Much emotion-born fallacious writing and consequent belief prevails in Western and Oriental mystical circles. The question must be asked: if a dead master is just as good or, as one South Indian ashram now claims, even better than a living one, why do any masters trouble to reincarnate at all if they can exert their influence or give their training just as effectively by staying where they are? And this question applies not only to the minor lesser-known teachers of small groups but with equal force to the major prophets like Buddha and Jesus.
Here is the point at which part of the confusion and much of the fallacy arise. People generally have been led by society, including their parents, to adopt and follow one of these major Prophets. This is done partly in the belief that he is still in touch with them from a heaven-world, partly out of unquestioning acceptance of his revelation, and partly because of the social necessity of belonging to the membership of some organized church. The revelation and the church continue to survive the prophet's death and thus continue to be available for the help of followers born in later centuries. But the vehicle through which he himself was able to communicate directly, the intellect and body--that is, the ego--have ceased to exist. There is no further possibility of such communication. Where it seems to occur, the mental image of the prophet has been assumed by the Higher Self of the devotee to satisfy his demand and need. The usefulness of a living teacher to those who have no such experience or to those who are uncommitted to a deceased one, is obvious.
-- Notebooks Category 1: Overview of the Quest > Chapter 6 : Student-Teacher > # 848
