Hello & welcome to the Dho,
A-P S:
Actually I didn't think that the gurus would give the hierarchical positions, but rather that the community itself - the people in it - will establish hierarchies and find "positions" in it. By the positions I actually mean the power relations, e.g. who are the people whose opinions have more value than others, whose opinions and comments are downplayed, etc..
The ‘guru’ may or may not be directly aiding in a community’s hierarchical position depending on whether or not they are capable of relationship. If that person is capable of relationship, they will demonstrate a reliable propensity for valuing their personal opinion more than that of the others. Further, their actions and opinions may also be biased based on their appraisal of the comparison of relative value between any number [1] of ‘others’. Thus, those who are higher on the hierarchy will tend to be those persons perceived to be relatively similar (or complimentary) to the guru’s self. This is because the guru’s projection of ‘them’ will more closely validate the guru’s self and thus the guru will validate those person’s opinions (or whatever) more often (relative to those perceived to be less congruent). The top of the hierarchy is self justified (literally as well as figuratively).
If the ‘guru’ is not capable of relationship [2], such a one will not directly influence the system in any way. Indirectly, however, their very presence in the community [3] may influence the hierarchy because they are—to those capable of relationship-- a ‘being’ (via projection only) which the community members incidentally take into account in their relative comparisons of value as it pertains to a whole slew of things. E.g. a community member’s appraisal of the value of their self relative to the value of ‘others’ as it pertains to: status outside of the community, relevant contextual knowledge, the nature of the relationships formed with ‘others’ within the community and the perceived status of those they are in relation to, etc.
Practically speaking, it would be best to have conversations about these matters with a knowledgeable person that is incapable of relation, as that means that the person is also incapable of corruption. Being incapable of corruption, one may then know that the words being spoken/written/whatever are reliable (although it must be noted that such a condition does not imply infallibility).
The question then may arise: how does one identify the difference between a person capable of relation and a person incapable of relation? In some cases, the answer may be readily apparent; but I suspect it is typically not. In the case that it is not apparent, I recommend not worrying about it [4]. Instead of searching for that answer, focus on thinking for yourself as best as can be done. Consider the content that each individual is supplying and the situation in which it is supplied in, and further evaluate that content via sensible thought, reflection, and experimentation.
Trent
[1] E.g. the guru comparing their self to another, the guru comparing another to another, the guru comparing groups of others to other groups of others (in the case of cliques), etc.
[2] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.049.than.html
[3] In this case, “community” refers explicitly to the actual people, things and events taking place, whereas the other usages are indicative of a relational “community” (or can be read either way without distorting the meaning of the sentence).
[4] As this question is only of importance to a person capable of relation, the contextual answer (as it pertains to any community or individual within the community) is likely to be veiled because such a person’s very ability to relate is what skews that answer from being apparent.