Now there is the strange fact that Ramana Maharshi himself refused to be ‘the Guru’ of his devotees...or to be exact, he never initiated any of them in the traditional way. Some of them are known to have left him, though they loved and worshipped him, because they thought themselves unable to proceed spiritually without an outer guru. How is this strange attitude of his to be understood? Did the sage shun the responsibility which the guru is expected to take over in respect to his devotee? According to tradition, the guru who accepts a disciple also takes over his karma, bad as it may be.

No. Sri Ramana Maharshi was only being consistent; he lived what he taught...the realisation of the One without a second! When there is only One, Brahman, where is the place for guru and disciple? A guru presupposes a disciple, a disciple a guru; they are invariable ‘two’. Can there be two Selves, the one guiding the other? True guidance is possible only when the Self of the guru and that of the disciple is one and the same Self.

-Hunting the I by Lucy Cornelssen