Overall, and more specifically in his “pain-body” chapter, he sees emotion as the bodily response, conscious or unconscious, to the mind’s perception of, or interpretation of, an event. I personally wouldn’t quarrel with his consistency, but might with his apparent view that the mind thinks first, then the body emotes as a result of the thought. Actually I believe research has suggested that the feeling (the bodily affect) comes much ahead of the cognitive thought. But his intent (much like yours in the passage from your book) seems to be to help the reader learn ways to take charge of these thoughts & reactions, which have often become more habitual than rational, rather than allowing the thoughts and reactions to be in charge. Mindfulness is far from a new idea or practice, of course, and I don’t think Tolle breaks a lot of new ground that improves on what others have written and (pardon the expression) “taught” about mindfulness.

Neither, as you know, is the concept new that the mind and body are not separate entities, but interactive aspects of the whole being. In the phrase you quoted, his use of “mind” and “body” would be interpreted by most people as the verbal/conceptual/idea and physiological/affective/feeling (or something like that) aspects of experience.
Nor is the idea new that teaching isn’t something one person “does to” another, since learning is more effective when it results from experience. But admit, it’s hard for every student to have experiences that lead them to all the understandings they need to do integral calculus, and some other things, usefully -- some things you just have to show and explain in the interest of time. And isn’t it okay that Tolle uses the word “teachings” to mean the viewpoints and beliefs that he expresses to others? Seems to me it’s more important to look as his larger intent and overall effect and decide if you think it’s generally a helpful or harmful direction in which to steer readers. His books are keeping a lot of people busy and off the streets (-: anyway.

I think that Tolle mainly uses words like teach, body, mind, and emotions the way non-specialized readers use and understand them. For where he wants to take his readership, maybe that’s okay. I didn’t have to keep looking back at his definitions to figure out what he was talking about. That wasn’t the case, though, with your definition of “self” to mean an energy that not only hold the individual’s body and mind together but also animates all humankind. To me, that’s like taking the word “apple” and defining it as “the pain one experiences when one stubs one’s toe and also the cause of hiccups.” The purpose of words is, as far as I know, to communicate. So why take a good word like “self” that, to most people, suggests the aspects via genetics and experience that make up an individual’s sense of identity and uniqueness and define it as an energy, etc? You have a right to make up your own definition, of course, but it seems to make communication difficult.