How Well Do the Various Religions Teach Spiritual Skills?

[SomeRandom]

Wouldn't this depend on the person just as much as the religious teachings?

I remember during High School we'd all do these little tests to see just what teaching style worked best for you as an individual. Things like Kinectic learning, use of metaphors and demonstrations and theory. It was like a survey to pick the ones that applied to the most people and allowed teachers to figure out what works and what didn't.
Now all teachers have their own specific style of teaching. Some are more interactive, some are more demonstrative, some are more reliant on building a rapport and being relatable and others still focus on ways to get across information in an engaging way.
I recall having competent and passionate teachers all the way through School (except for some subs who were awful.) Even still some teaching methods clicked with me a lot better than others. Even though I didn't have any real bad teachers. It just so happened that I learnt more with certain teaching styles as opposed to others.

 

[arthra]

Every child is potentially the light of the world -- and at the same time its darkness; wherefore must the question of education be accounted as of primary importance. From his infancy, the child must be nursed at the breast of God's love, and nurtured in the embrace of His knowledge, that he may radiate light, grow in spirituality, be filled with wisdom and learning, and take on the characteristics of the angelic host.

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 130

Baha'is place a strong emphasis on education and seek to reflect Divine attributes in this life..

Along with meditation..

When thou wilt purify and clarify thy spiritual nostrils from every worldly moisture, then thou wilt inhale the holy fragrances diffusing from the merciful gardens of these worlds.

~ Abdu'l-Baha

and service to humanity:

When you love a member of your family or a compatriot, let it be with a ray of the Infinite Love! Let it be in God, and for God! Wherever you find the attributes of God love that person, whether he be of your family or of another. Shed the light of a boundless love on every human being whom you meet, whether of your country, your race, your political party, or of any other nation, colour or shade of political opinion. Heaven will support you while you work in this in-gathering of the scattered peoples of the world beneath the shadow of the almighty tent of unity. You will be servants of God, who are dwelling near to Him, His divine helpers in the service, ministering to all Humanity. All Humanity! Every human being! Never forget this!

(Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 38)

 

[minorwork]

Is dissolution of the psychological self the only thing a religion can teach about how to deal with one? Aren't there many other spiritual skills a religion might teach?

The dissolution of self is the goal? Not by my understanding is that a goal worthy of pursuit. Mine was to empower self to be able to discern and resist the instinctual appetites and perversions of mind that in a land of plenty and a full spread of influence that social media allows exposes self, emotions, and body to challenges and damage. Lust, greed, anger, attachment and vanity mastered; the crown of my servitude to the perversions wrenched from them but worked with to avoid loss of the self.

 

[Blastcat]

If you think of a person's spirituality as the manner and degree to which they cope, deal with, or perhaps transcend their psychological self

Could you explain that?

What does it mean to TRANSCEND one's self?
What do you mean by "psychological" verses any other kind of "self"?

 

[savagewind]

I can comment only on Christianity and Jehovah's Witnesses. I think that I had not been taught any spiritual skills under either so I might conclude that the Christian religions are not for teaching spiritual skills. I think life is for teaching them.

 

[Windwalker]

If you think of a person's spirituality as the manner and degree to which they cope, deal with, or perhaps transcend their psychological self*, then one of the first things you might notice is that such a view implies everyone has a spirituality of one sort or another. There is no such thing as a non-spiritual person, in that view. Instead, there are just people with varying ways and degrees to which they deal, etc with their psychological selves.

I'm processing this perspective here. I don't disagree that spiritual development does in fact touch on what you are saying here inasmuch as one of the key factors of it is becoming "the Witness", where you are able to see your small "self", the psychological self as an object, rather than being stuck within it as the subject itself. Robert Kegan has a saying that captures this regarding developmental stages of growth that, "The subject of one level becomes the object of the subject of the next level or stage." The more we can "see" ourselves from outside of being that subject itself, the better we are able to handle that psychological self, recognizing it as more a feature of who we are rather than being the very definition of who we are, which is where most people as you say live.

I think there is more to spirituality than this however as such a state has the effect of actually transforming the psychological self. And also what is described here as "transcending the psychological self" can be done through normal development, or things like psychotherapy where you turn the subject self into an object self. Meditation is quite potent in this regards. The effect of this "transcendence" can in fact be experienced and described as a spiritual experience because of the liberation or freedom from the shackles of what held us captive. I would suggest spirituality more pointedly is that sense of Freedom one experiences from the lower self. And that spirituality itself develops in stages as well, as a separate line of development.

So in essence, this does agree with what you're saying here. Now to your actual question...

The question might then be put, "How effective are the various major and minor religions at teaching people to deal well with their psychological selves?"

This is a question I think about a great deal, hence why I'm spending some time in response. I am very much a believer, as it appears you are as well, that one's spirituality and one's psychological self are integrally tied together. I'm fond of the term psychospiritual to describe that relationship. When it comes to religions I think those who delve into the psychological fare much more strongly in that regard than those who deal more with simply the structures of the religion, its lineages, its teachings, etc. There has to be some actual practices than engage the person on that level, such as meditation or any of the basic "yogas". One can have a wonderful philosophy, but if there is no yoga, it doesn't really go anywhere. So a practice is key to this.

In the West such practices, such as Contemplative practices within the Christian church, fell to the wayside largely and replaced by a stronger emphasis on doctrinal issues, that being 'right' scripturally is of paramount importance. This has the effect of taking one out of the interior spaces of one's psychospiritual development into a much more cognitive space in which truth and reality is external to oneself. I think that has a lot to do with the rise of modernity itself with its emphasis on seeking out knowledge of the world through the sciences and analytical means.

As a result of this void of interior awarenes left in the wake of such a shift, the Eastern religions hold a great deal of appeal to those looking for that inner truth and reality which is 'felt' or sensed within them. I agree with you that all have this within them. But the tools aren't taught very well, if at all in the West. I think it's more than just a religion issue, but a cultural problem, a pathological underside of modernity itself.

The Eastern religions have much more as a part of the body of their teachings these psychospiritual tools, or technologies you can call them. And while they are there also within Christianity, you have to somewhat seek them out and in the worst cases rescue them from the religion itself. It's not something which is readily available for those who are on that path of psychospiritual development can fall into easily. It's more like you say, it's a matter of the student learning in spite of them having crappy teachers.

I wouldn't say these types of students, of which I include myself, are necessarily "gifted" in this regard. I think the impetus for them essentially teaching themselves comes as a result of some major life trauma or crisis which more or less breaks the door down for them and lets that Light shine through in such a way there is no other option available to them but to find it out for themselves at all cost.

I can talk of my own history here seeking out guidance into that spiritual space from those in the Christian religion who were clearly out of their depth and couldn't relate to the reality of which I was speaking of. Whereas in Eastern religions they would get it right away. That actually caused a great deal of delay in my own development as I looked for teachers who could teach but found none. If I were so "gifted", it wouldn't have taken me a few decades of figuring it out myself to come to where I am today.

The missing key for me the whole time was simply primarily one thing: Meditation. The other part of that too was more modern structures with which to hold and processes these things, understanding them in developmental spaces, rather than hanging them on the predominantly mythic-literal structures of Christianity. While Buddhism and Hinduism certainly have mythic structures, they do have and freely teach and emphasize the interior space development as well.

But for me as a very postmodernist and integral thinking person, the dominance of mythic structures don't work as well in supporting the spiritual awakening side of me with my cognitive structures. I need to hold these things in more rational and transrational structures, rather than predominantly mythic structures. Not that those are bad, but it doesn't fit within the modes of my thought structures. I don't think predominately within those frameworks, in other words. I need to translate things a little differently.

I'm afraid I may have strayed too deep into details here and missed your point, but as I said your question is a very good question, and like other questions you've asked recently touch on some very deep and complex areas.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Please bear with me, the question I would like to ask might need a little explanation....

Some years ago, I came across an interesting statistic. It appears that about 15% of high school students are "natural learners". These students will do well even in poor schools. That is, schools in which the teachers are largely incompetent or ineffective. By coincidence, another 15% percent of students appear to be largely incapable of much learning, and will do poorly even in schools in which the teachers are quite competent and usually effective. The remaining 70% of high school students constitute a group of people who will not learn much on their own, but who will learn well if taught by competent teachers.

Now having said that, let's quickly jump to another subject: If you think of a person's spirituality as the manner and degree to which they cope, deal with, or perhaps transcend their psychological self*, then one of the first things you might notice is that such a view implies everyone has a spirituality of one sort or another. There is no such thing as a non-spiritual person, in that view. Instead, there are just people with varying ways and degrees to which they deal, etc with their psychological selves.

What you might also notice is that some people seem to be rather naturally gifted at dealing with their psychologically selves. They are perhaps analogous to our "natural learners". Carrying the analogy even further, let's suppose the folks among us who are naturally adept at dealing with their psychological selves make up about 15% of the population, and that the remaining population is divided between people (70%) who can learn to deal well with their psychological selves if given competent instruction, and people (15%) who are like me, more or less hopeless when it comes to dealing well with their psychological selves.

The question might then be put, "How effective are the various major and minor religions at teaching people to deal well with their psychological selves?"

I myself believe there are most likely significant differences between the world's religions when it comes to such things.

Of course, that's speculation on my part. It would seem obvious that there are far too many factors involved for one to give a firm and reliable answer to the question. But perhaps one can make an at least somewhat informed guess. If so, then these are my guesses:

The Great Eastern traditions -- Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism -- seem to me to probably be somewhat more effective teachers than the Great Western traditions -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. That doesn't mean I think the latter are grossly ineffective, but only that they might be relatively ineffective in comparison to the Great Eastern religions.



*The psychological self --- also known as the "ego", the "I", "normal waking consciousness", or just plain, "the self". I use the qualifier "psychological" to distinguish it from the physical self, or body. The psychological self plays a huge role in human behavior, of course, and that role is often enough problematic. For instance, it seems common enough for people to defend their psychological selves just as -- or even more so -- they would defend their body. Hence if I see myself as a stupid person, and you come along to contradict that, I might end up arguing with you in order to defend my view of myself as a stupid person -- or even perhaps get upset, angry, or possibly violent in opposing your attempt to change my view of myself. That is, my psychological self. Spirituality, as I define it, is the manner and degree to which someone copes with or perhaps even transcends their psychological self.

Hi Windwalker. How are you?

The Baha'i World Community has been running spiritual education courses universally across over 300 countries.

People who are not Baha'is are welcome to join in as it is a spiritual growth course.

We are taught prayer, meditation, how to educate children and junior youth and service to humanity as well as important aspects of becoming our true selves and how to handle relationships with other people.

I have completed 9 Books over Skype already and am a tutor and can arrange courses over Skype. These courses are all free.

I have found these courses most beneficial for my personal spiritual growth as well as in my family life.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think the effectiveness will depend a lot on localized factors - mainly, how skilled and dedicated the closest religious teachers are and how much encouragement and support one has from family and close friends.

The nominal religion as such is a significant, but perhaps not decisive factor. At least for the healthier religions. I can readily think of several that are actually serious obstacles because their doctrines are IMO so misguided.

 

[David T]

I have a degree in theology specifically Christian education and I give it an F.

Generally I like your questions Sunstone, but this question is like asking "Is religion doing a good job teaching rythmm with a metronome?". It's loaded with how it asks the question with the symtoms that I give Christianity an F.

Leonard Cohen whom just pAssed away wrote a fantastic song called hallelujah in context to this question. He addresses the highly problematic issues that are created in religion in that song directly. Those problems manifest into sites such as this in debate and become rather self contained and circular. We can "beleive" we read ancient texts and understand them, but without the underlaying melody they are impossible to understAnd and the Christian text as it was written is self aware of this phenomena directly. The reader generally is not aware of this. If I say Mary Magdalene was the founder of Christianity there is a whole bunch of befuddlement by that statement yet there it is in the text. Does Christian education get to the kairos, the melody level? Absolutely not, it's academic and for accedemics all truth starts in the cranium, or metronome, or chronos which All are the same self deluding thing.

 

[Robert Landbeck]

The presumption that human nature is intrinsically 'spiritual' is looking a pot like the 'emperors new clothes' and as preposterous as being 'created in the image and likeness of God! That is not to say our species might not have any spiritual potential. The question is has that potential and the hope it inspires in many, been lost to the theological illusions and self deception of men?

We are at this time in history, with a possible sixth mass extinction already accelerating and the growing and threatening environmental degradation by our own hand, being forced to confront the dismal failure of our stewardship of our natural inheritance. That failure is fueled by a predominant materialism within human nature itself. How then can such a destructive species call itself either spiritual of moral? Thus one must conclude that whatever 'spirituality' is being taught by any tradition, because it is of no practical avail in mitigating our excessive materialism or confronting that greatest threats to both ourselves and the planet, which is US, any spirituality must an illusion of incomplete aspirations and hope being exploited by false religious claims.

 

[miodrag]

The Great Eastern traditions -- Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism -- seem to me to probably be somewhat more effective teachers than the Great Western traditions -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

I agree.

I guess I am supposed to elaborate...

I am not even sure about the concept of salvation in Judaism and Islam and how well is it developed. Believers are expected to be righteous or obedient and God will be very pleased. Christianity has a clear idea of becoming Christ-like, which implies a personal effort and development, but there is also a great deal of formalism. Like, just go to church, follow the rules and you will be fine; self realization is optional for those who are eager to taste more, i.e. monks. So the very basis of religion, like dogma or theology dictate how majority will be set.

Christianity insists that salvation comes only through Jesus. The Council of Trent, The Sixth Session, Decree On Justification, Chapter I has this words: "...but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated..." which are significant for stressing that there is no salvation other than through Christ. Unfortunately, this also means that most people will find no motivation to engage in transcending their selves, since that is not necessary, and achieving the ultimate goal alone is hopeless. So, why bother, "you should just surrender to Christ, He did all the work".

Hinduism has a concept of reincarnation, which says that good deeds and being pious will result in good karma, bad deeds give bad karma, and both are a curse, since even good karma is suffering - you will have to be born again and to *suffer* your good karma, which delays one's salvation. This idea is a simple deal, if you want to enjoy the material world, go ahead, if you want salvation, you must become Christ-like. Personal transformation is essential in Eastern religions. The gray mass of majority is more engaged in Easter religions and that is why even today a presence of spirituality is vibrant and felt on every step in India. This advantage is reflected in Hindu spirituality, which is rather practical regarding personal transformation. Hinduism recognizes differences and addresses different men accordingly, like: there are 18 major puranas, 6 for each group of men predominantly situated in 3 gunas: tamas, rajas and sattva.

There is a Hindu saying:

durjanah sajjano bhūyāt
sajjanah śāntimāpnuyāt
śānto mucyeta bandhebhyo
muktaścānyān vimocayet

Let the evil become good.
Let the good attain peace.
Let the peaceful attain liberation.
Let the liberated help others to become liberated.

Salvation is a converging point and everybody or even everything is invited to salvation. And everybody should be engaged in self realization, according to their specific capabilities. There is formalism in the East, of course, but there is also yoga - a practical and regular discipline.

I remember that Kriya-yoga was advertised by Yogananda as a fast spiritual evolution, like: a lot of work can be done within a reasonable time. Bhaki-yoga was recommended by Prabhupada as a best spiritual practice for this specific moment. The idea is that time, place and circumstances are considered in Hinduism to yield the most spiritual benefit for most people, and this benefit should be tangible, obvious, is a personal experience and is nothing but transcending materialistic self and uncovering a true spiritual identity. Other than that, being pious is just another good karma.

I hope this answer helps, as is, since I have no time for improving it.

 

[dianaiad]

... If you think of a person's spirituality as the manner and degree to which they cope, deal with, or perhaps transcend their psychological self*, then one of the first things you might notice is that such a view implies everyone has a spirituality of one sort or another. There is no such thing as a non-spiritual person, in that view. Instead, there are just people with varying ways and degrees to which they deal, etc with their psychological selves.......


*The psychological self --- also known as the "ego", the "I", "normal waking consciousness", or just plain, "the self". I use the qualifier "psychological" to distinguish it from the physical self, or body. The psychological self plays a huge role in human behavior, of course, and that role is often enough problematic. For instance, it seems common enough for people to defend their psychological selves just as -- or even more so -- they would defend their body. Hence if I see myself as a stupid person, and you come along to contradict that, I might end up arguing with you in order to defend my view of myself as a stupid person -- or even perhaps get upset, angry, or possibly violent in opposing your attempt to change my view of myself. That is, my psychological self. Spirituality, as I define it, is the manner and degree to which someone copes with or perhaps even transcends their psychological self.

I don't understand the question.

Later in the thread you say that you don't care how religions define spirituality. Frankly, it sounds very much like the guy who demands to know how well archeologists teach carbon dating...and he has defined 'carbon dating" as a dinner resulting in the presentation of a diamond.

Your definition of 'spirituality,' in other words, doesn't match with any definition I have ever seen...why would anybody teach it OR judge a religion on the merits of its success in so doing?

After going over your definition, the closest thing I can come up with is, perhaps, 'other centered,' in which the person concerned is more attune to the world and the needs of those around him than he is with his own selfish concerns. In THAT sense, I think that most religions at least take a good strong stab at it.

If, however, you are referring only to a healthy mental state in which the person is happy with himself, well...that's a good thing to be and to teach. Religions, as a general rule, aim at that goal by telling the person to 'get over himself' and think of others for awhile. Doing that generally settles someone down more than constant obsession with the 'psychological self."

Well, suffice it to say that I don't think I understand the question.

 

[Vinayaka]

Good question.

Humility is certainly a quality trait worth cultivating in the Hindu tradition. For serious sadhaks, it will go so far as never discussing one's birth date, personal qualities, etc. In a monastery I'm familiar with, the monks are simply one of many in the group. Lay members speak to them by title, not by personal names. So its cultivated. Sublimation of ego is cultivated for the betterment of the group.

Even in more outer endeavours such as temple building, it is common to hear expressions such as, 'Leave your ego at the door'. One of the mental thoughts while prostrating full out during worship is to feel the ego release to the God, who can handle it.

But yes, your observations about the way it is viewed differently by different folk seem insightful. That must contribute to the idea of how one person simply cannot see the matter from another paradigm.