The Triratna Story by Vajragupta

The Triratna Story in the FWBO. These were much smaller proportions than in the early days of the movement.149 Most people welcomed the increased diversity of lifestyle, and yet some also worried that a crucial and distinctive aspect of the FWBO’s approach to the Dharma was endangered.150 The movement didn’t just offer a set of practices to do in the privacy of one’s own life. The FWBO was a practice in itself: participation in the sangha required, and helped to develop, qualities of cooperativeness, generosity, and sharing that worked in opposition to the individualistic tendencies of contemporary consumer society.

Communities and team-based right livelihood businesses could be ideal places to practise sangha in this way. They offered a different way of life. If fewer people participated in them, it would be a loss not only to those who wanted to live that way of life, but also to the intensity and effectiveness of the whole sangha.

A second trend occurred in the area of meditation practice.

Perhaps the first four decades of the FWBO had primarily been about building a new movement. The creation of vibrant sangha, and the institutions that sustained it, had been paramount. Now, some people wondered if they needed something different. There was discussion about whether it was possible to attain ‘stream entry’151 or ‘insight’ in the FWBO. Some Order members went to other Buddhist teachers looking for personal tuition in meditation practice, especially in satipatthana meditation and in ‘choiceless’ or ‘non-directed’ meditation practices. A few of them started to bring what they had learned into the FWBO, some of them teaching new practices on retreats and at urban centres.

There was a sense of excitement and enthusiasm; discoveries were made that were genuinely helpful. No doubt there was a need for the FWBO to develop more detailed and nuanced teaching and exploration of meditation. Yet the bringing-in of new practices sometimes led to polarization between Order members.

Those trying new approaches could be dismissive of the ‘standard’ 166