The following is a partial excerpt of an interview with Eckhart
Tolle from a book called
Dialogues With Emerging Spiritual Teachers by John W.
Parker.
Quick Navigation:
This morning we are speaking with Eckhart Tolle. As a
note of introduction, can you share with us where you grew up
and how it impacted your outlook on life?
Yes. I was born in Germany, where I lived for the first thirteen
years of my life. At age thirteen I moved to Spain to live with
my father, who had gone to live there, and I spent the rest of
my teenage years in Spain. So that became the second culture in
which I lived. The second language for me became Spanish- At
nineteen I moved to England. For most of my adult life until
about five or six years ago, I lived in England. So the fact of
having lived in two or three different cultural environments
perhaps was important because I was not conditioned by just one
particular culture. People who have lived exclusively in one
culture, part of their mental conditioning is the cultural
collective conditioning of that country. It probably helped to
live in more than one country, so that the conditioning was not
so deep. One became more aware of the surrounding culture
without being totally identified with it.
Another interesting fact is that at the age of thirteen I
refused to go to school any longer. It was an inner
impossibility for me to go to school. I was not a rebellious
child at all, but I simply refused to go to school. The
environment was so hostile. I simply refused, and so between
thirteen and twenty-two or twenty-three I had no formal
education. When I went to live with my father in Spain—my father
was a very unconventional person, which is wonderful—he asked
me, "Do you want to go to school here?" I was thirteen. I said,
of course, "No, I don't." And he said, "O.K. then don't go to
school. Do what you like; read, study languages, you can go to
language classes." And that's what I did. I pursued my own
particular interests. I read some literature. I was very
interested in astronomy. I read books that I wanted to read. Of
course I learned Spanish fairly quickly. I went to English
language classes. I liked languages and studied some French. And
I spent a lot of time just being with myself, free of the
external pressures of the environment or the culture. So that
was very important.
It was only later in English at age twenty-two or twenty-three
that I became interested in intellectual matters. My mind became
more and more active. I was seeking some kind of answer through
the intellect, through philosophy, psychology, and literature.
And I believed that the answer was to be found in the intellect
and philosophy. So that is when I started getting qualifications
in preparatory evening classes that I needed to get into the
university in England. That was my free choice and there was no
internal compulsion behind it, nor external compulsion.
Did you study philosophy then or...?
As a subsidiary subject, but it was mostly literature and
languages that I later studied in the university. So the fact
about my childhood is that schooling stopped at thirteen. There
was this space of freedom between thirteen and the rest of my
teen-age years. [Chuckle]
Interesting. Do you recall having any spiritual
experiences as a child that created or brought about the
"longing" to know yourself?
Well, my childhood was not a happy one. Spain perhaps was
relatively more happy than Germany, the first thirteen years.
There was a lot of conflict in my home environment, as many
people find, of course. Even as a child I could already feel
what later would become periods of intense depression—I could
already feel the beginnings of that. That certainly was not a
"spiritual experience" but somehow it can be a prelude lo it.
Even as a child I would sometimes think, "How can I eliminate
myself from this world?" "How can I commit suicide?" and was
working out possibilities of how to do it. [ Laughter ]
Schooling was also so unpleasant for me. As a very young child I
didn't have the strength to say "No" to it. Basically life was
not happy as a child. There was no "spiritual experience," as
such, except—yes, there was: although we lived in a fairly big
city, I had a deep intimacy with nature. I remember getting on
my bike and going beyond the outskirts of the city and looking
around the world of nature, having just left behind the
miserable world of school. And I remember (the thought going
through my head, "This will always be here, this will always be
here." Nothing—just that—and looking. [Chuckle]
Did you actually do any work after you had finished
school?
Yes. My first job was at seventeen. I was a tourist guide.
[Chuckle] We were living in Southern Spain where many tourists
came. It happened naturally. So that was my first job there. And
later when I moved to England, somehow, although I did not have
qualifications, I was offered a job to teach German and Spanish
in a language school which I did for over three years. [Chuckle]
One more event about "spiritual experiences." When we were in
Spain, I was about fifteen when a German woman came to visit us
and then was going to return to Germany. She said, "Can I leave
a few things with you?" She left some books with us. There were
five books I that were written by a German Mystic, early
twentieth-century writer, not very well-known abroad. His
spiritual name is Bo Yin Ra. I started reading these books. The
text was written in almost Biblical style, pointing towards
mystical experience. And I responded very deeply to those books.
And I felt later that these books were left there for a purpose.
I even copied parts of those books. They created an "opening"
into that dimension. A year later she came back, and my father
said to her, "So you left some books with us." And she said,
"No, I didn't leave any books; I don’t remember." She didn't
want him to remember that she had even left any books with us.
[Laughter] So I still have some of these books at home, and I
value them greatly.
Could you briefly share with us the main experiences you
bad that led you to become a spiritual teacher? You have a
recently published book titled. The Power of Now: a Guide to
Spiritual Enlightenment. In your book, you mentioned a very
profound experience, or a "shift" that took place.
Yes. I was about twenty-nine, and had gone through years of
depression and anxiety. I had even achieved some successes, like
graduating with the highest mark at London University. Then an
offer came for a Cambridge scholarship to do research. But the
whole motivating power behind my academic success was fear and
unhappiness.
It all changed one night when I woke up in the middle of the
night. The fear, anxiety and heaviness of depression were
becoming so intense, it was almost unbearable. And it is hard to
describe that "state" where the world is felt to be so alien,
just looking at a physical environment like a room. Everything
was totally alien and almost hostile. I later saw a book written
by Jean-Paul Sartre called Nausea. That was the state that I was
in, nausea of the world. [Chuckle] And the thought came into my
head, "I can't live with myself any longer." That thought kept
repeating itself again and again.
And (then suddenly there was a "standing back" from the thought
and Looking at that thought, at the structure of that thought,"
If I cannot live with myself, who is that self that I cannot
live with? Who am I? Am I one—or two?" And I saw that I was
"two." There was an "I," and (here was a self. And the self was
deeply unhappy, the miserable self. And the burden of that I
could not live with. At that moment, a dis-identification
happened. "I" consciousness withdrew from its identification
with the self, the mind-made fictitious entity, the unhappy
"little me" and its story. And the fictitious entity collapsed
completely in that moment, just as if a plug had been pulled out
of an inflatable toy. What remained was a single sense of
presence or "Beingness" which is pure consciousness prior to
identification with form—the eternal I AM. I didn't know all of
that at the time, of course. It just happened, and for a long
time there was no understanding of what had happened.
As the self collapsed, there was still a moment of intense
fear—after all, it was the death of "me." I felt like being
sucked into a hole. But a voice from within said, "Resist
nothing." So I let go. It was almost like I was being sucked
into a void, not an external void, but a void within. And then
fear disappeared and there was nothing that I remember after
that except waking up in the morning in a state of total and
complete "newness."
I woke up in a state of incredible inner peace, bliss in fact.
With my eyes still closed, I heard the sound of a bird and
realized how precious that was. And then I opened my eyes and
saw the sunlight coming through the curtains and felt: There is
far more to that than we realize. It felt like love coming
through the curtains. And then as I walked around the old
familiar objects in the room I realized I had never really seen
them before. It was as if I had just been born into this world;
a state of wonder. And then I went for a walk in the city. I was
still in London. Everything was miraculous, deeply peaceful.
Even the traffic. [Chuckle]
I knew something incredible had happened, although I didn't
understand it. I even started writing down in a diary,
"Something incredible has happened. I just want to write this
down," I said, "in case it leaves me again or I lose it." And
only later did I realize (that my thought processes after waking
up that morning had been reduced by about eighty to ninety
percent. So a lot of the time I was walking around in a state of
inner stillness, and perceiving the world through inner
stillness.
And that is the peace, the deep peace that comes when there is
no longer anybody commenting on sense perceptions or anything
that happens. No labeling, no need to interpret what is
happening, it just is as it is and it is fine. [Laughter] There
was no longer a "me" entity.
After that transformation happened, I could not have said
anything about it. "Something happened. I am totally at peace. I
don't know what it means." That is all I could have said. And it
took years before there was some "understanding." And it took
more years before it evolved into a "spiritual teaching ."That
took time. The basic state is the same as then, but the external
manifestation of the state as a teaching and the power of a
teaching, that took time. It had to mature. So when I talk about
it now to some extent, I add something to it. When I talk about
the "original experience" something is added to it that I didn't
know then.
You mentioned that after a profound realization had
occurred you read spiritual texts and spent time with various
teachers. Can you share what writings and teachers had the
greatest effect on you in further realizing what had been
revealed to you?
Yes. The texts I came in contact with—first I picked up a copy
of the New Testament almost by accident, maybe half a year, a
year after it happened, and reading the words of Jesus and
feeling the essence and power behind those words. And I
immediately understood at a deeper level the meaning of those
words. I knew intuitively with absolute certainty that certain
statements attributed to Jesus were added later, because they
did not "emanate" from that place, that state of consciousness,
because I knew that place, I know that place. But when a
statement emanates from that place, there is recognition. And
when it does not, no matter how clever or intelligent it may
sound it lacks that essence and it does not have that power. In
other words, it does not emanate from the stillness. So that was
an incredible realization, just reading and understanding
"beyond mind" the deeper meaning of those words.
Then came the
Bhagavad Gita, I also had an immediate, deep understanding
of and an incredible love for such a divine work. The
Tao Te Ching; also an immediate understanding. And often
knowing, "Oh, that's not a correct translation.” I knew the
translator had misunderstood, and knew what the real meaning was
although I do not know any Chinese. So I immediately had access
to the essence of those texts. Then I also started reading on
Buddhism and immediately understood the essence of Buddhism. I
saw the simplicity of the original teaching of the Buddha
compared to the complexity of subsequent additions, philosophy,
all the baggage that over the centuries accumulated around
Buddhism, and saw the essence of the original teaching. I have a
great love for the teaching of the Buddha, a teaching of such
power and sublime simplicity. I even spent time in Buddhist
monasteries. During my time in England there were already
several Buddhist monasteries.
I met and listened to some teachers that helped me understand my
own state. In the beginning there was a Buddhist monk, Achan
Sumedo, abbot of two or three monasteries in England. He's a
Western-born Buddhist.
And in London I spent some time with
Barry Long. I also understood things more deeply, simply
through listening and having some conversations with him. And
there were other teachers who were just as meaningful whom I
never met in person that I feel a very strong connection to. One
is [J.]
Krishnamurti, and another is
Ramana Maharshi. I feel a deep link. And I feel actually
that the work I do is a coming together of the teaching
"stream," if you want to call it that, of Krishnamurti and
Ramana Maharshi. They seem very, very dissimilar, but I feel
that in my teaching the two merge into one. It is the heart of
Ramana Maharshi, and Krishnamurti's ability to see the false, as
such and point out how it works. So Krishnamurti and Ramana
Maharshi, I love them deeply. I feel completely at One with
them. And it is a continuation of the teaching.
You mentioned that you have been a spiritual teacher for
ten years now?
It is very hard to tell when I started to be a spiritual
teacher. There was a time when occasionally somebody would come
and ask me questions. One could say at that point I became a
spiritual teacher, although the term did not occur to me then.
For awhile I thought I was a “healer." It was a few years after
the transformation happened. Occasionally people would come to
me. I was sitting with a woman one day and she was telling me
her story and I was in a state of listening, a state of bliss as
I was listening to the drama of her story, and suddenly she
stopped talking and said, "Oh, you are doing healing." She felt
something and she called it "healing." And so at that time I did
not understand completely what was going on, and thought, "Oh,
so I am a healer." For a while then, people called me a healer.
[Laughter] And when I saw the limitations of that term, I
dropped that. [Laughter] And later on, somebody called me a
"spiritual teacher" once, and that must have been the beginning.
[Laughter]
How long did it take after the "shift" to integrate what
was revealed?
Many years. About ten years. And "spiritual teacher" of course
is not an identity. "Spiritual teacher" is a function. Somebody
comes, the teaching happens. Somebody leaves, there's no
spiritual teacher left. If I thought it was my identity to be a
spiritual teacher, that would be a delusion. It's not an
identity. It's simply a function in this world. I have been very
happy being nobody for many years after the transition. And I
was nobody even in the eyes of the world, really. I had not
achieved any worldly success. Now, there is a book, and the
groups are getting bigger and bigger. And people think I am
"somebody."
How do you deal with that?
Well, I smile. I still know I am "nobody." [Laughter] Even
though all these "projections" come that I am "special." And for
many teachers that is a challenge, to be bombarded with
projections of "specialness." And even teachers who have already
gone very deeply sometimes fall back into illusion. The impact
of projections that they receive from all their followers or
disciples is so strong that after a while the delusion of "specialness"
returns. And that is often the beginning of the end of the power
of the teaching that comes through. They may then still teach
from "memory," but when the "specialness" returns, that is the
end of spiritual power coming through. Any idea of "specialness."
And I have seen it with spiritual teachers.
Yes, many times it has happened. What have you recognized
in individuals who have come to you—and I don't know if you
would refer to them as "students'—and in yourself that would
lead you to believe that your realization is "true" and that it
can be realized by others?
The certainty is complete. There is no need for confirmation
from any external source. The realization of peace is so deep
that even if I met the Buddha and the Buddha said you are wrong,
I would say, "Oh, isn't that interesting, even the Buddha can be
wrong." [Laughter] So there is just no question about it. And I
have seen it in so many situations when there would have been
reaction in a "normal state of consciousness"—challenging
situations. It never goes away. It's always there. The intensity
of that peace or stillness, that can vary, but it's always
there.
It often becomes more intense when there is an external
challenge, if something goes wrong or there is a great loss
externally. And then the stillness and peace becomes extremely
intense and deepens. And that is the opposite of what usually
would happen in the normal state of consciousness, when loss
occurs or something goes wrong, so to speak. Agitation, upset,
fear arises. Reactivity arises. "Little me" gets stronger. So
this is the opposite.
I noticed it the first time I was watching a film not long after
the transformation. It was a science-fiction film, and one scene
showed the annihilation of Japan, the whole country going up in
flames. And I was sitting in the cinema, feeling the bliss
deepening and deepening, until there was only That. Then the
mind came in and said, "How strange! How can you feel so
blissful when you're watching disaster?" And out of that, a
realization developed into what would later become part of my
teaching. That is, whenever a great loss of any kind occurs to
anybody, loss of whatever kind, disaster, something goes
drastically wrong, death, for some people that has been their
spiritual breakthrough.
Loss is very painful, because any kind of loss leaves a hole
in the fabric of one's existence. A person dies, or something
you had identified with completely is gone. Your home goes up in
flames. There is extreme pain at first. But whenever a form
dissolves, which is called "death," what remains is an opening
into emptiness. Where the form once was, there's a hole into
emptiness. And if it's not resisted, if you don't turn away from
it you'll find that the formless—you could say God—shines
through that hole where there was a form that died.
Maybe that is why the Buddhists spend so much time
practicing in the graveyard?
Yes, that is right. I'm talking about this now in connection
with my inner state, which is always the same although the
intensity varies. And it intensifies through any loss or
disaster. Has this knowledge become part of the teaching? Yes,
because often people come to me because they are in great pain,
because of some recent or imminent loss. They may be faced with
death. They may have just lost a loved one, or lost their
position. It's often at that point that life becomes too
unbearable, and then there is "seeking," "spiritual seeking." So
I point out that if you surrender into the loss, see what comes
through that hole. It's the winds of grace that blow through
that hole.
It's interesting. When I first read about your
"awakening," I was reminded of St. John of the Cross and the
"Dark Night of the Soul." It seems like you have gone through
something very similar. But what I heard you say yesterday at
the Gathering (2000) is that it really isn't necessary.
No.
The "Dark Night of the Soul" seems to be one way that
some individuals have managed to have a "shift" in their
consciousness. I hear you saying that there is another way. What
I have experienced with other spiritual teachers is that almost
to the person, they have gone through a similar shift. There has
been a "dark night of the soul" and then the "shift" takes
place. I have yet to find someone who has done it the other way,
who has actually been able to have that realization and not go
through "the abyss," and has been able to help other individuals
realize that it is not absolutely necessary.
Yes. One could say that everybody in this world has a spiritual
teacher. For most people, their losses and disasters represent
the teacher; their suffering is the teacher. And if they stay
with that teacher long enough, eventually it will take them to
freedom. Maybe not in this lifetime. So everybody has a
spiritual teacher. But a "spiritual teaching” in the narrow
sense of the word is there to save time and suffering. Without
it you would get there anyway, but it saves time.
And every spiritual teaching points to the possibility of the
end of suffering—Now. It is true that most teachers have had to
go through the "Dark Night of the Soul,” although for one or two
it was very, very quick. Ramana Maharshi had one brief death
experience. For J. Krishnamurti, it happened when his brother
died. He [Krishnamurti] wasn't "free" yet when they discovered
him. There was great potential in him. But he really became
"free" after the death of his brother.
Humankind as a whole has been through such vast suffering that
one could almost say that every human has suffered enough now.
No further suffering is necessary. And it is now possible as
spiritual teachings are coming through with greater intensity,
perhaps greater than ever before, that many humans will be able
to break through without any further need for suffering.
Otherwise I would not be teaching. The very essence of the
teaching is the message, "You have suffered enough." The Buddha
said it. "I teach suffering, and the end of suffering," which
means, "I show you how suffering arises," which is an important
realization—I talked about that yesterday—and how you can be
free of that- So that is the very purpose of spiritual teaching,
Jesus says the same, "the Kingdom of Heaven is here. Now"
accessible to you here and Now.
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.
