“San, Buddha and many sages have used the phrase “In the world but not of the world”.
What does it mean?”
In the world, signifying that what has appeared in the world….
…. is subject to the framework of that world.
What is the essential nature of that framework?
Which needs the belief in time, in which change is held to have occurred.
Birth is a change.
Death is a change.
Moods, success, failures, achievements, emotional detritus, spiritual hoopla…..are all changes.
A change is the belief that something and something else has a distinction, a differentiation.
Without the conviction of the differentiation of an “else”, there is nothing as change.
In the world, means the biological sentient object, with a societal bestowed name, held to be “me”…
…. an object which has appeared in the world……… is subject to the framework of change.
Anything held to be born, will die…..
….. no matter what esoteric practices is pursued to try achieve immortality.
Whether it is the object held to be Buddha of Tathaghata fame…..
….or the one held to be Hugh Hefner of PlayBoy fame.
“Not of the world” signifies…..that a watching of all the hoopla which being “in” entails….
…..a watching which is not some observing….
…. which ends into getting lost in identified engagement and then again remembered to start observing….etc etc…
….a watching which is the watching of the very start-getting-lost-starting of observing…
….a watching…remaining un-affected by any of the razzmatazz of what is popularly known as Life and living….
…..a watching which remains untouched by even the death of the object notionally held to be oneself..
..such a watching is not bound by the framework of change…
…not contained by the framework of time…… aka by framework of the world.
Such a watching is not of the world, i.e. it is not construed by the ingredients of the framework of the world.
“Finally”(without the connotation of an event in future time)…
….the watching of the very differentiation, created by thought……….between the “in” and the “of”.
The dissolution of the distinction between “in” and “of”…..
……is the very dissolving of even the watching.
Who or what is left, to say any further.
Including to prattle…… “Who or what is left”.