The significance of the guru to Hinduism lies primarily in the status of guru as spiritual instructor. Accordingly, the very essence of Hinduism qua religion requires a guru in order for the disciple to gain awareness of the spiritual truths professed by the religion. The necessity of the spiritual leader is reflected in the etymology of guru –derived from the Hindu word for »heavy«, what the signifier guru precisely denotes is the difficulty of the spiritual path, and thus the necessity of instruction from an experienced spiritual superior. The guru is thus distinguished by a certain mastery of the arduousness of the spiritual path, and thus is accorded esteem because of this very mastery: the mastery of the spiritual path is a form of sacred knowledge, which to use Eliade’s distinction, as opposed to profane knowledge, is an otherworldly knowledge. The guru, in his embodiment, is thus indicative of the presence within the world of a sacred knowledge. The guru is a facilitator and initiator of this spiritual process in the disciple, partaking and engendering the means by which others can come to grasp this sacred knowledge – accordingly, the path to sacred knowledge becomes possible through the guru.

According to the prominent status assigned to the guru, the abuse of the relationship between the guru and the disciple remains possible. Because of the plethora of sects, and the guru’s acquisition of followers – wholly dependent upon the guru himself – change and re-interpretation remains, to a degree, a crucial feature of the religion. The lack of a singular authoritative ecclesiastical body, such as in Christianity, means that guru and disciple relationships are essentially autonomous and contingent incidents. Insofar as much of Hindu history is defined by the appearance of various sects, this demonstrates an essential freedom to the hermeneutics of the sacred knowledge, which thus allows for various deviations in the religion that could be considered as abusive.

Concomitantly, this very absence leads to a certain freedom in worship and discipleship. The essential openness of the relationship between guru and disciple, despite the guru’s esteem, means that possible ruptures from the leadership of a guru is plausible. These ruptures are thus evidenced by the aforementioned numerous sects – the heterogeneity of sects would obviously be much diminished if a central hegemonic dogma were prevalent throughout the religious structure. Thus, although the guru maintains a crucial position within Hindu structure, this can be the religion evinces a certain amorphous structure, insofar as it is constituted by multiple centers. The diffusion of powers obviously leads to a more individual and personalized experience of the sacred, despite the presence of spiritual teachers.

This multiplicity of centers can also be viewed as the product of certain insufficiencies of gurus – for example, when a disciple considers a guru’s teaching unsatisfactory. The status of a real guru and a false guru is a more significant incident of such dissatisfaction. A false guru is traditionally defined in terms of his bind to the profane world. Hence, an individual guru’s emphases on purely worldly values, such as sexuality and money, are classically considered as indicative of a false guru. The unwavering dedication to the sacred helps define the authenticity of guru.

In this last respect, Hinduism thus does not radically deviate with other traditions. The spiritual leader, irrespective of religious tradition, is precisely a spiritual leader to the extent that they dedicate themselves to the spiritual realm. Accordingly, a rejection of this primary obligation can be considered as symptomatic of a transgression of a commitment to the sacred. This is particularly clear in religions that emphasize the profanity of the world, in favour of the sacredness of the spiritual world.