Navayāna, as articulated by B.R. Ambedkar, stands in a somewhat liminal space in relation to other Buddhist traditions. It is rooted in Buddhist language, symbols, and inspiration, yet it consciously reworks many foundational doctrines and priorities. Ambedkar’s reinterpretation places social equality and liberation from caste oppression at the very center, treating the Dhamma primarily as a vehicle for social emancipation rather than as a path focused first on liberation from saṃsāra. This shift of emphasis already marks Navayāna as distinct in the eyes of many traditional Buddhists.

A key point of tension lies in Ambedkar’s rejection or radical reinterpretation of doctrines that most Buddhist schools regard as non‑negotiable. Concepts such as karma and rebirth, as well as the classical understanding of the Four Noble Truths and the centrality of the renunciant ideal, are either set aside or reframed. From the standpoint of Theravāda, Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna institutions, this places Navayāna outside the familiar doctrinal framework that has historically defined Buddhist identity. For them, it can appear less as a continuation of the old vehicles and more as a new, socially engaged movement inspired by the Buddha.

Institutionally, recognition is further complicated by questions of lineage and Vinaya. Traditional Buddhist acceptance usually presupposes continuity of ordination and adherence to established monastic codes. Navayāna’s forms of conversion and community organization do not fit neatly into these inherited structures, and so it does not generally enter the catalog of recognized historical schools. Cooperation and cordial relations may occur on the ground, but such practical coexistence rarely translates into formal acknowledgment of Navayāna as an orthodox vehicle alongside the established traditions.

At the same time, Navayāna practitioners typically understand their path as a faithful recovery of the Buddha’s original intent, especially regarding equality, rationality, and the rejection of social hierarchy. From this perspective, the movement is not a departure from Buddhism but a return to its ethical heart, expressed in a new historical context. Thus, while most mainstream traditions do not formally recognize Navayāna as a standard school due to doctrinal and institutional differences, there remains a shared spiritual vocabulary and a common reverence for the Buddha that allows for a measure of mutual regard, even amid significant theological distance.