Currently, the word Integral, and the Integral Movement, is defined almost totally within a Wilberian context. The problem is that this means either intellectual and organisational conservatism, with "Integral" becoming a sort of New Paradigm religion, lacking in spiritual insight (gnosis), or a generic association of Wilberian or Post-Wilberian themes. However, the original definition of the word was not by Ken Wilber, but by Sri Aurobindo.
In this essay, I suggest a solution; definition of Integral that includes all current definitions. This posits five dimensions: Religious, Theoretical, Practical, Enlightened, and Divinised. In as much as the Practical is itself divided into three - Collective, Participatory, and Individual - this makes seven or eight aspects altogether. It is suggested that only by taking all these aspects into account can we have a complete definition of Integral.
READ THE FULL ESSAY: HERE