Is Buddhist Monasticism a Form of “Cope”?

Describing something as “cope” is not a refutation, it is an expression of disapproval as a means of shaming, unless it’s only a preface to explaining why something is a form of rationalization whose purpose is to deceive oneself into not having to face an unpleasant truth. Friedrich Nietzsche described both Christianity and Buddhism as “nihilistic” in the sense of being “life-denying”; i.e., that they are means by which damaged people reject the temporal world for an allegedly illusory eternal or transcendent world because they are unable to “cope” with the vicissitudes of the temporal world by virtue of psychophysical infirmity.

I accept that I am infirm and that it is by virtue of this that I will probably have to one day become a Buddhist monk. However, I also take seriously that this brokenness that will jettison me from the mainstream world at some point ought to be conceived of in terms of what Dr. Audrey Lehmann describes as the trauma/transcendence. Within this context, transcendence becomes the means of overcoming trauma, and it is often an effective means of doing so, and importantly, for analytically minded people like myself, the transcendent/eternal/non-temporal is demonstrably real, as we see in remote viewing studies whose reality can be authenticated according to conventional empirical means.

I say all this without shaming those who embrace the temporal world as “non-spiritual” or as deficient in any way. I am convinced they will find their way home and I think they may do so in a way that I have not imagined just as we all must do, and maybe in a way that challenges my own presuppositions about how the world is or ought to be.

Experienced psychology writer and practitioner of psi abilities. Looking forward to contributing to a worldwide awakening to the reality of psi phenomena.