I think viewing Plato as either a guru or academic misses the mark- he was somewhere in the middle. He was the guru of a wisdom lineage that was itself academic in nature, to sketch the same point differently. If we can distinguish between a non-discursive receptivity to wisdom from a discursive explication/integration of that wisdom, then the poles of guru and pundit become complimentary rather than mutually exclusive, and I think we find Plato in this sweet spot. Consider how Aristotle did not wholeheartedly reject that virtues of contemplation, but had a more embodied understanding of eudaimonia and its achievement. This is roughly analogous to the Buddha reaching the highest Jhanas of meditation only to find it lacking without other tempering virtues that culminated in the subtle middle way and ultimately insight. The Buddha realized how, despite the cessation of suffering within the fourth and highest Jhana, suffering resumes upon descending back into everyday world once the meditation session is over. According to some commentators, attaining to the fourth Jhana remains a precondition for the more integrative work of insight, however. Whereas Plato emphasizes intellectual virtues cultivated through the contemplation of the forms, Aristotle sees intellectual virtues themselves as being supported by and tempered by practical virtues, like temperance and courage. I'm not saying the Buddha was an Aristotelian, but I think there is a rough parallel here in terms of how the contemplative life is balanced with the active life, and how this balance affects the integration of wisdom in the most holistic way.