First there is, then there isn't, then there is

For me writing has always been a sort of jnana yoga, a yoga of insight. As I write, new insights come to me, old insights are discarded or put aside, sometimes permanently, sometimes just for a while. My perspective changes in a sort of kaleidoscopic manner, especially if the subject matter is subtle

Thus in my current book in progress, with the working title The Integral Paradigm, I am wrestling with the question of whether there really even is an integral paradigm and an integral movement (as opposed to say, simply a Wilberian etc), or whether it isn't just an artifact due to the fact that the same word was used in a (perhaps only superficially) similar manner by different spiritual and big picture philosophers.

So originally I thought there was an Integral movement, and there is a sort of generic Integral paradigm (although very poorly defined). This was my view when I submitted the two essays to Frank's Integral World website.

Then, as explained in my last blog post, I started to have doubts, and came to the conclusion that no there isn't and Integral movement or Integral paradigm.

Then I happened to chance upon Joe Perez's thoughtful and passionate essay "Two kinds of criticisms of integral theory: internal and external”, and, while I aren't quite so sanguine about the degree of essential unity among representatives of the Integral movement/paradigm/theory, (that they would agree on about 80% of things and only disagree on about 20%), reading what he said did make think that maybe there is an Integral movement/paradigm/etc after all.

I think where I went wrong before was to try to look for things that everyone had in common. It just didn't work. Now I'm considering instead recurring themes. Even though there is no teaching that includes all the themes, there are still many common themes - e.g. Unity, Holism, Evolution, Divinisation, etc. So I decided to write the book based on these themes. Of course I still consider that Sri Aurobindo and The Mother have the highest perspective, since only they refer to the Divinisation of the world, rather than just seeing the world from enlightenment eyes (although that too, and that's the starting point).

Having had my ideas on this matter go back and forth like this reminds me a bit of that Zen saying

First there is a mountain.
Then there isn't.
Then there is.

For those interested in minutiae of references, the saying goes back to an eighth-century Ch'an (or Zen to give the later, Japanese, name) master of the T'ang Dynasty named Ch’ing Yuan (or Quingyuan, depending on what transliteration spelling you use), who said

"Thirty years ago, before I practiced, I saw mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers. After having arrived at more intimate knowledge, I saw that mountains are not mountains and rivers are not rivers. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it’s just that I see mountains once again as mountains and rivers as rivers."

(The above combines two translations, here (moving acount of 9/11 from a Buddhist perspective) and here (philosophy and counselling). Thanks to Google for finding the quotes for me!)

Unlike Ch’ing Yuan I cannot say I have arrived at the final understanding. But through practice of sadhana one's understanding does grow. The same with everything.