Did Eckhart Tolle borrow from Barry Long? An in-depth comparative analysis

Further comments

The above examples show that Tolle’s idea of the “pain-body” is clearly equivalent to what Long calls the “unhappy body” or “emotional body”—and sometimes “the pigmy.” Long at times describes this “entity” as a “ball” of painful/unhappy emotion in us, as does Tolle at least once.

For either author, the emotional/pain body is a parasitic entity living within us, formed of accumulated emotional pain. They have their own cunning intelligence and will to survive, and do not want to be “found out” and threatened. Both are described as “the living past in you.” They have dormant and active periods, and can bring great emotional turbulence when active.

In his two biggest bestsellers—The Power of Now and A New Earth—Tolle not only reiterates this same general concept found in Long’s earlier teachings, but also uses similar phrases and descriptions of its key characteristics. Nowhere in these books does he acknowledge Long however.

To be clear, Tolle has mentioned Long favourably in conversation sometimes, in a very general way, usually when prompted, but that is not the same thing as providing clear acknowledgment. He tends to downplay Long’s importance to him, describing Long more as a kindred spirit—even as someone whose teachings he “loved”—but never, to my knowledge, as someone whose ideas he now imparts.^{[41] [42]}

When Tolle has been asked quite directly what Long’s influence on him was, he has sidestepped the question. While stating he “loved” his teachings, he was also at pains to suggest he was already awakened when he encountered him and claimed he didn’t need his teachings anymore.^[43]

Tolle even shows this “downplaying” tendency with those spiritual teachers he tends to speak about more openly (without being prompted) and mentions in passing in his books, such as Jiddu Krishnamurti and Ramana Maharshi. While voicing praise, Tolle still refers to them as kindred spirits he feels “a strong connection to,” and is “at One with,” but not as figures whose teachings guided him or helped him to awaken.^[44] Yet while they at least get a mention, they are far less important influences, I believe, than Barry Long and the Fourth Way.

According to Tolle, he only studied spiritual teachings in earnest after his own spontaneous awakening had already occurred. “After I had read spiritual texts and spent time with spiritual teachers,” he writes, “I realized that what everybody was looking for had already happened to me.”^[45] He also affirms that his own teaching “is not derived from external sources, but from the one true Source within, so it contains no theory or speculation” and that he speaks “from inner experience.”^[46]

And yet, Long clearly plays a major part in shaping his worldview, as is apparent with the presence of the pain-body concept in his teachings. Yet I am not aware of Tolle ever crediting Long for this.

At this juncture I wish to make something clear. We do not need to debate whether Tolle’s often-repeated story of attaining self-realisation is valid or not to recognise that Long has almost certainly influenced the form and content of Tolle’s teachings.

When spiritual teachers belong to a formal tradition or lineage, it is usually the norm that they continue imparting its ideas and practices, and this does not invalidate their status as teachers. One can speak of pre-existing ideas from one’s own experience and understanding of them without being the original source of the ideas themselves. Most eastern Gurus still do this, and emphasise the particular lineage or religious framework to which they belong.^[47]

Tolle does not belong to a recognised tradition or lineage, but he nevertheless draws upon prior contemporary teachings to impart his own. The issue I am highlighting here is that Tolle does not clearly acknowledge the sources he draws upon, and the question I am asking is, why? By not doing so he incorrectly appears to be the originator of pre-existing concepts he imparts, like the pain-body.

Tolle is often seen as a sort of maverick distiller of ancient wisdom for modern audiences. While it may be true that he adeptly communicates some principles of ancient spiritual knowledge in modern language, I believe that when he appears to be doing this, he is often actually drawing on the work of other modern sources who wrote along those lines before him. I actually believe modern sources, like Long, have had far more direct influence upon his work than any traditional teachings.

The pain-body is a case in point. This concept is not something you find explicitly in traditional sources. It is not a universal idea. So where did Tolle get it from? From his own experience? Are we to assume he happened to stumble upon the same idea as Barry Long independently after first learning it from Long? Are we to assume that when Tolle’s first book came out, about 15 years after he came across Long’s teachings, that the presence of this near-identical concept in his teachings was not due, at least in part, to Long’s direct influence? I do not think that is a plausible scenario.

Even if Tolle’s purported awakening really did occur before he encountered Long. it would not explain the presence of this idea in his teachings. Consider that, according to his own account, Tolle’s awakening supposedly happened almost instantly—without any notion of a pain-body ever crossing his mind. The pain-body is not mentioned at all when he relates his overnight transformative experience.^[48]

Yet Tolle claims, in an interview, that he somehow, at some point, came to the surprising realisation that people carry a pain-body within them from working with people.^[49] Yet if his own awakening was as sudden and complete as he suggests, and there was no “inner experience” of grappling with his own pain-body to inform his realisation, then how exactly did he independently realise that this emotional entity apparently existed in others? And how could he then give teachings, allegedly based on inner experience, about how to gradually deal with it—which we will look at in the next segment—that are remarkably similar to Long’s? Remember, Tolle’s purported transformation was not gradual, but instant, so there is no personal experience for him to draw on here. So where do these methods come from?

Is it not painfully obvious to point out that Tolle based this concept on Long’s? That his teaching is, at the very least, partly derived from Long’s here? (And that is putting it very mildly).

Even if Tolle comments or expands upon this idea out of his own inner experience in some way, the teaching idea itself—in this case, the very core idea of the existence of the pain-body itself by whatever term—still does not originate with him.

I think that Tolle’s claim that his work is not derived from external sources is certainly not credible when it comes to the pain-body, and the lack of acknowledgment here is glaring.

Tolle’s writing also matches too closely with Long’s on too many points for the similarities to be coincidental, I believe. This, combined with Tolle’s lack of acknowledgment, is why I am calling this plagiarism—a conclusion supported by the next set of comparisons also.

In these examples, Long and Tolle both suggest that people are addicted to unhappiness or negativity. (We saw this in the first table too.) The notion people enjoy negative emotions also comes up, which is a major theme in the Fourth Way. I’ve highlighted Tolle’s commonalities with Nicoll on the general subject of negative emotions previously; Nicoll also describes us being addicted to them like a drug.

A particularly distinctive correspondence to note here is how Long and Tolle differentiate old painful emotions, already carried within, from new negativity—arising by reacting emotionally within the moment when we are not conscious or present enough.

So, in addition to dealing with the past emotion residing in us—as was covered in the prior comparisons—they also point out we need to deal with new emotions as they emerge in the moment. In this way, we not only prevent them from causing bad reactions at that moment, they indicate, but also from adding to the unhappy reservoir of old emotional pain already carried within.

In these comparisons we turn from emotions to thinking, although the two are intertwined. Both Long and Tolle write of people being possessed by thought, and refer to a possessing “entity” which at times they call “the thinker.” This thinker is not really us, only who we think we are because we identify with our thoughts—but it is fundamentally “false” entity or self, they say.

These statements touch on an idea Nicoll also often describes: that “whatever you identify with you become”^[125]—which he says occurs with inner states, including thoughts. He discusses identification with a false self as well, and I’ve compared Nicoll and Tolle on these ideas previously.

We’ll look more specifically at Long and Tolle’s closely-related views about the “false self,” and its connection to the emotional/pain body, in the next comparisons.

What I wish to highlight here is their use of the term “the thinker,” which was a term J. Krishnamurti often used. ^{[126] [127]} The need to “die to the past” in the present moment is also a fairly common Krishnamurti trope.^{[128] [129]}

What must be understood is that while Long and Tolle use some stock Krishnamurti language here, they actually do not agree with his fundamental approach to present moment awareness.

Krishnamurti rejects any distinction between the observer and the psychological content that can be observed: he frequently states that “the observer is the observed” and “is not separate from that.”^[130] Furthermore, he does not believe in a true (eternal) self—whether Atman or the soul—and so rejects any distinction between a true and false self either, seeing this as an illusory division; he also insists that “nothing is permanent.”^[131] These are views also found in Buddhist philosophy, ^[132] which Krishnamurti shares more than a few commonalities with.^[133]

Yet here Long and Tolle make the point that when you watch or observe your thoughts, you realise you are distinct from them, and you feel your deeper sense of self as that which sees or is aware of them. So in their view, there is something real in us that can observe what is false or transient in our psyche.

This distinction between observer and observed is also a central approach to self-observation in the Fourth Way that was heavily emphasised by Nicoll. I’ve compared Nicoll and Tolle extensively on this idea previously.

The approach Nicoll, Long and Tolle take is actually profoundly different to Krishnamurti’s, precisely because they all affirm the existence of a real I, self or being. ^[134]  Furthermore, they all assert the capacity to consciously observe and recognise what is false or transient in from a conscious and independent standpoint. It is the act of conscious observation which allows us to separate—or dis-identify—from what is not us. This is crucial to inner transformation for these authors.

But for Krishnamurti, any separation between observer and observed implies division, conflict and contradiction; only when all inner division, friction and conflict cease, and the observer understands they are the observed, will there be inner quietness. It is from this state, he suggests, that transformation may arise.

These two very different approaches are somewhat generally reflected in the worldviews found in certain Hindu and Buddhist perspectives. Hinduism typically affirms the existence of a real eternal self (Atman) in contrast to the Buddhist doctrine of “no self” and emptiness. Whereas Buddhist practice is said to lead us to recognise the non-existence of any self at all and to the void (Śūnyatā), Hindu approaches, while varied, are said to lead, generally speaking, to a rejection of the false ego but, also, to self-realisation—the discovery of one’s real self (Atman)—and ultimately to Brahman, the spiritual uncaused cause of all.

Maurice Nicoll similarly refers to this highest principle as “the Absolute”—a term used in The Fourth Way and Theosophy—and describes this as the “uncreate, unmanifest, unconditioned” “Origin of All Things” that is “beyond all human thought.”^[135] Tolle tends to call this “the unmanifested”, “the Source” or God.^[136] Long, for his part, also sometimes refers to “the source” in connection with God—and he speaks about God frequently and unreservedly.^[137]

Yet affirmation of the existence of a supreme creator or source—whether called the Absolute, Brahman, or simply God—runs counter to what we find in Krishnamurti’s teachings or in Buddhist philosophy for that matter.

So while Tolle speaks highly of Krishnamurti, and many people equate Tolle’s teachings to Buddhism, this is not really the case. Tolle in fundamentally at odds with the tenets of both Buddhism and Krishnamurti—not that Krishnamurti ever admitted to teaching “tenets” as such. Tolle puts himself firmly in the camp of Maurice Nicoll, Barry Long and many other ancient teachings besides, in affirming the existence of a real self and a supreme creator or source.

As already mentioned, this is significant at a practical level as it shapes how self-observation is fundamentally approached, because the capacity to consciously observe and disidentify what is unreal or transitory in our psyche, from a real and genuine conscious standpoint, is affirmed from the outset.

When describing the inner observation or awareness of one’s thoughts or states, Tolle draws more heavily from Nicoll and Long than any other sources, I believe. I’ve previously shown how Tolle shares many commonalities with Nicoll when it comes to teaching self-observation, and here we see Tolle being heavily influenced by Long too, with respect to observing our thoughts.

Given how closely Tolle’s overall wording is to Long’s in the examples above, I think it’s more likely he was drawing inspiration from Long’s particular use of terms Krishnamurti also employed, rather than both being independently influenced by Krishnamurti, in these cases. It’s not just that Krishnamurti’s underlying worldview is so different from theirs; it’s also that Tolle’s writing is so similar to Long’s.

In other words, not only do Long and Tolle express the same viewpoints, but they do this with very similar language too. For example, both state that we must “die to the past” at “every moment.” There are corresponding statements about a possessing entity based on thought, the idea of being trapped in time, that inner freedom cannot be achieved in time and that observing “the thinker” in the present moment brings liberation.

On this notion of being possessed by thought, and the need to observe our thoughts, there is further evidence to show that Tolle drew directly from Long, which has been highlighted by another writer, whose article is published on the Barry Long Foundation website:

It’s possible . . . that Tolle had at some point listened to the tape [‘How to Stop Thinking’ by Barry Long], since there are a number of similarities in the way he addresses stopping thinking in The Power of Now. For example, Barry Long’s tape starts with him making the unusual observation that ‘Thinking is a psychological disease . . .’ whilst its concluding statement begins, ‘Your intelligence has got to be there watching the emotion like your cat watching a mouse hole. That way, the mouse – the thought – can’t come out’.

 

In The Power of Now, Tolle also refers to thinking as ‘a disease’ . . . and deploys the same illustrative device as in Long’s tape published ten years earlier: ‘. . . become very alert and wait for the next thought. Be like a cat watching a mouse hole. What thought is going to come out of the mouse hole?’^[138]

So we can add the analogy of observing our thoughts like a cat watching a mouse hole to the growing list of descriptive correspondences in these authors’ works.

In the next set of comparisons, we’ll look at how Long and Tolle discuss the closely related notion of a “false self” more directly, which is said to overlay and prevent us from being in touch with our “true nature” or “being.”

In the examples above, there are multiple examples of Long and Tolle contrasting one’s “false self” with their “true nature” or being. The more we liberate ourselves from the false self—that false sense of who we are that we’ve been conditioned to identify with unconsciously—the more our true nature shines through, they tell us. Tolle generally calls this false self the ego, while Long tends to call it the personality.

This concept of a “false self” is found in other teachings too. It is equivalent to the “False Personality” or “Imaginary ‘I’” in the Fourth Way, which Nicoll also describes as a “False Self” and as “egotistical” and “fictitious”.

In Hinduism, the word “Ego” is often used when the Sanskrit word Ahamkara is translated into English, or is used in its place when contemporary Hindu teachings are given in English. The ego or ahamkara can, depending on the context, describe a false or illusory self, which comes about through identification with the body, mind and material nature. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna calls for one to become free of it.^{[169] [170] (note)}

The idea of the “ego” being a false sense of self formed specifically from identification with thinking was particularly emphasised by Ramana Maharshi, an early 20^th century Indian teacher who Tolle admires. Ramana also used the related term “I-thought” in his teachings^[171]—which Tolle also uses in A New Earth when describing the ego as an “illusory self,” although he does not credit Ramana when he does this.^[172]

Note once again that all of these sources, both ancient and modern, while describing the existence of a false self or ego which must be removed or reduced, also assert the existence of a real self, essence, being or soul etc.^[173] This sets them all apart from Buddhism, and shows that those who think Tolle’s teachings are just a reiteration of Buddhism have only looked at this quite superficially. (Tolle has more in common with neo-Advaita than Buddhism, as some have noted.)^[174]

I mention all of this because it is important to understand that Tolle can draw upon multiple overlapping sources when elaborating a concept, such the ego/false self, which is always contrasted with our true being, presence or consciousness, etc., in his work.

Identifying Tolle’s specific influences here can be difficult, because he does not clearly acknowledge his sources and his teachings are more of a composite, rather than a carbon copy of any one source.

Nevertheless, Long is a major influence here, I believe. As the comparisons above show, he and Tolle describe these concepts in very similar ways, using similar terms and phrasings. These comparisons allow us to see and “unpick” Long’s thread of influence running prominently through Tolle’s iteration of the “false self” concept, among others.

While Long and Tolle both refer to a “false self,” one difference is that Tolle typically uses the term “ego” to designate it—the word Ramana (among others) used —while Long, in contrast, usually calls it the “personality.” This is a prominent term in Gurdjieff’s Fourth Way terminology, where personality—which is not our real self but a temporary apparatus formed by external influences—is contrasted with our “essence,” which is our real inherent self. However, Nicoll draws a distinction between the personality proper and “false personality”; the former is said to be transient and distinct from essence, yet is said to actually exist, whereas false personality is an illusion or distortion we only imagine exists and identify with strongly. It is the latter which Nicoll calls a false self.

Tolle, incidentally, also uses “essence”  or “essence identity” to describe our true nature too, as does Long on occasion. Tolle sometimes uses the term “personality” as well, but usually in a more neutral way as compared to ego, in a manner that corresponds more or less to the Fourth Way approach. (See my article comparing Nicoll and Tolle on these concepts here.)

Many of Long and Tolle’s descriptions of a “false self” mirror those found in the Fourth Way, where our false personality is described as a psychological fiction formed in our upbringing, during which children are influenced by their family and society, identify with various things, including likes and dislikes, build up an artificial sense of who they are which they increasingly identify with, and lose touch with their essence as “a false feeling of oneself is created, a false feeling of ‘I’.”^[175]  This is something like a mental picture of ourselves we identify with, and is how we want other to see us, yet which is fundamentally fictitious and not who we are at all. A central aim of that teaching is to weaken and destroy the false personality and grow and develop essence. ^{[176] (note)}

Long and Tolle broadly agree with that perspective, although they more often use the terms “true nature” or “being” for our real self. Nicoll, in contrast, uses terms like “Real Being” only occasionally to express this idea, with essence and Real I being the main terms (these are standard Fourth Way terms). Long and Tolle also place more emphasis on emotional pain being at the core of the false self.

For Long and Tolle, there seems to be no clear-cut distinction between this false self and the unhappy/emotional body or pain-body they also respectively describe, which we looked at earlier. Rather, the latter seem to be the emotional attributes of the mental construct of the false self. Tolle, for example, has called the pain-body “the emotional aspect of the ego,”^[177]  its “dark shadow.”^[178]  Long has described “the pigmy”—another name for the emotional body—as “the falseness of your self.” ^[179]

Both write very similarly and forcefully about the death of the false self. They agree with other teachers I have mentioned, such as Ramana and Nicoll, that this occurs without the loss of our essential true nature or being.

Death—both physical and psychological—is the subject of the next comparisons.

In these comparisons, both authors, more than once, make exactly the same statement: “there is no death.” And, somewhat paradoxically, they also suggest this “truth” can only be realised by dying.

The death they are speaking of can refer to an inner death, the death of the false self—an idea mentioned explicitly in the previous comparisons—or the death of the body, or both. The death of the body, they maintain, also involves shedding the personality in any case (a view shared by Nicoll too.)

The crux of these seemingly inexplicable statements seems to be that what is real cannot die, only what is unreal. Since nothing that we actually truly are ever dies then there is no real death as such, Long and Tolle tell us. The body, our ignorance, our fear, our false self are not who we really are, so their loss is not the loss of our real nature. Nothing we truly are dies.  Therefore death is an illusion, they say. We only have fear of death because we identify with what is not really us. So if we “die” consciously now—to what is not us—we are freed from the fear of death, they seem to tell us, and so come to realise “there is no death.”

Fear of death is prevalent today, they also explain, because contemporary humans are “completely identified” with their body or form.

In one instance, Long follows up his declaration, “there is no death,” by stating, “only fear dies.” Tolle, after initially making exactly the same statement, tells us “there is nothing to fear” and “only the ego dies.”

Long’s statements about discovering “there is no death” through death itself are very unusual and distinctive. It seems highly improbable that Tolle would use identical phrasing to make this same idiosyncratic point—on more than one occasion—without being directly influence by Long.

Ending one such passage with the statement “Only the ego dies” much as Long ends his with “Only fear dies” is also, I think, a dead giveaway that Tolle was directly influenced by Long here.

In these comparisons, Tolle echoes Long’s view that joy is “your natural state.” Both employ a similar analogy whereby this state is likened to the sun that constantly shines above, even when its light is hidden to us below by the earth’s shadow or clouds.

There is “nothing” we can do to find or attain this “joy of being,” they suggest, since it’s already there within us—it is “your very being.”

Both point out that the early “sages of india” called the blissful state of being “ananda” (a Sanskrit term) and indicate this is a sense or perception beyond the world or form.

Throughout their teaching, they emphasise doing away with whatever prevents us from perceiving this bliss or peace—whether the false self, the emotional/pain body, ignorance, fear, illusions etc.—as we’ve seen in various prior examples.

This idea that bliss is our natural state, and that we must simply remove what prevents us knowing or experiencing it to realise it, is not exactly unique to either author. It is one of the key tenets of Ramana Maharshi, a Hindu teacher of Advaita Vedanta who both Long and Tolle were familiar with. He taught:

“Know then that true knowledge does not create a new being for you, it only removes your ignorant ignorance. Bliss is not added to your nature, it is merely revealed as your true natural state, eternal and imperishable. The only way to be rid of your grief is to know and be the Self.”^[293]

“Peace is your natural state. It is the mind that obstructs the natural state.”^[294]

“Bliss,” in the quote above, is likely an English translation of ananda, the Sanskrit word Long and Tolle refer to, which Ramana often used. It is usually rendered “bliss” in English translations of his teachings.^[295]

Even though Long and Tolle’s views accord with Ramana here (and likely others too), Tolle’s writing matches very closely with Long’s in particular.  There are similarly structured clauses, closely-matching or even identical phrases. There is a comparable sun analogy and similar passages about—and interpretations of—the same Sanskrit word said to be used by Indian sages.

All of this suggests Long influenced Tolle here.

Previously, I’ve compared Nicoll and Tolle on the theme of taking responsibility for one’s inner state, which crops up frequently enough in both author’s work.

Long relates a closely-related idea, expressed a little differently: taking responsibility for life. This includes, or is really based upon, not allowing unhappiness or misery to abide in oneself, so, in that sense, it overlaps with the notion of taking responsibility for one’s inner state.

However, it also encompasses taking action to change situations for the better where possible or, alternatively, embracing inner surrender where one cannot. If you are “true” to life in this way, then life will provide the circumstances and help that you need, he suggests. Tolle expresses the same constellation of ideas, which strongly suggests that Long was a major source of influence on Tolle with this theme.

When Long and Tolle discuss taking responsibility for one’s life, they tell us this involves dropping any negative or miserable attitude you have toward a situation you are in. If a situation is making you unhappy (like a job, or an intimate relationship) then to be responsible, they say, one must either work to change and improve the situation, or leave it. Alternatively, in a situation where these options are not possible (Tolle mentions jail for example), one should accept the situation fully—that is, surrender inwardly toward it.

Surrender, they say, is the conscious acceptance of what can’t be changed. Being surrendered means giving up any misery toward the situation. It is similar to the idea of “inner freedom” discussed by Nicoll, which is a phrase Tolle also employs.

Whether one works to change a situation, leaves it, or surrenders inwardly to it, one’s unhappiness must be given up regardless, Long and Tolle maintain. This is in agreeance with the Fourth Way notion that negative emotions must be eradicated irrespective of what happens or who may be at fault externally.

If we trust or become friendly towards life—which encompasses being true to or accepting the Now or present moment—then “life will look after you” Long says, or “starts working for you” Tolle similarly writes.  Helpful circumstances and occurrences then start to happen more and more, and difficulties dissolve or diminish.  New opportunities and helpful people will start to appear, they suggest.

This is comparable to an idea Nicoll often raises: “your level of being attracts your life.”^[323] Changing one’s inner state can alter the kinds of events that come to you, he suggests.^[324] Long and Tolle, however, match much more specifically when describing the kinds of beneficial changes that will occur when one is “true” or “friendly” to “life”—by making whatever changes are necessary within or without.

This is what they mean by taking responsibility for your life. This essentially involves removing “unhappiness” inwardly, and also taking “action” to change things externally where possible (either by improving the situation or leaving it)—or being “surrendered” internally when a situation cannot be changed.

The strong correlations between Long and Tolle here, both in ideas and language, go beyond coincidence, I believe, and show that Long’s teachings likely had a direct influence on Tolle’s on these themes.

This last collection compiles closely corresponding passages which do not fit into a single overarching theme. They cover a range of miscellaneous topics. In each example, Tolle expresses more or less the same idea as Long, in a very similar way—sometimes uncannily so.

These examples highlight that Long’s influence on Tolle is not limited to his more prominent ideas, but extends to a host of peripheral ideas as well. This makes the absence of any recognition or acknowledgement for Long in Tolle’s bestsellers all the more glaring.

For example, both suggest we should observe ourselves in situations that make us feel more powerful or important than another, such as when having “news” to share which the other person does not know about yet.

They suggest we refrain from expressing our opinions or stories when everyone else is expressing theirs—to see how that feels.

When we smile at someone, they both tell us, we reach outwards and give of ourselves.

They similarly explain how opposite emotions of pleasure and pain are inseparably connected, each giving rise to the other—an idea I’ve previously compared Nicoll and Tolle on extensively.

And then there are similar affirmations about how their writing will directly affect the reader. “This book is about you,” both write. Their writing will either transform your “state of consciousness,” if you are ready, or appear “meaningless,” they tell us. Curiously, each tells the reader at a certain point that they—the reader—“are the truth.”

While it does not fit neatly into a textual comparison table, they also give similar advice to readers in another way too; they suggest that one should pause reading for a spiritual practice/reflection at certain places in their books.

For example, in Only Fear Dies, Long states: “Try it now. Put the book down, shut your eyes and be silent for a few minutes. Then come back.” This statement has an asterisks symbol underneath, to indicate that one should do this here. ^[353] This convention is used throughout the book and in others.

In The Power of Now, Tolle includes what he calls a “pause symbol” for much the same purpose. “The pause symbol after certain passages,” he writes, “is a suggestion that you may want to stop reading for a moment, become still, and feel and experience the truth of what has just been said.”^[354]  A similar symbol appears in Stillness Speaks between passages; in the introduction he suggests that readers may stop “to pause, reflect, become still” after reading each entry.^[355]

There is no need for me to comment further on all the comparisons in the table above—the similarities are self-evident in any case.  What I will reiterate, however, is that these varied examples serve to highlight that Long’s influence upon Tolle is multifaceted. It is not limited solely to major concepts like the pain-body, but extends across a range of ideas, expressions and even teaching approaches.