Is there a kind of "pop Buddhism"?

score:3

Accepted answer

I don't know what "pop Buddhism" means exactly but I guess yes -- I suppose I could assign one or more of the following definitions to the phrase.

"Pop Buddhism" is:

  • Any reference to Buddhism that I might encounter in a not-explicitly-Buddhist context -- for example:

    • This CBC article is "pop" Buddhism because the CBC isn't explicitly Buddhist -- but it is popular i.e. it is a national broadcaster though of a not-explicitly-Buddhist country

    • The word "zen" is now used colloquially in France -- in phrases like rester zen and Γͺtre zen (i.e. "to remain zen" and "to be zen") -- as an adjective meaning something resembling calm or detached or serene or even engaged (or whatever you imagine the word "zen" might mean as an adjective) in everyday life

    • Anything like "Fake Buddha Quotes" e.g. if you see someone reposting them on Facebook, would probably have to count as "pop"

  • Any popular (though explicitly Buddhist) book, which appears to be aimed at a general non-Buddhist audience, and (especially) written by a modern author. I'd include e.g. books by the Dalai Lama (e.g. the Art of Happiness) or by Thich Nhat Hanh -- maybe also books by Alan Watts or Philip Kapleau or Daniel Ingram (not saying that all these authors are the same, nor their books).

  • I'm inclined to privilege a book like In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon as being a slightly different category -- perhaps it's aimed at a naive but interested audience (and therefore popular), but it's based on (or is nothing but, little more than) a translation of and anthology from the canon of a Buddhist school and therefore it's not exactly a "modern author". Other translations of or introductions to any canonical works might belong in this same category.

  • A comparative term ("pop" versus "non-pop"), therefore e.g. a term or form of conceit (e.g. "They practice pop Buddhism, I practice the real Buddhism")

  • There are professional (or whatever the opposite of "pop" is) psychologists -- e.g. licensed therapists (e.g. psychotherapists, or people advising schools and parents about difficult children/students), and academics (e.g. professors, researchers), not to mention any commercial and other applications. So analogously "non-pop" Buddhism might be whatever is studied and practised by some monks, perhaps studied by academics, and "pop" Buddhism is anything/everything else e.g. what is known to lay people.

I think that (some) Buddhist doctrine states that there is such a thing as properly understanding Dhamma (or the Dhamma) -- that's called the "Dhamma eye", or the arising of the Dhamma eye or something like that, and associated with "stream entry".

The Kalama sutta includes a phrase (some other suttas do too),

explained the Dhamma admirable in the beginning, admirable in the middle, admirable in the end

An interpretation of that phrase is that "pop" or "beginner" Buddhism is good and not bad (see also this answer for example).

Topics like the following might be relevant too:

The above two topic are based on Buddhism as it's described in the Pali suttas. Perhaps there's another form or school of Buddhism, called Mahayana (which may or may not include Vajrayana, depending on your taxonomy) -- and perhaps Mahayana deserves to be called (though not as a term of disrespect) "pop" Buddhism.

Upvote:0

Recovery of an unpopular answer:

What ever Buddh-ism would be a Pop-version of Dhamma-Vinaya.

Where ever popular there will be pop-Dhamma. Asking on popular sites... what does one assume to gain in an outer land, far from borderlands, not having left popularity? Touch? Would it help?

It's the very nature of Dhamma-success to first give (up) to be able to receive.

Those teachings which are actually deed teachings are not thought for those after popular, "much after people" how the normal people are called, of householder in a deeper sense. Once householders take on something, what else than pop could it be, could it grow.

This Dhamma is not one graspable by many, yet it would make the many much busy with what they are incapable it taught just right, since they would suddenly lost interest to think that it something for them and what they are actually after.

Less are those who even come in touch with the Gems perceiving it at such. Many are those who grasp after what is populating the amass.

Searching after pop, one gains pop. So it's important to think clear of the causes of ones situation and try to uproot ones wrong tendencies being clear of where one stands.

"Through an element it is, monks, that beings flow together, meet together. Beings of low tastes flow together, meet together with them of low tastes. They of virtuous tastes flow together, meet together with them of virtuous tastes. So have they done in the past. So will they do in the future. So do they now in the present." (SN, Niddana-vagga)

[Note that this is not given toward Buddh-ism, trade, exchange and population but for liberation]

Upvote:1

Not every Buddhists are ready to renounce everything and single-mindedly pursue enlightenment with all their heart and mind. Different folks have different goals and so it's only natural for for the Dhamma to benefit all followers at all levels from low to high, whether that's happiness visible in the present life, or the way to a fortunate future rebirth, or deepening one's perspective on the world and eventual attain total complete liberation. The Lotus Sutra compared the Dhamma to the rain. When it rains, plants of all types, shapes, forms, or sizes all benefit from it:

The great cloud ascended in the sky, giving out rain and moisture equally to various types of trees and plants on Earth. The various types of plants are the three kinds of medicinal herbs (i.e. superior, mediocre, or inferior) and two kinds of trees (i.e. large or small). All of them, by virtue of their distinctive natures, absorbed moisture differently and grew at varying rates. ~ Chapter 5 – Parable of Medicine Herbs ~

Upvote:1

I don't think so. Buddhism is all about what is suffering, why we are suffering, how to get out of this suffering. That's all. Even if you understand this law or not this law of nature is there. Just like gravity even if you accept it or not gravity is there. These are eternal truths which means it will apply for all living things.

More post

Search Posts

Related post