Eckhart Tolle and Sri Aurobindo

2

Interview with Eckhart

Pondicherry, India—February 2002

(Dr. D. E. Mistry was also present and participating. Eckhart's answers have been transcribed verbatim as far as possible, with minimum editing. Most of the questions have been summarized or otherwise edited.)

DALAL: "Presence of mind" is an expression which the dictionary defines as the "ability to act calmly, quickly, and sensibly." Does this presence of mind denote anything related to what you call Presence?

ECKHART: Very often with words or expressions, it is a question of how the word is used. Sometimes different people use the same expression or the same word but they mean different things by it. It is quite possible that sometimes what is conventionally called "presence of mind" refers to a state of consciousness that is beyond mind ... that is arising, that is a state of Presence which I would never call presence of mind because, in the terminology that I use in the teaching, Presence and mind are not synonymous at all. [chuckle]

Page 33

So, in my terminology, "Presence of mind" is a contradiction because mind, in this teaching, means the absence of Presence, [chuckle] So, I have never used that expression nor would I ever use that expression. Now, when that expression is used conventionally, it may refer to something much more superficial than the actual state of Presence, or there may be a case when ... because it can happen—in people who have never heard of Presence or liberation from mind-—[that] almost accidentally a state of consciousness can be there, in certain situations, that is beyond thinking, and that can arise in a human being in a particular situation. And then later somebody racks about it or the person talks about it and refers to it as "Presence of mind" [being] there, and right action followed. So it is possible that, occasionally, [this] expression might be used in that deeper sense although I would never use it like that. There is mind and there is Presence. Presence is a state of consciousness that transcends thought, a state of intelligence, wakefulness, alertness, that goes beyond thought. So there are many expressions, words, concepts, where confusion arises because the question often is, how is that concept used? What does it mean to you? People have problems with words like "ego," and so on, and they mean different things. They start discussing, sometimes, concepts, not realizing that they haven't established yet what that word means to them, [chuckle]

So people tell me, for example, "Of course you need an ego to function in this world." They say, "You can't let go of ego because you'll never be able to function." So they give the word "ego" quite a different meaning. When I use the word "ego," I mean identification with mind, [chuckle] When they use the word "ego," they may mean to be able to function in this world as a form identity. And, of course, you don't lose that when you are no longer identified with mind.

Sometimes you may find that a lot of wisdom can be contained in a word or an expression because sometimes a language itself contains wisdom. So, it is sometimes useful to be able to look at the origin of a word or expression—but

Page 34

it can also be misleading. So, in a word, again, Presence of mind may sometimes simply refer to a reactive state, and at other times it might refer to a state of Presence, [chuckle] It depends on the context, the person who is using it.

DALAL: The mind does seem to have the power to observe things objectively as is done in scientific observation. Can the mind observe with detachment and become a witness?

ECKHART: If, in normal mind activity, there is even the slightest creative element to it, that means some Presence is filtering through, even though there may still be an almost complete identification with streams of thinking. And yet, at the moment of looking at a thing, it might be looking at a situation or a problem [as] when a scientist, for example, approaches a problem, there is a moment when he looks... And in that looking at the problem (and I'm using it in a wider sense, not necessarily for the eyes), giving attention, in that act of giving attention, there is, no matter how brief, a moment of absolute stillness. It might only be a second or two, so he may never be aware of it, that this is actually there. But it is there. And then immediately thought rises up again. But the thought that arises after even the briefest interval of no-thought comes from a deeper level and now will be a new insight, a creative thought.

So, all creative people have that ability to look in a state of alert Presence and stillness. But the looking may be so brief they are not aware that this is how the creative process works. In any creative process that gap is there somewhere, and then thought arises out of that. In a noncreative person there is an absence of that ability to give total attention, the attention that transcends thought. In a noncreative person that ability is not there; the stream of thought is all-pervasive. It's dense. In a creative person the density may be there, but there are little openings in the density of the mind-stream. And that opening in the density of the mind-stream is the arising Presence. That simply is the ability to give total

Page 35

attention to something—to a problem or to a situation—and then a realization follows, an insight follows, a new creative idea follows. So that's how, in normal thought even in people who are not conscious of that, Presence can already be there, informing, inspiring thought.

Artists, scientists, psychiatrists, a counselor, a doctor ... people come with their problems, and so the question is, is this doctor, scientist, applying the acquired knowledge—and there's nothing beyond that? He is simply referring to the stored-up knowledge in his mind and then says, "Okay, that is that condition" ... tick, tick, tick. A computer could almost do that—probably better. So, refer to acquired knowledge and then take action on the basis of that. And then there are others who are able to give total attention—and then speak or act. And so those are the ones who are truly effective. One could almost say they are effective despite a huge amount of baggage of acquired knowledge—and they still carry that. With psychologists, psychiatrists, it sometimes happened after many years of practicing [that] they came to be able to just give complete attention. And then suddenly they become very effective. Healing also happens with the giving of attention. It is not that just inspired thought arises our of it. Many other things arise out of that. It's a source of healing also. Because it emanates ... that state, even if it's brief, has a certain emanation.

So, we may have deviated from the original question, but it's all connected. So it's important to realize that, in conventional thought processes, if there is any element of creativity or newness about it, then there are gaps in the stream of thought. And out of these gaps [come] the inspiration and the insights, and the power—it might be a thought but it could be an empowered thought.

DALAL: So when one is observing one's thoughts dispassionately in a state of detachment, there is Presence?

ECKHART: Yes, the ability to stand back, observe one's own mind, the stream of thinking ... that means there is a

Page 36

stillness—which is an aspect of Presence—which arises, and that stillness sees, knows—there is a knowing in that stillness. Through the stillness you know what is there, but there is no reactive relation to it. It's allowed. Stillness allows it to be there. That is the arising of Presence. To witness your own thoughts is already the arising of Presence. So, Presence can be there ... there is the stream of thinking ... there are little breaks in the stream of thinking. Presence can also be there—now we are using language and we have to be careful because language refers to the sense-perceived world, so we are using it only metaphorically. Presence can also arise, sometimes, from underneath the streams of thinking, which is the ability to watch the streams of thinking, [chuckle] For some people it comes through meditation. For some people it comes because the stream of thinking is too painful, and they are suddenly aware of it. For some people it comes through New Age practices, observing, and suddenly becoming aware of how negative your mind is, and then realizing that 80 percent of your thoughts are of a negative nature: condemning, judging, criticizing. Even then, there is some Presence arising, and only that can change your thought from negative to positive. Again, of course, there is some Presence there, but you are still mostly interested in the realm of thought. So the shift from negative to positive thinking is an intermediate step for many people. It already implies that there is some Presence somewhere; otherwise they wouldn't be even aware that there is negative thinking. The awareness that there is negative thinking is already Presence arising. So, when they shift to positive, they might then find that their life improves because their external circumstances and thought processes are linked to form. But then comes a time when they find that even though their life improves, they still experience highs and lows, ups and downs. And then the next step is stepping back from thought altogether, transcending the polarities of thought, no longer being trapped in the polarities, or thinking that through changing your thought processes you can arrive at a state of lasting peace. But this doesn't

Page 37

work, [laughter] You can improve your life here and there, but you will nor arrive at a state of lasting peace through positive thinking, [laughter]

DALAL: Regarding the meaning of "labeling": When one observes one's reaction and recognizes it as a reaction, say, of anger, depression, or fear, is that labeling?

ECKHART: There may be a label on the surface which is a thought. The thought may be, "There is anger." That's the surface thought. But underneath the surface thought there is the field of attention. And perhaps after the surface thought has said, "Here is anger," there is simply the field of attention, the field of alertness, in which the anger happens. And then perhaps another thought arises that says, "Anger is still moving through my body and my mind." The light of attention continues. And then a point may come when the mental label doesn't arise any more that even calls it anger, and there is simply the attention that is given to that which no longer has a label. Now you could call it turbulence, but that's another label. No label: there is simply attention to what is there internally. So there is that, and there is the attention. In the highest state of alertness there is simply the alert attention and that which happens, whether or not occasionally a mental label comes and calls that which is being observed "something."

Sometimes people who read these things mistake the labeling for the alertness, the alert Presence, and then they're telling themselves, "There's anger, there's anger, there's anger, there's anger." And that covers up what really matters, which is the state of alert attention. But if it's simply an occasional label that the mind comes up with, it doesn't really interfere with the direct observation of it. So it's relatively unimportant in the state of alert attention what the mind says. It's like a little thing on the surface of it. It comes and goes. The label may be there or not there. It's a beautiful thing when you no longer need to label that state. I don't know whether

Page 38

... I may have spoken about it [before]. There was a retreat in Canada by the sea, and the sea there is very cold. And I saw somebody go into the sea and swim. And then in the afternoon I asked her, "Was that you?" She said, "Yes." I said, "It must have been very cold!" And she said, "No, when the mind didn't label it ..."—that was her spiritual practice— "when the mind didn't label it, it wasn't even cold anymore. It felt intensely alive but there was no cold. There was simply that sensation. There was nothing negative to it, nothing positive to it." Really, she was totally in the observing Presence of it. It was neither good nor bad. It wasn't "cold" any more. There was complete stillness... And I said, "This is so beautiful a teaching!"

DALAL: Regarding the meaning of "analyzing": After becoming aware of a reaction, and recognizing it as, say, anger or fear, if one then tries to understand how it came about, what produced it, is that analyzing?

ECKHART: When you look at the anger, the main thing is to look at it. Sometimes out of that state of looking—the witnessing consciousness, the Presence—out of that state, very often realizations come. And so, as you look at that emotional movement, which is all that is needed, sometimes suddenly you realize, for example, what unconscious reactive mind movement that emotion is associated with in yourself, and you suddenly say, "Oh, that's where it comes from, that mind movement." Or you may suddenly realize in some cases there may be an origin for that which you've forgotten, something that may have happened in childhood, and you suddenly say, "Oh, that's what it is." A woman may see that she's repeating some pattern to do with her father in childhood in her relationships with men. But what she saw—that's but one of many possible examples—is through the act of the witnessing consciousness. [What is] primary is ro stay present with what is here, give attention to that. Secondary, is certain insights in the form of thoughts, realizarions, which

Page 39

may arise out of that primary state. That's secondary. So, that often is the case. So I wouldn't say that you put the emphasis on analyzing where it comes from that would take the focus away from what is and would move the focus into the past. The focus remains with what is, and then, as a secondary movement, realizations may come as by-products of that. And that's often the case.

DALAL: You have said in one of your talks that one cannot transform one's self. All one can do is to create a space for transformation to happen, open the doorway for the Grace to enter. What is the nature of the effort involved in opening the doorway?

ECKHART: Now, that is related to the question whether there is anything one can do [chuckle], or whether it's entirely Grace, in which case there is nothing you can do [chuckle], and any doing would obstruct the movement of Grace. Now, it's important to realize the limitations of thought—which is also language—as applied to that. Neither the statement "There is nothing you can do" not the statement "It's all up to you" contains the entire truth. There are some teachings that entirely are one way: "No, there's no doer." [chuckle] The teacher says, "Go home." And then there's the other approach that says, "Unless you are so determined to be liberated—you are as determined as the drowning man who wants air—unless you have that degree of determination, you cannot become liberated. And here you have seemingly totally contradictory statements pointing to liberation: "No doing is possible" and "Yes, do!" It's only if you contain both— and I'll talk about that a little bit to see what that means [chuckle]. You need to embrace both and see that they both have some truth in them, but not a single one does it [says it all]. And this is the case with all thought and all language. Every thought ... this is why it's so hard to speak of these things, because it's the fragmentary nature of thought and the reductive nature of thought. Thought always implies that you have already taken a position. Thought is formed; you have

Page 40

already tried to capture that which is vast, formless, in form ... you are trying to put it into some form and you have a position here; you are no longer everywhere. You are here. You have identified with the thought. So [also] in spiritual discourse... and that's why very often spiritual teachings seem to contain contradictions. And that is a good thing because it is only through embracing seemingly opposite perspectives that you can get to the trurh that lies beyond. Be always suspicious of teachings that are totally logical. That's very satisfying to the mind, to be totally consistent and logical, no internal contradictions whatsoever. Really, you are mistaking a nicely and neatly constructed edifice for rhe truth. Look at even the Buddha. I believe his last words are supposed to have been: "Work out your own salvation with diligence." And then you could say: Work out your own salvation! Who is going to work out his own salvation? Didn't he say the self is a delusion? So, is the delusion going to work out its own salvation? How can a delusion work out its own salvation? Is it not enough to recognize the nature of the delusion and to realize there's no salvation to work out—you're already saved? That's another viewpoint [laughter], and yet "Work out your own salvation" is also true, [laughter] So, first of all, we cannot really, through thought, reconcile these opposites, but I'll take you a little bit closer, through thought, to reconciling the opposites.

The question could also be rephrased as being about the nature or the need for seeking. Do we need to seek? And I often say that the last obstacle is that you are still a seeker, which implies that you are looking to the future for your sense of fullness and completion, and you're looking to add something to who you are, which is delusion. Another teaching says, "No, no, seek, seek!" And what I say to bring the two conflicting teachings together: continue to seek but bring your seeking into the now. I am now expanding on the meaning of seeking. In its conventional meaning, "seeking" implies that you're looking to the future for something. But if you bring the intensity that is behind seeking into the now,

Page 41

then that intensity becomes attention that you give to this moment, to now. That which was seeking before brings the seeking into the now. Seek in the now instead of seeking in the future. And at first it doesn't seem to make sense. How can I seek in the now? Bring the intensity that is behind seeking into this moment. Let the seeking become alertness. Seek—ah!—as if you were listening, waiting, almost. That open alertness ... nor waiting in the conventional sense, waiting in a state of alert Presence—so that intensity is needed. But even here we get trapped in thought and in the relative nature of thought. That intensity is there, or is not there. The Presence, arising Presence ... Presence arises when it wants to arise.

But I say that you have to choose Presence because it's a helpful perspective, not the truth, not the ultimate truth but a helpful perspective. If you feel that you are choosing Presence, you step our of mind into now. It's great you can do it! What's really happening is that Presence is choosing to emerge through this form. You think you are doing it. Why not? [chuckle] The paradox remains. There is no point in wanting to eliminate the paradox; stay with the paradox of there's nothing you can do, and there's everything you can do. Both are true. And look beyond the seemingly conflicting perspectives to the truth.

So, often I say choose because it is helpful. Presence says it. It comes out of Presence. So Presence says, "Choose." Within the totality, of course, there is nor one entity who chooses. Everything is totally interconnected. The totality moves through you. And yet, from the perspective of this limited form ... from that perspective it's true that you can choose, [laughter] So it cannot be captured through thought. Allow the paradox to be there. And allow the contradictions to be there, and look beyond. They are all perspectives.

DALAL: Ramakrishna spoke about two attitudes on the spiritual path—the baby-cat attitude and the baby monkey attitude. The baby cat simply lies there on the ground and lets its mother

Page 42

carry it wherever she wants. The baby monkey, on the other hand, clings onto its mother. Sri Aurobindo alludes to this in distinguishing between the path of surrender and the path of self-effort...

ECKHART: Yes.

DALAL: Sri Aurobindo says that there has to be a combination of the two ...

ECKHART: Yes.

DALAL: Initially, effort predominates ... ECKHART: Yes.

DALAL: ... and it's only progressively that effort gives place to surrender.

ECKHART: Yes.

DALAL: And then the Divine does everything

ECKHART: Yes, that's right, surrender ... You need to be ready for it. Not everyone can even listen to it. It would be a meaningless statement to say, for many people still, "Accept this moment as it is." Many people cannot hear that yet. And they don't come, so they don't hear it. And so a time comes suddenly when you realize the possibility of surrender or surrender happens spontaneously, usually through suffering or a combination of both. There is suffering, there is some degree of surrender. And then there's the spiritual teaching. And there's a deepening of surrender. So, again, self-effort, for quite a while ... self-effort implies wanting to get somewhere, to achieve a state, to become greater, more perfect, more pure, more holy, more enlightened—whatever it is, it's probably some kind of more, [chuckle] And then frustration comes after some time because no matter how

Page 43

much more pure and holy, trying to live a pure and holy life is still trying to actualize a self-concept—and then suffering follows. Whenever you are rapped ... even the holy man who is trying to actualize a self-concept without knowing it, to become totally holy, is going to suffer because he is attached to mind. So, it's often through suffering that this then goes away. And then you become ... when there is no effort anymore that moves into the future ... then surrender happens. And all the effort that was [a] movement into the future—that enormous depleting mental energy stream— becomes intense Presence in the now.

It's important to realize that surrender is also a very dynamic state. It is passive and active in one. It's not one or the other. And this paradox—the Tao Teh Ching often speaks about this paradox—the sage no longer does anything, and in that not doing anything, everything gets done, [laughter] Also, Presence that is an intrinsic aspect of the surrendered state—surrendered state and Presence are one—that Presence also has seemingly contradictory, opposite qualities ... One quality of Presence is enormous gentleness ... embracing, vast gentleness. The other aspect of Presence is fierce, like a knife cutting through. Chhoo! And they both are one. [chuckle] They are both there as one. The opposites merge in Presence. In some teachers, one aspect of Presence predominates, but the other may occasionally come in, too. But the other is always there in the background. So some teachers are fierce. They cut through the ego. Sometimes they might even seem to attack the ego in order to crack it. So they are fierce like the Zen master. That's the fierce aspect, but underneath the fierceness there is gentleness. In very good pictures of Zen masters' drawings, you can see the external fierceness and the underlying gentleness. And then there are other teachers who predominantly embody the gentle aspect of Presence, but occasionally the fierceness can come through, and in the background it's still there and maybe occasionally—chhoo!—even cuts through the gentleness. [laughter]

Page 44

DALAL: Regarding the teaching that one should not be concerned about the fruit of one's actions: In ordinary consciousness, one is almost always concerned about the fruit of one's action because almost all action is motivated by desire. [ECKHART: Yes.] In place of desire as the motivating force of action, the Gita teaches self-consecration, the offering of all actions to the Lord. In your teaching, what takes the place of desire as the motivating force?

ECKHART: Of course, it's no different from that in my reaching. It's just a different perspective on it. Desire is no longer the motivating force for action because desire means self-seeking through action. So you become dependent on the result, and your sense of self is attached to the result. Your self may get enhanced or diminished by the result, [chuckle] So desire and fear go together. Diminishment of self through the result is feared; the enhancement of self through the result is desired. So, it is self-seeking action, needing the future for self-completion and self-protection. So that's all in the realm of delusion, ultimately. So, as Presence arises, the motivating factor, one can say ... [Actually,] one can't speak of another motivating factor, but another way of putting it—perhaps that's a deeper perspective on it—is that there is no motivating factor. There simply arises spontaneous action in response to the requirement of this moment. But as that spontaneous action arises, the energy-field out of which it comes, which is the field of Presence, flows into that action. So that action, one could say—I don't like to use that word, but I'll use it—love flows into that action because it is totally honored. It's not reduced as a means to something else. Love flows in. Joy—subtle—is also an aspect of any action that is not a means to an end. It's beautiful! And you love what you are doing. It is not inferior to some desired future movement. So we can say a new motivating factor has come in—that is one expression you could use to describe it—and that's to say the motivating factor is joy and love.

Page 45

Another perspective to describe it is mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita. The motivating factor is an offering to God. It's the same, just another way of looking at it. Or you can adopt another perspective and say—and that perhaps takes you even deeper—there is no motivating factor as such. It arises spontaneously.

For example, people have told me—people who come and listen a lot to the teaching—that there seem to be certain changes that come. There seems to be a kind of evolution of the teaching over the years. Changes come, and they say that "Today your talk was different from other talks. Why did you talk in such a way and such a way?" And I say I don't know; it's a response to the group, to that moment. There's never any prior intention behind what comes out, so it's without prior intention. One could say there is no motivating factor. It simply happens. But, again, we need always to bear in mind that thought is always no more than a perspecrive. So I still say there is a valid perspective that says that [as] the motivating factor changes, it becomes love. Or another way to look at it is to say there is no motivating factor. Different ways of looking, from here, from there, from there, [chuckle]

DALAL: You have said more than once that desire and fear are the two main sources of suffering. You teach surrender as the remedy for fear. What is the remedy for desire? Something other than surrender seems to be called for in dealing with desire.

ECKHART: Desire implies you are identified with mind. So, instead of trying to become free of desire, which is ... [well,] you haven't really gone to the root. One could say desire is the effect of that problem, it's nor the root cause. Sometimes in spiritual practice people try to eliminate desire—it's almost impossible [chuckle]—without realizing that the cause of desire is identification with mind and the physical body. So, primarily [ir is] identification with the mentally created sense of self, which is never complete, and is always wanting

Page 46

and needing more. An enormous amount of desires arise out of rhat, in that self-seeking. So, unless you realize your identification with mind ...

Of course, there is another level of desire which is for physical gratification, which is identification with the physical vehicle. So, there may be desire—sexual, especially— that's the in-built, natural need of the organism. Bur that, in itself, is not all that problematic, but it flows into the mind-made image of self and then they go together. And so the psychological needs and the physical desires then merge into one, and a lot of suffering comes our of that. Not giving in to desire, thinking that I need to become free of desires—I never say that. Become free of mind, then desire is no longer a problem. And you become free of mind through stepping out of thought-streams. Surrender, again, is the answer because to step out of identification with thought-streams is to step out of seeking through the future. You only come to the end of desire when the false self has created enough suffering.

There are people who go into spiritual practice wanting to get rid of desire, nor realizing that they have added one more desire to their desires, which is to become free of desire. Because they really want to become free of desire in order to become more of something—more spiritual, more holy, more perfect, more of this, which is another desire! [laughter] And then that may conflict with other desires that are still there. And they get into a worse state than before [laughter] because they may even deny the existence of other desires that no longer fit in with their predominant self-image of being spiritual. So you deny other desires in you that would not fit in with your self-image. And when you deny even to yourself the desires that you have, they become stronger. And suddenly they burst into your life and create havoc. And you don't know what's happening to you anymore. You [find that] you have done something dreadful! [chuckle] It often happens to spiritual people. Suddenly, they have enormous trauma in their lives that they have created. Again, trying to be free of desire, trying to be spiritual, doesn't work, so

Page 47

don't give attention to eliminating desire. Get to the root of desire, which means the delusory sense of self that is mind-created. The desires of the body aren't really desires. They are feelings, they are sexual feelings. When a sexual feeling flows into the mind-made self, the sexual feeling becomes a sexual desire. The self now wants it. It actually amplifies that sense of self and makes it stronger. And that becomes problematic. A sexual feeling is not problematic. You can simply watch it and realize its nature. It doesn't move from feeling into a future of wanting. A man could see a woman and experience a sexual feeling without wanting it [chuckle] and simply acknowledge that this feeling is there; it's totally unproblematic. It's actually quite nice. It's quite a nice feeling. It's one of the many ways in which physical manifestations happen as that. So you sense that. There it is. The next movement doesn't happen, from the feeling to becoming desire, which is needing more, [chuckle] Then you can become comfortable with sexuality because its actually fine. Needs no more. It is what it is. [chuckle]

DALAL: So one of the Four Noble Truths of the Buddha, which says that desire is the cause of all suffering, is a limited way of looking at things?

ECKHART: Any statement is a limited way of looking. There can be no statement that is not limited. And the danger of any signpost is that. You don't realize its limited nature and believe that it encapsulates the entire truth. It can't. It's always a perspective, no matter whose signpost it is—the Buddha, Krishna, whoever. It must be limited by its very nature.

DALAL: Regarding the way of dealing with a reaction, such as anger, you seem to recommend calling in Presence, but sometimes the reaction is very strong, taking the form of an impulse to express the anger either verbally or even physically. In such a case, one doesn't seem to have access to Presence, and one feels the need of using one's "will power," which is a power of the

Page 48

mind. Does the mind have any role to play in dealing with negative reactions?

ECKHART: In the case of anger, it can be kept down for a while, but it cannot be kept down for very long. You may be able to keep it down on this occasion; you may be able to keep it down on the next occasion. And the next. But it's there. And then suddenly the lid blows off the boiling kettle, [chuckle] So will power sometimes seems to yield results, but they are never lasting. Usually, will power is associated with a need to actualize the self-image of a more perfect, more spiritual human being who is not angry anymore, [laughter] So bring Presence to it. If Presence is obscured, especially in the case of anger that has lived in you for many years (some people's pain-bodies are predominantly angry), anger can come up so suddenly that you are immediately overpowered and it takes hold over your mind. And then you "wake up" after it's all over and say, "There it was again. I was totally unconscious. Isn't that amazing!" [chuckle] What tends to happen as Presence arises [is that], the gap after it has happened, the gap of waking up becomes shorter after the pain-body attack. Sometimes it could be two hoots afterwards when you suddenly realize what happened. Then the gap shortens as Presence arises to such an extent that suddenly you are aware of it; the moment it subsides, you wake up. Even when it's not quite subsided yet, you may suddenly say, "There it was again! Some of the energy is still there."

As Presence arises, you then experience the miracle of waking up in the middle of being identified with it. You suddenly know ... So there's the witnessing Presence in the middle of the movement of unconsciousness. Suddenly you wake up in the background somewhere, and you watch that, and you know. That knowing is the arising of Presence. You can't stop it but you know it. It is still acting out, and gradually Presence is sufficiently there as it comes up, and it is already met in the state of Presence. Anger arises, and you are fully there as the pain-body awakens. Then it cannot use

Page 49

your mind anymore. And it won't stay for long because the pain-body knows there is no point, it can't feed anymore. So you are not suppressing it. You are simply bringing that intense alertness to it.

The pain-body, which has an intelligence of its own, knows it can't feed, so for a little while it is there, and then it's gone. That's not suppression. That's bringing intense alertness to it. And the pain-body doesn't like it, and it quickly withdraws. But what it does is wait for a barter moment when you are not conscious. If it does not find a better moment, it will try again. It will come up, and again you meet it in the state of intense alertness. And it stays for a little while, then it subsides. But each time that happens, it loses some of its energy charge. It's not feeding anymore, and what's more, the transmutation already happens when you meet the emotion that's in the pain-body in the state of Presence. It dissolves it. Every time the emotion meets with Presence, it dissolves into Presence. It is not different.

Ultimately, one could say, consciousness is the highest vibration frequency, and then there are other vibrational frequencies—consciousness appearing as something. So there is the frequency of a heavy emotion, and that—shoo!— becomes transmuted into Presence. This is why people with very heavy pain-bodies sometimes can awaken sooner than others because the very pain-body is fuel for Presence. Once this has happened, you can meet the pain-body in the state of Presence. The transmutation happens quickly. There is no self anymore in the emotion. And without self, which is the unconsciousness of identifying with it, without the delusion of self, it can't survive for long. The pain-body needs the delusion of self, pretending to be you [chuckle], to survive. So, again, without the mind-made self, the pain-body quickly dissolves. It needs that illusory entity to keep itself going, [laughter] It is part of that illusory entity: they are so linked.

DALAL: You have said that the dissolution of the pain-body takes time. Transformation also, you say, is a gradual process.

Page 50

Creating gaps of no-mind also is a process by which the gaps gradually get longer and longer. [ECKHART: Yes.] So these things seem to imply that time is involved. [ECKHART: Yes.] What is it that doesn't require time?

ECKHART: There's often a seeming paradox when we speak of the timeless state of consciousness. Even when I say that this timeless state of consciousness deepens, it's true, but already there seems there to be a paradox because, if I say the timeless state of consciousness deepens, deepening must require time, [laughter] So, whenever we speak of it, we very soon find some paradox. I started one talk—I believe it's on a CD—where I said that the paradox is that we are now going to spend a whole day or a whole afternoon—we're going to spend four hours here—to go deeply into the timeless dimension, [laughter] So, to dwell in that state as a continuous state—before you can be in that state as a permanent state—time may be needed. But to enter that state, no time is needed. You can only enter that state now. Now maybe you can only stay in it for five seconds before you lose it again, but it's always the case that you can only enter that state of Presence now. For that, you don't need time. You don't need time because the primordial spiritual practice is to live in acceptance, inner surrender, to the is-ness of this moment. This is the primordial spiritual practice, total inner acceptance of whatever is. That does not require time.

Now, it may be that only once a week can you accept what is. [chuckle] Maybe for one minute every week you can totally accept the is-ness of this moment. And then next year for three minutes each week [chuckle] you can accept what is. And twenty years later, for one day—I am giving a funny example—for a day each week you can be in a state of complete alignment with what is. That requires time, [laughter] But each time it happens, you don't need time. For that spiritual practice, you don't need time to say "yes" to what is. What time would you need? [laughter] So you can see, [it seems to take] time before it becomes perhaps a permanent "yes,"

Page 51

a continuous "yes," in which case even surrender—the word surrender—disappears because, when surrender is your natural state, there's no surrender anymore. Surrender implies a transition from resistance to nonresistance. The transition is surrender. That's why I talk about it. Once surrender is your normal, natural state, surrender disappears. It is only from resistance to nonresistance that surrender applies. So, that's the end of surrender, too. [laughter] That is one perspecrive on it. Or if you like different words, you can say that you live in a state of continuous surrender. It's another perspective. It's perhaps a deeper perspective. To see no more surrender is needed is true surrender, [chuckle]

DALAL: In one of your talks you have said: "One thing does not require time, and that is to know who you are." [ECKHART: Yes.] In the East, to know one's Self-—that is, Self-realization— is said to take lifetimes. Is Self-realization different from what you call enlightenment?

ECKHART; No, but remember—I may have said it yesterday [in a public talk]—it takes time until you realize that it doesn't take time. That statement contains a paradox. You can't remove that paradox. It takes time until you realize that it takes no time. The realization of no time takes time. Humanity as a whole has come a long way, through eons and eons of time and vast suffering generated by the time-bound state of consciousness. So, certain statements that were made in the past, perhaps a long time ago, may not entirely apply any more because, as I said, you need time until you realize that you don't need time anymore. Mankind has had a lot of time now. And mankind has had a lot of suffering now. You need that time until the realization comes that you don't. This teaching perhaps is so vital now. It's empowered because it replies to the immediate need of this situation on the planet, the spiritual need of the planet now. Statements that were made in the past are not false. It's true that it requires time, up to a point. Self-realization is itself a

Page 52

realization of the timeless in you. So you can see that all perspectives are true. And so it is no different. There is only one Self-realization.

DALAL: There is a striking similarity between what you and Sri Aurobindo say about one thing that few other teachers have spoken about, namely, the evolution of consciousness and the arising of a new consciousness on the planet. Sri Aurobindo says that consciousness has evolved from a state of Inconscience, emerging first as Matter, then Life, then Mind, and is now preparing to emerge into a consciousness that he calls Supermind, which is not a bigger mind but something beyond mind. [ECKHART: Yes.] What you say about the arising of a new consciousness, is it based on some similar vision or is it simply something that you see happening around you?

ECKHART: Yes, I see it happening, and it is the next evolutionary dimension, evolutionary leap, more than a gradual progression. There are sometimes leaps in evolution. This is the next stage in human evolution. I do see it like that, but the main reason why I say it is not so much based on a certain view of things. I can see it happening. It happened through this form, and I can see how many people are drawn to the teaching because they are ready for it. And it's continuous. It's not that the old consciousness, our mind-identified stage of evolution, has come to an end yet. It's reached its final phase, and sometimes in its final phase it could become even more mad before it finally gives way, either through violent upheavals or in a general way. Who knows? That probably depends on how many humans are open to the new consciousness that wants to arise. If a sufficient number of humans are open to the new consciousness, the need for violent upheavals lessens on the planet.

There could be violence produced by humans against other humans, humans against the planet. It could even be violence of nature, natural phenomena that are part of the destruction of all those structures that the old consciousness

Page 53

has created, external structures. And then comes the destruction of those structures within, also. And, of course, in a gentle way, that is already happening through the teachings. So, for those who are open, the old structures simply give way to the new. Those who are not open may experience increasing confusion, disorientation, dreadful unhappiness, madness. We live in interesting times, [laughter]

DALAL: You have said that inhabiting the body is always an essential aspect of staying present. Does this mean that if one doesn't have this feeling of inhabiting the body, one is not truly present?

ECKHART: It is a very subtle thing. Presence is an intense aliveness—the state of Presence. And that intense aliveness is both within and without. And in a very subtle way, it pervades the entire body. It is like a very gentle energy movement. Energy, aliveness. So, yes, I would say if you cannot sense that, Presence is not yet very deep. [Addressing Dr. Mistry] You tell me you find it very hard.

DR. MISTRY; Yes.

ECKHART: I sometimes give people little hints: Can you sense your hand?

DR. MISTRY: Yes.

ECKHART: Yes, so you are in the body.

DALAL; In the physical body?

ECKHART: Physical body. At first, you sense the aliveness of the physical body, and then there is a deepening. There is just a generalized sense of aliveness. Not so much, any more, of feeling this is the body and then there's the rest of the world. It is simply one aspect of that total aliveness that you live in the state of Presence. [Eckhart talks in a low voice. Inaudible

Page 54

words are indicated by elliptical dots.] The entire universe is alive ... Underlying it is the Unmanifested ... The distinction between the observer and the observed comes to an end. When you enter the body deeply, there is no longer the sense of "I am observing the inner body." There is no longer the sense that "I am feeling the inner body." The duality disappears ... You are present throughout the body, just as you are present throughout that which is beyond the body ... Whatever you perceive is yourself. And that recognition comes not through the mind but through Presence. So the quickest way to stepping out of mind is entering the body with your attention. And, at first, there is an observer and the observed body. If you then close your eyes and sink into the sense of the energy-field of body, become one with that, so you are no longer there in your head as the observer of this—you are this—that's the cessation of thinking. You are the Presence that pervades the entire body. And then the mental image of the physical body disappears because your attention is entirely in that alive Presence, is that alive Presence, attention is that alive Presence. Then the image of me as a physical body that people still have even after they close their eyes—they still visualize the physical body—-well, the image disappears. What is left is no longer an observer and the observed. There is no longer the image of a physical vehicle. There is simply a field of intense aliveness in which there is no duality, and so there is no body anymore. By going into the body, you have transcended the body. It becomes a little doorway into being, into the Unmanifested, because anything in form is only a temporary expression of the Unmanifested—anything in manifestation. But everything in manifestation, at its core, is still one with the Unmanifested. So, a beautiful meditation is to go deeply into the body until the body disappears, until all that is left is the field of intense aliveness ... no body. And that is stillness, and that is Presence.

Now to say that you are in the body is no longer true. It was only a temporary truth, [chuckle] The body was only the doorway, so you don't linger in the doorway. And once you

Page 55

realize yourself as that, the strange thing is that you can then open your eyes ... and that field of intense aliveness, Presence, is still there. But you can perceive ... the undercurrent of all sense-perception is there as that field of beautiful aliveness, stillness, Presence. Out of that or within that, perception arises. And what you now perceive—no longer through the labeling mind—is not being labeled. It's perceived within that field of enormous peace and aliveness. And it's all beautiful. And one could almost say that, through that, everything that you perceive is returning home ... And you know that field to be the essence of each form. Almost impossible to talk about this... So the beauty of this is that the inner body can become a doorway into Self, into Being, into God.

DALAL: Aren't there other doorways besides the inner body?

ECKHART: Yes, there are other doorways, but you go through one doorway into God and, to some extent, all the other doorways are also there. So, sometimes I may not speak about the inner body even during a four-hour talk; I may not mention the inner body. I may only mention the state of surrender to what is. More recently, because of the way the teaching has evolved, surrender happens to be the doorway that is in the foreground at the moment. But no matter which [doorway] you go through, at some point you will realize that the other doorways are also there—but in the background.

Or I could focus entirely on the inner body and never mention the state of surrender, and it would happen also through that, [chuckle] When you live in the surrendered state, everything, including this physical form and the world around you, becomes more alive because, before, everything was deadened by conceptualization. So people may not even know that they feel their inner body. That's a strange thing, [chuckle] I have met people who have surrendered and I asked them, "Can you feel your body?" They said, "Body?" Then I talked a little bit more and said, "Well, what I really mean

Page 56

..." And after a little while they said, "Oh, I know now what you mean. Yes. I feel that all the time!" [laughter] Another thing that happened to me—after this transformation of consciousness happened to me, which I did not understand, I just knew I was at peace—my mind, thought activity, had become reduced by maybe 80 percent. So that morning I woke up and I went for a walk and everything was so deeply peaceful and alive. It was only much, much later that I realized, "Oh, I'm not thinking anymore. That's why!" [chuckle] But for a long, long time there was little thought activity. I didn't know there was no more thought. I believe it came to me when I was listening to teachers or teachings. [I understood, when] I went to listen to a Buddhist monk teacher who talked about cessation of thought, "Oh, that's what it is!" [laughter] So ... again, doorways are only a kind of way of approaching ...

DR. MISTRY: A doorway can close again? It happened to me.

ECKHART: Yes, until you are permanently established, a doorway may be open and some day ... it's not so much that the doorway closes ... [Dr. Mistry makes an inaudible remark.] Yes, [chuckle] the doorway is always there, [laughter]

DALAL: At Big Sur [Esalen retreat in California] I had asked you if there are different degrees of Presence, and you had said yes. Another similar question regarding Presence that has occurred to me is whether there are different types of Presence. Sankhya, one of the six systems of Indian philosophy, speaks of two aspects of Reality, namely, Purusha or the Conscious Being, and Prakriti or Nature. Three aspects of Nature are distinguished, namely, matter, life, and mind. Corresponding to these three aspects of Nature (Prakriti), three aspects of the Conscious Being (Purusha) are spoken of, namely, physical Conscious Being [Annamaya Purusha], the vital Conscious Being [Pranamaya Purusha], and the mental Conscious Being [Manomaya Purusha]. The Conscious Being or the Purusha is regarded as the Witness

Page 57

[Sakshi]. Are there different types of Presence corresponding to the three Purushas—physical, vital, and mental?

ECKHART: There are many ways of looking at these things. So, that is not a division that I use. [To] the question of whether there are different kinds of Presence, I would say no, but there is the witnessing Presence that arises. And that for many people is ... as Presence first arises, they realize they can be the witness; Presence is the witness. It's not yet very much awareness of Presence. There is a witnessing capacity that is there as Presence arises, with which comes a certain degree of detachment from whatever arises, mentally or externally, emotionally. So Presence arises as the witness, and then—I'm saying this now, I may never say it again ... It is very hard to talk about this. The danger is making it into a permanent system. I prefer to use a perspecrive or an approach on it once, twice, or a few times and then use other pointers. What people do with some teachers—and perhaps they did it with this teacher you just mentioned, of course— is to write down what he or she says. And the pointer becomes permanently established. There is a danger when a pointer becomes a permanent edifice. Pointers work better if they are used as temporary means, then to be discarded when no points are needed anymore, or to be replaced by another pointer that works for this situation at this moment for this person. The truth of this eludes language and is not to be permanently captured in form. The pointer or signpost permanently captured in form is no longer a help but a hindrance. So, a wise use of signposts is not to make them into a system of looking at states but only a temporary perspective, a temporary helpful perspective. That is important to realize; otherwise signposts become rigid, and instead of working, become self-serving.

So now let me say this: There is a witness that arises— and I am giving a signpost, so I am not going to say this is a permanent teaching, [chuckle] It's one of many possible ways of looking at it. There is the witness that is nonattachment

Page 58

to the arising form, a certain ability to allow what is there to be there. Then deepening comes when that awareness, that Presence, knows itself—becomes self-aware. So, it's not so much anymore that you are interested in that which is being witnessed. You are now interested in—that's not the right word—you know yourself as the underlying field. Then that which is being witnessed is relatively unimportant. Before, when you were witnessing, you were still very much interested in that which was being witnessed, not knowing the field, the witness itself, [chuckle] So you can say there is a shift from witness to awareness of awareness. First there is identification with sense objects and thoughts—there is self-identification. Then there is the stepping back and there is the witnessing quality with reference to sense objects, thoughts, emotions. Then there is a stepping back, and theta is an awareness of awareness itself. So, first, the delusional stage, then the beginning of the arising of Presence, and then Presence knowing itself, awareness knowing itself as awareness. Then the world of form becomes relatively unimportant to you because you are the formless, you know yourself as the formless.

DALAL: At what stage do joy, love, and aliveness arise?

ECKHART: Well, the witnessing means that you are no longer suffering that much. As the witness arises, it is the diminishment of suffering. The suffering entity is subsiding, so already there you may get a glimpse of joy and aliveness and love as the witness arises. And then you move deeper, and that's where it is. It is only by going beyond form that there can be joy and love. They are not of the form. Only if love is misunderstood, then it is love of a particular form. That is not [what can be called love].

DALAL: That means that love is impersonal?

ECKHART: Yes, it's completely impersonal. So, what I have just said—the three stages—now forget about it. [chuckle]

Page 59

DALAL: Thank you for your time and Presence.

DR. MISTRY: I have a question.

ECKHART: Yes.

DR. MISTRY: You have come to your present state of development in this particular incarnation. There must have been a being that was growing in previous incarnations until it flowered in the present incarnation as you. It could not be that the totality suddenly put forth Eckhart Tolle in this present life. You might be an incarnation of Meister Eckhart!'¹ [Eckhart laughs] So, is there a unique individuality in each person that comes again and again in each incarnation until it flowers into full consciousness? Is there a being in each person that persists from life to life until it reaches full flowering?

ECKHART: Well, there is the form as long as there is self— self-identification with form. That which persists is the illusion of form. The surviving entity is the illusion. At some point the illusion dissolves. And it is not always after accumulating many credits in many incarnations. It could suddenly dissolve even in an incarnation that has not had many credits ... simply extreme suffering. So, there is not a specially chosen form. It's never that the totality says, "I am choosing you to be that." The totality does not mind through which form it flowers. It only seeks the opening through which it can flower. So, it is not that the form is in any way special. The opposite would be true to say: it is through the realization of the nothingness of this form, of its nothingness, of its non-specialness that, suddenly, where there was a form, there

Page 60

comes a transparency. It's the destiny of the form to become transparent to that. And again, people ask me ... somebody wrore to me and said, "You say somewhere in the book that 'You are here to enable the divine purpose of the universe to unfold. This is how important you are.' Then somewhere else in the book you say that all forms are unimportant. So one of these statements must be wrong. You are contradicting yourself." Here we come to the same point. It is only through realizing your nothingness that suddenly something infinite, incredible, is there. It is only when the form realizes its nothingness, how unimportant it is ... It is just waiting for the opening to appear. God doesn't even know persons. God wants to move through the opening ... It is looking—that's just metaphorical language—it's like a light shining and seeing where's the hole that it can shine through. And, mostly, it can't find the holes because there is a density that covers up the potential holes. There are lots of potential holes, but they are all blocked, [laughter] And then occasionally there is a hole ... And then suddenly the blockage goes ... shooo! The hole realized its essential nature, its nothingness. So it happened, [chuckle]

Page 61