Gradations

Two ideas at play. 1) That there are gradations to spirituality. 2) That this is measurable as value.

So there are several claims to be able to measure or determine how lofty an achievement one has. This is usually based in some form of testing that is scientifically based. Such as with measuring the ability to be present in the moment. There are other methods that rely more on intuitive assessment. There is certainly some truth to this. However with the scientific method one has to wonder how far that detection has really progressed. Given the history of scientific understanding. (Of all the matter in the universe most is largely unknown and only recently assumed to be detected indirectly.) That seems more like an attempt of science to enter into the field, of taking over the spiritual knowledge and putting on some sort of sanction of approval. The other aspect is that if we take the idea of an avatar as a descent of the divine power, then we end up with a question of, though it may be measurable how realized the being is, or we may question the capacity of the shell the being is operating from, there is a larger set of circumstances in which that being operates.
So can we compare the Avatars of Vishnu and measure the degrees of their realization in terms of the powers manifested by their shell? If Krishna were to manifest things from the subtle elements of a flower, and shape it into a magic weapon for Arjuna and Matsya the Fish does not, is Krishna more realized than Matsya?
When a person becomes realized how much of that can be measured in terms of the individual qualities and abilities? One can see stages of evolution in one's own growth. One can see understanding dawn, powers awaken, knowledge illuminate and transform parts of the being. The gunas at play will show us moving towards a more sattvic way of being, but at the same time the Guru who is realized is also advancing. However there still seems to be a question of what is needed by those who are progressing on the path hewn by the Guru and what their needs are and that of wider humanity. Maybe the Guru moves from the lower level to the mid-level because that is what is needed by their community rather than it being an individual spiritual achievement of that particular soul.
A common understanding is that there are beings who descend only for teaching a few disciples. Their need to display the ability to manifest objects or to levitate may not be needed. Nor does their physical body seem to support super sensual activity as being able to see the individual frames of a movie as it is projected, nor to they have exacting knowledge of a person's circumstances, past and future. As the people they came to teach already see beyond what is normally considered the physical laws of the universe and have no need of some individualized instance of knowledge. Having a powerful Deva descend and transform the knowledge of the world through an Einstein doesn't seem to me be connected to the spiritual/scientific evaluation of the vibratory level of the Einstein.
A powerfully realized being working through a traditional western religion may not be cranking out teachings that lead to the enlightenment of the people who turn out for confession, however that spiritual action may be very helpful and seems to act from a more universal concern. If we assume enlightenment or realization to be the Divine working through a person, or a light shining through a window, measurement seems to be locked into duality and be a creation of the mental, at the highest level there is no real level. The divine can work at any level and not be touched by the level. The divine that manifests as the great being also manifests the subatomic particle. Neither of them seem discreet entities of actual existence that can exist separate from the rest of us.
It seems more appropriate to look at where one is and follow what one needs to for advancement. And look to the highest as something acting through all existence, within it, behind it, above it. Rather than to rank. Though if presented with the question of two teachers which one do I spend my time on there seems to be a very basic need to evaluate the teachers in this manner.
It would also be very appropriate if one had a graduated system of teachings and realizations on the path of enlightenment as with Tibetan Buddhism. A system of instruction and a way to determine where one is and what one needs to do. Though this seems to some extent to be more individualized than a scientific system could generate. If one were attempting something that would not be subject to the changing circumstances of the advancing world. Which might be following the modle of physics or another hard science. Coming from science is different than the intuitive expression that utilizes science or or ideas as a tool of expression.
There are many teachings and methods that have come and been abandoned. Lineages that are continuous outpourings of light, but seem to reflect more the current master rather than a teaching that has an uninterrupted continuity. It also seems to be the case that many teachers and teachings goes into the life of a given Saint. They all seem to teach for the students and that it comes from insight into their being rather than following an assessment of measurable characteristics.
In following physical methods one can asses the ability of the student to sustain a large numbers of rounds of Bhastrika Pranayama. One can see if someone is ready for a handstand. Or one may see a commonality of experiences that come in meditation such as with the piercing of Chakras, or the ability to enter into the deeper levels of the Sri Chakra. If they reach contact with specific energies they will either go deeper or be caught in that experience. And one can see when others sometimes lack a certain realization. But it is different if spirit is looking back to science and utilizing it. If someone is generating a scheme that allows them to guide and give direction and goals who has traversed the path and has the vision/knowledge/light they will not need a test, they will see. The transcendent is transcendent and the relative is relative.