The question of the name change wasn't simply about a different name. The 'Western' Buddhist Order was established as an attempt to translate dharma into a non traditional Western context. The shift in emphasis that accompanies the name change is more significant than a set of words.
In the Book 'The Triratna Story' the author tells us that the name was changed after consultation with the Order. Jayarava is right, this is a misleading statement. A consultation process started, but Sangharakshita intervened and the name was changed without a consensus within the Order. It may well have reached a consensus, given time, but the point is that it this didn't seem important to some members of the Order. The use of accurate speech to convey meanings that are misleading is, in my opinion, a breach of speech precepts and the book should be amended.
The Order in India was built on a significantly different foundation to the rest of the Order and that cannot be changed simply by changing the name. In India, it was widely believed that Sangharakshita was a celibate monk. Sangharakshita wore robes in India after becoming sexually active with vulnerable, young male disciples, often during retreats, so their misunderstanding of his status was understandable. Information about Sangharakshita's sexual activity was deliberately concealed from the Order and community in India until the Guardian article prompted similar news in India.
The Order in India is based on the teachings of Dr Ambedka and Sangharakshita, this isn't true of the rest of the international Order. In my opinion, that isn't a problem if we simply accept cultural differences on the basis of respect. Having the same, or at least similar names, doesn't change anything in those terms.
As to being bored with criticism of the Order, part of the problem for us is the continued refusal to take those criticism and concerns seriously. What happened was extremely serious and continued attempts to keep discussion about these matters private, as Subhuti and others want us to, is not a good foundation for the spread of the dharma. I am writing openly on here because I am unwilling to have the collective I am committed to, misrepresented by a small number of people who are close to Sangharakshita and won't allow us to make a public statement reassuring the general public that we do not condone sex between teachers and those they teach, particularly in retreat centres.
I happen to think that the TBC has a great deal to offer. The vast majority of Order members wouldn't dream of doing what Sangharakshita did over an 18 year period. Of course people are going to fall in love and there are bound to be situations where adults who were teacher and student become lovers. That isn't what happened with Sangharakshita. The book Greek Love was widely given to young men to read, copies were placed in men's communities and those young men were lead to believe that sex between teacher and disciples, within Kalyana Mitrata, was in some way a good idea. That must never happen again.
Those OMs who believe that we should conceal what we know to be true are acting out of a personal love and affection for Sangharakshita. I believe that we have a duty to be honest with our founder and to open up to public debate. We are not a private, exclusive Order, we run classes for members of the public and during recent discussion a majority of OMs present expressed a desire for a statement to be made. Some even felt that this should take the form of a precept. The 'Conversation.' which Sangharakshita posted on his site makes this even more imperative because he leaves out the entire question of sex within the teacher disciple relationship. Anyone reading this could be forgiven for thinking that what they are reading is the whole truth. That, unfortunately, is not the case.
Some form of truthful communication about our history would also serves to allow a sense of completion for many of those young men who suffered for years, feeling that they were used. We have heard and read enough first hand accounts to make this apparent. As things stand, those who criticise are encouraged to resign, and they are seen as traitors. I am not a traitor.
I want the dharma to flourish for the welfare and happiness of the many.