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.