Demographics, Destiny and Dharma

In March, BDG reported on statistics released by the Pew Research Center that pointed to official numbers of Buddhist adherents declining worldwide. While the headline is striking and merits concern, Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche, who often keeps informed of broader Buddhist trends across Asia and around the world, identified methodological issues and flawed assumptions in the study. With his signature incisiveness and frank language, he spoke about the implications and problems of this research in an extended and comprehensive conversation.

Rinpoche is a globally renowned and esteemed Bhutanese lama, as well as a lineage custodian of the Rimé movement and the teachings of Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo (1820–92). He also makes films under the name Khyentse Norbu, and has founded numerous organizations and charities dedicated to Buddhist education, translation, and teaching like 84000, Siddhartha’s Intent, Deer Park Institute, and many more.

BDG: The recent Pew survey on supposed Buddhist demographic decline attributes a combination of “generational shifts, lifestyle pressures, and changing cultural attitudes toward religion.” How are these changes in Buddhist Asia any different to the changes that have happened in the “monotheistic” West? Is there anything missing in the analysis?

Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche: Before I answer your questions, I want to point out that Buddhists pray for all beings to become Buddha, not Buddhist. As well, any sense of Buddhist identity or self is not the aim of a path that teaches selflessness.

That said, when I answer your questions on the prevalence of Buddhism, I do so as a patriotic Buddhist with a very strong and passionate sense of Buddhist identity, of which a follower of the Buddha should actually be ashamed.

From that perspective, the Pew Research analysis misses a key issue, both consciously and unconsciously. In fact, the very comparison of so-called “religions,” and the decline of Buddhism compared to the growth of Abrahamic religions can only be understood in historical context.

Ever since Portugal initiated Europe’s colonization of the world in the 16th century, things have never been the same. Not only did the colonial masters rob, loot, rape, and enslave their colonial subjects. They also destroyed their soul and spirit. That colonization has never stopped and continues to escalate in our own time, dominating global values, institutions, and behaviors.

Even after the unimaginable destruction of the Cultural Revolution, there is still a lot of vigorous, living Buddhist study and practice in China and, even more importantly, large numbers of people who actively claim to be culturally Buddhist. By some estimates, China has more Buddhists today than any other country and accounts for half of all Buddhists in the world.

But when the United States colonized Japan and Korea, once strongholds of Buddhism, after the Second World War, Buddhism was marginalized and continues to decline today. In fact, Korean missionaries are now among the most active in converting Himalayans to Christianity.

The effect of colonization and the power of its domination are felt not only at the gross level but even at the most subtle level. It’s as if Punjab had invaded England a thousand years ago and the British Royal Family were still to proudly serve Sarson ka Saag in its banquet menu.

It is not that the Abrahamic religions have superior logic or are more aligned with so-called science, but rather that they identified with the colonial masters. In a world where might and wealth are key goals of ordinary human beings, the victors will always be emulated if not envied, and this includes the continued identification of Christianity with power. When the person who is supposedly the most powerful on earth takes the oath as president of the United States, he or she touches the Bible . . . even as the US intoxicates the rest of the world by selling itself as democratic and secular.

It’s within this context that the colonial masters put Buddhism into the basket of “religion.” Although the characterization of Buddhism as a religion has been seriously questioned, that label has now been imposed for so long that there is no turning back.

But the English—in other words, our colonial masters’—word “religion” actually comes from a totally different culture where the word is deeply associated with Abrahamic belief systems that have starkly different definitions, standards, and methodologies than Buddhism, Advaita, Daoism, and other wisdom traditions.

For example, Buddhism has no God-given promises as claimed by Abraham, or concepts of a chosen people, or morality-based systems of reward and punishment and good versus evil. Nor do Abrahamic religions question the very notion of identity. Indeed, because Abrahamic religions are so proudly and consciously dualistic, and because they themselves partly originated from fractious disagreements with existing systems, they are also often overtly political, moralistic, and intertwined with secular life.

But because people see Buddhism as a “religion” and freely apply that word to religious comparisons, they subliminally assume that Buddhism and other systems also have these Abrahamic characteristics. That is a gross misunderstanding that totally misses the point.

Not only Pew Research, but the rhetoric of religious fanatics, the academic study of comparative religion, and more, frequently fail to recognize that Buddhism simply does not belong in the Abrahamic definition of “religion.”

Analyzing trends in growth and decline, we must also recognize that generational shifts, pluralism, globalization, and changes in lifestyle, culture and attitudes have led to a loss of identity worldwide. Along with current global realities, we will likely see the growth and expansion of Abrahamic religions that promise to restore that sense of identity to those who feel insecure, lost, and confused.

By contrast, Buddhism dismantles rather than solidifies a sense of self and identity. Nor do concepts like impermanence and the truth of suffering offer the kind of narrative that nations and monotheistic religions provide to make people more patriotic and proud of their identity.

So, to summarize, I don’t know whether the core, quintessential teachings of the Abrahamic religions will take greater hold. But it seems highly likely that cultural patriotism towards the Abrahamic religions will grow while Buddhism, even at the cultural level, will decline.

BDG: ⁠According to Pew, 90 per cent of the world’s Buddhists live in only 10 Asian countries. Does this mean that the “fourth turning of the Dharma wheel” in the West, which was hailed as a milestone for Buddhism over the past few decades, is too small to make a difference demographically, or are we simply looking at Western Buddhists in too restrictive a way?

DJKR: Demographics, of course, are important. But being culturally or traditionally Buddhist is likely even more important. Obviously, those factors are closely linked, since most of the Buddhists in those 10 Asian countries are Buddhist by birth, tradition, and perhaps ritual, rather than being serious students or practitioners of the Buddhadharma.

This is equally true of Christianity and Islam, whose present magnitude and continued growth are largely due to cultural factors. To give just one example, it is said that one of the reasons for Donald Trump’s election is the influence of the so-called “Christian right-wing.” But I believe that most of those people are actually culturally Christian and may not even have read the Bible, let alone studied Christian theology. Yet their numbers and those of cultural Muslims are large enough to make a huge difference.

As I said earlier, human beings need a sense of identity. Since culture unites people through a common language or through national, ethnic, or historical affiliation or common symbols, values and beliefs, it provides that comfortable cushion of identity and remains vitally important in explaining global trends.

So influential and powerful is religious culture that even those who claim to be liberal, avant-garde, atheist, and religiously uninvolved, unconsciously always fall back on that religiously diluted cultural identity cushion. Proponents of the most celebrated secular terms such as “human rights” rarely see how deeply rooted such terms are in Christian thinking, and they hardly ever give thought to how differently life and values may be defined and cherished elsewhere.

Some cultures, for example, treasure not only human existence but that of all sentient beings. And some cherish human responsibilities equally to human rights. Such alternative views are never given sufficient platform or voice, but it is important at least to recognize that the notion of “human rights” may be problematic for those from other cultural backgrounds.

The Abrahamic legacy has infiltrated nearly all we do, and it can be so powerfully stubborn and subtle that even seasoned Western Buddhists may understand and interpret Buddhism in ways that contain many traces of these Abrahamic influences.

The sudden Western fascination with Buddhism in the 1970s was due to many factors, including frustration at home, the Vietnam war, the hippie movement, sheer curiosity toward the east, and of course a sincere wish to think outside of the box and search for a higher truth. But that generation, often in their mid-20s at the time, is now fading, and I just don’t see new demographic growth among Western Buddhists. Those increases that are happening in places such as Vancouver, Los Angeles, and Sydney are largely due to Chinese, Vietnamese, and other Asian immigration.

Having said all this, I feel that the West can still contribute something incredibly valuable to Buddhism, not in quantitative but in qualitative terms. The West claims to really celebrate critical and objective thinking. Although I sometimes have doubts about its actual practice, this certainly remains one of the West’s most important values, and I would really like to see Western Dharma students apply that value to preserve, maintain, protect, and guard the Dharma. To some extent, this is already happening, but there are times it seems imperilled, particularly when these students don’t extend their critical thinking to many of their own unexamined premises.

In the social sciences, the term emic is sometimes used to describe a culture from within and on its own terms, in accord with what is meaningful to its own members, while the term etic refers to a more external, scientific, objective analysis of culture from without. Both perspectives are widely regarded as necessary for balanced research.

Similarly, the Dharma is best protected when that critical, analytical, and objective thinking is used in close harmony with the more internally motivated emic perspective. I think some Western Dharma students have that heartfelt internal connection with the Dharma, and if that can be joined with their tradition of critical analysis, this can really help preserve the genuine Dharma, as opposed to a Dharma that is mixed in with all sorts of Asian cultural elements.

That, at least, is my aspiration for the flourishing of Dharma in the West, although I do sometimes doubt whether it will really happen. In fact, the opposite could occur, simply because of the lingering impact of centuries-old colonial influences that still make Indians, Chinese, and other Asians disparage their own cultures and look up to the West as the mighty victors. Asians’ deep respect for, if not slavish surrender to Western education systems only reinforces that complex.

In fact, from the emic standpoint mentioned above, many Asians have not only learned the perspective of the West but have even mastered it. Good examples are Ang Lee’s film Brokeback Mountain (2005) and, 10 years on, Chloé Zhao’s film Hamnet (2025). Here are two Chinese directors who have really brilliantly captured Midwest struggles on sexual orientation and inner meanings of Shakespearean English as if they were natives.

Interestingly, I haven’t seen anything like this in reverse. Westerners who write books or make films about India or China inevitably bring their Western perspective to bear, often romanticizing what they see and experience. Not only is this far from objective, critical analysis, it frequently fails to convey and can subtly dilute the reality they claim to describe.

In sum, if Westerners can apply their traditional interest in objective, analytical, and scientific thinking without bias or prejudice, that would really help preserve and protect the Buddhadharma. Having a few such people who really know Buddhism from within and without is for me far more important than having millions of people convert to Buddhism.

BDG: What are some epistemic causes for the decline of Buddhism? Is there any chance the ceding of truth claims by the mindfulness movement in favor of “scientific support” for meditation could have had a counterproductive effect on Buddhism’s core religious claims? How do you see this broad development?

DJKR: In this highly materialist era, Buddhism, as a search for the truth and way of wisdom, is subject to the much wider global loss of interest in anything related to truth and wisdom. As Frederic Jameson said, “It is easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism.” In that sense, interest in all traditions that question capitalism or value what is non-material, including Buddhism, may be marginalized. If profound social science theories such as socialism and communism cannot gain traction, what chance is there for something like Buddhism to survive?

As for the status of traditional or cultural Buddhists, there are many factors that might explain their decline, but one of the biggest is the influence of colonialism, as also mentioned in response to your first question. Many think that colonialism is something of the past. But the opposite is true: colonialism is more dominant and sophisticated than ever.

When I once wrote that Coca-Cola likely destroyed our wisdom traditions worldwide more surely and completely than the Cultural Revolution ever did in China, so many people became upset and accused me of being pro-Communist Chinese. But what I wrote then is true. Take a great civilization like India. There, Baron Macaulay’s (1800–59) strategy to create “a class of persons, Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect” has worked perfectly.

There has been a lot of speculation lately on why India lags so far behind China, at least on the material front. I would argue that one reason is simply because Indian elites speak English while Chinese elites speak Chinese, which means that Indian elites think in English and Chinese elites think in Chinese. That, in turn, makes a huge difference across the board because language deeply influences our very definitions, values, standards, and references.

Another equally potent reason India lags behind is because Indians behaved as totally obedient chelas or disciples blindly following their new guru master, the West, while the Chinese were not. While Indians swallowed everything they were taught, just as Macaulay wanted, the Chinese were selective, choosing to learn what they needed and bypassing what they didn’t.

Indians seem to have forgotten what Krishna said when Arjuna asked him what is the right thing to do when everything feels right and wrong at the same time. Krishna replied: “Better to die in one’s own Dharma than to follow another’s which is fraught with danger.”

The world over and especially in Asia, the descendants of those originally colonized have often become more colonial in taste and temperament than their colonial masters. And so, a highly educated, modern Singaporean is far more likely to be interested in Plato’s Allegory of the Cave than in the fourth century Chittamatra school of philosophy, even though the latter talks extensively about the illusory nature of all appearance and the need to seek reality only in the mind.

Similarly, a Bengali won’t pay attention to a concept deeply rooted in India’s own wisdom traditions, such as the past being gone, the future not yet here, the present being here and now, and all this being an illusion. Only when you bring up a European name like Albert Einstein on the relativity of time will the Bengali bow down to this same concept with no questions asked, so brainwashed is he that only when things come from the West are they valid. Buddhists will clearly have to wait a while to convince others that birth and death are an illusion—at least until a Western physicist comes to the same conclusion.

No wonder that Asians end up unconsciously identifying modernization with Westernization. And so, Buddhism is always regarded as something archaic, superstitious, and certainly not progressive. So while Christians never have to tamp down their religiosity, Buddhist teachers pay extra attention not to look or sound too Buddhist.

And so, when people these days use the terminology, formulae, and techniques of mindfulness, they almost zealously refrain from attributing them to Buddhism. From Meister Eckhart Tolle’s plagiarism to Sadhguru picking up and rearranging shreds of the Buddhist wisdom tradition here and there, the slick new packaging never acknowledges Buddhism or gives credit to the source. A genuine follower of the Buddha might see all this as a great boon and even an actual manifestation of the Buddha if it is actually helping beings.

If you ask an authentic Buddhist master for the epistemic causes of the decline of Buddhism, he or she would probably say it’s because there is a lack of merit. What that means is that there is not enough dedication to searching for the truth. That itself is nothing new. Human beings have never had an insatiable appetite for the truth. In fact, the opposite is the case.

But your very question shows the degree to which we now always look for scientific support for what we do. But that is actually a disease we really have to get rid of. At times scientists eat a poison called “not believing in anything.” At other times, they eat a poison called “believing within our capacity.” If the definition of religion is a system that believes in something, then science is no further advanced than any religion.

BDG: ⁠Across Asian countries, there seems to be an undercurrent among the youth that feels skeptical about the afterlife and more focused on attaining success and comforts in this life. How can Buddhist leaders dialogue empathetically and productively with this mindset?

DJKR: Being skeptical about the afterlife is nothing new. When classic Buddhist texts define ordinary, defiled human beings, they sometimes refer to them as those who only see or are interested in “this side.” It is obviously much more difficult to talk about something beyond ourselves. When something is not within our reach, we can only hypothesize.

If people do have the time, energy, and interest to pay attention to what we really mean by the words “after” and “life,” then I think they can at least begin to dent the outright conviction that there is nothing beyond this life. But I guess we will have to wait for a physicist to prove the Buddhist understanding on this in order really to convince the Indians, Chinese, Thai, and other inheritors of the Buddhist wisdom tradition.

For that matter, if our society could pay some attention to the multiple definitions of words such as “success” or “comfort,” I am convinced that Buddhism would have a significant role to play. In fact, that is already happening in some corners of our society.

As for how Buddhist leaders can communicate empathetically with the dominant materialist mindset, I would suggest that they themselves go through the same situations that their students experience. That is necessary simply because empathy is one of the most difficult qualities to attain and nurture.

BDG: ⁠What would you advise fellow Buddhist leaders in light of this news?

DJKR: Personally, I think we should just have a sincere aspiration for the awakening of all sentient beings, and therefore for the preservation and flourishing of the Buddhadharma. That seems the best way. Other than that, I just don’t see anything that Buddhists or Buddhist leaders can do or are capable of doing.

After all, no one is actually interested in anitya, duhkha, and anatman [impermanence, suffering, and non-self]. And beyond those truths, if you are talking only about population growth as a mark of Buddhism’s power, you need real geopolitical clout. You need currency and hegemony and a really sophisticated, shameless, and full-on marketing strategy run by someone like Edward Bernays, who showed advertisers how to turn needs into wants. Buddhism has none of those requisites.

During the Hong Kong protests in 2019–20, Christians were very strongly involved in supporting the protestors, while Buddhists were openly and privately criticized for not being involved. That’s not surprising because, as I mentioned earlier, the Abrahamic religions grew from politics, dwell in politics, and inevitably have a political component. And because they are proudly dualistic, their political progeny every so often nominate an evil person who needs to be conquered and demolished. At least in theory, Buddhism has neither the dualism nor the political involvement that support such action, though of course there are many Buddhists who do play politics.

I don’t know whether or not the non-involvement of Buddhists in Hong Kong was intentional. But when I heard about that, I was quite pleased. Time and again—from Ukraine to the Arab Spring and from Korea to Tibetans in exile—it has been proved that mighty governments and corporations have zero interest in human well-being but care only to prop up their own vested interests.

When they use politics to do that, it would be prudent not to become cannon fodder for them. So that’s one more piece of advice I would give to Buddhist leaders tempted to play politics at this time.

Source: https://www.buddhistdoor.net/features/demographics-destiny-and-dharma-an-interview-with-dzongsar-khyentse-rinpoche/