An Interview with Eckhart Tolle (parts of it)
from Dialogues With Emerging Spiritual Teachers by John W. Parker
(...) In your book, you mentioned that "enlightenment is simply our natural state of "felt" oneness with Being and a state of "feeling-realization.” Is enlightenment based on feeling rather than thinking? Help us understand who feels it and where it is felt.
Yes, well it is certainly closer to feeling than thinking. There is no word to describe the state of connectedness with Being. I am putting together two words in the book: feeling and realization hyphenated Because there is not a correct word that I can use. Language doesn't have a word for that. So I can only use something that gets relatively close but that's not it either. Realization sounds a little bit as if it were a "mental" thing. "Oh, I know." Feeling sounds as if it were an "emotion " But it is not an emotion. And it is not a mental recognition of anything. Perhaps the word that is closest to it is the realization of stillness, which is when the mental noise that we call thinking, subsides. There is a gap in the stream of thought, but there is absolutely no loss of consciousness. In that ''gap" there is full and intense consciousness, but it has not taken on form.
Every thought in consciousness has been born into form, a temporary form and then it dies and goes onto another form. You could say the whole world is consciousness having taken birth as form, manifesting as form temporarily, and then dying, which means dissolving as form. What always remains is the "essence" of all that exists—consciousness itself.
Now, when a form dies, I pointed out earlier it is an external loss; it's a great opportunity for the formless, pure consciousness to be recognized. The same happens when a thought-stream comes to an end. Thought dies. And suddenly that which is beyond thought—you may call it pure consciousness—is realized as deep stillness.
Now the question you may ask, and perhaps have asked, is "Who realizes the stillness?" If there is no longer the personal entity there, who is it that becomes enlightened? [Laughter] One could say, of course, nobody becomes "enlightened," because it is the dissolving of the illusion of a separate "me," which is not anybody's achievement, or anybody's success. It looks as if there were a human being becoming enlightened, but that is an external appearance. What is really happening is that consciousness has withdrawn from its identification with form, and realizes its own nature. It is a "Self-realization" of consciousness. Therefore it is a cosmic event. What looks like a human being, a person, becoming free of suffering and entering a state of deep peace—from an external viewpoint—in reality is a cosmic event. Please remember that all language is limited, so these are just little "pointers."
Consciousness is withdrawing from the game of form. For millions of years, as long as the world has been in existence, consciousness has been engaged in the play of form, of becoming the "dance" of phenomenal universe, "Lila." And then consciousness becomes tired of the game. [Chuckle]
It needs a rest.
Yes. But having lost itself, that was part of the game. Having lost itself in form, after having lost itself in form, it knows itself fully for the first time. Don't take anything I say too literally. They are just little pointers, because no one can explain the universe through making "sounds" or thoughts. So it is far too vast to be explained. I'm not explaining the universe. These are just tiny hints. It is beyond words, beyond thought. What I am saying could almost be treated as a poem, an approximation, just an approximation to the Truth.
What is "enlightenment," and why does there seem to be so much confusion about it in these times?
Well, the confusion arises because so many people write about it without knowing it directly. One can become an expert on it without knowing it directly. Because an expert means you know a lot "about" something, but you do not necessarily know "it.” Confusion arises there.
What is enlightenment? Again, it is so vast not any one definition would do it justice. It would be a tiny aspect of it. And you can look at it from so many perspectives, this one, that one, that one. And every time it looks as if it were different.
Another reason why it can be confusing is you reach one person's definition of enlightenment, he or she is looking from "this" perspective. And then you read somebody else's, and they are looking from that perspective. There's the ancient old Indian story of blind men describing an elephant, one touching the trunk, another a leg, the tail, and soon. (Laughter]
The confusion arises in trying to understand through the mind what enlightenment is. That is impossible. Any description is only a signpost. So the mind can only go a certain way, and then the signpost has to be left behind. And the mind gets attached to a signpost, which is a teaching or description, a concept. And then confusion arises because then it sees another signpost and says, "Oh, maybe that is the true one." It becomes defensive, identities with "this one" and says that's me.
So, to the question. "What is enlightenment?" one could say simply, it is when there is no longer any identification with thinking. When there is no longer self-identification with thought processes and self-seeking through thinking. Then the compulsive nature of thinking ceases. Then gaps arise in the mind-stream. That means the unconditioned consciousness arises and is realized as stillness or presence. There is nobody there who "realizes." It is realized. It realizes itself. [Chuckle]
In your book you also mention the "observing presence." Is it possible to practice being the observer to the point of recognizing it as your natural state or condition?
Yes. The beginning of spiritual awakening is the realization that "I am not my thoughts," and "I am not my emotions." So there arises the ability suddenly to observe what the mind is doing, to observe thought processes, to become aware of repetitive thought patterns without being trapped in them, without being completely "in them." So there is a "standing back." It is the ability to observe what the mind is doing, and the ability also to observe an emotion. I define "emotion" as the body's reaction to what the mind is doing. The ability to "watch" that without being identified. That means your whole sense of identity shifts from being the thought or the emotion to being the "observing presence."
And then you can observe a reaction, a menial or emotional reaction. Anger arises. The anger may still be there. But there is the observing "presence" which is the alertness in the background that watches the anger. So there is no longer a "self" in it. The ability to observe thought already is the arising of stillness. Because it is from that dimension that thought is observed.
And then the observer becomes stronger. And what is being witnessed has less heaviness to it, less momentum. So at first you are witnessing. Then you become aware of the witness itself, the power that lies in the witnessing, the power of stillness, the power of consciousness. And then you know that as yourself. You are That.
If you dwell in that continuously, it means you are free of the world of form. Until that happens you are imprisoned in physical and mental formations. You are trapped in thinking. You are (rapped in emotions. You are a fictitious self trapped in form. The true self is beyond form and to know that is liberation.
I want to get into what is traditionally referred to as "Cosmic Consciousness," where the Self, unshakable silence or Beingness is separate from activity. There appears to be a maturity that takes place beyond "Cosmic Consciousness" where an awakening occurs to the reality that no separation between the Self and the world really exists. Adyashanti, who also spoke at the Gathering (2000) yesterday mentioned something about this "maturity" when he got into the three statements, "the world is illusion," "Brahman is real" and "the world is Brahman." it appears a "maturation time" is required, but in some sense no time is necessary. How does this come about?
Well, certain sages made the statement, in India, especially, "the world is unreal," and of course when people read it, it becomes a belief, and they repeat the belief, and then they argue with others who say, "No, no it is real, can't you see it is real?" Those who made the statement originally and where it came from—I know exactly why they said it. Because I feel exactly the same.
The way I experience the world, it's like a surface phenomenon. There's such vastness of Being, the stillness is so all-encompassing. It fills almost everything, it fills the whole space and yet it is empty. And anything that happens, events, or phenomena in people, are like ripples on the surface of Being. That's how I perceive. And ripples, they come and go. They are not all that real. No ripple or wave has any separate existence from the whole. It just looks for a moment as if the wave or ripple was a separate entity. But it isn't.
So the whole phenomenal world to me is like a ripple on the surface of Being. And in that sense I could say, although I never say it as such, "the world is unreal”—unreal relative to what I know to be true, what I feel, what I experience. Experience is not the right word, because it implies time. So it is to be rooted in that timeless slate of consciousness, because it's only in the phenomenal world where time arises. And there is what looks like an entity, a "person," that exists simultaneously as form in time, and yet is the formless. So there is a paradox coming in whenever one realizes. As form you are still in time. As the formless you are beyond time. So the formless, the unmanifested, shines through you when you have realized the formless. It shines through the form into this world. It's like God shining through. The form becomes transparent.
You see this in anybody who has "realized," the absence of personality or ego. There may be certain traits of behavior, but they are not ego. It is the absence of needing to be somebody. And then it can take time as it did in my case, for this to become a teaching. Ramana Maharshi also went completely into the formless, into Being, and didn't even speak anymore, and didn't feed himself anymore. And then time passed on the external, not within—he was rooted in the timeless. But on the external, time passed and as things changed, he started eating and feeding himself again. He started interacting with people. He started to speak again. And then the teaching arose out of that. Time was needed for that to happen.
So there is a role for "time" to act as "grist for the mitt," which allows for that union between the unmanifest and manifest to come about?
Yes. There is always a paradox when one talks about time in the content of "spirituality” There's a question that is sometimes asked, "Do I need time to become enlightened?" Because it does seem like that. And the answer is yes and no. The answer I would give to that contains a paradox. And I say, yes, you need time until you realize that you don't need time anymore, [Laughter] So the truth here, it is only through paradox that this truth can be expressed. And to do away with paradox would limit it.
How do you define the term "ego?" Is it possible to have any remains of an ego and be perfectly enlightened?
Ego means self-identification with thinking, to be trapped in thought, which means to have a mental image of "me" based on thought and emotions. So ego is there in the absence of a witnessing presence. There's the unobserved mind and the unobserved mind is the ego. As the witness comes in, ego still operates. It has a momentum that is still there, but a different dimension of consciousness has come in. The question whether somebody can be enlightened ...
Yes, is it possible to be perfectly enlightened and have any remains of an ego?
Well, perhaps not perfectly enlightened, but there can be remains of ego still there, because I have seen it in teachers. I have seen the ego return in some teachers. So the ego can go into almost a "coma," [Laughter] and then wake up out of its coma perhaps due to the projections, ego-projections that the teacher is bombarded with. As the teacher is there, more people appear and gather around the teacher. And they (those who gather around them) all have their own ego-projections. They make the teacher very "special." And specialness is always ego, whether special in my misery or special because I am the greatest, the ego doesn't really mind. [Chuckle] So perhaps in those teachers the ego was not completely gone. It just had been reduced to an extremely weak state, but then gained strength again.
Ramakrishna refers to a "provisional ego," where there is a very thin line between that which is real and that which exists in time/space which allows some sort of presence in the world. I think he said something like fifteen out of sixteen particles are not there in an ego form, but it's that one-sixteenth of a particle left over that is able to interact with those who are still in possession of an ego.
Yes, that's good.
Some spiritual teachers advocate spiritual practices and others reject them as a waste of time. What's your perspective on this?
There may be a place for spiritual practice. The difficulty with spiritual practice is again that most practices give you "time." They are based on time and on becoming, or "getting good at" something. In the end every practice will have to be left behind. No practice can take you to liberation. That is important to know. It can be a little step that is useful until you realize you don't need it anymore, because after a certain point it becomes a hindrance.
Now if a teacher gives you a practice, he or she would perhaps point out when you don't need it anymore or you realize yourself when you don’t need it anymore. No technique can take you there. That is the important thing.
Personally, I don't teach practices as such. The power of the teaching is sufficient without needing to go for any practice. Although some people when I speak of awareness of the "inner body" call it a technique. I would not call it a technique because it is too simple for that. When the oak tree feels its roots in the earth, its connectedness with the earth, it is not practicing a technique. That is its natural state, to feel that connectedness. So I would not call "feeling the inner body" a technique.
Surrendering to "what is" or "the Now*' seems to be an important aspect of your teaching. Is there a distinction between "surrendering to what is," and the use of the popular cliché, "go with the flow of life, where ever it takes us"?
Surrendering only refers to this moment, whatever "is" at this moment—to accept unconditionally and fully whatever arises at this moment. "Going with the flow" is a more general term. For some people it is an excuse for not taking action and it refers usually to one's life situation. Let's say you are in a particular job and that is the flow, you stay in it.
Surrender is only in reference to Now. So "going with the flow" is not necessarily true surrender and may lead to passivity, lethargy and inaction. Surrender to the Now is something very different because it only concerns accepting the reality of this moment. Whatever action is needed will then rise out of that state of complete acceptance. The most powerful state for a human to be in is the state of embracing completely the reality of what is—Now. It is to say "Yes" to life, which is now and always now. There is a vast power in that "Yes," that state of inner non-resistance to what is. Action arises out of that if it's needed, as a spontaneous response to the situation.
So surrender to Now never leads to inaction because it only concerns the reality of this moment and perhaps action is needed. In the book I give the example of being stuck in the mud. So you wouldn't say, "O.K., I surrender to this and I'm going to stay here." It simply means, "it is;" there is a recognition of "it is" and to saying yes to "it is." And there's much greater power now that arises that will move through you and manifest as action if it is needed than there could ever be in the state of saying, "no" to "what is"—and then perhaps taking action that is always contaminated with negativity. Whenever you say "no" and then action arises because you are fighting "what is" that is karmic action in Eastern terms, and it leads to further suffering because it arises out of suffering, which is the non-acceptance of "what is"—suffering. Action arising out of suffering is contaminated with suffering and causes further suffering, and that is karma. Action that arises out of a state of “acceptance" is totally free of karma. And there is a vast difference.
