Due to Triratna being an eclectic mix of many strands of Buddhism with some unique practises, the question arises whether Triratna has many connections to the historical attractions at all, apart from the very fundamental aspects of Buddhism. It is clear, however, that Triratna indeed does represent a radical departure owing to its origins and its concession of many Buddhist principles which makes it entirely distinct from the historical Buddhism.
The first, and most notable, departure from historical Buddhism is the fact that Triratna makes no attempt to establish a link to the past. Standing proudly as an independent and modern version of Buddhism, Triratna stands in contrast to other Buddhist sects which see it as vitally important to link back to the foundation of Buddhism. This is evident in Mahayana Buddhism which stresses the story regarding the Lotus Sutra being guarded by Nagas until discovered by Nagarjuna (the founder of the Yogacara school), whereas Triratna makes no apology for being modern and distinct. This is exemplified by the fact that Sangharakshita published his own 19-point model of meditation in 1967, which contrasts starkly from the models to be found both in the traditional Pali Canon and furthermore the Mahayana sutras. This has far reaching consequences. Triratna can be seen as a deeper departure from historical Buddhism in the sense that Sangharakshita has been held in such high esteem, even more so than the Buddha himself. This is a questionable practise as Sangharakshita’s own philosophy has been critiqued by many Buddhist schools for being radically different from the Buddha’s own, particularly with regard to the concept of ‘kalyana mitrata’ or ‘spiritual friendship.’ For Triratna, this manifested itself in the form of many sex scandals in the 1980s, which have been critiqued as a warped reading of the Dharma to suit Sangharakshita’s own needs. This demonstrates exactly how far the consequences go for Triratna having no historical connection rooted in the Dharma, the interpretation of its founder is largely influential and can lead to dire consequences. But, to Triratna’s credit, it does have some connections to historical Buddhism in this regard. One such example is the ten precepts of Mahayana Buddhism, which relates back to the aforementioned Nargarjuna. These ’10 Non-Virtuous Actions’ are incorporated within Triratna, as Sangharakshita writes ‘the Ten Precepts- as a complete embodiment of the principles of skilful action- are the indispensable foundation of practice for all committed Buddhists, members of the WBO and otherwise.’ But, this aspect of historical accuracy, and other like it, are dwarfed by the domineering influence that Sangharakshita has in comparison to the Buddha. This only goes to show that the authentic teachings of Buddhism contained within Triratna are hand-picked and do not go far enough to not make it radically different from the historical Buddhism.
The second aspect of Triratna Buddhism which makes it radically different from historical Buddhism is how it interacts with the Western notion of capitalism. This is on two accounts. First of all, Triratna embraces the free market and members of the community openly work in restaurants and shops thereby participating in the economic system. This certainly does not align with Buddhist ideals of ‘tahna’ (craving) as capitalism is a system which ultimately relies on incentives and desires, as Adam Smith writes ‘great ambition, the desire of real superiority’ is the foundation for ambition within in a capitalist system. This contrasts with the historical teaching of Buddhism, as found in the Dhammapada, which states that ‘the one in whom no longer exist the craving’ is the one who becomes enlightened. However, these two irreconcilable concepts can be weakened by the fact that the Triratna members do not earn more than they need and the businesses run on a non-profit basis thus making it a modern adaption on the ‘economy of gifts’ as Thanissaro Bhikku calls it. However, this overlooks the fact that Triratna are still participating in the capitalist system and profiting from the craving of other people, which certainly further does not align with the idea of compassion, thereby making it dubious whether Triratna is an emanation of Avalokiteshvara (the Bodhisattva of Compassion) as Sangharakshita says. Therefore, its participation in capitalism certainly does make it a departure from conventional Buddhism as its reading does not align with Buddhist principles. The second account under which Triratna does not align with historical Buddhism is its Sangha structure. The fact that the monastic lifestyle is abandoned almost entirely contradicts the fundamental ideas contained within the Vinaya Pitaka. While it is irreconcilable with Theravada Buddhism in this sense, it is even distinct from Mahayana Buddhism with its more liberal approach to the Sangha. Even Mahayana asks a lot more from the laity of its ranks, whereas Triratna even allows weekly meditation to count as commitment to the community. Therefore, in this sense too Triratna represents a large, distinct departure from the historical Buddhism.
In conclusion, it is clear that the Triratna community represents a large rift from the historical Buddhism. The Dharma of the movement is largely the invention of its founder, Sangharakshita which has led to dire consequences which would have been simply avoided has it adhered to the fundamental premises of Buddhism. Moreover, Triratna has abandoned several fundamental Buddhist teachings in order to appeal to the Western world, which has the effect of making the movement lose most historical connection to the original teachings of Buddhism. In this way, the view that Triratna represents a radical departure from historical Buddhism is most certainly true.