Nikko Odiseos, President of Shambhala Publications, the largest Buddhist book publisher in the world, recently disclosed details about the substantial and ongoing decline in interest in Buddhism. (“A Glimpse into the World of Buddhist Publishing: Shambhala Publications,” Journal of Tibetan Literature, 3.2, Fall 2024, p 111-123). He reports,
Many of us came of age with the notion, expressed by Arnold Toynbee, Einstein, and countless political, cultural, and intellectual leaders and influencers since, that Buddhism was in the ascendant. But that is not the age we live in now.
In Europe and the Americas, we see—in addition to the erosion of possibilities in academia—signs all around us: the Rubin Museum closing its doors; Buddhadharma magazine printing its last issue in 2024; Naropa University selling its main campus; dharma centers, with some exceptions, being mostly attended by older generations. The causes of all this are many and arguable. But the overall effect is not.
Google Trends shows how the worldwide search popularity for “Tibetan Buddhism” is now down 88% from a peak in 2004 (when they started collecting this data). Results are similar for related terms like “Rinpoché.”
Book sales across all channels reflect this too. …interest is waning. The best, if imperfect, measure of overall book sales in the United States is Circana Bookscan, which tracks actual point of sale purchases of books, capturing many of the main vendors. From 2014 through 2023 there was a 20% decline in sales of books with the Book Industry Standards and Communications (BISAC) code for Tibetan Buddhism across all publishers (we did not experience this sharp fall in this part of our list, but I know several others who did). Other Buddhist BISAC codes indicating more serious works—History as well as “Rituals and Practice”—saw declines of 40% in the same period. It is an undeniable reality that book sales of the traditional or more serious Buddhist books are down. Anecdotally, for a book that in the past we might expect sales of 5,000 copies in the first two years, we would now be lucky to sell half or a third of that.
…For a long time, Buddhism was niche in the English-speaking world, then it gained a significant measure of mainstream appeal in the 1990s, with even the Big Five publishers … jumping in. But as interest recedes for the time being, it is up to publishers like Shambhala … to remain stalwart and committed to what we do.
John Harvey Negru, President of Sumeru Books, Canada’s leading independent Buddhist book publishing company, reports similar issues with decline of interest. (“So, You Want to be a Buddhist Author, Eh?” Buddhistdoor Global, April 7, 2025) He reports,
Western Buddhist literature in the 1960s was the refuge for many of those discontented with mainstream culture. Many of the Buddhist books from the 1970s and 1980s focused on our zeitgeist of consumerism and materialism…. We thought that Buddhism would continue to be ascendent. Not that everyone would become Buddhist, but perhaps at least Buddhish. Zen, karma, enlightenment, meditation, and other Buddhist words were seeping into common parlance.
This first phase of Buddhist publishing began with mainstream texts, but even then you could see mainstream culture shifting…. Buddhist teachers responded by leaning in to Western psychology with books that interpreted traditional texts in the context of Western traditions…. Fast forward to today, and the zeitgeist has changed completely, to one of fear, anger, and conflict.
In the 1990s, the culture shifted away from the spiritual concerns of the 1970s and 1980s and towards psychological concerns. In the 2010s, this shift away from spiritual concerns was further heightened by a new and growing interest in political concerns, leading Negru to describe our current era as one of “post-charismatic Buddhism.”
Negru says he has observed three approaches among Buddhist writers in dealing with this change in the culture, which he names as follows.
“Traditionalist”: a continued focus on translating and commenting on ancient texts.
“Accommodationist”: an effort to address everyday concerns via Buddhist wisdom. This is mostly about mindfulness, psychology, wellness, personal growth, and the good life.
“Reform”: a focus on applying a Buddhist perspective to political issues such as climate change, racism, gender politics, poverty, homelessness, etc.
I think Negru’s observation about the culture shifting is on target. It not only says a great deal about the decline of interest in Buddhism, but also about today’s soaring interest in Stoicism. In a zeitgeist where the concerns are about psychological well-being during a period of societal and political turbulence, no wonder people are turning to Stoicism and away from Buddhism.
If one is looking for practical advice during an era in which a mad emperor is in charge, who better to turn to than the Stoic philosopher Seneca, who served as an advisor to Nero and was forced to commit suicide on Nero’s orders? Or Epictetus, the former slave from the Imperial court turned philosopher, who was banished from Rome, along with all of the other philosophers, for being too controversial? Or how about the philosophical journal of Marcus Aurelius, written to help him cope with the issues he dealt with as Emperor? These Stoics speak to the concerns of our era.
The Buddha, however, had little interest in political matters. Indeed, he literally ran away from wielding political power to pursue a spiritual quest instead. He seldom discussed issues of governance, and seldom in any detail. Influential subsequent Buddhist thinkers were almost exclusively monks - people who sequestered themselves away from worldly concerns, although, of course, sometimes worldly concerns impinged on them unbidden.
While Stoicism encourages political engagement, contemporary Stoicism has a big tent. It accommodates Stoic authors such as Trump-loathing Ryan Holiday and the Trump-supporting West Virginia legislator Pat McGeehan. Meanwhile, Western Buddhist organizations such as the Soto Zen Buddhist Association have been accused of abandoning the “buddhadharma and have become more of a supporting organization for progressive social and political causes.”
Other popular Stoic authors have backgrounds of full engagement with worldly concerns. There are businessmen such as Ryan Holiday, Chuck Chakrapani, and Stephen Hanselman; and entrepreneurs such as Tim Ferris and Phil Van Treuren. In contrast, Buddhist authors are often runcinants, or engaged in vocations at farther remove from worldly concerns.
The Stoics speak to the psychological concerns of our era, perhaps in a better way than Buddhism does. It’s well-known that the practices of the ancient Stoics inspired Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). One of the most popular contemporary Stoic authors, Donald Robertson, is a Cognitive Behavioral Therapist.
While much has been made of Buddhist psychological approaches, much of it has been watered down and commercialized to the point of being almost unrecognizable - aka “McMindfulness.” Besides, advocates of Stoicism can point to the Stoic version of mindfulness: prosoche. On the other hand, prosoche is a minor aspect of Stoicism and quite arguably has little in common with Buddhist mindfulness.
Although Stoicism does have its paradoxes, they’re nothing compared to the challenges of Zen koans. The spiritual practices used in the ancient Greek philosophies of life, such as philosophical journaling and noting how little one is actually in control of, are easily grasped. In contrast, Buddhist meditation practices pose huge challenges to beginners and are well-documented to cause adverse effects for some meditators. Moreover, Stoicism is perceived to be strictly a philosophy of life, thus requiring less of a commitment than joining a religion such as Buddhism.
Two of the best-selling Stoic authors, Massimo Pigliucci and William Irvine, said they considered Buddhism and chose to adopt Stoicism instead. Stoicism is turning out to be a better fit for the self-improvement and societal improvement issues of the present moment. No wonder Stoicism is having a cultural moment, and in doing so, it seems to be taking a share of mind that Buddhism once attracted.
Related articles:
As a Buddhist with a deep interest in Stoicism, I was interested to read your ideas on this, and hope you mind my own reflections on the topic.
I think that there are a number of reasons for the decline of interest in Buddhism in the West.
The primary reason, as I see it, is this: Westerners just don't want to accept the first noble truth, the truth of suffering. Westerners want to feel good. That's not what the Dharma is. I think many Westerners don't want to think about the hard truths of karma and rebirth, with the concomitant requirement for a very highly ethical lifestyle.
Beyond that, on a more practical level, is the emphasis on Tibetan and Zen Buddhism; now, I have nothing but regard for those who can follow these paths, but they are daunting. The levels of commitment required, the difficulty of the practices, the time required to see progress, and the cultural preconceptions make adopting these paths very challenging.
Tibetan Buddhism, as taught in the west, wasn't, as I understand it, the path of the average Tibetan—it was the path of monks, and advanced monks at that. Tibetan farmers and nomads recited the Mani mantra, gave offerings, prayed—it was a devotional path. In the west, though, there has been an emphasis on very advanced practices being taught to people without the necessary grounding. Dzogchen is fascinating, but how many can really attain that level? Especially living as householders in the West?
So with Zen—it was always an elite path in East Asia, where most ordinary people practiced devotional Pure Land.
Devotion, though, is hard for Westerners. Westerners, too often, are fleeing Christianity and see anything similar as unattractive.
Additionally, the watering down of Buddhism, the turning of Buddhist teachings into fairly banal psychological self help has lessened impact. Why be a Buddhist to get feel good platitudes? The level of political orthodoxy required in most Western Buddhist groups has also driven people out.
Now, Stoicism has become badly debased, too. The things I see attributed to Epictetus and Marcus chill my blood, though those great men would have said, "It's none of my affair." But Stoicism, even in a serious, pure form, does not require the commitment to something transcendent that's required by the Dharma. One can take some Stoic maxims, work on them, and see benefit.
I hope that Buddhism does again spread in the west; I think it's a valuable way to live, and a way out of the wheel of birth and death. But I do believe that, for that to happen, the more practical, devotional sides of the Dharma need to become more widely known.
Finally, I don't see any inherent conflict between Buddhism and Stoicism; while Buddhism is my core commitment, I find Stoicism a very practical help in my daily life, as do, I'm sure, many others.
In these times, anything that can help us to live a more ethical life is to be applauded and cultivated.
My way was from buddhist to Stoic and now Epicurean.
The main reason is recognizing the modern scientific worldview.
When I wanted to go deeper in buddhist practice everyone said me=> you must believe in karma&reincarnation, Secular buddhism is buddhism light…., but ok „deep/traditional“ buddhism is just magical thinking/ believing imo comparing with modern scientific knowledge…
The same with the Stoics but not so hard and many subjects can be good interpretated in modern terms and views ( laws of nature, dark energy and big bang / big bounce/crunch) and more diverse ethical advices technics and possibilities for self improvement aside of only meditation.
And Epicureanism is like „follow the science“ but without the failures of scientism and with ethics based in neurology ( values from pleasure/pain ) + the virtues from Stoicism but for the right reason ( not virtue for its own sake) and seeing the territory instead of confusing the map ( notions, laws) with the territory.
Maybe Naturalism / Epicureanism will be the next hype ?😄 But maybe it would be too normal for a modern mind to call or identify with an ancient path.