A New Earth Commentary

A New Earth

by Eckhart Tolle

Commentary by Peter K Bullock, MDiv, MS

Premise 1

A new age, a new era, even a new species is arising

Premise 2

This new development is a result of a new “consciousness”

Premise 3

New consciousness = break with the ego defined as “self”

Premise 4

New consciousness (awareness) is that elusive sense that is not attached to the ego (which is, according to Tolle, at best a functional operation and at worst a “false self”)

Premise 5

New consciousness, or break with attachment to “ego” frees one from pain, anxiety, depression and the general malaise of neurosis of human suffering

Premise 6

The “I” that emerges with this new consciousness is transcendent and eternal

Premise 7

As such, these “enlightened” beings can envision and even help bring about a “New Earth”

Tolle’s book, published in 2005 and on bookshelves recently, is an interesting, thoughtful reflection on certain “spiritual” insights. I cannot help but think of “Quoheleth” the “preacher” (Ecclesiates in the OT) who said “there is nothing new under the sun” – (350 BCE).

For Example:

Sidarrtha Gautama (463 BCE)

The Buddha thought that life as perceived through our body and mind is an illusion and therefore pain and suffering and even happiness is an illusion and an illusion does not exist, ergo, no pain, etc

Jesus of Nazareth (AD 29-32)

The Kingdom of God is within you and is found by prioritizing its existence and finding it is a “Pearl of Great Price.” If found, it is freeing, transforming, and is, in effect, synonymous with salvation. Also, He said “I am come that you may have life and life abundantly.” I have never seen this pericope as pointing to either heaven or plenty, but in truth, a quality of life rather than a quantified life.

Paul (Circa 60 AD)

“Don’t let the world (ego) press you into it’s mold, but be transformed by having the mind of Christ in you.” “I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ who lives in me.” If any be in Christ Jesus they are a new being.

C G Jung (Early 20^th Century)

Jung, along with Freud, the delineator of the unconscious or psyche or soul. Inner transformation occurs only by an inner search to find, understand, or at least grasp some knowledge of “who am I really?” His great contribution concerns archetypes, unconscious constellations of meaningful drives and motivations all out of consciousness. The goal is to bring into consciousness through awareness. Two of these archetypes “anima” (female) and “animus” (male) Tolle refers to, but in a simplistic and stereotypical manner, and even reduces these feminine and masculine characteristics to a description of countries in terms of how women are seen and treated.

Juan Ramón Jiménez (1973)

Tolle’s construction I (the emerged new consciousness) am not I (the ego)

I am not I.

I am this one

Walking beside me whom I do not see,

Whom at times I manage to visit,

And at other times I forget.

The one who remains silent when I talk,

The one who forgives, sweet, when I hate,

The one who takes a walk when I am indoors,

The one who will remain standing when I die.

Without sounding too critical, my experience of “The New Earth” is that it is a rehash of ideas and concepts that are in fact ancient. To his credit, Tolle compiles these (sort of) with a readable, and I might add “easy” enough notions to make his book marketable. Actually, what he says is not refreshingly said, but I certainly would not deny him the right to say – or sell it. Gurus come and go. I have been temporarily fascinated by my share. There is only one of whom it is said “there is no shadow of turning” and He remains the same today and forever – and He is Love – and that is the last thing standing when all else has fallen.

Ten Thousand Years - Some Thoughts

10,000 Years

Lynn walked back from the pond and I could tell by the slump in her shoulders that a great sadness had fallen upon her. “The egg is gone” she said. “Something got it” – the egg was laid in a hollow of a knarled old tree three feet off the ground and Lynn had been midwife of the one egg of a pair of geese that had driven all others from the pond and spent their days together taking turns – watching, cradling life like two proud and fierce protectors of the new life they were creating. I walked over to the tree by the pond and sure enough the egg lay scattered at the tree bottom and across the path – bloody viscera still glistening on the broken shell. “The fox” she said. “The fox probably got the egg.” We walked back from the pond and her hand lightly and briefly touched mine and I knew in that moment I had been touched by Hera, The Goddess, the great Mother, the source of life and creativity and my walled up maleness had a light break through the crevices of my intellectual walls and I was so moved and so gratified I could not speak – even though she walked quietly beside me.

Several days later I saw the fox – graceful, head up, tail straight out, gliding over the green and brown grass, its winter fur still mottled. Its form fell behind a rise and I saw only a glimpse as she slipped into the foliage. “So that’s the fox my wife has been talking about – and not too friendly, either.” That fox had taken her egg. A couple of weeks went by and all of a sudden we saw three foxes, the mother and two kits busily frolicking in the meadow like grass that passes for our lawn. I thought to myself that fox family has been here 10,000 years. They shed their winter fur, ate goose eggs and have been here since when the southern tips of the last Ice Age glacier was only ninety miles north. The geese were here also, proudly, loudly and fiercely protective – the reason for their existence.

We have here in our wooded space turkey and rabbits and woodchucks and deer and herons and weasels and blue jays and hummingbirds and cardinals and squirrels and they all have been here 10,000 years. There used to be twenty turkeys, but suddenly there were only two, and we thought – Hunters! We soon discovered why there were only two. Because one day following them, the male out in front and the female leading them, there were a dozen small furry, flapping, stumbling, fledgling turkeys. Life abounding. We watched them as they made their rounds and noticed one day there were only nine– not twelve. Then, just recently, we could count only five. The parents still majestic and strutting.

I reflected on the wonder of life and its continuity, its ebb and flow, its birth and death, its persistent resilience. As I felt the privilege and gratitude of witnessing just a small piece of the journey, I was caught up in a sense of peace and comfort, knowing that I and we, are part of the great sojourn – and here since the ice stopped only ninety miles away.

PKB, July 2008

Sermon on the Mount

Sermon on the Mount

by Peter K Bullock, MDiv, MS

Recently I was subjected to a YouTube presentation which used some sound bites from an Obama speech. Wherein he was pointing out what parts of the “Bible” we would use to guide our nation; a Leviticus line that supports slavery, a Deuteronomic line that says children should be stoned to death if they refute the faith or the Sermon on the Mount which would render our defense system irrelevant. His point was that the Bible says many different things, all of them contextual, and not to be used selectively, as so many on the “right” do.

The presentation went on in a rant reminiscent of fascist propaganda in its’ claim that Obama disbelieves or dierespects the Bible. He [Obama] then adds that people in general “aren’t reading their Bible.” The presenter was aghast that anyone would suggest that people don’t read their Bible, because good cultural evangelical born again Christians DO read the Bible; of course, literally, uncritically, without insight or appreciation for the developmental character of the Holy Script. Of course they read “their” Bible, and do so in the same way that magical thinking, fantasy prone and literalistic children do. The more insidious suggestion is that Obama is not a good moral man, much less a Christian. As for taking the Sermon on the Mount seriously, one might point out:

When you claim that Jesus is the Lord of your life and yet fail to acknowledge that your policies ignore his essential teaching or turn them on their head

(you know, Sermon on the Mount stuff like never returning violence for violence and those who live by the sword shall die by the sword)

you are doing something immoral.

Dr Robin Meyers

Why the Christian Right is Wrong

UCC Minister

(Obama belongs to the United Church of Christ)

As long as one wishes to throw stones while living in glass houses, one could be reminded that McCain’s whole life has been devoted to militarism – and he is a self admitted adulterer – and he and his cartoon running mate are proven guilty of bearing false witness eg, the Keating affair, and she being called on her use of unethical power in a recent Alaskan legal decision.

One final observation. Those who make the “country first” “the Bible” and the “flag” as idols are guilty of the first of the 10 Commandment (you shall have no other gods before me), but, what can one expect from a Sunday School level of moral development, lack of reflective insight or sadly, just plain ignorance.

If anyone is interested in seeing the video that prompted this -- here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi-V_ilJu0w

The Meaning of Wealth Distribution

The Meaning of Wealth Distribution – A Short Political Sermon

Luke 18: 18-27, New English Bible

by Peter K Bullock, MDiv, MS

“A man from the ruling class” came to Jesus inquiring what to do to “win eternal life.”

What is a “ruling class” (euphemism for those in power) person doing seeking out this itinerant rabbi/teacher and his lower class buddies to ask questions? My guess is like any good politician he wanted to “test the waters” – so to speak – and – perhaps having heard of this Jesus and his teaching of the “Kingdom of God” and being an opportunist, he didn’t want to miss out on any new political or power movement. The use of “win eternal life” is interesting because the connotation is to win or earn or deserve “Eternal Life, ” a euphemism for the Kingdom of God.

The politician refers to Jesus as “good master” which prompts Jesus to reply with the famous “why do you call me good? – only God is good” – which interestingly enough, put dampers on the notion of merit (ie, goodness) as a measure of worth and value.

Jesus’ response to the question; “You know the commandments” (the Old Testament Law of which there are 10) and he reiterates only five – all pertaining to how one treats other human beings:

“Do not commit adultery”

“Do not murder”

“Do not steal”

“Do not give false evidence” and

“Honor your mother and father”

Apparently, Jesus focuses on how one treats others as key to his persuasion and insight.

The ruler (ie, politician) points out that “he” has kept all these commandments since he has been a boy” ie, not only is he a good man, he has had the same moral development since he was a child. All one has to do is observe the morals of any child or adolescent and one sees how ludicrous this statement is(but politicians are known for stretching the truth in the service of self aggrandizement.

Jesus then replies “only one thing you lack – sell all you have and distribute it to the poor and then you can follow me.” Dismayed (the text says “his heart sunk”), evidently because he knew immediately he could not qualify for the standards of following Jesus. He went away and Jesus uttered his familiar aphorism “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.

If the rich young ruler was dismayed, the disciples of Jesus were dumbfounded, stunned, and in their amazement cried out, “what?! – who then can be saved? (If not the one who obviously was blessed by God because he was rich and powerful). The disciples, like others of that time and even today, believed in a prudential morality. Prudential morality simply holds that good people have good fortune, undeserving people have less good fortune, and bad people have poor fortune – ie, the rich must be good and the poor must be bad because God has favored the rich and punished the poor. It is no wonder the disciples were stunned. Jesus had upset the apple cart of their most ingrained paradigm – that the world is made up of two classes of people – the good and the bad, according to God’s reward and/or retribution. In significant ways Jesus and his teaching of the Kingdom of God counters the whole notion of the worth and value of persons being based on good or bad fortune. The idea of “prudent” morality is insidious, pervasive and deeply ingrained in human consciousness. It is based on “common sense.” It is prudent, smart, practical, and helps explain the existence of the “haves” and “have nots” (the powerful and the powerless). Jesus and his teaching cuts through this superficial and all too common way of thinking and believing, by making a case that all persons are of value and worth and are not validated by fortune or misfortune, but simply by their humanity. How one treats or thinks about others is at the core of Christianity.

Evidently the reason the rich ruler went away dismayed, was not because he was being asked to give all his money away to the poor, but because he was being asked to transform his belief system about the worth and value of persons; he would have to give up his claim to being a “favored” class of person. In order to “distribute the wealth” he would have to come to terms with the worth, value and indeed the equality of all people. Jesus was not just a social reformer – we have plenty of those and need more. He was striking at the deepest issues of the business of being human – all people – rich, poor, powerful and powerless, regardless of race or creed or color or circumstances, are of worth and value. All of creation is precious and valuable and are equally deserving – so says Jesus, true to his Judaic heritage, true to himself, and true to his God in this conviction that all people are of worth and value.

Among those who would be influenced by Jesus’ insight were the framers of the US Constitution that reflects this truth in that “all men are created equal.” To distribute the wealth is to embrace the idea that all are deserving of equality; it is not earned or worked for or demanded, but is inherent in the very humanity of all people. What the rich ruler could not give up was not his money, but his station, his credentials of value and worth; his class mentality, his desperate clinging to an ego that sustained his only way of being meaningful; his only way of mattering; being among the special ones and the notion of seeing all people as equal (the poor in this case) and special in the eyes of God was more than he could accept. Distributing the wealth means equal station, equal education, equal opportunity, equal access to goods and services, equal acceptance, equal rights, equal treatment and equal justice. The very notion of equality represents an insight into the value and worth of human beings.

If someone is not impressed or influenced by this Jesus that is OK – this is not an apologetic for Christianity. It is an argument for policies, laws, attitudes, beliefs, value systems and convictions that underscore the great American experiment. This experiment that sees persons – all persons – as of value and worth and that all are equal.

Distributing the wealth is not just giving money away; it is seeing to it that the wealth of the American spirit of generosity and equality be at the core of our political, economic, social, and constitutional personality.