hiddenpuma75 said:It could be anything, but it definitely has to be this way. It just can't be 🙂 .
Have you all noticed one incredibly telling inconsistency within American Christianity?
Virtually every Christian church and denomination is in total agreement when it comes to criticizing "gurus"—and let’s be honest, the word "guru" literally translates to "teacher," which often carries a negative connotation of spreading darkness.
The real issue is that mainstream American Christianity doesn't practice or even value the teacher-student relationship, which is actually vital for an individual's spiritual growth.
Instead, everything seems to revolve around mass appeal. Most Christian rites—like baptism, communion, or confirmation—feel more like cookie-cutter, mechanical rituals rather than reflections of actual spiritual progress.
**** So, here is my point:
Notice how modern Christianity has essentially alienated itself from the student-teacher dynamic, or what we might call intimate spiritual mentorship.
And yet, if you look at the very origins of the faith, that was exactly the model: Jesus and his twelve disciples. That was the quintessential example.
Between John, the guy with the herpes, Karen Sanchez19, dragonfly, Enchantress, and even the migraine sufferer... 😁 I’d say even hiddenpuma75 is part of a pretty decent Zen crew.
But if you’re actually looking for TOP-TIER Zen,
shut down your computer, 😉 go grab some fresh air,
Wonder Woman said:Back to the point: A lot of people feel like all that grinding and sweating is just a waste of time, but hiddenpuma75 actually feels differently. So, let's let hiddenpuma75 walk us through their logic. 😉
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Evans29 says: Or, to put it another way, you simply can't master your craft if you aren't willing to put in the work!! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALSO SPEAKING FOR PARSIFALTUSTRA
If we try to achieve THAT specific thing solely through sheer labor, we’re going to fail!
BUT IF WE DON'T EVEN TRY, WE WILL NEVER achieve anything at all!
Some people seem to think Zen is just some casual party where you blurt out the first thing that pops into your head. 😁
🙂
I was just sitting here thinking back to what my old mentor used to tell me:
"Zen isn't a walk in the park; it’s more like climbing Mount Everest. It demands genuine grit and a real fight. In the end, you'll realize that the mountain—much like your chess set—is simply another reflection of who you are." 😉 ''
Regarding this whole discussion about OPENNESS that we've been invited to dive into, I feel compelled to share a little observation from my own perspective...
When it comes to matters of the heart, the man usually makes the initial move,
It’s quite interesting; a user going by the handle hiddenpuma75 actually brought up a very similar topic over in the strictly academic NATURAL SCIENCES forum that Anthony Rodriguez58 originally started:
That thread barely survived because of all the compromises required. You see, much like a religious mind, a dogmatic scientific one can't really stand it when someone threatens the rigid little box of concepts and worldviews they've tucked themselves—and everything else—into. 😉
******* hiddenpuma75 says (as an intro for a science moderator)
Just as a religious person might struggle with discussions about sex—needing constant reassurance that physical intimacy is perfectly natural and not something God is going to strike them down for🙂—similarly, we have to explain to a certain type of "software," namely the scientist, that science isn't just made of calculus, differential equations, and Laplace transforms. It also requires investigating consciousness as the very foundation of everything.
(In other words, we need a new paradigm where consciousness, rather than matter, is the fundamental building block!!)
For science to truly break past its own limits, it needs to become interdisciplinary.
That means starting to consider hypotheses that might initially seem heretical to the standard scientific mind...
So, can we discuss my opening topic from a scientific-technological perspective? Specifically, is it possible that we are living in some kind of hologram—a Matrix, if you will...
...living inside a supercomputer that generates the reality we perceive?
Essentially, we are SimS.😲
And here is the proof for my hypothesis:
I’ve concluded that the single most undeniable scientific and psychological fact shared by everyone on Earth—something no atheist, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, or even a hard-boiled Materialist scientist could deny—is this:
We are conscious beings. Because, let's be honest, denying consciousness is a process that happens within consciousness itself.😉
Therefore, we cannot deny or eliminate our own consciousness.
And yet, we have no idea who "switches us on" every single morning.
Who, or what, is the source of our being—our consciousness?
And where were we before our grandparents were even born?
*******
(Now, that was the intro intended to charm a scientific moderator and attempt to prove that this topic can actually be debated through a scientific-technological lens.)
******** But, if I weren't addressing scientists and instead spoke to regular, open-minded people—those who haven't been infected by the usual scientific narrow-mindedness or the fear of looking ignorant by entertaining anything they didn't learn in college—it would look more like this:🙂
******
I’m actually quite pleased with how such an elegant idea, woven with deep implications, managed to flow through my little brain "😵 (my internal software) .
God is a hacker, the universe is her computer, and we are SimS.
Don't you agree that it’s truly strange that we don't know who wakes us up in the morning, or rather, who activates our consciousness?
That we don't know where we were before our grandparents were even born?😕
Ultimately, there is no meaningful difference between us and a SimS.
We live in a hologram—in the Matrix.😲 🙂
Please,
let me know your thoughts, criticisms, comments, or questions...
So, the author is actually claiming that anyone hitting two or more stars on this scale is enlightened? Give me a break! The letters following a name actually indicate the primary focus of their teachings: D stands for Devotion, M represents Meditation, and A signifies Advaita.
Five stars—and honestly, there isn’t a single soul in sight!!!
4.5 stars: 👍 Osho and Ramana Maharshi
4 stars, 3-6 seats:
Babaji (M) Bodhidharma (M) Nisargadatta Maharaj (A) H. W. L. Poonja (A), also known as Babaji.
3.5 stars: sitting comfortably in the 7th to 9th place range.
Ramesh Balsekar (A) George Gurdjieff (M) Jiddu Krishnamurti (A)
"A three-star spiritual hotel": landing somewhere between 10th and 21st place.
Adyashanti Ammachi (D), also known as Mata Amritanandamayi Devi. Gangaji (A) E. J. Gold (M) Jean Klein (A) Neem Karoli Baba (D) Shri Ranjit Maharaj (A) Sri Ramakrishna (D) Richard Rose (M) Seung Sahn (M) ShantiMayi (M) Eckhart Tolle
It's just it.
Out of a list of roughly 500 names, I’m narrowing things down to the teachers and authors who have actually made an impact here in the States—specifically those who are widely recognized, have published works, or run organizations that are well-established across America.
The Dalai Lama, Paramahansa Yogananda, and Meher Baba all ended up with a measly 2.5 stars.
Thich Nhat Hanh (M) ★★
I’d give Deepak Chopra maybe a 1.5-star rating at best. Honestly, the same goes for Helen Schucman—you know, the woman behind that famous Course—and even Rudolf Steiner, who basically fathered modern theosophy.
If we’re talking ratings, I’d give Aleister Crowley one star. Same goes for Maharishi Mahesh Yogi—you know, the TM meditation guy who was buddies with the Beatles—and Neale Donald Walsch, the author of that massive bestseller *Conversations with God*. One star across the board for them.
Sathya Sai Baba? That’s a half-star from me—and honestly, I’m betting this is where most of the arguments are going to break out. As for Sri Chinmoy—you know, the guy who runs marathons, lifts weights, writes poetry, and basically does everything under the sun—he gets a half-star too.
And he even got a little star for his efforts—our very own Franjo Milicevic, also known as Aba Aziz Makaja! He’s basically the legendary father figure of that whole Christian consciousness movement (you know the ones, always chanting Hare Rama, Hare Krishna—).
A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada—or maybe even just a little more than half a star for him.
What are your thoughts on this controversial topic? I'd love to hear your take. By the way...
The author was actually honest enough—and funny enough—to grade himself. He basically gave himself a two-star review. Here comes his next self-deprecating thought...
Swami deva Sarlo Osho Disciple Sarlo An Osho Disciple. They’ve basically built a career out of playing judge and jury for everyone else. It’s all this performative humility, forced detachment, and scripted humor, but honestly? It’s just a massive ego wrapped in fancy packaging. Combine that "Middle Path" philosophy with their obsession with tearing down belief systems, and you just end up with someone incredibly mediocre. They aren't teaching; they're just mastermind mindfuck artists. 😁
So, here’s basically the kind of scale the author (or authors) went with.
The ratings are:
I’d give this an unqualified, five-star recommendation. It’s truly universal—there is something here for everyone.
4.5 out of 5—that’s a solid score for most people, though I still have a few lingering doubts.
4 represents a truly great master—someone who typically possesses incredible flexibility, even if their overall capacity remains somewhat limited.
A 3.5 out of 5? It’s still top-tier stuff, honestly. It just means you're dealing with a bit less wiggle room or perhaps hitting a ceiling on total capacity.
3 = Zero fluff, but definitely lacking in range and capacity.
2.5 feels like being stuck in neutral—it’s limited, full of certain handicaps, or perhaps we just haven't reached our full height quite yet.
The number 2 represents a perspective that is quite restricted—either an ideology that’s far too narrow, or a way of thinking that is still very much in its early stages of development.
I’d give it a 1.5—definitely a bit suspicious, but looking at the big picture, I'm leaning toward being positive.
1 = suspect
0.5? Honestly, that feels a bit bogus to me. I mean, maybe there's a shred of value buried in there somewhere—who knows? But I'm skeptical.
Zero? Honestly, that’s even worse than being fake. There isn't a single redeeming quality to it. The "Unrated" tag basically means someone is either too new to the scene, a veteran who’s mostly winding down, or just doesn't have enough data on them yet. It also tends to catch those "teacher" types who don't quite fit the standard mold.
First of all, I need to clarify: what exactly am I evaluating here? I’m not rating the specific "depth" or caliber of someone's realization. At the end of the day, being one with the universe is being one with the universe. If you want to argue about different levels or tiers of enlightenment, you won't find much ground to stand on with me. While whether or not a teacher is actually enlightened is certainly interesting, *how* enlightened they are isn't really my metric. My primary focus is on utility—specifically, how helpful a teacher might be to the hypothetical "average seeker." To me, that boils down to a few practical things: How accessible is the master? Are they flexible enough to work with different methods or approaches? And can they actually handle large groups of people? In the case of teachers who have already passed away, we can look at how accessible they remain through their enlightened disciples. I’ve put together some general criteria for this evaluation, though I want to be clear: these aren't absolute rules. Think of them more like red flags—warning signs that might suggest something is off. For example, setting aside any moral arguments, you can clearly see how much room there is for an abuse of power in a sexual relationship between a teacher and a student. Plus, if someone is preaching strict sexual morality while acting otherwise, the hypocrisy is going to be overwhelming. In my book, the red flags—listed here in no particular order—are massive wealth, sexual exploitation, hypocrisy, forced morality, a lack of true freedom, the master's passing, excessive hype, fanaticism, over-the-top devotion, delusions of grandeur, rigid tradition, and total isolation from the outside world. Just because these flags aren't waving doesn't necessarily mean you've found something extraordinary; it might just mean the situation is safe.
Regarding this entire discussion—which was actually originally kicked off by baphomet ages ago—I remember starting a separate thread on the religion board back in the day with a title very similar to this one.
Do you actually know how to recognize true excellence? Or, more importantly, who could possibly be considered the greatest spiritual teacher of all time?
I’ve already gone into quite a bit of detail on this topic, so I think it’s worth repeating my long-winded introduction here. Looking back, I made a bit of a tactical error by kicking things off with religion rather than spirituality. In my experience, people who identify strictly as "religious" or "believers" don't always dive deep into the research, and they tend to overlook the whole issue of following a guru or a charismatic teacher.
So, Kopi—I’m actually going to go back and dig up that old intro I wrote on this forum ages ago, back when I was young, handsome, and incredibly naive. 😬
******* I’ve been hanging around this corner of the internet for three years now, and looking back, I realized we haven't actually tackled this specific topic head-on. We might have touched on it indirectly—since almost everything we discuss eventually circles back to the quality of a certain teaching style, the merits of a particular mentor, or the depth of a book or an individual's perspective—but we've never really sat down to address this directly. To get the ball rolling and give you all a little something to react to, I’ve decided to paste an email I sent to a buddy of mine. We were actually diving into this exact same topic when we were catching up, so hopefully, it serves as a good jumping-off point for our discussion.
********* I’m not entirely sure what you're getting at with that, but if you're looking for a deep dive or some specific insight, feel free to clarify! I'm all ears. 😁 (That’s what I call him) — you wrote:
cosmicharbor wrote: "And this whole business regarding spirituality ratings is—as I’ve mentioned to you before—completely off base in my eyes."
So, hiddenpuma75 responded like this:
*
It feels incredibly dogmatic to me when people insist that "invisible phenomena"—things like the soul of a poem, the sheer psychological weight behind a chess move, or one’s level of spiritual growth—simply can't be rated. To claim that trying to quantify those things is a total waste of time? I just can't get on board with that mindset.
I think I see exactly where you're coming from with that, and honestly, in one sense, your point serves as a pretty vital warning. It’s dangerous to try and quantify quality using nothing but raw numbers—especially when you're dealing with something that truly transcends mere measurement. Honestly, I think it’s a bit dogmatic to suggest we can actually rank or quantify something as subtle as spirituality or poetry. You just can't put a number on things that exist in such a nuanced, personal space.
I’m going to try my hand at proving that a spiritual guide can actually serve as a sort of compass through poetry—essentially, providing a map so those who follow won't find themselves wandering aimlessly in the dark.
I’m going to start things off like this:
What exactly are you trying to achieve by ranking something that’s already been missed the mark? When you claim that the poetry of someone like Billy Joel or Bruce Springsteen holds more weight than the works of those modern-day hack writers pumping out mediocre filler for today's tabloids, it feels a bit redundant. It's like trying to grade a ghost.
What exactly are you doing when you claim that Mozart and the Beatles belong in a top ten list of musical quality, only to then turn around and say some obscure regional folk song is just "overrated"? It feels like you're just ranking things for the sake of ranking them.
What else would you expect? It’s probably just going to be a playlist full of old-school country hits, some heavy rock anthems, and maybe a little bit of classic pop.
It’s a tough one to swallow, but I have to admit—that bestseller about penetrating deeper into broader markets? It really hits home.
-The Zen of Motorcycle Maintenance There’s a certain kind of meditation that happens when you’re hunched over a garage workbench, surrounded by the scent of degreaser and old oil. People often view motorcycle maintenance as a chore—something to endure before you can get back out on the open road—but I’ve come to see it as something much deeper. It’s a practice. When you’re stripping down a bike, there is no room for a cluttered mind. If your thoughts are racing about work stress or tomorrow's errands, you’re going to strip a bolt or miss a crucial washer. To do it right, you have to be present. You have to listen to the subtle click of a torque wrench and feel the specific resistance of a tightening screw. It requires a quiet, focused patience that most modern life simply doesn't allow for. I’ll admit, I haven't always been a master of this discipline. There have been plenty of afternoons where my frustration boiled over, usually resulting in a bruised knuckle and a pile of "extra" parts sitting on the floor, staring at me judgmentally. We've all been there, right? But that’s part of the journey. Each mistake is just another lesson in being more mindful next time. In a way, maintaining your machine is an act of respect. You aren't just fixing a vehicle; you’re tending to the very thing that gives you freedom. When you approach the task with intention rather than irritation, the work stops feeling like a burden and starts feeling like a ritual. There is a profound peace in knowing that every component is exactly where it should be, because you took the time to ensure it. 👍
He spends the entire time debating how to actually identify—and more importantly, how to rank or evaluate—true quality. Whether he's talking about the depth of a poem, a grandmaster's chess match, or even the wisdom of a spiritual mentor, he's obsessed with finding that yardstick for excellence.
I truly believe—or rather, I feel this deep within my soul—that there is something akin to Plato’s concept of perfection residing within our very spirit. It is as if we possess an innate capacity to recognize true excellence whenever it manifests, whether that beauty is channeled through a poet's verses, a painter's brushstrokes, or someone's profound spiritual work.
If our collective mindset is clouded by mental clutter—you know, things like obsessively scrolling through sports tabloids, getting sucked into the sensationalism of local news broadcasts, or just having a limited perspective on the world—we’re going to struggle to recognize true talent when it stares us in the face. When you're stuck in that loop, you end up mistaking an amateur for a master. It's like people looking at some mediocre, hobbyist painter and thinking they've found the next great American icon, when really, it's just noise. 😵 It seems like you might have cut off your thought there! You were saying "the cat is known as..."—were you about to share a fun fact or perhaps a nickname for a specific breed? I'm all ears if you want to finish that thought! The undisputed king of all colors—though I have a particular soft spot for grey.He's pretty well known around here because he's a member of the Republican Party.
I’ve been quietly working on a thread over on one of the forums for quite some time now, specifically focusing on the whole concept of quality control.
It’s a lot like trying to measure poetry—it’s inherently subjective and defies standard metrics. In that same vein, quantifying someone’s level of spiritual insight or realization is an incredibly difficult task. That said, I do believe that if someone has truly mastered their own path and achieved genuine realization, they earn the right to offer an informed perspective on the spiritual progress of others.
************ I’ve been chewing on this idea of an "invisible quality"—something you can't quite put your finger on, yet its presence is undeniable. It actually hit me after a recent experience I had.
Back in the day, I used to trade emails quite frequently with the author behind that Guru Rating site—you know, the one run by SARLO out of Canada. So, I was looking at this website run by a group of people who actually think they can rank spiritual teachers. They’ve put together a list attempting to grade the quality of roughly 500 different gurus from all over the world and various historical eras. Their system? A rating scale ranging from one to five stars. Interestingly enough, they made a point to exclude the big founders of major religions—people like Buddha, Jesus, or Muhammad—from their assessments. It’s quite an ambitious, if slightly presumptuous, little project.
I honestly wanted to share this because I feel like I should brag just a little bit—even before I ever stumbled upon this site or heard about it, I had already developed my own personal compass for identifying truly quality spiritual teachers. It’s honestly hard to wrap my head around, but it's absolutely true: the top four spiritual masters—who, in my own research and personal estimation, represent the absolute pinnacle of spiritual teaching—align perfectly with the list on this website! It is a total bullseye. I’ll say it one more time: I had absolutely no idea that page even existed. Everything I’ve gathered so far has been the result of my own independent study and deep dives into the research. I’ve been working through these criteria and drawing my own conclusions based on what I've found. As for where those specific spiritual teachers fit into the larger landscape—it really comes down to how you weigh their influence against one another. It’s a pretty subtle distinction, really. The site is handing out 4.5 stars to two of them, while the other three are sitting just behind at a solid 4 stars. So, my take on it was that they were all pretty much on the same level of quality...
There was actually one more discrepancy I noticed: on my own personal list of top-tier teachers and authors, Crowley ranks significantly higher than his current standing on that Guru Rating website.
Here they are—the absolute heavyweights. These are the biggest players I’ve ever come across, and they're the exact ones that Guru Rating gave such high marks to.
Osho Nisargadatta Maharaj Ramana Maharshi
That guy actually pointed out something I hadn't even considered, so I figured I’d pass it along to you all here...
I actually sat him down to ask how he interprets the concept of "secular success" when it comes to a religion like fundamentalist Christianity. He gave this long-winded response arguing that it’s more about bureaucratic momentum than any actual spiritual evolution for humanity. Honestly, that logic is a bit flawed. It’s like claiming that fast food is the highest culinary achievement just because it's what everyone eats. Or worse, suggesting we should adopt the organizational principles of Nazi Germany just because their administration was efficient. Efficiency doesn't equal morality or quality. People tend to gravitate toward whatever religious path or specific belief system aligns most closely with their current level of spiritual maturity. It’s a bit like how people approach value: the masses often spend their lives chasing after pebbles or cheap, flashy costume jewelry because they simply don't realize that true diamonds even exist. Diamonds are incredibly rare and notoriously difficult to find—and honestly, I think that applies just as much to spiritual wisdom as it does to precious stones. I mean, let’s be realistic—Christianity is made up of roughly 600 different churches, sects, and various denominations. When you're dealing with that much variety, it's pretty much impossible to talk about a single, consistent spiritual doctrine. The sheer existence of some 600 different churches and denominations really says it all. It’s a perfect illustration of the absolute confusion currently swirling through Christianity, fueled by endless, imaginative reinterpretations of theological myths and concepts. The Vatican’s enduring success really boils down to its incredible bureaucracy and that deep-seated structural legacy inherited from Rome. It’s like the Roman Empire never actually went away; instead, it just evolved and lives on today through the Church. Arrogance, crimes, and sheer delusions—it’s funny how these patterns always seem to rhyme. If you look back at history, you'll see that today's mistakes aren't actually new; they're just the latest verse in a very old, very predictable song.
Isn't it true that an American Catholic priest—the very same author of *22* who was once sidelined for a year by Ratzinger—once remarked that the modern Vatican feels more like Caesar’s Palace than it does the Ship of Peter?
Here’s what really caught my eye...
He was actually the one who nudged me to sit down and really consider a simple, yet profound truth: the sheer, overwhelming power of bureaucracy versus the actual, tangible quality of spiritual teachings. The average Catholic tends to follow every new Pope with a kind of uncritical devotion. It’s almost reflexive. But if you look at how these leaders are chosen, it’s essentially a bureaucratic voting process rather than a selection based on spiritual depth or true enlightenment. If we're being honest about history, most Popes haven't actually been major theological thinkers or authors who left behind anything of lasting spiritual significance. To be honest, most of them were just your average, run-of-the-mill clergy—and frankly, quite a few were straight-up criminals. At the end of the day, it’s an undeniable fact that over the last 500 years... It’s honestly wild when you think about it—only one single Pope has ever been declared a saint by the very same Catholic Church and under its own established rules!
And now, for the part that really stuck with me—the moment that truly left an impression.
He sent me a note suggesting I consider a specific point: when a new Buddhist Roshie is appointed, that transition isn't dictated by some bureaucratic decree handed down from a committee of officials—like a group of Cardinals forcing through a candidate via a rigged vote. It's much more organic than that. It’s my firm belief that one shouldn't even consider stepping into the role of a Buddhist teacher until they've actually achieved enlightenment—and honestly, I think that realization needs to be fully vetted by their own spiritual mentor first. Enlightenment is something "invisible," much like high-quality poetry, yet a true master can still recognize and verify its presence. In that sense, Buddhism maintains an unbroken spiritual lineage of profound teachers—from the Buddha to Bodhidharma to Dogen, and so on.
You see a similar structure in certain Sufi orders within Islam (where they view Muhammad as the foundational figure). In these traditions, the next teacher is someone who has actually achieved "fana" in this lifetime—essentially reaching enlightenment or a higher state of consciousness. It is vital, then, to distinguish between a Pope or a high-ranking cleric—say, a top political leader from the Democratic or Republican parties—and someone who has truly realized higher states of consciousness.
Those who have truly attained these states are usually quiet and rare, much like diamonds. It’s difficult to find them, and you’re incredibly lucky if you ever cross paths with a genuine teacher, whether in person or through their life's work.
All the noise and applause surrounding popes and worldly power isn't the sound of people admiring diamonds; it's just the roar of a crowd that can't tell the difference between a diamond and a common pebble.
Catholicism (the Papacy) has a deep bureaucratic tradition. While every Pope is historically the successor to St. Peter, being a successor doesn't mean they were spiritually realized. In fact, many throughout history have been nothing more than ordinary criminals or terrible individuals. Consequently, Christianity lacks an unbroken, authentic spiritual lineage, which is why it has devolved into such a fragmented mess of hundreds of different teachings and theological interpretations.
By the way... It’s honestly a disgrace for the modern Catholic Church, a fact pointed out to me by Catholics themselves. "In an 800-page modern Catholic Catechism, there isn't a single page or even a footnote in the index that addresses mysticism!" Yet, there are over a hundred entries dedicated to the institution and the concept of sin.
The simple fact that the greatest Christian mystic, Meister Eckhart, was never officially canonized as a saint by the Church speaks volumes about the spiritual depth—or lack thereof—of those leading and following the institution today.
"""""""""" It reminds me of an example from back home:
A certain prominent figure was promoted to Cardinal, and plenty of people worked hard to make that happen. But did that individual's spiritual understanding actually change because of that bureaucratic promotion? Not at all. I’m not saying he’s a bad man, but when we discuss peak quality, we aren't talking about whether someone is "nice," "peaceful," or a "devout person."
We are talking about the absolute heights—about the quality of true realization.
If we are discussing higher levels of consciousness and actualization, one could argue that this individual hasn't reached "it"—he hasn't achieved enlightenment—and therefore, his promotion was merely a rise in rank and rating rather than a spiritual ascent.