Sunil says we don't need an eternal guru. Yet by speaking thusly he is acting in the same capacity as a gooroo! Why do I need to accept what he says blindly, and not what the traditionalists say in India.
True it is a cheating guru in name only who offers to sell one a mantra to chant and thus become liberated, or to touch them with a peacock feather or produce some gold. But although family relationships are temporary the relationship with the guru is not. Lord Krishna Himself set the example with His guru Sandipani Muni by pleasing his guru in all regards, even at risk of danger in the forest with Sudama Vipra. Later he got back his gurus dead son from Yamaraja, a task only fit for the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Someone who shows us how to open up a packet of ketchup for our fries might be called a guru, but actually guru means heavy with knowledge. The term has been picked up and is used loosely but there really aren't gurus showing us how to buy hamburgers, fried chicken, meat from the butcher and all that. These are not real gurus, they may be authorities on how to eat meat or in their own field but that's as far as they go.
The guru takes his disciple back to Godhead so the relationship between spiritual master and disciple is eternal. We mustn't be on the bodily concept in relationship with the guru and think him an ordinary person not worth serving. The genuine guru is as good as God because he can bring us God. It is like a mailman, he delivers us letters from the government. So the guru brings us knowledge about God, Krishna, and doesn't change anything.