Sarlo's Guru Rating Service
The Top-Rated Masters,
subdivided further **

No one was ever rated at this level

Osho (M) aka Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, Rajneesh Chandra Mohan Jain Ramana Maharshi (A) aka Venkataraman Iyer
Babaji (M) aka Nagaraj
Bodhidharma (M)

Nisargadatta Maharaj (A) aka Beedie Baba

Papaji (A) aka H.W.L. Poonja

George I Gurdjieff (M) was once here, now demoted below three

Jiddu Krishnamurti (A)

Adyashanti (A) aka Steven Gray
Ammachi (D)
aka Sudhamani, Mata Amritanandamayi Devi
Ramesh Balsekar (A)  
Jean Klein (A)  
Neem Karoli Baba (D)  
Shri Ranjit Maharaj (A) 
Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa (D)  
Richard Rose (M)  
Sailor Bob (A) aka Bob Adamson
Seung Sahn (M) 
ShantiMayi (M) 
Shri Samartha/Sadguru Siddharameshwar Maharaj (A) 
Eckhart Tolle (A) aka Ulrich Tolle

** = As discussed elsewhere, this page is an outcome of a change of systems. The shreds of objectivity that might make this site useful or valid are not to be found at the rarefied levels here. The alleged differences formerly speculated upon between the masters at the highest level are preserved here for historical interest and terminal curiosity only. Below are the former attempts to parse what are now deemed to be unnecessarily fine distinctions.

The Ratings at a Glance

    The ratings, as they were in full for the first years of this site:

= unreserved recommendation, vast enough for everybody

= vast enough for most, some reservations

= a great master, usually good flexibility, limited capacity

= still first-rate but less flexibility or limited capacity

= no bullshit but limited in methods/capacity

= limited, some handicaps, or maybe not yet full stature

= very limited, narrow approach or ideology, or still developing

= suspect but on balance positive

= suspect

= bogus, may have some value, who knows

= worse than bogus, no redeeming value


= too new, old or retiring, not enough info, or a "teacher" type

For a full description of the rating and category system 
and how it works, Click here 
For a separate in-depth explanation of the rating 
characterizations, Click here

I have received feedback on occasion about the words used to "characterize" each of the different rating levels. It seems duh! that these tiny phrases are inadequate to describe the whole range of all those hanging out at any one level. This applies particularly to the higher mid-range ratings, from to . With the top or bottom ratings it doesn't matter so much but how does one describe the group of more than 50 at or the 30-odd at ? My original idea was that the lowest level for those i would consider definitely enlightened would be , and i would not put any unenlightened above that.

That simplistic idea bit the dust as inviolable principle with the Dalai Lama. By definition this guy is not enlightened, postponing that blessed event until the infinitely blessed day when the last amoeba is enlightened. Still, a nice and fairly wise guy, and very helpful to many on the path, either directly or through the growing legion of Tibetan practitioners who hold him as the highest of their lot, so i put him at , which is still not satisfactory but what to do? 

Then there was one of my ratees, whom i had originally put at . She contacted me and pointed out i had put her in a wrong category (she is a tough one to categorize) and wondered about her lowly rating. She did so with such good grace i changed her category and "promoted" her to . Big deal, eh? So she wrote, again with exceeding good grace, about how now she had "counterproductive ideological baggage." Well, i saw the humour in this too, and since i was also getting good reports on her from friends i put her up to . This may not be the end of it but the lesson of these funny descriptions was starting to sink in.

Whatever description is attached to any given rating level has to be flexible enough to include some very different folks but it also has to be in line with the others that are higher and lower too, that is it has to indicate some greater or lesser value, compared to those above and below. Tricky stuff! Perhaps impossible. But going where even fools fear to tread, i will give it a try. . .

Ha ha! Next! There followed a discussion of accessibility, capacity and flexibility, most of which still has application in explaining useful criteria, preserved back here. The discussion which led to this change of system is also preserved on that page, here. That's all for now.

Navigation: Site Map   Home