Eckhart Tolle and Awareness OF vs Awareness

[Guest guest]

If I add new content to the site, I'll probably start with Eckhart

Tolle and Byron Katie, partly because they are extremely popular and

partly because (in Katie's case anyway) she has invented a new form

of Jnana Yoga.

 

I'm curious about people's reactions to the following thoughts which are sketchy

and provisional.

 

Tolle's basic teaching, it seems to me, is that most people are

ordinarily unconscious because they identify with ego activity. (In

case this sounds bizarre to anyone I'll mention that from my own

experience, it's true that people are ordinarily unconscious. A

major turning point for me was when I noticed this about myself.)

Tolle's solution is to become more conscious. Enlightenment is

defined as being conscious all the time. Thus the goal is to become

more conscious. This requires dis-identification from the ego.

 

He offers three methods for becoming more conscious. One of these

methods is to be more aware of ego activity. In other words, to be

more aware of thoughts and emotional reactions. In particular he

advises people to be aware of something he calls the " pain body "

which is a sort of constellation of ego activity that feeds on giving

or receiving pain.

 

The second method is to be more aware of something he calls

the " inner body, " i.e., the energetic feeling that seems to infuse

and encompass our physical bodies. He says this inner body is a sort

of gateway between reality and our imaginary selves.

 

His third method is to simply " be present " or be " in the Now. "

 

At this point I'll bring in Sri Sadhu Om, author of one of the best

commentaries on Ramana Maharshi. He distinguishes between negative

and positive techniques of Jnana Yoga. A negative technique is one

like traditional neti-neti that examines what we are not in order to

separate from it. A positive technique is one like Ramana's self-

enquiry, which, when properly understood, is the attempt to focus

attention on that which we really are.

 

Using Sadhu Om's categories, Tolle's first method is negative and the third is

positive. I'm not sure how to categorize the second.

 

Sadhu Om says (correctly in my opinion) that Ramana told people to

concentrate exclusively on positive methods. For example, somewhere

in the big " Talks " book Ramana says something to the effect (I'm paraphrasing)

that " when you throw out garbage, do you study it first? There's no reason to

bother. Just throw it out. " Ramana also says there that neti-neti is " purely

intellectual, " but the goal is to find something which is beyond the intellect

and which can't be found through intellectual analysis.

 

It seems to me that Tolle's negative teaching is likely to backfire

with most people because they are likely to misinterpret it to be

some kind of mental activity that they can carry out with the

intellect.

 

(Actually I think all teachings of any sort from anybody are likely

to backfire in this way. But some are more likely to backfire than

others.)

 

In short:

 

Tolle advises people to be aware *OF* certain things. Ramana on the other hand

says to look directly for awareness itself and not anything *OF* which you are

aware.

 

I'm very curious to know whether Tolle is getting results. In other

words, whether people are becoming genuinely self-realized as a

result of his advice. The proof, after all, is in the pudding.