Integral Movements

History

Alan Kazlev:

"When Sri Aurobindo chose the word Integral to designate his system of yoga, and as the translation for the Sanskrit purna, he was selecting a term that had and would also be independently chosen by a number of innovative European scholars and visionaries in the early 20th century in quite similar contexts. The implication being that, rather than being totally unique, Sri Aurobindo and the Mother emerge as the most profound representatives of a larger evolutionary tendency in human consciousness, which for the sake of convenience is called here “Integral consciousness”1. And if phrases like “Integral consciousness” or “Integral movement”2 are felt to be unsuitable because they are contemporary terms less than a decade old, their equivalent, much better known terms such as “New Age” (Alice Bailey), “New Paradigm” (Fritjof Capra and others), or “Planetarisation” (Teilhard de Chardin) can just as adequately be employed3. What they all have in common are at least several of the following themes: an evolutionary, developmental, or progressive understanding of consciousness or even the cosmos as a whole; a universal, “big picture” approach which includes rather than rejects more one-sided perspectives; transcending dichotomies such as spirit and matter, and logic and imagination, awakening to trans-rational spiritual awareness, and a new socio-cultural or collective integral consciousness. But because each particular stream of “integral”, or “New Age”, or “planetary” consciousness considers itself and its own representatives or founders the highest and most paradigmatic, and at times tends to misinterpret rival streams, Sri Aurobindo and the Mother relevance remains little known outside the Integral Yoga community. It may be helpful therefore to provide a bit of historical background (a more detailed coverage will appear in a forthcoming issue of Sraddha).

Among the many roots and prequels of Integral yoga and philosophy in its various forms could be mentioned the yoga of the Tamil siddhas such as Turumular and Ramalingam4; the Bengali Renaissance of Ram Mohan Roy, Ramakrishna, and Vivekananda5 with its rejection of cultic exclusivity (“only my religion is true”) and integration of European and Indian thought; the Lurianic-Hassidic tradition of Kabbalah, which first proposed that man can participate in the redemption of the cosmos (tikkun olam), from which milieu Max Theon came; the German idealism and Naturphilosophie of Goethe, Kant, Hegel, Schelling, and Oken; the Russian Cosmism6 of Nikolai Fyodorov, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (the Russian father of rocket science), Peter Ouspensky, and Vladimir Vernadsky, who foresaw things such as planetary consciousness (Vernadsky's Noosphere) and the future role of technology and the possibility of a perfected immortal human existence (Fyodorov, Tsiolkovsky); the East-West synthesis of Madame Blavatsky's Theosophy, from which the New Age movement would later develop; the 19th century Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov7 founder of the Sorbost (Russian for “Integral”) movement, and Sergei Bulgakov, whose theology like Solovyov's includes the principle of Sophia (Wisdom) as the female polarity of the Divine8, with obvious parallels to the Supreme Mother in Sri Aurobindo's spiritual philosophy; and the process philosophy of Henri Bergson, whose philosophy has many parallels with Sri Aurobindo9. Bergson's theory of creative evolution exerted a strong influence on later evolutionary philosophers such as Teilhard de Chardin and Alfred North Whitehead (Process philosophy).

In addition to all of the above, there seem to have been at least half a dozen independent, and only later converging, developments of Integral thought in the opening decades of the 20th century: the Cosmic philosophy of Max and Alma Theon (with which the Mother became involved), the Anthroposophy of Rudolf Steiner, the Integral Yoga of Sri Aurobindo, the integral sociology of Pitirim Sorokin, the evolutionary theology of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and, several decades later, the historical phenomenology of Jean Gebser. This is not even to mention the already referred to Cosmist and Sorbost movements that developed in Russia around this time. And whilst some groups such as the Theons and their cosmic initiative are now are very little known, others have been much more successful. Steiner's ideas have been very influential in continental Europe, Teilhard has become one of the central influences of the New Age movement, and Sorokin and Gebser have recently been rediscovered by the Integral movement. All four therefore deserve a brief coverage here, especially in view of similarities with each other and with Sri Aurobindo's philosophy, and their convergence in a new emerging Integralist academic tradition (more on which a little later).

The Austrian esotericist and Goethean scholar Rudolf Steiner established a body of teaching which also conformed to the integral pattern. In 1906 Steiner contrasted "integral evolution" with "Darwinian evolution”, using the word integral in a similar manner to Sri Aurobindo and others10. He refers to the trilogy of thinking, feeling, and willing (or head, heart, and hands), which correspond to the mental, vital, and physical of Integral yoga. Steiner's etheric Christ is the guiding principle in cosmic evolution that reverses the fall into materialism and introduces a new mode of consciousness as the force of this transformation, and references the transmutation of the astral, etheric and physical body11. Here there is a parallel with the transformation of the gross and subtle body in Tantra and in the Tamil siddha tradition12, hinting even at the Supramental transformation of Integral Yoga, although Steiner did not envisage a transformation of inconscient matter of the sort that Sri Aurobindo and Max Theon did.

Independently of Sri Aurobindo, the Russian-born American emigre and Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin who developed an integral sociology, referring to the need for a complementary relationship between these three channels, physical, mental, and spiritual, as each provides its own unique form of knowledge and predicting the emergence of a future idealistic or integral society that will replace the current, sense-orientated society13. It was only later that he discovered Sri Aurobindo and spoke very highly of him14.

The French Jesuit paleontologist and evolutionary theologian Pierre Teilhard de Chardin taught that evolution and human consciousness is tending towards an “Omega Point”, a state of collective transcendence in the Divine consciousness15, which he identifies with Christ. Teilhard's ideas have been compared both with those of Sri Aurobindo16. Both Sri Aurobindo and Teilhard describe the Divine hidden in and emerging out of material evolution. Both considered the cosmos itself in a process of realising or making manifest and external its own inherent divinity. But for Teilhard the Omega Point meant a divinised humanity transcending the Earth and the material bases of evolution for a collective spiritual existence17. This is contrary the more world-affirming approach to nature and its transmutation as Sri Aurobindo's and the Mother's statements on the supramental transformation are in accord with it.

The Swiss phenomenologist and cultural historian Jean Gebser, developed a similar theory of collective stages of consciousness, both associating the evolution of of consciousness not only with socio-cultural change but even a transformation of physical reality itself. Gebser describes five distinct “structures” or “mutations” of consciousness, the archaic, the magical, the mythic, the mental-perspectival, and the Integral-Aperspective. This latter is a new, currently emerging structure that he predicted would replace the current mental-perspectival mode, and which will include and be transparent to all previous stages of consciousness. Like Sorokin, he came upon the word “Integral” independently of Sri Aurobindo18.

In view of the fact that there were and are so many parallel and converging themes and philosophies floating around, only a few of which are mentioned here, it is not so surprising to discover parallelism between Integral Yoga and process and integral philosophy in the West. It seems that both stem from a common zeitgeist.

Perhaps the most influential contemporary Western figure here is Ken Wilber, a prolific writer on psychology, spirituality and philosophy who is more of a synthesiser of the ideas of others than an original visionary like Steiner, Sri Aurobindo, Teilhard, or Gebser. I tend to use the term “Wilberian” to refer to this specific strand of Integral thought, and the same word has also more recently been officially applied to the academic movement that developed from Wilber's writings19. I should point out here that in referencing the Wilber-inspired Integral movement alongside the Integral Yoga community, I am not implying any close similarity or even natural connection. These are simply two evolutionary streams I have been associated with for many years, one more intimately and spiritually, the other less so. So the reason for this essay is more an accident of circumstances than a deliberate thematic association.

The Wilber-inspired Integral community dates to 1998, when Wilber and some of his students founded the Integral Institute20, bringing together a large number of intellectual, artistic, new paradigm, and New Age “thought leaders”. Thanks to an aggressive marketing approach, the institute was able to associate “Integral” in the New Age/New Paradigm memesphere with his philosophy, especially with his inclusive typology of “all quadrants and all levels” or “AQAL”21.

The coincidence of name, the universal approach of the Integral Institute initiative, and the shared theme of evolutionary spirituality and global transformation, were to inspire my own interest in this movement back in 2004, when I stumbled upon one of these websites. Up until that time, I had only associated “Integral” in a spiritual context with the transformative yoga and philosophy of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. Hence it was not surprising that I had mixed feelings here; on the one hand I was pleased to see that these insights were being taken up and popularised by a successful new paradigm writer, on the other, the marketing hype of the early Integral Institute left me uneasy, there was a sense of Wilber and his associates trying to appropriate the Integral brand as their own. It turns out that I was not alone in these concerns22, and I admit it soured my appreciation of Wilber's achievements.

I had first become acquainted with Wilber's work in 1979 or 1980, about the same time that I discovered Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. At that time he was still associated with transpersonal psychology, and was the author of a model of “spectrum of consciousness” involving zones of fragmentation or unity, depending whether one moves “up” or “down” the scale23. Over the years his work progressed through a number of iterations, becoming increasingly complex, until the development of “AQAL” in the mid 1990s, and “post-metaphysics” circa 2002. His appeal lies in his enthusiastic and accessible presentation of a single framework that can encompass all human knowledge, although his treatment of original sources is often unreliable, and there is a tendency in his more recent work to privilege the concerns of secular academia over both traditional and contemporary esoteric insights24.

Although a great admirer of Sri Aurobindo25, Wilber's primary influences and interests were always in the fields of humanistic, transpersonal and developmental psychology, cognitive science, non-dual Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism, and, more recently, contemporary academic philosophy. Because Wilber comes from such a very different spiritual tradition and practice to Sri Aurobindo26 it is not surprising that his interpretation of Sri Aurobindo's philosophy and yoga would be less than accurate27. As a result, a very large part of the Western Integralism's understanding regarding this topic tends to be filtered through the lens of Wilber's second hand interpretations, rather than through original source material or dialogue with representatives of the Integral Yoga community. It is not surprising therefore that such essential teachings as the Psychic transformation, Supramentalisation, and the central role of the Mother and the Supreme Shakti remain almost totally unknown in the Integralist community, although it is hoped that this latter situation can change with future co-operation and dialogue.

For the first six or eight years of its existence, the Integral community was an enthusiastic but insular collective based around uncritical adoption and application of Wilber's own ideas. But as scholars, intellectuals, and general readers and internet authors became acquainted with Wilber's philosophy they noticed more and more problems. Many of these were posted on a website called The World of Ken Wilber, later very unfortunately renamed Integral World, thus reinforcing the belief, rejected even by Wilber's most enthusiastic supporters, that “Wilber = Integral”. The website was and is maintained by Wilber's biographer and former theosophist Frank Visser, who originally was among those defending Wilber from criticisms, but then became more sympathetic to the critics' arguments. Inevitably, there was a very acrimonious falling out between Wilber and his loyal supporters (called “fans”, reinforcing the American pop culture setting) on the one hand, and Visser and other critics who nevertheless still support an Integral worldview, on the other28. This was in 2006, coincidentally at the same time I was first working on material for submission to Integral World. At the time it was my intention to show the superiority of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother's Integral teachings to the more secular and anti-metaphysical approach of Wilber, as well as pointing out other problems such as the abusive guru phenomenon29. Unfortunately, like others involved in this faction fight, my emotions took over, and hence the material I wrote at the time includes some that was more polemic and aggressive in tone than it should have been. Nevertheless, I did receive favourable feedback from it, although my taking such a partisan approach probably also served to help reinforce the schism and general sense of judgementalism.

After a year or two, the culture of criticism had died down, but so had much of the activity in the grass roots Wilberian community. This may have been due in part to an imbalance of mental and lack of an authentic yogic presence (more on this shortly), and in part to a reduction in Wilber's output in recent years; with less new material there was less intellectual stimulation. Yet at the same time, the academic side of the integral initiative continued to grow. This academic integralism, based on commentary, critique, and pragmatic application of Wilber's writings and to a lesser extent those of other mainstream integralist authors by students and “scholar-practioners”, led to the emergence of an entire new academic discipline, called Integral Theory30, and a community of scholars and academics who are slowly gaining recognition in mainstream academia.

This new initiative involves neither Wilberian literalism nor blanket criticism, but a “Second Wave” of Integral critiquing and inquiry that has emerged from the “First Wave” associated with Wilber and his early co-workers31. And especially as academia tends to be suspicious of initiatives or movements based around only a single individual, this community has, starting in 2008, begun hosting biennial conferences32 featuring a wide range of participants, papers, panels, and speakers (including both supporters and critics), and establishing Integral Theory as an authentic academic tradition in its own right33. This has been accompanied even in the mainstream Wilberian movement by a broadening out and acknowledging of other “integral pioneers”, and a shift of integral discourse from an earlier "Wilbercentric" to a more liberal "Wilber-based" approach34. Another positive development of Wilberian academia is a shift from an obsession with mental categorising in terms of quadrants and levels that dominated the earlier, AQAL-based, Integral Theory35, to the more dynamic and interactive “post-metaphysical” enactment approach36.

This new academic integralism is already contributing to the establishment of a more holistic and spiritual culture by chipping away at the hegemony of mainstream intellectual conservatism. In the last few years the respected State University of New York (SUNY) Press has partnered with the Integral Institute both to distribute the Journal of Integral Theory and Practice (a peer-reviewed Wilberian journal) and to publish a new book series on Integral Theory, with four volumes published in 2010 and more planned or on the way37. The books are edited by Sean Esbjörn-Hargens, perhaps the foremost academic in the Wilberian tradition, and one of the main advocates of a more open approach and dialogue, leaving behind the self-limiting fan-critic dichotomy of the earlier Integral community."

Source

• Aurobindo, the Mother, and the Integral Movement.M Alan Kazlev. Published in: 'Collaboration'.

Ask full version from author [email protected]