Guest Blog: Integrative Spirituality: Grounded Contemporary Perspectives (by Bruce Alderman)
June 22, 2007 08:06

you may know bruce alderman as balder, the nomme de plume he goes by here on the multiplex. he has posted many a message here. i've hesitated including his kblog because what i sense are its best aspects i'm not even qualified to appraise. i can only comment on its more mundane aspects, and hope you'll forgive me for leaving out what, perhaps, has most meaning for you, all of which, of course, you're more than free to comment on.

i find it amusing that the event for which he prepared this blog was a symposium, with seven bloggers chosen to blog on the chosen topic one after another. does that remind you of a well known fact/fictional, i guess, event from the past? it does me. plato wrote about it and titled it, appropriately, symposium. the topic of that symposium was love. the contributors, with plato's help, conveniently arranged their contributions to build up, speech by speech, to the grand finale given, of course, by socrates. if only balder could have commanded a similar arrangement!

as it is, on the other hand, you don't need to read any of the other blogs to appreciate balder's--or to wear a toga and drink wine. like socrates, i do think he managed to move beyond more conventional meanings of the topic at hand. his introduction of IMP, in particular, got me to thinking. however, he specifically compared it to jain recognition of multiple perspectives. i doubt they could have achieved the insight inherent in IMP.

i remember a famous indian tale from my youth of the blind 'wise men' who came upon an elephant. they each proceeded to investigate what sort of being they had encountered, one checking out a tree-trunk like leg, one a sword-piercing tusk, one a rope-like tail, one a snake-like trunk, and so on as well as i can remember. they then began disputing what sort of thing it could possibly be. perhaps a truly wise man put it all together and arrived at an integrated perspective--i don't remember. but that would be a 3rd order perspective, wouldn't it?

KW, in coming up with the quadrants/quadrivia and, then, their refinement into octants/octavia needed, i would guess, something like a 6th order perspective. so yes! the jains were on the right track, but, without knowing much about them, i still suspect it's a long ways from them to aqal. they refused, afterall, to accept even the middle way. they've never struck me as being particularly open.

i'm wondering, in fact, if KW hasn't done for perspectives what structure/stages did for growth and development. they gave us new insight into the actual meaning of growth. similarly, the basic distinctions between interior and exterior perspectives, and between individual and collective perspectives, together giving us the quadrants, and the further distinction between inside and outside to arrive at the 8 zones, tell us something fundamental about the very nature and increasing sophistication of the perspectives we can take. the 3rd order perspectives taken by the 'wise men', for example, fall into the UR, something we are only capable of doing once we've achieved at least an orange altitude. we only need to get to red to be able to take a 1st order perspective, which we recognize as UL; and to amber to be able to take a 2nd order perspective, which, if reciprocated, lands us in LL. i don't think the jains had the turquoise altitude necessary to be able to see this, and, at any rate, they were adamantly opposed to the more integral spirituality of gautama buddha, or so i've been told. maybe i'm in need of further education about them.

---

Hi, Ralph, thanks for highlighting my kblog and opening it up for discussion.  I welcome any comments or criticisms.

I believe I acknowledged in the essay that the Jain doctrine of anekantavada would not be considered fully integral, from today's standards, but that I thought it represented an early step in that direction.  I do NOT consider it to be on par with AQAL, and recognize that its focus is still, in part, in metaphysics.  But I still think it represents a valuable development in human thought which deserves mention and recognition.

Here's a link to an article on the doctrine of anekantavada, if you're interested:

http://www.jainworld.com/jainbooks/firstep-2/anekantavad.htm

Best wishes,

B(ruce) Alder(man)

---

May the boundless knowledge that time presents and space allows illuminate the native perspectives of your original face.

Sorry, Ralph, I didn't qualify my statements about anekantavada in the essay that got published on the kblog.  I actually made those comments in my next blog entry, on Integral Deep Dialogue.  Here is what I said:

"As I mentioned in my essay for the Zaadz symposium, the pluralistic intuition which informs this movement has ancient roots.  A principle tenet of Jainism, for instance, is anekantavada, translated as non-one-perspectivism  or non-absolutism – a non-reductionistic, pluralistic perspective which was born out of the intense interreligious dialogue which was taking place at that time.  This perspective would not likely be considered “integral,” by our current understanding, but it is an important precursor which I believe should be honored as we approach the frontiers of a new way of being together."

Best wishes,

B.

---

May the boundless knowledge that time presents and space allows illuminate the native perspectives of your original face.

hey balder!

glad to see that you've made yourself available for this thread. unfortunately, as i'm sure you're well aware, you can't expect much response at this time. i anticipate this will change, but who knows when? hopefully, you'll still be available when it does. ;)

i followed your link to the article on anekantavada. it was a relief to see that my version of the elephant and the blind men was essentially correct, at least compared to the version there. i still feel that this is an argument for taking a 3rd perspective, even if it's being painted by the jainist author in what amounts to 5th perspective terms.

for example: "Anekantavada or the Doctrine of non-one-sidedness is negation of or is opposed to the above mentioned Ekant or one-sided approach-as the prefix "an" or "non" would suggest." to promote 'negation of' or opposition to another's view is much less than integral--definitely not inclusive, not even pluralistic.

he goes on to laud the superiority of jainism ove the rival philosophies of vedanta and buddhism, because it recognized their one-sidedness and went beyond both of them: "Buddhist philosophy on the contrary held that there is nothing permanent and the Reality or Satt is always changing being in a state of flux..." needless to say, this is, at best, a serious distortion of buddhist teachings. even pluralists can do better than that.

i'm no expert on this, but i believe he's got his history all wrong, and it was the buddha's middle way that avoided the extremes of the prevailing philosophies of the time, which very well could have been vedanta and jainism. if so, don't we need to regard whatever this jainist author has to say with the utmost caution?

i just received the summer issue of WIE. carter phipps, in a short piece towards the front, laments how widespread 'pluralitis' has become. ahmadinejad can wrap himself in pluralistic green and question whether there was a Holocaust, suggesting that we need to look more closely at the evidence, and green will applaud his open-mindedness!?

i don't know, balder. from where you're at, do you think you can possibly assess the full extent of the '415 paradigm'?

ralph

---

Hi, Ralph, I actually don't know why I can't expect much response at this time -- meaning, I'm not aware of any big events or problems that would prevent people in general from responding.  Unless you're referring to the relative inactivity of these forums?  Anyway, if no one responds, that's fine -- I'm happy simply that the folks at kw's blog were kind enough to put my piece up there.

I do have to point out that it appears, in your cursory skim of the article on Jainism I referred you to, that you fundamentally misread what the author was saying:  He was saying that the "non"/(an) in an-ekantavada was a negation, not of other people's views, but of taking a one-sided, one-perspectival approach.  The aim is an honoring, and practical integration, of multiple views, which is at least pluralistic and integrative -- though not Integral (by today's standards).

The elephant metaphor is a teaching example which uses third-person terms, but I don't think you can or should reason from this that the focus of Jainism's integrative efforts, particularly in modern iterations, is locked exclusively into that perspective. 

I am certainly not a scholar of Jain or even Buddhist history, but I do know that there was quite a dialogue that went on, with each influencing the other -- perhaps in ways that we will never be able to fully sort out.  But early Buddhism did emphasize impermanence and flux, and the formative Jain-Buddhist dialogues would have been around these issues (in part).

Anyway, I am not here to defend Jainism itself, or that article -- this is really a tangent, and has little bearing on the contents of my essay.  I obviously prefer Buddhist teachings to Jain ones, otherwise I would have chosen a different path of spiritual practice.  But I don't think such a strong dismissal of Jain's "non-one-sidedness" doctrine is called for, especially not one that is founded on such a misreading of the author's arguments about the etymology of the word I mentioned (in passing) in my essay.

Best wishes,

Balder

P.S. What do you mean by "where I'm at"?  The Bay Area?  Or my Kosmic address?  If the former, I can say that the 415 paradigm definitely has a foothold in this part of the world.

---

May the boundless knowledge that time presents and space allows illuminate the native perspectives of your original face.

hi balder,

i agree it's best we move on from what is only a side issue in your blog.  i know very little about jainism.  i checked joseph campbell's 'oriental mythology', where i likely got the little i know from, and i believe my interpretation of what he had to say is basically right, in particular, that 'the middle way' went beyond jainism.

it would also probably be more appropriate to take up the topic of 'the 415 paradigm' on the thread you started on the absolute and the relative, if and when i'm up to it.

best wishes,

ralph 

---

This issue is a tangent, I agree, but I still felt I needed to point out your misreading of the author's statement, and your misrepresentation of the meaning and import of anekantavada.

I do not know how the 415 paradigm is relevant to my "absolute and relative" thread, but if you think it is, please post your thoughts and why you think this is an important issue to consider in the context of that discussion.

---

May the boundless knowledge that time presents and space allows illuminate the native perspectives of your original face.

Here is a quote from a Jain text.  The bolded sentence shows why I think anekantavada should be regarded as an important precursor to integralism -- an historical example of the integral impulse, even though it is less complete than today's expression of it.

"Each living and non-living being or atom, and the infinite number of living beings is a cluster of infinite qualities and their modifications. So even if all these i.e. the whole truth were comprehended by the Omniscients, it was impossible to be expressed in words. And hence, the whole truth has to be seen at, and stated in infinite ways of expression. Let us therefore, look at this ocean of anekanta, i.e. the principle of innumerable points of view, with peace and solemnity and have respect of other's points of view, since they also hold and express partial truths."

The bolded phrase should have a familiar ring for students of Integral Theory.  The emphasis on points of view is also notable, since points of view are essentially perspectives.  I am NOT claiming that this Jain doctrine was "integral" by today's standards -- it's probably closer to pluralism, although it also does not share all of the insights that inform postmodernism.  But even pluralism is not "bad" or to be avoided.  It is an important and healthy development, which is essential as individuals grow towards integral cognition. 

There appears to be an almost irrational fear of "green" in some circles, and that is just not healthy or helpful in my view.  Not if you're interested in the health of the whole spiral.

Best wishes,

B.

P.S.  Just a few comments about the symposium itself, in response to your opening post.  The symposium wasn't my idea.  Julian Walker, a yoga teacher who has a strong presence on Zaadz and who has appeared on Integral Naked, came up with the idea.  To my knowledge, I was invited by him to participate because he thought I would provide a different view from his own, and he wanted there to be "space" for a number of different perspectives on the topic.  Some people criticized him for not inviting any women to contribute to the event, and he is responding to that by planning a new symposium (on kundalini, I think) that will feature a number of women writers.

---

May the boundless knowledge that time presents and space allows illuminate the native perspectives of your original face.

hi balder,

i'm sorry we've gotten off on this tangent. hopefully, someone else will step in at some point with a perspective that goes more to the heart of your blog.

i simply don't know enough at this point to respond to you much beyond what i've already said. my hunch is that jainism, having been around since well before buddhism, has evolved considerably over the years. not only that, present practitioners looking for a greater audience are aware, i'm sure, of the spiritually hungry postmodern culture that has been growing by leaps and bounds for some time now, and are attempting to craft a language that would appeal to them. i'm skeptical that their walk matches this new talk, especially since the author of this particular article on anekantavada clearly wants to one-up buddhism, allowing it only a partial truth, and reserving the higher, better truth for anekantavada.

this is something that, in general, i want to understand better, so i will be working on this and i will get back to you at future dates, as i learn more.

i guess this all part of Being,

ralph

---

Hi, Ralph,

This will be my last post on this tangent, too, unless you really want to go further with this.  But I want to observe a few things:  you yourself are dismissing the perspective of Jainism with admittedly very little knowledge of it (only having read Campbell's description of it), and are apparently judging the tenor of the whole religion by one article.  (The article I referred you to is one I found for you after a couple-minute search on the Internet.  My own knowledge of anekantavada comes from books in my library.)  This strikes me as just about as closed and "pre-judging" as you think Jainism itself is.  Further, while I agree with you that the one-upmanship exhibited in that article is not always appropriate, there is actually a long history of it in many religious traditions, including in Buddhism.  The Buddha, and early Buddhist teachers, used to say to Jain monks and nuns:  what we're doing and teaching is really not very different from what you're doing, it's just better.  Even Ken, when discussing integral models, points out that he believes his own version is better than anything else out there.

Lastly, the concept of anekantavada has its own historical value, in my opinion, whether or not Jainism as a whole is "as good as" Buddhism or whatever.  I honestly do not understand why you are trying to shoot it down or dismiss it.

Best wishes,

Balder

---

May the boundless knowledge that time presents and space allows illuminate the native perspectives of your original face.