I'm wondering how this 'hip' 21st century Buddhism is supposed to be any less impermanent than the Buddhism of the 60s and 70s to which it is supposedly a reaction. To my mind, this new American Buddhism sounds like a faddish dilution of actual Buddhist philosophy, much the same as its hippie predecessor.

Take for example the replacement of the word 'suffering' with the word 'stress': both refer to the Buddhist idea of dukkha, but while 'suffering' is a merely inadequate translation of the concept, 'stress' seems, to my mind at least, not at all up to conveying the necessary depth of meaning. Stress is the result of some perceived discrepancy between a given situation and the individual's ability to cope with it; you can eliminate stress by removing yourself from the stressful situation or by resolving it. Dukkha, on the other hand, encompasses not just stress, but other emotional pains, physical pain, the impermanence of happiness, and the suffering/unease arising from clinging to aggregates, of which the human mind/self itself is one. It is inherent in every facet of human existence (including, unlike stress, even the times when we are the most happy), and is vastly more difficult to eliminate than stress.

My point is this: it sounds as if, in attempting to make Buddhism accessible to the average young-ish American, they are sacrificing a significant amount of philosophical depth. The words you use to describe something exert a powerful influence on how you think about it—how you're able to think about it. In today's world, stress is such a common and frankly banal complaint that to use it as a stand-in for a much more complex concept like dukkha is to shear away many important layers of meaning. I'm not saying that this is necessarily bad; some of these new Buddhists will probably go on to a deeper study of the philosophy, and for those that don't meditation is still a useful practice. But this isn't necessarily the beginning of a great new American Buddhist tradition. A philosophically shallow foundation is not a lasting one, I would think.

Or perhaps I'm overestimating the importance of depth of understanding in a religion's success. I wonder how many of the most fervent Christians could articulate the difference between Calvinist and Arminian doctrines, or give a full accounting of the ideas of Original Sin and Total Inability? Perhaps simple, easily apprehended teachings are the way to wind converts and swell the ranks of the faithful, though whether this is doing any favors to a religion whose ultimate goal would seem to require of the practitioner an incredibly deep understanding of its philosophy is questionable.

Or perhaps this is all just a false dilemma, and casual, hip Buddhism and a more studied pursuit of the religion are not mutually exclusive. Maybe I've just fixated on one minor linguistic point without regard for that fact that the rest of their lesson may well be perfectly comprehensive. But on the other hand, if my gut reaction is correct and what's being produced here is a generation of non-conventional, casual lay-Buddhists, then I wouldn't hold out hope of this being a permanent addition to the American religious landscape.

I'm a little miffed about the interviewer's, M. Bayard's, characterization of fundamentalist Christianity and atheism as opposing 'extremes'. Atheism, in and of itself, is not an extreme in the same way that fundamentalist Christianity is: the latter is an extremist interpretation of Christian theology, while the former is a general philosophical/religious proposition. Calling atheism as a belief system 'extreme' because of the existence of what might might be called 'extremist atheists' a la Richard Dawkins would be akin to classifying the whole of Christianity as extreme because of the existence of fundamentalists like Pat Robertson.

As I've said elsewhere, language determines, or in this case reveals, how we think about things. Calling atheism an 'extreme' labels it as something outside the realm of things that reasonable people believe; it's essentially saying that it's intellectually equivalent to fundamentalist religion, different in kind but not in degree. I'm sorry if I seem to be harping on this, but as an atheist myself, I find it irksome that with a single word I'm dismissed as if I were part of some religiously intolerant intellectual fringe movement. If he'd simply tacked on an adjective like 'anti-religious' to the word 'atheism', I wouldn't mind so much, but the brush he chose to paint with was too broad, I'm afraid.

Otherwise, a decent, interesting interview. Again, I apologize for nitpicking.

Troublesome indeed, but who will rid us of him? Alas, Henry II will be of no help, him being so very dead, and armed knights being in such short supply.

I am not, of course, proposing that the archbishop be removed from his office, by means violent or otherwise, though I would like to see his church disestablished. Once we've done that, then we can talk about the proper role for religious tribunals: in the face of an official state religion, sharia is hardly the most pressing threat to English secularism.

Well it's about time. I notice at least one respondent complaining that this was sign of readers' thin-skinnedness, but as someone who actually does have a hard time scrolling past obviously trollish posts without getting that infuriated little twitch in my right eye, I've no regrets about eliminating the anonymous posting option.