Acharya Prashant explains that the name "Guru" is given to one who can remove the inner darkness. He clarifies that while the general public may misuse this word, that is a separate matter. The inner darkness is the "I-sense" (main-bhav), which includes the notions of "I, my world, my intentions, my desires, my hopes, my joys and sorrows." The one who can shed light on these is the Guru. The Guru is the one who can show that in the midst of a troubled world, the root problem is the "I." The speaker defines this "I" as that which is related to the body, that which holds all worldly information and knowledge, and that which has all relationships. He distinguishes the role of a Guru from that of a doctor, explaining that the "I" has a relationship with the body, but the Guru's job is to talk about the "I". The body is just an object to which the "I" is attached. One who talks about taking care of the body can be called a doctor, but it is wrong to call them a Guru. A doctor's work is important and should be respected, but it falls within the domain of science, requiring a scientific perspective and knowledge. Similarly, if someone teaches the skill of making money, their work is useful, but they are not a Guru. Calling a stock market expert a "Guru" is a misuse of the term. The Guru's work is not to make the "I" more proficient in its attachments to worldly objects, as that would only deepen the bondage. The Guru's sole focus is on the "I" itself. Their work is to cleanse the "I" and establish it in its completeness and absoluteness, so it no longer needs any support. The Guru's function is to liberate the "I" from the false and painful feeling that it cannot survive without being dependent on external objects. The first attachment of the "I" is to its own body, and it constantly considers the body important. A so-called guru who constantly talks about the body—what to eat, how to walk, when to wake up—is actually increasing the body's importance in the eyes of the "I", which is a perversion of the Guru's role and only aggravates the disease. Acharya Prashant concludes that the word "Guru" has been debased so that people can avoid the real Guru. By creating fake gurus who cater to worldly desires and calling them by the same name, people can deceive themselves into thinking they have a Guru without facing the real work. The fake is given the name of the real to make it acceptable. A teacher imparts knowledge about various subjects, and their work is important, but they are not a Guru. The Guru is only one whose focus is on the single entity of the "I" and who strives for its liberation from all the objects it holds onto.
