Define ‘worldly’
As part of a book club discussion on Ponlop Rinpoche’s ‘Rebel Buddha‘ with several members of my local Nalandabodhi sangha, we read the following passage which created a bit of discussion, most of which may be related to semantics:
We’re often quick to label people as beign either spiritual or worldly types. People on the street are as likely to do this as meditators in shrine rooms: moreover, culturally traditional presentations of the dharma can serve to support this sense of contrast. However such sharp distinctions actually close the window of opportunity to communicate with others. The moment we label someone as worldly and they, in turn, label us as spiritual, our communication stops right there, along with any possibility of developing a deeper relationship.
In working through an understanding of the concept of ‘worldly’ some in the group felt that it related to a sense of being experienced in the world, having traveled, versed on many cultures and being rich, where others related more that it was about being in and of the world and caught up in activities that had more to do with mindless pursuits, than more mindful ones such as studying and practicing the dharma.
For some reason the notion or quote relating to “be in the world but not of the world” is rattling around in my head but I’m not sure if it can be attributed to the Buddha, a specific sutra or if it’s something that I’m mis-attributing to Buddhism.
Regardless, the particular quote above resonated with me because I often feel like the perception of me that many folks have when I say that I’m a Buddhist is much like that of the meme that was circling around.
*The version of this that Brad Warner created for himself is beyond funny.
Back to Ponlop Rinpoche’s quote from above, in my experience because I came to discover Buddhism in my teens and wasn’t born into this tradition, I have a healthy dose of worldliness. Much of my time is still spent in the world and its tempting joys such as Facebook (where I found the image above) and Pinterest (where I found the image above the one on Facebook). I walk a balance between partaking in these kinds of pleasures and spending quiet time with my mind. Perhaps there’s something here relating to the ‘inner’ world and ‘outer’ world… I’m not sure but I’m thankful that such a small passage can get my brain working away at trying to figure out it’s meaning.
So folks, please offer up your thoughts on this question. I’d love to hear any feedback that you have.
Comments are closed.
Well, he’s talking about dividing people up into two categories: spiritual and worldly. In that context, you are usually talking about two different groups, so I would think he means worldly as in not-spiritual. That is, concerned with only the material world and not spiritual issues beyond that. I think that fits with the rest of the quote as well. Neither “you lack my finely developed spirituality” nor “oh no, another whacko spiritual type” serves well to start a conversation.
Inner world/Outer world. Spiritual/Worldly (perhaps worldly as “mundane” to distinguish from or conjoin the experienced/ensnared interpretations brought up in discussion)…
Whatever people make out it this, is an aspect of this.
Apparent separations. Conceptions of convention-convenience, enabling conception of a separate self.
What else but an illusory self can bear these empty labels of “spiritual” / “not spiritual”?
Another quote that comes to mind: ” All is mind.”
@KGrey_Com on Twitter
In normal context, worldly is as you have defined it, having knowledge of other cultures and customs either through education or direct experience.
You have indeed heard the phrase “be in the world but not of the world”. It is a loose adaptation from the the Book of John. 15:19. Like the Buddha, spiritual leaders of all faiths have some pretty good advice. Wear the world like a loose garment is another one, attributed to St. Francis of Assisi.
Why do I know this? Couldn’t tell ya. I can count the times I’ve been to church on one hand. Something must have stuck.