers, also appealed primarily to the English
educated elite, the courses that he offered outside of the Colombo area--in places like
Peradeniya--helped to create a wider interest in meditation among the middle-class laity. Not
only was Goenka himself a charismatic teacher who inspired devotion in his followers, but he also
brought with him an international aura. The local press described him as `Guru Goenkaji' who
`hails from the land of the Tathagatha' and has conducted meditation courses `regularly in India,
Nepal, North America, Australia, Europe, New Zealand and Japan'.6
Goenka's presence and his
courses reinforced the earlier movement and paved the way for further expansion of the
participant base of the lay meditation movement.
Although Goenka does not have a formal society in Sri Lanka, thousands of persons have
attended his lectures and courses, and his visits have been extensively covered by the press and the
media. During his 1991 visit Goenka helped the Maha Bodhi Society mark its centenary and
commemorate the work of Anagarika Dharmapala. He was entretained during that visit by the
president of the country, R. Premadasa. The Daily News proclaimed that the meeting with
Goenka would `in no small measure bestow merit on the President and help him in many ways to
guide the citizens of this country on the right path'.7
To be sure, this story in a state-sponsored
newspaper undoubtedly had the aim of aggrandising the status of President Premadasa who
sought to be regarded as the defender of the faith. Nevertheless, the story can also be seen as
evidence of the kind of celebrity-like attention that Goenka received in Sri Lanka. I spoke with
countless lay Buddhists who had either attended Goenka's courses and lectures or just
remembered his tours of Sri Lanka. As Goenka's visit made quite a stir in the country, various
reports circulated about him. Not surprisingly, one report claimed that he was an arahant, but
another more interesting report related that Goenka possessed some original and heretofore
unknown sutras of the Buddha, which supposedly served as the basis for Goenka's meditation
teachings.
Given the popularity of Goenka as a teacher and the media coverage surrounding his visits,
it seems clear that Goenka was a major influence on the Sri Lankan meditation movement.
Many features of Goenka's teachings resonated with the lay meditation movement in Sri Lanka.
He both reinforced some themes from the earlier meditation movement that had begun at
Kanduboda and gave new emphasis to others. In the discourse of the meditation gurus of Sri
Lanka today one hears echoes of many of the themes Goenka stresses in his teaching and his
writings, although we cannot always be sure if these represent direct influences, common
borrowings from the Burmese meditation movement or simply harmonious convergences. For
example, Goenka argues that vipassana has universal applicability; it is not a religion. He says, `It
is not necessary to call oneself a Buddhist in order to practice this teaching' (Hart 1987, p. 17). He
goes on to explain that `Misery (dukkha) is a universal malady. The remedy for this malady
cannot be sectarian; it must also be universal' (Goenka 1987, p. 3). In another place Goenka
responds to a question of whether his teaching is Mahayana or Theravada by saying that `For me
6
Daily News, 9/14/91.
7
Daily News, 6/26/91.
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­55 27
the Dhamma is neither Mahayana nor Hinayana, nor any sect' ( Hart 1987, p. 31). This theme,
of course, goes back to the origins of the Buddhist Revival and echoes the sentiments of the
Theosophists. It also represents a part of the creed of most of the meditation teachers that we
survey below. In the wake of this claim of the universal relevance of meditation, Goenka also
makes another move that we observe in contemporary Sri Lankan teachers as well: he uses
Western psychological terminology to describe the process of meditation. He describes the first
stage of vipassana, for example, as `breaking the barrier between the conscious and unconscious
levels of the mind'. (Goenka 1987, p. 28). This kind of dependence upon Western conceptions of
the mind lends credence to Sharf's view that these meditation reforms `were profoundly influenced
by religious developments in the West (Sharf 1992, p. 228).
Another feature of Goenka's teaching that is shared by contemporary Sri Lankan teachers is
his stress on the viability of the path and the availabilty of Nibbana. In this he agrees with the
`New Burmese method' of Mahasi Sayadaw. Although the earlier movement in Sri Lanka also
touched on these points, Goenka seems to see the Ariya Magga and the ultimate goal as much
more readily accessible than did the earlier Sri Lankan teachers. The ease of reaching spiritual
attainments represents one clear emphasis that can be observed in the more recent Sri Lankan
gurus also, and it is possible that it was Goenka who reinforced and popularised this idea. In
answer to a question of how a teacher can discern whether someone has reached nibbana, Goenka
replied, `There are various ways to check at the time when someone is actually experiencing
nibbana. For this a teacher must be properly trained' ( Hart 1987, p. 129). Goenka also emphasises
the secondary benefits of meditation, such as healing. He himself began meditating in order to
cure an illness and he has continued to stress this benefit, even though U Ba Khin told him that
`The purpose of the Dhamma is not to cure physical diseases. . The purpose of the Dhamma is
to cure all the miseries of life' (Hart 1987, p. 142). Although Goenka admits that healing is a
secondary benefit, he proclaims that it is a real benefit nonetheless. He comments, for example,
`my mother had developed a nervous disease which I knew could be cured by the practice of
Vipassana' (Hart 1987, p. 144). In the same way, healing remains an important theme in the
contemporary meditation movement in Sri Lanka, with many teachers and many lay practitioners
believing, like Goenka, that meditation can cure illness. This belief undoubtedly represents one
significant reason for the increased lay interest in meditation. Goenka expresses another closely
related reason for the popularity of meditation when he says that its purpose is to teach us `how
to live a happy life here and now'. `We do not follow the path in the hope of accruing benefits to
be enjoyed only in the future or attaining after death a heaven that is known here only by
conjecture. The benefits must be concrete, vivid, personal, and experienced here and now' (Hart
1987, p. 17). Both healing and other pragmatic results constitute important elements in the
teaching of the lay gurus who have come after Goenka.
The idea of control represents a further, important theme in Goenka's teachings that resonates
with the contemporary Sri Lankan movement. He says that one continues to suffer in this life
`because one has no control over the mind' and he describes the ordinary mind as `out of control'.
To remedy this he prescribes `the training of Samadhi, learning to control the mind' (Goenka
1987, pp. 11,14). But the practice of control extends beyond samadhi to vipassana itself and might
be said to be essential to Goenka's method because he wants to teach people how to control their
reactions to life and how to act with insight. Describing this goal further he says, `No matter what
arises, whether within the microcosm of one's own mind and body or in the world outside, one is
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­5528
able to face it. . Knowing that you are your own master, that nothing can overpower you, that
you can accept smilingly whatever life has to offer--this is perfect balance of the mind, this is true
liberation. This is what can be attained here and now through the practice of vipassana
meditation' ( Hart 1987, p. 125). In my interviews with teachers and meditators in Sri Lanka this
theme of control was frequently sounded. In a world that often seems overwhelming, the quest for
some sort of control over one's own life represents another important reason for turning to
meditation. John Kabat-Zinn, a Western vipassana teacher, expresses this belief shared by many
meditators in Sri Lanka, that meditation offers `a way of being, a way of looking at problems, a
way of coming to terms with the full catastrophe that can make life more joyful and rich than it
otherwise might be, and a sense also of being somehow more in control' (Kabat-Zinn 1990, p. 19).
Other ideas current in the meditation movement also find expression in Goenka's teachings.
His view of the value of meditation for effecting change in the world is expressed in his response
to this question: `Isn't it selfish to forget about the world and just to sit and meditate all day?' He
responds, `It would be if this were an end in itself, but it is a means to an end that is not at all
selfish: a healthy mind. You come to a meditation course to gain mental health which you will
then use in ordinary life for your good and the good of others' (Hart 1987, p. 19).
If these overall themes about the meaning and goals of meditation resonate with the ideas of
many lay teachers and followers in the current Sri Lankan meditation movement, the same cannot
be said for Goenka's distinctive approach to the practice of vipassana. Goenka's technique, which
he learned from his teacher, U Ba Khin, centres on the practice of `sweeping the mind through the
body, giving special attention to the ever-changing play of sensations that can be perceived'
(Kornfield 1977, p. 235). The basic method is said to be derived from the Satipahana Sutta, the
Foundation of Mindfulness Discourse, but U Ba Khin and Goenka give special attention to the
mindfulness of sensations. Goenka describes sensations as the `crossroads where mind and body
meet'. He also says that `the unique element in the Buddha's teaching' was his identification of
sensations as `the crucial point at which craving and aversion begin, and at which they must be
eliminated' (Goenka 1987, p. 41). Goenka's basic meditation technique involves trying to cease
generating sankharas or mental reactions to perceived sensations because every reaction sows the
seeds for future attachment and suffering. `We must develop awareness of sensations throughout
the body and maintain equanimity toward them' (Hart 1987, p. 105). Ceasing to react to present
sensations, however, is only half the battle according to Goenka. The other half involves our
`stock of conditioning, the sum total of our past reactions. Even if we add nothing new to the
stock, the accumulated old sankharas will still cause us suffering' (Hart 1987, p. 106). According
to this interpretation, if we manage to quiet the present sankharas the old sankharas begin to arise
as various bodily sensations tempting us to react to them out of either ignorance, desire or
aversion. For example, Goenka explains, `Perhaps a past sankhara of aversion arises, manifesting
itself as particles, which one experiences as an unpleasant burning sensation within the body. If
one reacts to that sensation with disliking, fresh aversion is created' and the cycle is reinforced
(Hart 1987, p. 108). Therefore, the goal of the sweeping technique in meditation is to enable
meditators to experience these `old' sankharas as they arise as bodily sensations and to neutralise
them by not reacting to them. The theory is that `When all conditioned responses have been
eradicated one after another, the mind is totally liberated' (Hart 1987, p. 110).
Although the basic idea behind Goenka's teaching--that it is better to achieve a state of
equanimity than to have uncontrolled reactions to sensations--may be shared by most of the
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­55 29
current meditation teachers in Sri Lanka, almost none of the current teachers share either his
`sweeping' technique or his theory about how liberation depends on our eradicating our `stock' of
old reactions, sankharas. Bhikkhu Bodhi explains that the basic problem with Goenka's
interpretation is that if we have to wait until all the past sankharas are exhausted `full liberation
would be unobtainable'. He writes, `For during the beginningless past of samsara we have each
accumulated an immeasurable stock of karmic conditionings. If these can only be eradicated by
being contemplated with equanimity when they arise as sensations, we would have to contemplate
sensations through an endless future and thus infinite time would be required to gain liberation'
(Bodhi 1992, p. 3). Most of the meditation teachers seem to have felt the same way about
Goenka's technique because no one that I met seemed to be employing it. To be sure, Goenka's
technique of meditation is fairly difficult and requires detailed training such as Goenka received
from U Ba Khin; without this training few teachers could be expected either to teach or to
understand it. It is also the case, however, that this technique diverges from both the classical
Theravada interpretation of mindfulness meditation and from the interpretation of mindfulness
introduced to Sri Lanka by Mahasi Sayadaw, and most meditators today follow some version of
one of these two approaches and have been reluctant to adopt Goenka's technique. So it would
seem that although Goenka received a royal welcome in Sri Lanka during his visits and managed
raise the public's awareness about the significance of meditation, he has not made many converts
among the current meditation teachers or their followers. Perhaps Goenka's main contribution to
the contemporary movement has been to reinforce the image of the lay guru. During his well
publicised visits to Sri Lanka, Goenka, with his charismatic personality, presented the example of
an authoritative and powerful lay guru. The force of this example was not lost on contemporary
lay meditators and teachers, even though they declined to adopt Goenka's technique of
meditation.8
2. The Emergence of Lay Gurus
The emergence of lay meditation teachers who lead meditation societies and are regarded as
gurus by their followers represents one significant way that the meditation movement has evolved.
These lay gurus have become the driving forces behind the meditation movement, founding
centres and societies that both rival and to some extent supersede the original meditation centres,
such as Kanduboda. The leadership of these gurus has become a major factor in shaping the way
that many lay Buddhists construct what it means to be a Buddhist today.
At the outset of the meditation movement in the 1950s, there were many lay meditators but few
lay teachers and almost no lay meditation gurus. For the most part, meditation was taught by
monks connected with the major meditation centres. The most important of these monastic
teachers of meditation were accorded guru status: the Burmese founders of the Vipassana
movement, such as Mahasi Sayadaw, as well as his Sri Lankan disciple, the head of the
Kanduboda meditation centre, Venerable Sumathipala, certainly were accorded this kind of
status. Since Sri Lankan culture defers to the South Asian archetype of the guru and people tend
to regard all teachers with great respect, other figures in recent times have also been given what
8
One wonders if the report about Goenka being in possession of previously unknown sutras might have originated
because the Sri Lankan meditators could not imagine where he was getting his unorthodox teachings otherwise.
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­5530
we could call guru status. For example, some traditional lay teachers of Dhamma and meditation
such as Dr. E.W. Adikaram, who had a small but devoted following in the 1960s and 1970s, could
be regarded in this way. What is different today, however, is the number of lay gurus in the
meditation movement and their increasing autonomy from contemporary Buddhist orthodoxy.
At the present time there can be said to be a kind of `emerging market' of meditation gurus in Sri
Lanka, with many prominent gurus attracting large numbers of followers and new gurus arising
both independently and as the disciples of established gurus. These lay meditation gurus are
almost all lay persons who have come up through the meditation movement in Sri Lanka. The rise
of these new gurus can be explained in part by noting their privileging of experience. These gurus
have attained their authority because they and their followers believe that the gurus have
experienced the advanced states of the Buddhist marga. In one sense this 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 almost five decades some would come to be regarded as both
virtuosos who had mastered the spiritual path and as gurus who could lead others on the path.
The claims to inner experience enable these new gurus establish their own authority as religious
leaders and, in many cases, empower them to challenge the authority of the Sangha. As Sharf has
said about the vipassana movement, `The guarantee of orthodoxy was no longer a rigorous
adherence to the monastic code (vinaya) but rather a firsthand experience of the fruit of
meditation--nirvana' (Sharf 1992, p. 258). As we shall see, most of these new lay gurus declare
that they have this firsthand experience and thus have greater wisdom than the sangha and,
accordingly, most of them have little regard for orthodox practices such as textual study and the
rituals of merit making. Their followers would wholeheartedly agree with the view that a `living
master is preferable to a dead text' (Sharf 1992, p. 235). In Burma (Myanmar) and Thailand, lay
Buddhists regularly attribute arahantship to revered monks. Buddhists in contemporary Sri
Lanka, however, have seldom regarded living monks in this way, but, surprisingly, now the lay
meditators are willing to attribute guru status and, in some cases, arahantship to these lay gurus.
This indicates the extent to which these gurus rival the authority of the sangha for their followers.
This challenge to the Sangha's authority, however, varies from guru to guru and from group to
group and does not amount to a sweeping rejection of traditional Buddhism but is more on the
order of a lay reinterpretation of the religion that assigns the central place to meditation and
experience.
This emergence of lay gurus can also be related to globalisation and syncretism, for today's lay
meditators are much more aware of events in other countries, especially in the neighboring Asian
countries. Seeing the prominence of gurus in India and in Thailand, the Sri Lankan meditators
have naturally tended to employ those models to understand their own teachers. As we have
noted, the popularity and influence of a teacher such as `Guru Goenka' in Sri Lanka undoubtedly
helped to set the stage for other lay gurus to emerge. Many of these Sri Lankan gurus as well as
their followers have themselves traveled to India, to Southeast Asia and the West where they
witnessed the power of the guru phenomenon in these places.
Not only do these gurus break with `contemporary Buddhist orthodoxy' but they are also
drifting away from the earlier unity of the meditation movement in Sri Lanka. With their
tremendous authority they proclaim their own paths. In the following sections, we survey the
teachings and meditation societies of some of the leading gurus, all but one of whom are laymen,
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­55 31
to show how they employ some of the themes mentioned above to construct distinctive definitions
of the path and the goal. In some cases these definitions push toward what can be called forms of
sectarianism within Buddhism. This survey of the meditation movement examines these contem-
porary Sri Lankan meditation gurus by considering them along a continuum beginning with those
teaching more classical meditation practices and goals--teachings more consistent with the Sri
Lankan Theravada heritage--and ending with those whose teaching becomes increasingly
autonomous or sectarian. This survey of these teachers represents a sampling of the larger
meditation movement's direction and diversity.
3. The Sri Lankan Gurus
3.1. Guru A9
The first of these Sri Lankan gurus to discuss is Guru A, a leading meditation teacher who was
relatively `orthodox'. He identified his own teachers as Venerable Sumathipala, the monk who
founded the Burmese-inspired Kanduboda meditation centre near Colombo and Venerable
Nyanaponika, the German monk who ran the Buddhist Publication Society from his forest retreat
in Kandy. From this lineage it is clear that Guru A had ties to both the Burmese revival of
meditation and the Orientalist influences that founded the B.P.S. A further influence came from
Mr D.C.P. Ratnakara, another important lay guru whom we shall discuss below.
Guru A's official status as a guru came from his being the head of a major meditation centre
near Kandy. But he also led various meditation groups around Kandy and Peradeniya and made
frequent trips abroad to teach meditation. He was highly respected by his followers although he
did not insist on his guru status and preferred to be regarded as a spiritual friend or Kalyani
Mitta. His low key style of teaching was consistent with this image of a spiritual friend.
Nevertheless, his followers clearly regarded him as their guru and deferred to him as an authority
on the spiritual path.
His authority came from both his knowledge of the texts and his own experience in meditation.
He employed the texts himself and also encouraged followers to study them. This dependence on
the texts was a sign of his relative orthodoxy since many of the contemporary gurus, as we shall
see, claim not to use the texts. While his dhamma sermons and meditation teachings reflected this
relative orthodoxy, the teachings of this guru also exhibited the influences of a number of foreign
teachers, such as Ajahn Chah, some of the Zen teachers and Goenka. Being an avid reader, he
absorbed ideas from various sources and also collected ideas during his travels abroad. So
although he was fairly orthodox he was also somewhat syncretistic, and his followers did not
object to these syncretic elements in his teaching.
He explained that his approach was based on using meditation to help people overcome
suffering. Although he gave it a somewhat contemporary twist, this is, of course, a very orthodox
9
I employ alphabetic pseudonyms for these gurus because some of them might not desire this kind of publicity for
their groups, although all of them readily agreed to interviews and were very generous in sharing information about
their teachings and their groups. Since this article was written, however, two of these gurus have died, therefore I would
like to identify them by name as a tribute to their work. `Guru A' was Godwin Samararatne and `Guru E' was D. C.
P. Ratnakara. Both were outstanding teachers and wonderful human beings who were revered by their followers and
friends and will be greatly missed.
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­5532
goal recalling the Four Noble Truths and the central teachings of Buddhism. To reach this goal
he stressed the meditation techniques of metta (loving kindness) and anapanasati (mindfulness of
breathing). In his meditation classes he employed a kind of guided meditation and discussion
approach, trying to help his followers use these meditations to address their concrete problems. In
this way, his meditation sessions often resembled a kind of group therapy session.
Another form of mindfulness (sati) meditation that Guru A employed to eliminate suffering
involved teaching his pupils to be mindful of thoughts and emotions and their arising. He asked
the meditators to recall something that someone did that made them angry. When they remember
this incident the anger may arise again. The goal is to try to observe this incident now without
reacting to it, to observe the anger with an awareness of anicca, impermanence. The meditator
should observe it as not `my' anger, but should see it objectively, as a case of anger arising from
a certain cause. If people can deal with remembered anger, then they can also deal with anger in
the present, the key being to see what caused the anger. When you see that the cause of your anger
is an expectation that you have had, then you see that the cause of suffering is with you and not
with the other person. The point, he said, is not whether we react emotionally, but how quickly
we recover. We are bound to have emotions, but we should not allow them to control us. This
focus on the meditator's reactions recalls the teachings of Goenka, although Guru A did not
adopt either Goenka's complete theory about the centrality of reactions (sankharas) or his
technique for getting rid of past reactions. Guru A did, however, give a more or less popular
explanation of how reactions affect our karma if we are not mindful of them. He represents a
good example of the kind of influence that Goenka has had on the current generation of
meditation teachers. To document his point about reactions, Guru A used the same sutta
illustration that Goenka employs in the book, The Art of Living. This sutta contains a teaching
from the Buddha which says that anger--or other emotional reactions--in the mind can be of
three kinds: like letters written on the surface of water, like letters written on sand or like letters
written in stone. The goal advocated by both Goenka and Guru A, of course, is that our reactions
to events should be like `letters written on water'.10
Guru A also instructed his pupils to observe current thoughts, feelings and emotions to see
how they develop and create our suffering. This he regarded as the core of the Four Noble
Truths. He explained that we cause our own suffering because we have desires and expectations
for the way things should be, and that when they do not work out in the way we want, we
suffer. But if we could just accept the present without imposing desires, then we could avoid
much of the present suffering. This approach does not amount to merely accepting suffering,
but it removes suffering because suffering is a construct that we impose on top of the real
events that are happening.
Guru A's followers report that these teachings were very helpful. He did not emphasise the
higher attainments (ariya puggala), but had a very practical approach that taught people to use
meditation to relieve their problems and suffering. In all of this, he was, as we have said, relatively
orthodox. He could not be described as anti-Sangha, although he clearly seemed to have more
respect for the forest-dwelling meditating monks and had little interest in the rituals commonly
practised by contemporary Buddhism.
10
Goenka cites as the source of this quote, the `Lekha Sutta', Anguttara Nikaya III.xiii, 130 (Hart 1987, p. 38; Goenka
1987, p. 28).
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­55 33
Despite his relative orthodoxy, Guru A had some very innovative elements to his work. He
incorporated yoga in his teaching of meditation, something not done by many teachers in Sri
Lanka today. He probably was influenced in this by Guru Ratnakara, who has included yoga in
his practice for many years. Guru A also employed meditation as a means of healing illness, which
he saw as a more explicit form of suffering. This also reflects a possible influence from Goenka's
teachings. Guru A worked with doctors and medical students to help them understand the
intention of meditation and he also went directly to the cancer wards of the hospitals to teach the
patients. He instructed these patients to radiate thoughts of metta, loving kindness, onto their
body at the place of illness. Another emphasis in this work involved helping the patients deal with
feelings about themselves because he found that they usually `did not like themselves' and had a
sense of self pity. In such cases, the meditation on loving kindness could be very useful.
Another method of healing involved using Metta to try to relieve pain. He taught patients to
simply be with the pain and see how they could view it. He instructed them to try to observe the
pain without desiring the pain to go away because the pain becomes suffering when there is
resistance and dislike concerning it. But if a meditator can `be with the pain' for a few minutes
then it may be possible to reduce or eliminate the feeling of suffering. He recalled a woman who
used this technique saying, `the pain is there but I am not there'. He explained that `She had a kind
of anatta, or not-self, experience by focusing on the pain'. But he admitted that it is not easy for
many patients to do this because the emotion that really bothers these patients is self pity. `Why
me?' He saw this as related to self hatred and wanted to help them deal with their psychological
`wounds' as a step toward healing their bodies.
Some of the meditation steps that he set out for the patients to follow in doing Metta
meditation on pain are outlined here:
1. Pain is not mine. It is of the body and does not belong to me.
2. Accept it in a friendly way, without reproach. do not escape from it or run away from it. Be
with it with confidence. Have control and power over it.
3. If the mind is tranquil, the body will be also, and vice versa.
4. Pain should not induce dukkha, suffering.
5. Take the pain as a point of meditation. Reflect on it with awareness, observation, understand-
ing.
6. Dealing with emotions with equanimity is essential. To get rid of repressed emotions, one
should observe and understand the causes for them.
3.2. Summary
Guru A's approach to meditation represents an interesting combination of orthodox and
post-modern themes. He did not stress the attainments or promise instant enlightenment, rather
his approach was pragmatic in helping people cope with suffering. He taught that meditation has
practical benefits that people can access. This theme seems to reflect the `new Burmese method'
which would not be surprising since Guru A was a pupil at Kanduboda. He explained that this
is what liberation or enlightenment really means in Buddhism: the overcoming of dukkha,
suffering, in practical ways. In this way, he regarded his approach as very textual, based on his
comprehensive understanding of the Buddhist scriptures. He also read widely in the literature of
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­5534
contemporary Buddhism, and reflected global influences from sources such as Ajahn Cha,
Goenka and other Burmese meditation teachers. Somewhat surprisingly, he expressed little
interest in socially engaged Buddhism which he viewed as largely a Western import. In defense of
this view, he pointed out that none of the (Sri Lankan) forest dwelling monks have ever taught
that meditation could coexist with social activism. Although in some ways Guru A was relatively
orthodox, he clearly reflected the themes of the meditation revival including the privileging of
experience. Guru A dressed and behaved as one who was on the path; his followers respected him
both for his learning and for the aura of experience that surrounded him. Guru A was, until his
recent, untimely death, a teacher who was greatly revered by his followers and friends.
3.3. Guru B
Guru B, like Guru A, also teaches meditation in a way that is relatively textual and orthodox:
focusing on Metta and Satipat*t*hana. Of course, to call this orthodox is somewhat ironic since the
very idea of either lay teachers or lay practitioners of meditation runs counter to classical
Theravadan orthodoxy. But within the parameters of the Buddhist revival and contemporary
Buddhism, he could be considered relatively orthodox. Guru B differs, however, from Guru A in
several other key respects and represents some of the other forces shaping contemporary
Buddhism. Guru B is a successful businessman in Colombo who now devotes most of his time to
teaching the dhamma and meditation. Many of his followers also come from the business
community.
Born into a prominent family in Colombo, Guru B attended the best schools in the country and
excelled as an athlete. His teachers were his father, who wrote books on Buddhism, and a forest
dwelling monk, Venerable N~ anarama. Guru B also has ties to the early meditation centres such
as Kanduboda.
Today he teaches meditation and dhamma to the business people and the middle class in
Colombo and elsewhere in the island. Although he does not have a formal society or
organisation he has a large number of followers who attend his lectures and courses. He also
serves as guru to small groups of businessmen who practise meditation under his tutelage. For
several years he has had a television program on dhamma and meditation and recently he
established an internet web site on these topics. He wears the white national dress--white
sarong and long white shirt--which represents the traditional Sri Lankan attire for a Buddhist
layman but which today is worn mostly by either politicians or ardent lay Buddhists. This guru
has a very authoritative presence and commands considerable veneration from his followers
who regard him as a particularly powerful guru. Some followers claim that he has a distinctive
cosmic and karmic status--possibly as an arahant or a future Buddha. They also believe he has
miraculous powers, such as the ability to spontaneously produce relics of the Buddha which he
then presents to his followers. For these reasons, when lecturing in Colombo or other areas of
the country he attracts large crowds.
In my interviews with him, Guru B downplayed these miraculous elements and, instead,
explained how he adapts the dhamma to business. He does this by teaching something he calls the
`dhamma method of employment' which he described as a method of demonstrating compassion
for one's employees. He has lectured on this topic to business organisations in Colombo and has
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­55 35
used the method in his own business. He says that compassion and generosity are two key
Buddhist virtues that apply to business. The gist of the `dhamma method of employment' is that
the employer must show the employees that their employer has their welfare at heart.
Another way that he tries to assist people is by teaching the Dasa Raja Dhamma, or the Ten
Royal Rules, which he sees as important for laymen because they teach values such as austerity
that apply to life in the world. These ten teachings were given in the Buddhist scriptures as the
guidelines for rulers, but he sees them as important today for business people. In addition to
providing these ethical guidelines, Guru B shows the business leaders how meditation can not
only help their businesses but also help them in their personal lives. He finds that there is great
interest in meditation among business leaders and others because there is now more competition
and stress in the present economic context. He has given lectures on meditation and management
from a dhammic perspective for groups such as the Rotary Club and government agencies. He
uses Dasa Raja Dhamma as his text for all these groups. He says that this dhamma is what is
missing today in business and government and he is very critical of the current government and
business leaders who act in ways that run counter to it.
I asked him whether there is an inherent conflict between Buddhist ideas and the ethos of the
business world. Guru B said that there is a potential for conflict since business is about power
acquisition and Buddhism is about power relinquishment. But even in acquisition one can practise
relinquishment. In his own business he does not try to heap gain upon gain but rather cultivates
non-attachment by practicing a substantial amount of dana or generosity. He also finds that
business gives him an opportunity to test the fruits of his meditation practice: can he remain calm
and tranquil when business does not go well? Ultimately, he finds that meditation helps his
business; if he can remain calm, then he can help others to do so. Business also contributes to the
attainment of wisdom because in business one sees impermanence and uncertainty very clearly.
Recognising that things change and are beyond one's control can produce a sense of detachment
that is a great asset. He says that his greatest experience in business has been to see how powerful
his detachment has become.
Being detached from his business, Guru B now devotes most of his time to teaching the
dhamma and meditation. He feels that people are more interested in meditation today because
they are seeking relief from the various stresses of life. In this sense, people today seek what
Buddhists have always sought, a solution to dukkha, suffering. To meet this need, Guru B
conducts meditation retreats all over the island. Usually holding them in the preaching halls of
Buddhist temples, he attracts large crowds. Despite his following among the business community,
more women than men come for his formal meditation courses, as they do for the meditation
courses of most of the other gurus. He explains this fact by pointing out that men generally drink
and eat to excess but women do not. Women experience dukkha because of these habits of the
men. Concerned that alcoholism is a major problem in Sri Lanka and the root of much of the
decadence in the country. he explains to his audiences that Sri Lanka has the highest per capita
consumption of alcohol of any country and notes that alcohol destroys any mindfulness that a
person might have.
Although one of his own teachers was a monk, Guru B breaks with the contemporary
orthodoxy of the sangha. He has no use for the ordinary temple rituals and pujas even though he
holds many of his meditation courses in temple buildings. He says that he feels pity for people
who trust in these rituals rather than trying to find liberation through meditation.
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­5536
One other significant feature of Guru B's career should be noted here: in recent years he has
expressed an interest in politics by drafting and promoting a proposal for a new constitution for
the nation. The essence of his proposal for a new constitution is that Sri Lanka should have a new
government that is not based on party politics but is based on the dhamma. Guru B feels that the
competition between the political parties in Sri Lanka has been the ruin of the country. To replace
the current system, he proposes a new democratic government that employs the dhamma as its
standpoint. Specifically, he would base it on the Buddha's teaching of the `Dasa Raja Dhamma' or
Ten Royal Rules, and the `Seven Dhammas To Prevent Decadence Of Society'.11
Guru B
explained that he had this idea about three years ago but now people have encouraged him to
come forward with the proposal.
Based on dhammic principles, his constitution proposes to attain three primary objectives: the
welfare of the people; the unity of the people; and unity for the country. These objectives are to
be achieved by following what he calls four principles, although some of these so-called principles
sound more like further objectives. The four principles state that government `(1) should
safeguard the democratic rights of the people, (2) should not be a burden to the people, (3) should
ensure that the rulers gather in harmony, conduct affairs in harmony and disperse in harmony,
and (4) should ensure that suitable and worthy citizens emerge as the nation's rulers'. These
principles extend the ideas of Dasa Raja Dhamma; although it is important to note that the
proposed constitution does not mention Buddhist teachings too prominently because Guru B
seeks to respect the ethnic and religious diversity in the country as much as possible. The proposal
simply sets out these four principles, which he sees as democratic and neutral, despite some clear
connections to Buddhism.12
However, Guru B's constitution does contain an item explicitly
proclaiming that `the State is obliged to safeguard and foster the Buddha sasana' while also
protecting the `existing places of worship of other religions'. The inclusion of this statement
echoes previous Sri Lankan constitutions and the concerns of Sinhala Buddhist nationalism, and
demonstrates that this new constitution would not be a complete break with the past.
This new government would be a democracy with independent executive, legislative and
judicial branches. One significant difference from the present system in Sri Lanka would be that
the legislators would serve without pay in honorary but elected positions. He hopes that this
feature would help to eliminate both corruption and competition, which he regards as two of the
most destructive aspects of the democratic system. The Guru explained that the people are ready
for such a system because `they are fed up with the exploitation by the present system'.
3.4. Summary
Guru B is of interest because he exemplifies several of the themes shaping both the meditation
movement and contemporary Buddhism. In him we see some of the ways that the theme of
economic encompassment affects the meditation movement. Through his appeal to the upper and
middle classes and business people, he addresses problems that have been created by the global
economy and the related changes in society. He recognises that people who have been buffeted by
11
Dasa Raja Dhamma is discussed in the canon in various places, including J.i.260 and J.iii.274.
12
The third of these objectives, for example, represents a paraphrase of a portion of the teaching that the Buddha gave
concerning how the sangha should be governed in order to have peace and harmony. See Digha Nikaya ii. 76ff.
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­55 37
the ups and downs of the open market economy want to find ways to `fight back' in order to retain
or regain their Buddhist orientation. By applying the dhamma to these issues, Guru B has come
to be seen as an important guru. His authority seems to derive somewhat from his ability to keep
one foot in each of the two contrasting worlds, Buddhism and business. But there can be no doubt
that his authority is based ultimately on his followers' beliefs about Guru B's attainments in
meditation. As I noted above, some of his followers believe Guru B to be an arahant or a future
Buddha and such beliefs translate directly into power and authority. Without this power and
authority, Guru B could never have ventured into the realm of politics and constitutional reform;
he represents a clear example of someone who has privileged spiritual experience to gain power
and support.
His constitutional proposal demonstrates also the political encompassment of the meditation
movement. The idea of a no-party system has been espoused by various people in Sri Lanka for
some time. In recent years it has been proposed by A.T. Ariyaratne of Sarvodaya also. What is
interesting about Guru B's championing the idea is that it represents a case of a meditation guru
being interested in stepping into politics. Although most of the contemporary gurus seem to be
apolitical and the meditation movement has had no explicit ties to `political Buddhism', Guru B's
entry into politics reveals some possible implicit connections between the larger meditation
movement and Sinhala Buddhist nationalism. Clearly the lingering ethnic conflict has provided a
significant part of the motivation for Guru B to venture into the political realm at this time, but
whatever the motivation, this venture demonstrates that the meditation movement cannot be
totally separated from Sinhala Buddhist nationalism. The constitution that Guru B proposes is
very much oriented toward Sinhala Buddhism, even though he is careful in his draft not to stress
this point because he hopes that the Tamils and other minorities will accept the principles of this
new constitution.
Is this draft constitution a means by which Guru B seeks to attain political office himself? I
asked him whether he was interested in serving as president under this new form of government.
He replied that he would not compete for the presidency under this system, however, if the people
came to him and invited him to serve as president, that would be different and he would be glad
to make the necessary sacrifices and serve. He views this move as consistent with his career as a
dhamma teacher and meditation teacher because it would enable him to put the dhamma into
practical effect. This would be his `one big final dhamma dana (gift)'. Guru B explains that this
kind of government could bring peace and that if such a system were in place, people would find
it much easier to practise meditation. The authority and power that claims about experience bring
are, in the case of Guru B, being translated directly into secular power, but with a dhammic
platform.
3.5. Guru C
The third guru I will consider is, like the first two, also relatively orthodox in that he is well
versed in the dhamma and teaches the classical path of Vipassana meditation. This guru, however,
differs from the first two in that he has founded his own society which moves toward a sectarian
identity. To the members of his society, Guru C is a teacher who has reached an advanced stage
of spiritual perfection. This teacher and his society provide good illustrations of the evolution of
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­5538
the meditation movement in Sri Lanka: he is a guru who teaches a distinctive version of the
dhamma and leads a society of followers who clearly see their identity as not being within
`contemporary Buddhist orthodoxy'. This guru and his followers not only break with orthodox
Buddhism, but also break with some of the teachings and emphases of the meditation movement
in its original form as introduced by the Burmese and established at Kanduboda.
Guru C is a retired educator who has built up a society that has, according to the leader, about
2000 members in some twenty-one chapters across the island. Most of the members are either
middle-aged or retired, although the society is making attempts to get young people to join also.
Guru C leads the society by teaching them both the dhamma and meditation. Although most
meditation teachers emphasise their experiential knowledge rather than textual knowledge, Guru
C emphasises studying the texts as well, but from an experiential perspective. He has an extensive
knowledge of the Tripit*aka and the commentaries which he cites heavily in his teaching. On
several occasions when I interviewed him at his home in Kandy, he brought out large stacks of
texts to cite and interpret for me. He does not, however, rely only on the textual version of the
dhamma. Combining experience with study, he says that we have to know the `dhamma of the
mind', which is the experiential dhamma that the Buddha taught. This dhamma is essential
because, in Guru C's view, the textual dhamma cannot be trusted completely because the
Buddha's followers may have added or subtracted ideas while the texts were being formed. Thus,
Guru C has some doubts about many of the texts and urges caution when using them. In good
Buddhist fashion, he says that we cannot simply learn the Buddha's dhamma, but we have to find
the dhamma for ourselves. `Buddha did not ask people to accept.' `We have to study the way, but
that is not enough, you have to go on to experience the mind inside.'13
These pragmatic Buddhist disclaimers notwithstanding, Guru C devotes considerable energy to
teaching his interpretation of the dhamma, and could be classified as a dhamma teacher as well as
a meditation teacher. He has written some seventeen small books that expound his understanding
of the dhamma. For his followers, the dhamma teaching and the meditation go together and both
are taken as explanations of the path as it is constructed by their guru. Perhaps the best
explanation of where the authority of this guru lies comes from one of his followers who said that
she `respects Guru C as a man who has a perfect knowledge of Pali and the texts. He has attained
the "advanced state" (ariya magga) because he knows the dhamma so well and is able to preach
it for 10 or 11 hours straight. Something that an ordinary person could not do.'14
One of Guru C's main teaching themes is that the world is inside the mind but we mistakenly
look for it outside. By observing how the mind arises and passes away one can see the real nature
of the dhamma. He relates a story about a monk who had acquired the miraculous power to travel
through the air and asked the Buddha if he could go to the end of the world. Buddha, however,
told him that he could not go by that means for the world is in the mind. Guru C teaches his
followers to actualise the dhamma by practicing anapanasati. He does not stress the jhanas or
samadhi but he does teach that immediate benefits are possible. He cautions his followers,
however, not to desire nibbana, instead, he tells them just to live in the present and to be mindful
of it. Both the dhamma and meditation receive emphasis in his teachings, their relation is revealed
when he says that people should `first realise the dhamma and then get into vipassana'.
13
Statement made during interview, Kandy, 14 August 1997.
14
Comments made during an interview in Kandy on 12 November 1998.
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­55 39
Up to this point Guru C and his society might seem to be fairly orthodox Buddhists. But
their relation to the prevailing Buddhism in Sri Lanka is complex. Possibly the best explanation
of the relation between Guru C, his society and Buddhism is found in the following statement
which he made in one of our interviews. `We have to understand what Buddhism is, and
having gotten that knowledge, we then have to break that knowledge.' A great admirer of
Krishnamurti, Guru C made a significant comment about him. He explained that Krishnamurti
said that he went to Buddha, was with the Buddha, and then left the Buddha to find his own
truth. This statement might be seen as a parable of the way that Guru C views his own
teaching and his society. Another statement of his relation to Buddhism is given in this
comment made during another interview, `The Buddha never expected his teaching to turn into
Buddhism. Religion is the most harmful thing in the world. Because of religion people are
fighting. But what the Buddha gave is not a religion, it is a teaching about how to live in the
world, how to live in this impermanent world satisfactorily. That is the Buddha's teaching.'15
Leading his followers toward this truth, Guru C is extremely critical of contemporary Buddhist
orthodoxy on a number of counts. He declares that, `Today in Sri Lanka we do not have
Buddhism. Buddhism only exists in books, not in the minds of the people.' His comments
reflect his criticism of Sinhala Buddhist nationalism and the ethnic conflict. He blames the
Sangha for promoting racial tensions that keep the fires of war burning in Sri Lanka and
prevent a peaceful resolution of the ethnic conflict. He also criticises the way that average
Buddhists practise the rituals in hopes of being reborn in the time of the next Buddha,
Maitreya, to seek liberation. They could find the truth now, he says, if they would look inside
the mind instead of looking outside with their pujas. He lays the blame for the lack of guidance
squarely at the door of the Sangha. The Buddha, he says, taught a clear path, but the Sangha
has distorted it and led the people astray. The Sangha, for example, is responsible for the
recent Sinhala translation of the Tripit*aka which ought to have made the dhamma more
accessible to the people. Instead, however, he argues, the Sinhala translation uses a form of
literary Sinhala that is more complex than the original Pali and is inaccessible to the average
person.
Guru C's interest in social engagement evokes another criticism of the Sangha and contempor-
ary Buddhism. The temples, he says, waste huge sums of money in the performance of elaborate
pujas `that do no good'. He pointed out that the Temple of the Tooth, the chief temple in the
country, spends over ten thousand rupees per day on pujas. About this he says flatly, `This is not
Buddhism'. He argues that his society could build simple housing for poor people for the same ten
thousand rupees. This kind of social service is central to his vision of what the dhamma requires.
He cited the Buddha's commissioning of his first disciples and his sending them out for the
`welfare of the people'. His society has sought to help all kinds of people--Sinhalese, Tamils, and
Muslims--by building houses and providing food and clothing for them. In his view the dhamma
has no ethnic boundaries for all are human beings and can improve their minds. The society has
also engaged in projects to preserve the environment as well as human beings. Guru C says that
when one knows the dhamma one will want to serve others; social service is consistent with the
dhamma.
15
Comment made during my interview with him on 16 July 1997 in Kandy, Sri Lanka.
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­5540
3.6. Summary
Guru C and his followers regard themselves as reformers who seek to recover the central
meaning of the dhamma. Guru C has written that `Ancient Buddhism is a superior educational
system. Modern Buddhism is a chain of offerings that leads nowhere.'16
This view echoes the
earlier Theosophists and reformers. The dichotomy that Guru C draws between texts and
experience represents a theme that appears in the teachings of other gurus also and seems
somewhat problematic. The distinction that he makes between the `textual dhamma' and the
`dhamma of the mind' raises the question of the relation between these two dhammas. It could be
argued that the `textual dhamma' represents the necessary context or source for any experience of
dhamma that the lay meditators might have. Just as studies of mystical experience have debated
whether or to what extent the experiences of the mystics are shaped by the doctrines of their
tradition, so it would seem that similar questions could be raised about the relations between the
meditators and Buddhist doctrine.17
Guru C, and other gurus, for their part, prefer to view the
`textual dhamma' as an imperfect representation of the truth that can be replaced by the direct
experience of the truth in meditation, and in some ways this represents a classical Buddhist
viewpoint affirmed in both Theravada and Mahayana.
His society members follow Guru C's teachings as a way to cope with their daily lives and also
as a way to address the larger problems around them. Guru C and his followers place emphasis
on social service, something that few of the other meditators emphasise. In following this path
they may be seen to be moving toward a kind of sectarian status. Their own guru clearly has more
authority for them than the sangha and they prefer to study his dhamma rather than the canonical
dhamma of Theravada. We shall see that this represents a mild step toward sectarianism and that
more dramatic steps are being taken by other gurus.
3.7. Guru D
The fourth guru in our study provides a further example of both the way that the meditation
movement has evolved and the kind of flux that exists in the contemporary Buddhism of the laity.
Guru D, like Guru A and some of the other teachers we will consider, was in the first generation
of lay persons who learned meditation at the Kanduboda meditation centre. After practicing and
teaching for many years as a layman, Guru D took ordination as a monk and now serves as the
leader of his own meditation centre and has a large following. His society exemplifies the way that
the rhetoric of experience facilitates `legitimation, authority and power' and how these forces
move this group toward sectarianism.
The most striking feature of this group is the power and authority that the followers accord the
guru. Guru D personifies the guru role and its significance in the contemporary context in Sri
Lanka. Guru D is an English-educated man who for most of his life held an important
government position in Colombo. Becoming interested in meditation after the Burmese inspired
revival of it in the 1950s, he went to the Kanduboda meditation centre and studied under the
16
Stated in his printed lectures on the Dhamma, Vols 1­3, p. 25.
17
A full discussion of the debate about mysticism is beyond the scope of this article. I refer the reader to Katz 1978;
King 1988; Smart 1977; and Sharf 1992.
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­55 41
teachers there. He also studied meditation in India with Anagarika Munidraji. After practicing
meditation for some time, he began to teach meditation in Colombo and continued to be a lay
teacher for almost three decades until he retired from his government job in the late 1980s and
took ordination as a monk. He remains a monk today, although he seems to have few ties to the
orthodox sangha. The new meditation movement has been his primary concern from the time he
began, so that even though he became ordained, he never accommodated to the `contemporary
Buddhist orthodoxy', a fact that comes out in his teachings and guidelines for his followers. For
example, when I asked Guru D who his teachers had been, he proclaimed that his only teacher
was the Buddha, thereby refusing to acknowledge any of his teachers in the contemporary sangha.
After taking ordination he founded his meditation centre in the hill country of the island in the
early 1990s. At this centre, Guru D presides in a way that clearly demonstrates how experience
leverages power and authority. His followers, both the thousands that come to the centre on Poya
days and other occasions and the hundred or so who reside at the centre for a longer term, regard
Guru D as an arahant and accord him absolute authority. Guru D informs people, without saying
it explicitly, that he has attained the goal. He describes a long path of meditation that involved
encountering Mara and developing what he called in English `the third eye' and explained using
Pali terms as the dibba cakkhu, which was one of the Buddha's attainments upon reaching
Nibbana.18
One suspects that this may be the reason that he became ordained: he believed that he
had become an arahant and, knowing the Theravada teaching that a person could not remain a
layman after he attained Nibbana, he became a monk. Now he is the absolute authority at his
centre, and--compared to the gurus we have considered thus far--has a much more commanding
and dominating manner as a guru. Whenever any questions come up at his centre his followers
refer them to `the priest'. He takes full responsibility for both the teachings and the organisational
details at his centre. Although he has a number of meditation teachers under him at the centre,
there is no doubt about where the authority rests. Once, for example, when I was interviewing one
of his bhikkhuni teachers, some of his other followers interrupted the interview twice to ask if `the
priest' had given permission for it. Everyone in his centre defers to the authority of this guru;
indeed there seems to be both a fear of the guru as well as a desire to please him. In keeping with
his guru status, his teaching style is simple and authoritative. On Poya days about one thousand
of his followers come to the centre to hear him preach on the dhamma and to be instructed in
meditation. Accepting and even reveling in his power and status, Guru D declares, `It is a great
thing that I can lead people to liberation'.
When I asked Guru D whether he and his assistants studied the Buddhist texts, he said that
they taught on the basis of the guru's experience. He tells his followers that it is not necessary to
study the texts because if one meditates, one will learn it all firsthand as he has. He also told me
that `Books are the ruin of Buddhism'. By which he meant that there are too many books written
about Buddhism by people who have no personal experience with these truths. A teacher on his
staff confirmed this when she told me that `books are discouraged' because they represent worldly
wisdom. Somewhat paradoxically, although he shuns the texts and books, his teaching and that
of his assistants seems very textual. This exemplifies the kind of problematic dichotomy of
experience and texts that we see also in the teachings of some of the other gurus. While
purportedly based on his own experience, his dhamma teachings and meditation instructions
18
Comments made during an earlier interview, Colombo, 23 July 1983.
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­5542
follow the textual tradition of meditation very closely, although simplifying it somewhat. The
primary text to which he refers is the Satipat*t*hana Sutta, which seems to serve as the basis of his
method, as it does for most meditators in the wake of the `new Burmese school'. He is fond of
saying that `the path is very clear', and in keeping with this he sets out a fairly simple explanation
of the dhamma and a basic technique of meditation consistent with this sutta. One Poya day when
I visited his centre, he delivered a dhamma sermon that summarised his fairly orthodox message.
He said that one must realise that `all is within this fathom-long body'. Although we think that
reality is outside, it is actually inside, controlled by the mind. The mind creates the body and our
attachment to the body. Most suffering is caused by our ignorance of this process which leads to
attachment and aversion. This message seems to constitute a common theme among the
contemporary gurus; a theme we noted in Guru C's teaching also and which will recur in other
gurus below.
Although his teaching about meditation follows the Satipat*t*hana Sutta for the most part, it
breaks with the `new Burmese method' on some key points. The most important form of
meditation for this group is anapanasati which the guru prescribes for everyone. In addition,
however, unlike Mahasi Sayadaw's method, he also stresses the importance of the jhanas as a
part of the path through samadhi to vipassana. He explains that samadhi is essential because it
enables the meditator to close off the sense doors. The technique is simple, he said: One does
sila, then samadhi by developing the jhanas and the jhana factors, and then one can come to
vipassana by observing the wisdom of mindfulness which empowers one to see the reality of the
world.19
Although this technique sounds like classical Theravada meditation from the Visud-
dhimagga, Guru D is also critical of the Visuddhimagga, saying that the lists of meditation
topics from the Visuddhimagga are not important and represent a scholasticism that is divorced
from practice. He also does not require his followers to adhere to any special rules beyond the
normal sila.
A second key feature of Guru D's group is the emphasis that he places on the availability of the
goals of meditation. This feature undoubtedly has much to with both the status of the guru and
the popularity of this group with the laity. If Guru D's teachings about the dhamma and
meditation are more or less conventional, his ideas about the possibility of attaining the goals are
fairly radical, although they clearly follow from the kind of emphasis that Mahasi Sayadaw and
his followers placed on these attainments. The only important goal of meditation, he says, is
enlightenment and the stages of the noble persons or ariya puggla. He does not teach meditation
to help people with secondary goals or problems such as stress. He feels that lay people can easily
attain the main goal. `Why not?' he says, `The technique is simple and the path is very clear. All
that is needed is for people to be keen enough.' He discusses the relevant `mileposts' for
attainments--meaning the Four Noble persons--and declares that these mileposts have been
reached by his followers. He explains that reaching these goals is not difficult, people have only to
eliminate the hindrances and develop other positive factors. `It can be done', he said. In fact he
claims that many of his followers have already attained all of these stages. When I pressed him a
bit about these goals, he said that the stage of Streamenterer `is a simple thing' that any of his
followers can attain. Again using an explanation that resonates with the texts despite his ban on
books, he said that this stage only requires one to overcome three hindrances: doubt, attachment
19
Comments made during an interview, Kandy, 8 August 1997.
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­55 43
to rituals and rules (sila), and self view. Lowering the bar about as far as possible, Guru D
emphasised how simple this process is by saying `Any layman can do it'.
On a Poya when I visited Guru D's centre I saw how far he carries this belief about the
availability of the goal. After he had delivered a lengthy dhamma sermon, he instructed the
audience (numbering about 800 people) to divide up into three groups for discussion and
meditation: beginners, intermediates, and ariya puggalas. Although most of the people in the
audience gravitated toward one of the first two groups, a significant number of people reported to
the group for the ariya puggalas which was appropriately sub-divided into four sections, one for
each of the higher stages from Streamenterer to Arahant. Holding breakout groups for ariya
puggalas surely sets this movement apart from contemporary Buddhist orthodoxy and shows how
far it has gone toward a sectarian or emergent religion status.
All of these breakout groups were led by nuns, and I spoke to two of these teachers, the one in
charge of the arahants (who had about four or five people in her group) and another nun who was
teaching the foreign meditators. Both of them said that the higher stages of the path are perfectly
attainable, even by foreigners and non-Buddhists. The second teacher supported this claim by
referring to the Satipat*t*hana Sutta teaching that if one practises diligently the goal can be reached
in seven days. This nun also said that many of the nuns had gone far beyond the stage of Stream
Enterer, and that the guru had also.
Clearly this belief about the higher attainments of the guru and the possibility of reaching
them for oneself represents a central reason many people are attracted to this group. I found
evidence, however, that these claims also work against the group at times and lead some people
to doubt the guru. For example, I met one man who had formerly been an ardent supporter of
Guru D but now had ceased going to hear him because this man thought that it was not right
for Guru D to make these claims. The man felt that if a person were enlightened he would not
boast about it, and he also thought that Guru D had made the goals too easy. A second
informant, a woman, echoed these sentiments and expressed her serious reservations about
both Guru D and his group. She had been a strong supporter of the guru, giving large
donations to help develop his centre because she thought that the guru led good meditation
programmes that made her feel happy and well. But while attending one meditation session in
which they practised the meditation on the parts of the body, she began to have some strange
sensations. She experienced pains in her body and saw bright lights. When she discussed these
experiences with the chief nun, who was the main teacher for the session, the nun told her that
she was getting close to attaining arahantship. The nun sent her to meet with the guru who
told her the same thing. He also instructed her in the jhanas and showed her how she should
work her way through the jhanic states on her way to arahantship. She felt that she did achieve
some of these jhanic stages and attained some of their powers. Guru D and his nuns soon
began to tell her that she had attained arahantship and she felt very happy. After a few
months, however, she began to have doubts about her attainments: it seemed too good to be
true that she had reached the ultimate goal because she did not feel that she was enlightened.
So she began going to another meditation teacher, Guru C, who gave her some suttas to study
along with some of his own writings. Through following Guru C's teaching she has come to
believe that what she attained before was only the samadhi associated with the jhanas, not the
ariya magga and its fruits. She now has serious doubts about Guru D and his teachings and
does not believe that he has reached the goal or that he is correct in his claims of bringing so
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­5544
many others to the goal. She still hopes to attain Nibbana and end dukkha, but she now follows
a more conventional and gradual path.
A final distinctive feature of Guru D's group is the role it accords to women. Guru D says that
about eighty per cent of his followers are women, and my observations of his meetings would
seem to confirm his estimate. When asked why women are so interested in his meditation, he says
what many people in Sri Lanka say to explain women's interest in religion: women are more
interested in liberation because women suffer more than men. According to Guru D, some women
obtain results very quickly if they have experienced extensive suffering since suffering represents
the first Noble Truth and acquaintance with it facilitates the realisation of the other truths.
But in addition to having mostly female followers, a distincitve feature of this group is that
Guru D also has a staff of `nuns' who serve as the primary meditation teachers at his centre and
he has embarked on a campaign to `ordain' more women as `bhikkhunis'. When I spoke with him
in 1998, he had sixteen nuns in his group and said that he planned to ordain about 60 women and
build a forest hermitage for them. Since bhikkhuni ordination has been a controversial topic
recently in Sri Lanka, I asked him whether he thought that the Sangha should officially reestablish
it and whether he saw any problems associated with his performing these ordinations. Surpris-
ingly, he said that it was neither possible nor necessary for the Sangha to reestablish bhikkhuni
ordination officially, but he also said that he did not care whether it was officially approved or not.
He intends to provide ordination for women and `boost them along the path to become ariya
puggalas', the stages of Noble Persons culminating in Arahantship. He feels that what is
important is not the external orders but the internal development of these women. Giving
expression to the power of experience, he said that once these women attain arahantship, no one
can dispute their status as bhikkhunis. He further implied that most of the women that he has
ordained have already reached this goal.
3.8. Summary
This combination of a powerful guru's authority, a promise of higher attainments for followers
and a willingness to create new roles for women who wish to become nuns sets Guru D's
movement apart from contemporary Buddhist orthodoxy. These factors also indicate that his
movement also may be moving toward a kind of sectarianism. The emphasis on easy attainment
of the goals represents a form of commodification of religion which relates to the economic
context in the country. The middle class lay people who constitute Guru D's followers have
attained many things and now look to meditation to give them these spiritual attainments that
will make life both manageable and satisfactory (sukha). Finally, although this guru and his
followers claim higher spiritual goals, they do not have any interest in socially engaged Buddhism
or social service. When I asked Guru D whether he does any social service, he replied that the
most important social service is to share the dhamma with others as he does.
3.9. Guru E (Mr D. C. P. Ratnakara)
Our fifth example was the founder of a well-organised society that exhibits many of the themes
we outlined in the introduction. His is one of the oldest meditation societies in Sri Lanka and until
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­55 45
his death in 2000 he was one of the senior meditation teachers in the country. In the teachings of
this guru and the life of his society, we see how far the lay meditation movement has gone toward
sectarianism. Since I have written about this guru elsewhere and knew him well before his
untimely death, I will use his real name and the name of his society.20
3.10. The Guru
D. C. P. Ratnakara was the `lay Patron and Founder' of the Society of the Friends of the
Dhamma (Sadaham Mithuru Samuluwa). Before his retirement in the early 1980s, Mr Ratnakara
was a lecturer in educational psychology at the Peradeniya Teachers Training College near
Kandy. He too was in the first generation of lay meditators during the 1950s revival of meditation
and studied with several teachers including some forest monks. As a youth he was very interested
in Theosophy and also read many books by Indian teachers such as Vivekananda and
Krishnamurti. For almost four decades, the members of his society accorded him great respect as
a guru who had reached an advanced stage of the spiritual path. But guru Ratnakara was not the
sole authority for this society, Mrs Ratnakara also has had a key role.
3.11. The Society
The Ratnakaras founded their society in 1962, and since that time it has grown to have almost
one thousand members and many local branches. The story of the founding of the society reveals
some key facts about the nature of this movement. Mr Ratnakara explained that it was not his
idea to found a society, but it became necessary to do so because of the `revelations' that he and
his wife were receiving and the demands of their `teachers'. To abbreviate a long narrative which
I have given in full elsewhere,21
Mr and Mrs Ratnakara began receiving transcendental messages
through a medium. Mrs Ratnakara was especially receptive to these messages and served as the
chief contact with the spiritual beings whom they believed to be the authors of the messages. The
messages consisted of comprehensive dhamma teachings about such topics as cosmology, ethics,
meditation and healing. The Ratnakaras came to believe that these dhamma teachings emanated
from a pantheon of higher beings, including `masters', yogis, gods and goddesses. Especially
important in this pantheon were the goddess Saraswati and a `Buddha from another planet'.
Eventually, these higher beings told the Ratnakaras to form a society to study and follow these
teachings, which is how S.M.S. came about. The charter of the S.M.S. states that `Masters or
Spiritual Teachers mentioned in the Buddhist Theosophical Literature . do even now exist, and
one could communicate with them by developing certain meditative states of consciousness . or
through a trained medium'. Today the society continues to follow these teachers and to be
interested in some more recent cross-traditional influences such as the teachings of the Indian
gurus Vimala Thakar and Sai Baba.
The members of the society study and live by the dhamma given by the spiritual teachers rather
than the dhamma of the Tipit*aka. The charter of the society explains that `the oral teachings of the
20
For a more extensive discussion of the early period of this guru and his society, see Buddhist Revival in Sri Lanka,
ch. 6.
21
See Buddhist Revival in Sri Lanka, ch. 6.
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­5546
Great Sage were committed to writing long years after the Parinibbana of the Founder. By that
time interested parties changed the original teachings and one can hardly ascertain how much.' So
the written canon is not to be trusted, but this dhamma mediated by the deities is pure.
Accordingly, the members do not study the traditional texts but instead study the teachings given
by the deities to the Ratnakaras.22
The content of this celestial dhamma is too voluminous to explain fully here, but we can
mention some of the chief categories. There are elaborate teachings on the nature of the pantheon
of deities which is extremely complex. For example, one of their main deity teachers is described
as the 42nd assistant to the goddess Saraswati. One aspect of this dhamma prescribes new forms
of sila or ethical conduct, therefore the society lives by a number of special regulations, such as
rules concerning simplicity in dress and lifestyle. Members are advised to arise at 4 a.m., to
observe a vegetarian diet and to avoid people who engage in `wrong activities'.
A major topic in this dhamma is the path of meditation. Ratnakara explained that having these
spiritual beings as teachers is a great help since sam*sara is like a prison and the devas are like
beings who, having liberated themselves from the prison, can now show others the way out. So
they have revealed the path of meditation to the Ratnakaras. The form of meditation that
Ratnakara's society teaches, however, seems--despite the esoteric source of the teachings--
relatively conventional. They stress concentration (samadhi) and mindfulness (sati). The teachings
received from the spirit beings, however, provide some new explanations of the nature of the
meditation process. One such idea that they teach is that nature, `jivitindriya', can be described as
a force that seeks to elicit karmic reactions in order to keep human beings trapped in sam*sara. The
goal of meditators, therefore, must be to recognise nature's scheme and not get caught in it any
further. Through these teachings Ratnakara attempted to show his followers how to overcome
suffering in this life. S.M.S. holds meditation retreats and camps for the members and encourages
them to meditate daily. They seek to attain Nibbana in this life. Or as one S.M.S. member
explained, `We cannot visualise or even hope for Nibbana. But if we can be peaceful, not in conflict
and not reacting, then that must be Nibbana, or at least a glimpse of it.' Ratnakara claimed that
people in S.M.S. have attained higher states, but he did not put as much emphasis on this fact as
Guru D does. Rather Ratnakara stressed that the idea of reaching Nibbana in this life really means
that one can come to understand reality as it is or the dhammic nature of all things.
With this celestial dhamma as its guide, S.M.S. breaks sharply with the Sangha and
contemporary Buddhist orthodoxy. The members who began the society were not content with
the dhamma given by monks `which stressed going to heaven or the Brahma realms'. Ratnakara
said, `the common Buddhism practiced today, with its innumerable rituals, ceremonies and alms
feasts has drowned the real practical aspects of the sublime dhamma'. Needless to say, the S.M.S.
members do not go to the temples or seek the services of the monks. They do, however, perform
some rituals of their own, such as a form of Pirit chanting done by lay persons as well as pujas to
the deities who are the guardians of their society.
Other significant features of this society include its emphasis on healing and its interest in social
engagement. Mrs Ratnakara explains that she has had the power to heal for about 10 years. She
attributes this power to her contact with the devas, rishis and other spiritual beings, including
22
This distrust of the scriptures preserved by the Sangha represents another common theme among many of the
contemporary meditation teachers. It probably reflects, to some extent, Orientalist influences from an earlier period as
well as the privileging of the experience of the guru.
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­55 47
Hippocrates, who, according to their revelations, is now living as a deity. She also received
ayurvedic advice from other spiritual sources such as a `Rishi Doctor' from India who had been
the doctor for Mahatma Gandhi. He would tell her how to make ayurvedic potions to heal people
and she would prepare the mixtures and plants that he prescribed. This `guru Doctor' had various
means for healing that went beyond those of ordinary medicine, for example he could see a
person's `sam*sara' and take that into account in healing them. She seems to have worked with the
medium and this `Guru Doctor' for about 10 years. During this time, she says that she healed
many people. She even tried to heal some cancer patients, but they were too ill to respond to the
treatments. She related a story about working with a Muslim couple who were unable to have
children. The husband's mother was threatening to force the couple to divorce unless the woman
could conceive. Mrs Ratnakara called on the medium to communicate with the deities to get an
answer for this problem. After the medium and Mrs Ratnakara met with the woman and
conveyed the deities' instructions, the woman conceived and the couple had 3 children in 5 years
and were very happy.
In addition to this emphasis on healing, the society also has had a socially engaged focus. It
carries out social relief work on a small scale and has some environmental projects. These are not
major aspects of the society but neither are they insignificant. The younger members of the society
are especially interested in the ecology projects and other kinds of outreach that they have
undertaken.
3.12. Summary
This society clearly demonstrates the privileging of experience and the way that this is related
to earlier reforms with Western roots such as Theosophy. The earlier Western influences are now
mingled with more global influences to support the authority of experience and enable the group
to challenge contemporary Buddhism. With the role of the guru and the new ideas about the
deities, it appears that S.M.S. is moving toward sectarianism more clearly than any of the other
groups we have examined thus far. The formal structure of the society with its charter and by-laws
suggests that they recognise and accept a sectarian status. To attend the monthly meetings of this
group is to see that it has a sectarian appearance in that whole families attend the sessions that
include `Sunday school' type programmes for the children and youth and a strong sense of
fellowship and identity by all of the members. The current leaders of the society explicitly say that
S.M.S. is not Theravada Buddhism, but because of the source of its teachings it has ties to
Mahayana and Vajrayana. The charter of the society reads, `The S.M.S. does not differentiate
between Mahayana and Theravada teachings. Senior members study both with an open mind and
accept what is true irrespective of the label'.23
3.13. Guru F
Our final example concerns a guru who presents another interesting case that further delineates
the evolution of the meditation movement. Guru F is a retired government clerk who also has
23
Charter of Incorporation for Sadaham Mithuru Samuluwa, Sri Lanka, p. 4.
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­5548
been involved in the meditation revival from an early period. He studied at the Kanduboda and
Nilambe meditation centres and was a friend of Guru A, Guru D and Guru Ratnakara. One of
my informants showed me a photo of Guru F along with Guru A, Guru D and Guru Ratnakara
at a meditation retreat in the forest (Sithulpahuwa) in the early 1970s. Now, over thirty years
later, Guru F has become an extremely popular guru with a large following. In some ways he has
followed a similar path to that of his old meditation companions but in other ways he has broken
a new path.
Guru F resembles these other gurus in his critique of orthodox Buddhism. Like Guru
Ratnakara and gurus C and D, he notes that the Tipit*aka was not written until at least 200 years
after the time of the Buddha and so does not reflect the pure dhamma. He also opposes the Sangha
and challenges the monks and nuns who come to his meetings. Some monks come to see him
intending to debate with him, but he says that after they hear him talk they leave quietly because
they realise that he is speaking the true dhamma. When Buddhist nuns come to meet him, he tells
them that they are `going in the wrong path'. Other aspects of contemporary orthodoxy such as
the rituals and pujas are also contested by this guru for the same reasons that the other gurus
oppose them.
Guru F goes beyond the other gurus, however, in that he also rejects the value of meditation
itself. `Meditation is a mistaken path', he charges. He teaches his followers that meditation is a
difficult and disappointing practice.24
Although people follow it blindly, it will not lead them to
wisdom or salvation. Meditation only brings suffering from long hours of sitting, and the Buddha
opposed suffering. According to Guru F, Gotama attained enlightenment under the Bo-tree only
after he had given up meditating. Guru F's followers, convinced by these teachings, have ceased
to follow the path of meditation. One woman follower whom I interviewed said that she used to
meditate regularly but now sees that it is pointless and has `stopped wasting her time doing
meditation'.25
What has replaced the path of meditation for this group is the power of the guru to produce
enlightenment directly. The followers of Guru F believe that he has great power and authority,
with some declaring that he is a Buddha and others that he is the reincarnation of Anagarika
Dharmapala living his last birth. Still other followers whom I met said that Guru F had reached
arahantship. One follower thought he was clearly in an advanced state and compared him to
Ajahn Cha, the late Thai monk whom Thai Buddhists regarded as an arahant.
To document his authority, Guru F and his followers recount events that occurred during a trip
to India in 1992. Guru F and about 250 followers went to Bodh Gaya and there Guru F
`re-delivered the Buddha's Dhammacakka Sutta' at the site of the original Bo-tree. The followers
say that while Guru F was preaching, miraculous cosmic phenomena occurred: first, the sky went
dark, then there was a very bright light and the sounds of `celestial drums'. While this was
happening, bright colored rays were emanating from Guru F's body. Other disciples tell of a
similar miraculous event that occurred when Guru F was preaching in front of the great Bo-tree
in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka.26
For his part, Guru F says that he has attained the ability `to see all of the powers and wisdom
up to the arahant stage', although he is `currently abiding in the Sotapanna stage'. He
24
Comments made during a meeting with him in Kandy, 16 August 1997.
25
Interviewed in Kandy, 20 August 1997.
26
Followers interviewed at one of his meetings in Kandy, 16 August 1997.
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­55 49
acknowledges no teacher, but says that his authority comes from an experience in which he saw
the truth of the dhamma directly while witnessing a Vesak drama featuring a skeleton. He does not
study the texts of the Tipit*aka or any books, but says that he has attained the true power of the
Buddha and the dhamma. He has the ability to know the original suttas at `the necessary moment'.
Guru F claims that although he has not read any suttas or books he now has the ability to see the
true dhamma perfectly. Therefore, he instructs people that they should follow the dhamma that he
has directly received because it is more trustworthy than the orthodox dhamma of the texts.
The dhamma that he teaches is in some ways similar to the classical Buddhist dhamma in its
emphasis on ideas such as impermanence and the power of cause and effect in human life. In other
ways, however, the dhamma that he teaches revises the landscape of contemporary Buddhism
considerably. For example, he teaches that although the Tipit*aka says that the Buddha's mother
died one week after he was born, this is not correct. Through his power, Guru F can see into the
past and relate what actually happened. He says that she did not die after one week, but rather she
was transformed into a man at that time. This occurred because the infant Siddhartha refused to
drink her milk. After becoming a man, she/he lived incognito for 62 years until she/he was taught
Abhidhamma by the Buddha and achieved liberation. In a similar fashion he gives novel
interpretations to other parts of the dhamma, saying that the words of the suttas as we have them
now should be regarded as symbols.
Instead of following the traditional path of Sila, Samadhi, and Pan~n~a, Guru F teaches that the
path consists of Pan~n~a, Sila, and Samadhi. He says that Sila (moral conduct) is not important as
a precursor to the realisation of truth, but will follow automatically after one attains wisdom.
When monks and nuns come to hear his talks, this guru tells them that they too should abandon
the focus on Sila and concentrate on Pan~n~a (wisdom) as the path to the goal. This, of course, runs
directly counter to the whole teaching of Theravada, classical or contemporary.
The biggest change, however, comes when he discounts the value of meditation as the means to
attaining Pan~n~a. Instructing his followers not to meditate, he explains that Pan~n~a and the goal
can be realised if people simply listen to him preach the dhamma. He maintains that if a person
hears at least four dhamma sermons by him, then that person will automatically become a
Streamenterer. Guru F claims to be able to preach in such a way that everyone in an audience as
large as 3000 people can hear him plainly, just as if he were speaking to them alone. Accordingly,
Guru F refuses to use microphones or loudspeakers to amplify his voice because he believes that
this would interfere with the effectiveness of the guru's power and block his dhamma.
By emphasising the power of the guru's dhamma sermons, this society accents the authority of
the guru. But another somewhat mystical element also receives emphasis in their accounts of the
guru. Guru F and his followers attribute the effectiveness of his dhamma sermons to something
they call the `Universal Power'. This Universal Power is what enables large numbers of people to
hear and understand the dhamma. The guru says that it is because of the Universal Power that
people are interested in the dhamma today and it is this power that can correct the false teaching
and bring people to the truth. This Universal Power seems to be some kind of ultimate force that
operates through the guru and can be realised by others. It is not entirely clear whether this force
is truly universal and can be found everywhere or whether it represents a power of this guru that
he can manifest as he wills. Through this power Guru F claims to be able to perform miraculous
works such as healing and divination. For example, Guru F claims that when people come to him
with questions and problems, he knows and gives the answers before they ask their questions. This
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­5550
guru also claims to have healed people through his Universal Power. He says that people have
come to him after their doctors had given up and he has sent them home cured of their illnesses.
His words have healing power and the people are cured as they listen to his sermons or discuss
their problems with him.
3.14. Summary
In many ways, Guru F resembles the other gurus we have examined. His dhamma teaching is
not too unusual, stressing, for example, the need to awaken one's mind and recognise the cause
and effect of mental states, or the need to recognise that the world is not real as it appears. His
followers, like the followers of the other gurus, find these teachings helpful in coping with life
today. Exemplifying the same problematic distinction between texts and experience that we have
noted above, Guru F claims that his teachings come not from the texts, however much they
resemble the textual teachings, but from his transcendental experiences. Correspondingly, what
attracts the huge crowds to Guru F is not his psychological Buddhist teachings alone, but rather
the guru himself and the beliefs about his wisdom and his powers. His followers have faith that
they can be enlightened simply by hearing this guru preach his dhamma. This belief causes people
to flock to hear him by the thousands everywhere he goes in the country. His meetings, advertised
only by word of mouth and held in large halls without air conditioning or loud speakers, are
jammed with people who sit for hours in oppressive conditions to hear their guru. One of his
disciples expressed the sentiment of many when she described how she had been to various
teachers and centres and even thought she had attained some higher spiritual states but now sees
that was all false because she has found a `great master' in Guru F who has brought her to the true
realisation. Now although she does not study the texts, read books or meditate, she too has
become a teacher through the Universal Power that he manifests.27
With Guru F we reach the end of the continuum of the meditation movement. He represents
a classic case of the privileging of experience to gain authority and power. With this authority he
makes a complete break with contemporary orthodoxy and its texts, Sangha and rituals. But the
authority of this guru is such that he also breaks with the meditation movement itself, declaring
that he has the power to convey wisdom and healing directly. Once an ardent meditator, Guru F
now supplants the path of meditation with the power of the guru; he even preaches against the
other meditation teachers and seeks to convert their followers by showing that they are pursuing
the wrong path.
4. Conclusion
The lay meditation movement clearly reflects the ferment in contemporary Buddhism in Sri
Lanka. Although the proponents of this movement may contend that they are seeking classical
Buddhist goals such as wisdom and the elimination of dukkha, their construction of these goals
and the path to them is complex and represents discourse that has developed in a post-modern
context. This discourse is shaped by the blend of revivalist and more recent themes that we
27
Female disciple interviewed on 20 August 1997.
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­55 51
mentioned at the outset. The theme of individualism, an idea that sparked the earlier revival,
continues to inspire the meditation movement and has taken on new meaning with an emphasis
on the power of women. An important contemporary theme running through this movement is
economic and political encompassment. Economic encompassment is explicit in the work of Guru
B who teaches meditation to the business community, but it is implicit in the work of many of the
other gurus who seek to help people cope with the problems created in their lives by the changing
and open market economy. Political encompassment is similarly explicit in the work of Guru B
but implicit in the way that the interest in meditation as a whole may be seen as a response to the
political problems and ethnic conflict in the country. The classical Buddhist theme of compassion
also receives a new construction under this movement as some gurus use meditation for healing
and others stress the importance of social engagement. Social engagement also serves to link this
movement to larger cross-cultural movements today. The global and cross-traditional nature of
these themes becomes most clear when we see that these Sri Lankan gurus read and invoke gurus
and philosophers from various traditions in both the West and the East. Indian teachers, such as
Goenka, Krishnamurti, Vimala Thakar, and Sai Baba, tend to be the most frequently cited, but
Thai teachers such as Ajahn Chah as well as Tibetan and Zen teachers also exert considerable
influence.
As I have noted, the privileging of experience represents a key theme that sets this movement
apart from both traditional and contemporary Theravada orthodoxy. It is clear that the gurus'
claims of inner experience have a certain rhetorical utility for the meditation movement. These
claims give the movement new authority to break with both the Sangha and the rituals of the
temples and they have empowered a new class of lay gurus. In figures such as Guru D or Guru
F one sees clearly the way that claims to experience authorise the gurus. As Sharf has noted, `In
the end, the Buddhist rhetoric of meditative experience would appear to be both informed by and
wielded in the interests of legitimation, authority and power' (p. 265) The gurus' claims to
experience also serve another purpose that has been noted in the Western discussion of religious
experience, they help to insulate the meditation movement from secular critique while assisting the
meditators to cope with the contemporary world (see Sharf 1992, p. 231f.). Although the claims
to experience function as the pillars of this movement, it is also interesting to observe the amount
of disagreement about the exact nature of the meditative states. As I have noted above, some
teachers raise questions about the explanations given by other teachers of their accomplishments
on the path and there have been cases of pupils leaving one teacher to go to another because they
doubted what they were told about their (the pupils') attainments. This debate continues, to some
extent, the earlier debate about the meditation techniques that arose when the Burmese
meditators first introduced them to Sri Lanka in the 1950s and it heightens our questions about
the rhetorical utility of experience.28
Although there is no doubt that the meditation movement is
characterised by many common themes, these differences of interpretation point up the increased
diversity of the movement in recent years. Employing the rhetoric of experience for power and
authority, some of the new gurus have asserted their autonomy and developed their own paths in
this the fifth decade of the lay meditation movement. Paraphrasing Stirrat, we can say that these
28
On this point see Sharf 1992, p. 262 and see also my discussion of the earlier meditation controversy in Sri Lanka,
in Bond 1988, ch. 4.
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­5552
lay gurus are leading the lay meditation movement toward `a series of different interpretations of
what it means' to be a Buddhist today (see Stirrat 1995).
If these gurus and their meditation societies were located in Japan or America, people might
regard them as forms of what are called `new religions'. Sharf has compared the modern Zen
movement in Japan with the vipassana revival in Southeast Asia. He notes that the new Zen
movement `has all the makings of a Japanese "new religion" ' including `disdain for scriptural
study, its shrill polemics against the orthodox Zen establishment' and its `promise of rapid
spiritual progress' (Sharf 1992, p. 250). The lay meditation movement in Sri Lanka exhibits many
of the same features and might also be usefully compared with the new religions. As Mary
Douglas notes, these new religious groups have arisen in contradiction to Weber's view that `the
conditions of modern life . [are] antipathetic to religion' (Douglas 1983, p. 25). In the Sri Lankan
context, these meditation groups seem to have proliferated as the society modernised.
Although this comparison with the paradigm of new religions in Japan is instructive, since
these movements occur in Sri Lanka it may be more appropriate to view them as what
Obeyesekere and others have termed `new religious movements'.29
Sharma has described `New
Hindu Religious Movements in India', and many of the features of the movements that he notes
are similar to the meditation movement in Sri Lanka (Sharma 1986, p. 197). For example he says
that the Indian movements (a) are patronised by the urban middle classes, (b) have given women
a greater role and induced `an upward revision of the status of women', and (c) usually have a
social service component. Many of these Indian movements that Sharma discusses are meditation
movements led by a guru figure. His description of Ramana Maharshi and his group seems very
similar to the Sri Lankan meditation groups. Sharma writes, `Ramana Maharshi is the typical,
even archetypal, figure of the master . who teaches a highly rarefied spirituality to . disciples
who seek him out and cluster around him, who instructs them on the basis of his own experience
rather than through scriptural lore, and whose concern centres on the achievement of salvation by
the individual' (Sharma 1986, p. 199). The cross-cultural dynamics of these new religious
movements, especially the Indian models, have almost certainly exerted an influence on the
guru-led movements in Sri Lanka.
Obeyesekere observes that, `In countries like Sri Lanka, "new religious movements" never
become "new religions," since the new movements are accommodated into a framework of old
and continuing "principles" ' (Obeyesekere 1986, p. 197). This may also be the case with these
guru-led movements, but being accommodated into a framework of principles does not
necessarily mean being accommodated into and reconciled with contemporary orthodoxy and the
hierarchy of the Sangha. These movements do not seek accommodation with contemporary
orthodoxy and it seems unlikely that they will accept it in the near future since they appear to be
moving toward greater sectarianism under the umbrella of Buddhism. A measure of these gurus'
break with orthodox Buddhism can be seen in their rejection of the classical or orthodox version
of the Three Gems or Three Refuges (ti saran*a): the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. The
overall effect of the meditation movement has been to reinterpret all three of these refuges:
The Buddha no longer represents the sole source of the teachings--there are other Buddhas in the
29
Obeyesekere 1986. Another category that might be employed here is that of `emergent religions'. Robert Ellwood has
discussed `emergent religions' as movements that adopt a more eclectic approach toward belief and practice from
established religions (Ellwood 1988, p. 17).
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­55 53
past, some gurus are regarded as Buddhas in the present and--according to one group--there are
Buddhas on other planets; the Dhamma does not derive from the written canonical texts but from
devas and the experience of gurus who can ensure its purity; and the authority of the Sangha has
been challenged and in some cases supplanted by that of the gurus. These gurus now play familiar
cross-cultural roles, as seen in India and the West, as prophets of meditation in a context of social
change and globalisation. Although they move in somewhat autonomous directions, taken as a
whole, these gurus and their movement represent significant statements of what it means to be a
Buddhist today.
References
Bodhi, B. 1992. Review of The Art of Living. Buddhist Publication Society Journal, 4 pp.
Bond, G.D., 1988. The Buddhist Revival in Sri Lanka. Univ. of South Carolina Press, Columbia.
de Silva, C., 1998. Plurality of Buddhist fundamentalism: an inquiry into views among Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka, in:
Bartholomeusz, T., de Silva, C.R. (Eds.), Buddhist Fundamentalism and Minority Identities in Sri Lanka State University of New
York Press, Albany, pp. 53­73.
Douglas, M., 1983. The effects of modernization on religious change, in: Douglas, M., Tipton, S. (Eds.), Religion and America:
Secular Life in a Secular Age Beacon Press, Boston, pp. 25­43.
Ellwood, R., 1988. Religious and Spiritual Groups in Modern America. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Gombrich, R., Obeyesekere, G., 1988. Buddhism Transformed: Religious Change 1988 in Sri Lanka. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton.
Goenka, S.N., 1987. The Discourse Summaries. Vipashyana Vishodhan Vinyas, Bombay.
Hart, W., 1987. The Art of Living: Vipassana Meditation as Taught by S.N. Goenka. Harper San Francisco, San Francisco.
Katz, S.T., 1978. Language, epistemology and mysticism, in: Katz, S.T. (Ed.),. Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Kabat-Zinn, J., 1990. Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body to Face Stress, Pain and Illness. Dell, New York.
King, S.B., 1988. Two epistemological models for the interpretation of mysticism. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 56,
257­279.
Kornfield, J., 1977. Living Buddhist Masters. Unity Press, Santa Cruz, CA.
Obeyesekere, G., 1986. The cult of Huniyam: a new religious movement in Sri Lanka, in: Beckford, J.A. (Ed.), New Religious
Movements and Rapid Social Change Sage, Paris, pp. 197­219.
Scott, D., 1994. Formations of Ritual: Colonial and Anthropological Discourses on Sinhala Yaktovil. University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis.
Sharf, R.H., 1992. Buddhist Modernism and the Rhetoric of Experience. Numen 42, 228­283.
Sharma, A., 1986. New Hindu religious movements in India, in: Beckford, J. (Ed.), New Religious Movements and Rapid Social
Change Sage Publications, Paris, pp. 220­239.
Smart, N., 1977. The exploration of mysticism, in: Coward, H., Penelhum, T. (Eds.), Mystics and Scholars Canadian Corporation for
Studies in Religion, Toronto, pp. 63­70.
Stirrat, R.L., 1995. Catholic identity and global forces in Sri Lanka, in: Bartholomeusz, T., de Silva, C.R. (Eds.), Buddhist
Fundamentalism and Minority Identities in Sri Lanka State University of New York Press, Albany, pp. 147­166.
Swearer, D.K., 1991. Fundamentalistic movements in Theravada Buddhism, in: Marty, M., Appleby, R.S. (Eds.), Fundamentalisms
Observed University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 628­690.
Tambiah, S.J., 1992. Buddhism Betrayed?: Religion, Politics and Violence in Sri Lanka. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Further Reading
Holt, J.C., 1987. Buddha in the Crown: Avalokitesvara in the Buddhist Traditions of Sri Lanka. Oxford University Press, New York.
Kemper, S., 1992. The Presence of the Past: Chronicles, Politics and Culture in Sinhala Life. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
Malalgoda, K., 1976. Buddhism in Sinhalese Society 1750­1900. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Manor, J. (Ed.), 1984. Sri Lanka in Change and Crisis. Croom, Helm, London.
Marty, M.E., Appleby, R.S. (Eds), 1991. Fundamentalisms Observed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­5554
Obeyesekere, G., 1995. Buddhism, nationhood and cultural identity: a question of fundamentals, in: Marty, M., Appleby, R.S. (Eds),
Fundamentalisms Comprehended. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 231­256.
Sharf, R.H., 1998. Experience, in: Taylor, M.C. (Ed.), Critical Terms for Religious Studies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
pp. 94­116.
Spencer, J., 1990. Sri Lanka: History and the Roots of the Conflict. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Stirrat, R.L., 1993. Power and Religiosity in a Post-Colonial Setting: Sinhala Catholics in Contemporary Sri Lanka. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
George D. Bond is a Professor of Religion of Northwestern University and a recipient of the Charles Deering McCormick
Professorship of Teaching Excellence. He is the author of The Word of the Buddha: the Tipit*aka and Its Interpretation in Theravada
Buddhism (Gunasena, 1982) and of The Buddhist Revival in Sri Lanka (University of South Carolina Press, 1988). Currently, he is
working on a book dealing with the process by which contemporary lay Buddhist groups in Sri Lanka have negotiated their
understandings of the meaning of Buddhism. This research examines the discourse of the meditation groups discussed in this paper as
well as that of socially engaged Buddhists and others.
G. D. Bond / Religion 33 (2003) 23­55 55