Religions primarily deal with three factors—God (īśvara), the world (jagat), and the individual (jīva), and try to understand how these three are mutually related. Some of the questions regarding each of these were addressed in earlier posts.
Regarding the world, I had raised two questions: “What do we really mean by ‘world’?” and “Is this world real?” If you haven’t seen that post, here is the link to it.
The terms “worldly” and “worldliness” come up often in religious literature and discussions. Look at the following words of Swami Vivekananda, taken randomly from his Complete Works:
“That religion which is only a means to worldly well-being is not religion, whatever else it may be; and it is sheer blasphemy against God and human beings to hold that we have no other end than the free and full enjoyment of all the pleasure of our senses.” (CW, 4. 279)
“Worldliness and realization of God cannot go together.” (CW, 5. 81)
“This life comes and goes—wealth, fame, enjoyments are only of a few days. It is better, far better to die on the field of duty, preaching the truth, than to die like a worldly worm.” (CW, 5. 114-115)
I want to dig a little deeper into the meaning of “the world” in order to understand what worldliness is. Swami Vivekananda’s incisive words go to the very heart of what “the world” really means. He begins by saying, “Where God is, there is no other. Where the world is, there is no God. These two will never unite.” In order to see God, the world has to be given up. Swamiji, again:
“What is the world that is to be given up? It is here. I am carrying it all with me. My own body. It is all for this body that I put my hand voluntarily upon my fellow beings, just to keep it nice and give it a little pleasure; [all for this body] that I injure others and make mistakes.” (CW 4. 244)
Swamiji brings this up again in a different lecture:
“What is the world but a combination of stomach and sex? Look at millions of men and women—that is what they are living for. Take these away from them and they will find their life empty, meaningless, and intolerable. Such are we. And such is our mind.” (CW 8. 118)
It is clear from these powerful observations that the world is not really “out there” but “in here.” To be worldly means to be identified not simply with the things in the world but also with one’s own body/mind. After all, we are connected with everything in the world through the body/mind. In deep sleep, when the body/mind disappear, the world disappears too. Our identification with the body/mind is primary (they are “me”), while the identification with the things in the world is secondary (they are “mine”).
If being identified with the world makes us worldly, then being identified with the spirit (Ātman) makes us spiritual. Since we cannot be identified with both at the same time—that would be as impossible as being in light and darkness at the same time—either we are spiritual or we are worldly, never both.
This leads to a somewhat disheartening conclusion, and that is, every one of us who is not spiritually illumined is worldly. We may not want to think of ourselves that way, but that is the plain simple truth.
It may well be the truth that saves us from spiritual pride, which is the worst and the most insidious form of pride. The “holier-than-thou” attitude is a surefire way to hell. A serious rethinking of the word “spiritual” is called for here. We need to restore the sanctity of the word and prevent it from being used carelessly anywhere and everywhere.
There is a difference between “being” and “wanting to be.” Being spiritual and aspiring to be spiritual (or seeking the spirit) are two different things. Spiritual seekers are worldly beings (still identified with the body/mind) but aspiring for spirituality.
Being a devotee is different from aspiring for devotion. Experiencing God’s love is different from seeking to experience God’s love. Those on the path of bhakti are thus worldly beings but aspiring for true bhakti, or devotion.
Similarly, a nondualist is one who experiences the nondual reality. If we find the nondualistic approach intellectually stimulating or if it resonates with our head and heart, we may be aspiring for nonduality but haven’t become nondualists yet. We still identify with the diversity around us and are therefore worldly, even if we appreciate nonduality.
What this kind of self-evaluation does is to keep us humble. Sometimes there is a tendency in religious and spiritual circles to look down upon “worldly” people. Those on the path of devotion turn up their noses at those who are not on the path. The nondualists tend to patronize the dualists. There is no need to do any of that. The difference between “us”and “them” is one of degree, not of kind. Everyone, including ourselves, is worldly to a lesser or greater degree.
It is only a spiritually illumined person who is not worldly—and such a person never looks down upon anyone. An illumined person sees that God alone exists. There is no up and down, high or low, in that state of being. As long we carry all such biases and prejudices, and preserve the distinction between “my own” and “those others,” we are worldly.
Until we eliminate the fog of worldliness from our hearts, we have no right to call ourselves spiritual.