Is there a kind of "pop Buddhism"? Similarly to pop psychology, do we have the same effect for Buddhism? I have a feeling that many people subscribing to Buddhism because it seems to explain psychological phenomena that they (unfortunately) can't explain. It is also said that the Buddha taught the disciples in three levels, and in level 1 the goal is just to help the students overcome their problems in life, so I think this level is indeed pop Buddhism.

Therefore I think pop Buddhism is a version of pop psychology. I wonder if my understanding is correct.
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 être 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:


How to explain what Buddhism is?
Did the Buddha teach the four noble truths to laypeople?


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.