I've been attending a Triratna Buddhist centre for half a year now, and have learned a lot about Buddhist teachings from there. I'm curious, however, about how Triratna is seen from other schools such as Mahayana and Theravada, Zen, Tibetan Buddhism etc. In particular: 1. Is there any strong disagreement from other schools about the particulars of Sangharakshita's teachings? Or are they quite compatible? 2. Do other schools tend to regard Triratna as a serious tradition, or is the "Westernisation" of Triratna's teachings seen as a detriment? 3. Is the view of Triratna from other schools generally positive, neutral or negative?

The founder of the Triratna Buddhist Community, Sangharaskshita, stated that he thinks stream entry is realistic after twenty or thirty years > In fact, it would be surprising if, after 20 or 30 years of life in > the Order, you were not a Stream Entrant. It would seem to be very > surprising, if you have done all the other things - maybe you have > founded Centres and written books and given so many lectures and gone > on so many retreats, that you were not a Stream Entrant: why not? It's obviously a very bold statement. Does anyone else give that kind of timescale for stream entry or do any modern traditions give any kind of timescale at all. Or is Sangharaskshita a complete outlier with this kind of estimation. **Note**: Tiratna is my Sangha which I think is right to acknowledge in the question. That said it doesn't stop me finding some of Sangharaskshita's statements bold or even controversial and I'm always interested on outside perspectives on his statements.

When attend an event at the sangha I'm with (Triratna ) we often transfer merit (puñña) at the end of it. So any good result of the meditation, ritual, dharma study etc... we give away. I know that this isn't something we have just invented. It's a practice that we have taken from other traditions. What confuses me is merit can be given away. If merit is the fruits of my karma in what sense can this be transferred over to another being? How can someone else benefit from my skillful actions?

In my tradition (Triratna ) there is a big emphasis of a lot of samatha practice before any vipassana practice. This has always made sense to me. However is this universal in all Buddhist schools? Are there any Buddhist schools that do minimal or even no samatha practice? Does anyone jump straight into vipassana?

The founder of the Buddhist community I attend said in an interview that he doesn't meditate anymore. I kind of found this really surprising. If we can say (just for arguments sake) that he is an advanced practitioner - is there any precedence for people once they reach a particular advanced stage in the path stopping meditating? Do people do this? Does it depend on the individual or is he very unusual in this and even potentially doing the wrong thing?

I'm pretty new to buddhism, I come from a christian family and as such I attended church for the earlier part of my life. I'm wondering what to expect from my first session in comparison to that of church. I'm also asking if there's any general advice/tips you can give me for my first time.

It is well known scientific fact that over time, the animal population including human population increases. How does a colloquially scientific religion explain reincarnation if populations increases? Don't give copout answers or rhetorical impulses that I have already heard about this question from many people who were sometimes practising buddhists and buddhist monks. This is an important question that needs rational scientific answers and not wishful thinking. EDIT: No thanks for the copouts. And for guy who said something like it will be the dominant theory if not for the monotheistic religions, no thanks for the royal copout. You should learn how to not be hostile towards my questions Messer's Copouts. Don't be angry. Give rational answers and not the ones where I have read more on it to understand. The answer that I have to read on it more is the biggest copout. Every religion uses that to keep its people in abject poverty. Picture of poor tibetan buddhists here.

In the triratna Buddhist community (who I practice with) there is a prostrations practice for those going through the ordination process. I'm sure we have taken this practice from another tradition.I'm fairly certain it is Tibetan but can anyone give details of the exact place in the Tibetan practice this comes from and also what is the purpose of this practice. How does it fit into the system of practice and what effects this practice has on the practicioner.

In the Triratna Buddhist Community we do a practice that we call Just Sitting. It's described as > Just Sitting is a space of non-action in which anything can emerge. > Often the fruit of the previous practice only emerges when you stop > ‘doing’ it. And Just Sitting is the non-doing space in which that may > (or may not) happen. Just Sitting also allows assimilation of what has > just been done, and provides the necessary counterpoise to activity > and effort. Just Sitting is a matter of simply ‘being’ with whatever > happens in awareness, without attaching to it or rejecting it. Link to quote is here . I've always wondered if this is something that we've just kind of invented or adapted or is it common to other Buddhist traditions? Is it the same as zazen practice perhaps?

I practice with the Triratna Buddhist community and while I am personally very comfortable with the organisation and its values, it has been criticised for a lack of lineage. Generally speaking how important is lineage in Buddhism? Do some schools take it very seriously and others less so? If a school has a shaky or unclear lineage is that seen as a bad thing? If so then why? What does lineage give Buddhism?

In the Triratna community, who I practice with, we see going for refuge to the three jewels as our central practice - the three jewels being the Buddha, Dharma and the Sangha. In fact the name Triratna means the three jewels . However the founder of the movement (Sangharakshita) makes the stronger claim that this is the central act of all Buddhist traditions. The Triratna movement is an explicit attempt to return to that core teaching. However I'd really be interested in the perspectives of the different Buddhist traditions on that. Does that ring true to people in their own practices. Is going for refuge the central act of Buddhist practice?

What are the main texts that are studied in the Tiratna Buddhist Community? Is there a generally recommended core set of books to read, and what are the main canonical texts studied?

Are there any traditions without an associated monastic community or even where the monastic element is significantly minimised. I practice with the Triratna Buddhist community and the blurring of the monastic and lay elements is a particular feature. I was wondering if we are very peculiar in that or if there are other traditions, modern or historic, where that also would be the case.