The disciple's journey: endless change [IB3]

Fable of the three vases
One day, in the Punjab region, word got out that Krsna had come down to Earth and would choose a human being as his disciple.

In the valley where Krsna had come down a great multitude of men soon gathered and He, seated under a tree, played his pipe waiting for the morning and greeting the setting of the sun. People waited for Him to choose, silently.

After three days and nights Krsna smilingly turned to the crowd and said, "I have prepared three pots full of earth. Among you men I will choose three people and the one who has given birth to a lotus plant in his pot will become a disciple." 

He looked at the crowd then pointed to a man and said, "Ananda, come and take this vase." She pointed to another and said, "Jnana, come and take this vase." He finally pointed to a third man and said, "Avidya, take this vase." 

Then turning to all three, he said to them: "Go and try, each of you as you see fit, to give birth to the lotus plant in this vase." 
The three men went off in three different directions.

The first to return to him was Ananda and said to him, "Krsna, my Lord, I have spent days and nights in the lotus position next to the vase, I have endlessly chanted mantras, but all that I have achieved by invoking you, my Lord, these are a few blades of grass. " 
Krsna said, "Ananda, your faith is very little." 

The second to arrive was Jnana who said, "Krsna, my Lord, io I studied and read a lot, I used all possible means to make the earth soft and to fertilize it so that, finally, the lotus plant would sprout. But all I've got is just a few blades of grass. " 
Krsna said to him, taking the jar back, "Jnana, your knowledge is very little." 

Third came Avidya; he came striding furiously and as he approached Krsna he exclaimed, “Krsna, you rascal, you have fooled us all! I tried in every way I could think of to give birth to the lotus plant, but then a doubt came to me: I emptied the earth vase, I sifted the earth and I discovered that in the vase you had given me you didn't plant the seed." 
Krsna said to him, "Avidya, return the jar to me and go away." 

Avidya did not go away but turned to the other two and said to them, "Friends, he is making fun of us: there is no way to grow the lotus in these pots because He has given them to us without the seed!" 

Krsna smiled then turned to look at the crowd, pointed to a child and said, "You, Krsnadeva, come here beside me." 
The child approached.
"Piccolo, do you trust me?" Krsna asked.
"Of course, my Lord - said the child - how could I not trust you when you are as beautiful as the sun?"

Krsna took an empty jar and a handful of earth from the first jar and put it into the empty jar.
"Krsnadeva, what do you know?" the God asked.
"My Lord, I don't know anything, but if knowledge brings me to You, I will try to know everything that exists on earth." 

Krsna took a handful of earth from the second and third vessels and placed them in the empty vessel.
«Krsnadeva - he said - in this empty jar in which I now put a handful also from the third jar, there can be no seed. Do you think that a lotus plant will be born from this vase? " 
"My Lord Krsna, if you say that a lotus plant can grow from this pot, I have no doubt that this is the case." 

"I say that a lotus plant can grow from this pot." Krsna stated.
The child took the pot in his hands and looking at Krsna said, “The seed is not seen but it is there! And if you didn't put it on, my Lord, I'll put it on with my faith! " 

As he spoke, a plant quickly began to sprout from the pot and put forth leaves and eventually blossomed with a magnificent flower.
Krsna took the baby in his arms and flew to heaven.

---

The discussion between the participants which is omitted here.

---

The meeting with the Guides

This time I have nothing to blame you for. You have been really good. Yes. The only thing I could say - why, if not, what Masters would we be, if we never found something to point out to you! - is that you have not insisted much on number three.

Why three vases? Why three different directions? Why three people? In short, all these because you asked yourself too little, you slipped away with diplomacy, and in this you have been really good! Yet all this had a very special meaning indeed.

During the discussion you spoke of "feel», You spoke of« faith »... and this three could represent something that would certainly have clarified the rest of the fable.
To clarify things - someone will come and explain to you - I ask you, after all these years of teaching that have been brought: what is the I of the individual made of? From three bodies!

Couldn't there be, in this sense, a relevance? Is there an astral body, a physical body, a mental body? And maybe, who knows, does the child represent the Akasic body instead, or something like that? Gnose

Yep, creatures. The number three, which you so hastily called "another magic number", right, daughter F.? Do you remember saying "another magic number"?

D - Yes, because I was referring to the seven we had met in the fable of the seven brothers.

Indeed, as his daughter L. said at a certain point this afternoon, the choice of fairy tales, their succession is not accidental, but there is a logical thread that will be discovered a little at a time.

Now this logical thread has started from number seven and has now reached number three. The number seven - if you remember the initial fable - was the symbol, in reality, of all the planes of existence of the individual, of all his bodies, of the path that the individual must take to abandon the physical plane, to arrive definitively. to reunite with God.

Returning to a more restricted context, here in the fable you have read (and recited so well, tonight: bravo!) The number three instead meant that the fable was desymbolized in this way, or considering the first three chosen as the example, La representation of the embodied ego within the physical world.

An I in its various manifestations:

- which now manifests one faith more supposed than sincere (and therefore based more than anything else, on desire to be a mystic, on the desire to be part of God; hence a manifestation of his astral componente, of its component of desires);

- an ego that manifests itself through the knowledge (and therefore the application of knowledge to practice such as fertilizing the soil so that the flower grows from the soil);

- and, finally, the I like extensive experience of the individual within the physical plane (who reacts many times recklessly, without even realizing what he is doing or what he is saying).

In short, all the three components of the individual, which are within the physical plane and, therefore, in some way also connect to the theme that was given as the title of the evening about the fable, namely "the figure of the disciple».

You haven't meditated on this either: the titles we give are a key to interpreting fairy tales, which - as we have said - can have a thousand interpretations, depending on the point of view from which they are observed. But we will return to this discourse of the disciple shortly.

As for this symbolism of the number three, gods three ego bodies, it is evident at this point that the child cannot be other than the symbol of what is the individual who has overcome the ego, who therefore no longer needs to reincarnate within the physical plane. Here is therefore explained why Krsna takes the child and takes him away from the Earth as the child will continue his own evolution as Krsna's most direct servant, but no longer through the wheel of births and deaths.

One thing: you have focused - fortunately not much - on a detail that made me smile; that is, on the sentence in which it is said that Krsna takes a handful of earth from the first and second pots and meanwhile, speaking, puts a handful of the earth from the third pot into the empty pot. Do you remember it?

There is nothing strange in this; nothing to understand and nothing special. It is simply a very small technique (known and used by anyone who narrates, tells and writes) to construct an image, to give it a sense of movement; while Krsna was speaking, he immediately put the earth that was in the first vessel, then that of the second vessel and, still speaking, he puts that of the third, as this succession of actions gives a movement to the phrase, to the fable, to the environment that is he is creating in reading the fable itself. So, neglect this element because it doesn't matter.

But let us return for a moment to observe the fable from the disciple's point of view. Anyone have an idea on how to put it forward based on the things we just said, or what you said earlier?
(silence from bystanders)

All devoid of ideas! Yet, all in all, the speech is quite simple: who comes close to a Teacher - true or false it does not matter because the important thing is that the individual come close as a disciple, therefore as his inner feeling, towards someone who is supposed to be a master - and approaches a Master because driven by an inner need.

This need arises from the fact that the disciple has not yet understood, therefore he has not yet abandoned his ego, he still is in contrast to its true nature and therefore this causes him problems. And since problems bring suffering, it leads to trying to overcome it, and here the individual begins to explore in an attempt to find the way to overcome suffering.

Thus, one thing that the disciple who approaches with the intention of being a disciple of a particular Master must bear in mind, is the fact that he must expect:

- to succeed a little at a time, thanks to this condition of his as a disciple, a overcome his ego;
- not to believe that, because of being a disciple, his ego is exceeded;
- not to be presumptuous, not to act as the chosen third party in the story and forget that humility that is necessary to truly be available to letting the note of divine harmony enter into the empty reed that he is.

The disciple therefore needs to approach keeping this in mind, therefore not losing contact with his own reality.
What does this mean, then?

1- It means that there will be times when the disciple will look for - against what he feels inside - to "love" his Master, therefore he will have to fight against the urges to flee that many times he will feel press within himself sé, because a teacher - as a figure in himself - always causes a certain fear. (When this is not true for the figure of the teacher, it can apply to the impact with the teaching which, in certain situations, apparently becomes distant, or alien, or unsuitable for us. Ed.)

2- It again means that he will have to keep his knowledge firmly, but be ready to change it because it is not said that, as he progresses along the path, the knowledge he has acquired will always and still be valid; it may be that, in the meantime, they may be the same knowledge but that they can be understood in such a way as to completely change the overall picture; so he must be ready to constantly changing what he believes is true. 
Therefore, it must always be elastic in the face of Truth and Reality.

3- Finally, as a third requirement of a disciple, there is that of realizing that the time may also come when he will reject everything; he will not only refuse but perhaps deny, renounce everything he believed in as inner forces will put him so much in contrast that - in the face of suffering or fear of having to go deeper within himself and therefore discover what he really is - those who are not ready to be truly disciples will only turn away.

But getting away, like this, without any reason, is never easy: here then it will be necessary, on the part of the person in this situation, to find useful reasons to present to others.
And these reasons cannot be other - as a logical succession - than to denigrate what was previously manifested to believe.

The disciple who is aware of these tendencies, these possibilities, these actions, and who expects them, will undoubtedly be able, even in moments of crisis, to take that moment of pause necessary to then be able to go further along the path.
On the other hand, he who is not ready will undoubtedly - as always happens to any Master - go away. And we know it very well, in all these years of teaching!

Then there are some important points in the fable that you have not meditated upon (a bit like the "tip of the tail" in the fable of the tiger). One is the fact that the lotus is actually an aquatic plant, which means that the fable doesn't make any sense… does it?

D - I confess ignorance in botany.

Taking note of one's ignorance is always a great step forward, but I will leave you as the task of meditating on this particular!
And then, the third chosen one, this figure - after all - that you actually like even a little bit, because he is a protester, a rebel: yes, he is presumptuous, okay, but he is not completely wrong either because, in actually, the seed was not put into the pots.

Q - So it was right to think of this figure as a transgressive or were we wrong?

More than a transgressive, I would say a person - a disciple, since we are talking about a disciple - who actually expected "the Master" to do, while instead the disciple must understand that the Master does absolutely nothing! 

The Master simply offers the stimulus for the disciple to do! So much so that when this perhaps absurd lotus plant was born from the pot, it was not born because there was a seed, it was not born because Krsna gave it birth, but it was born because the child believed, felt, wanted it to be born. . 

And he believed, felt and wanted it to be born because he had this "feeling" in himself that allowed him to have extreme faith in what Krsna said could happen.

D - Therefore it cannot be said that the child's faith is blind, but rather the "feeling" of the Akasic body.

Certainly, and since it is "feeling" of the Akasic body it cannot be blind, because it derives from the conclusions, from the results drawn from lives and lives and lives of incarnation, in which the strings of feeling, emotions, thoughts and experiences were drawn. .

Therefore "feeling" cannot be more blind: it can be incomplete, but certainly not blind. If a thing is felt, that thing is true and, as we always say, the truth is never blind, but it is always logical and perfectly inserted in that great fresco of logic that the Absolute has built and that you live from within. , instead of as spectators.

D - Excuse me I did not understand why the disciple can deny everything he thinks he has understood.

That is simply psychological behavior, as anyone who is in a situation that they are afraid of tries to react so as not to have to suffer.
It's a normal attitude, I think nobody wants or is happy to suffer, right? And then the best way to be able to stop or improve this possibility of suffering is to move away from the situation that causes the suffering. 

For example, if one is anxious for some reason, try to eliminate the cause of the anxiety. But the disciple recognizes that the cause of his anxiety can be identified in the figure of the Master himself, right? (and / or in the impact of the teaching he brings, ed).
So, to escape the situation, he has to find his own way, a truth of his to manifest to others, an "ego excuse" - let's say - that allows him to get away from what seems dangerous to his own ego.

The way that most offers him a way out, to save face in front of others, is to say: "That is not a good Master, but everything he said and did was nonsense."
On the other hand this, if you think about it, remember «the rooster won't crow, before you have denied me three times», it's a bit the same thing. And this despite Peter knowing that Christ was a Master.

Even the theoretical disciple we are talking about knows, thinks he knows, that the person to whom he has addressed as a disciple may be a Master; the fact remains that his suffering is such that he must seek a way out to justify himself, in front of himself and others, for the fact that he did not have the courage to face the pain that he must discover within himself.
Is that clear to you?

Q - Are these steps required?

Oh, certainly not, certainly not. Usually - as I said - those who react by denying it is because he is not yet ready to be a disciple.

Q - Isn't it necessary to suffer to evolve, to improve?

Theoretically no. Theoretically it is never necessary to suffer, but also take into account one factor: when you speak of suffering, you combine many things in the term suffering. Suffering has many degrees. Even a slight physical discomfort can be suffering, just as severe physical or even psychological discomfort can be suffering: a situation, an imbalance of some kind.

And actually, if you think about it, even the doubt you can feel is a pain; the same questions you ask me are driven by a suffering (small not felt according to the canons of what you define suffering); any internal or external, psychic or emotional imbalance that you feel is a suffering that then translates, in hindsight, into a situation of discomfort, which is precisely what makes you feel in motion, alive, and gives you the urge to seek to change the situation to feel comfortable and not uncomfortable.

Let's say it is never necessary to suffer greatly, though the suffering, the discomfort for a perceived imbalance it is a bit the plot on which you conduct all your existences, and it is, indeed, an indispensable plot to be able to move forward.

Otherwise, if you had no discomfort, you would crystallize in your positions and stay where you are until the suffering with a capital "S" really comes!

Q - So is suffering necessary let's say?

Yes, it is needed in small doses and not strictly necessary in large doses.
Large doses are necessary when the individual clings to what he is, does not want to change, does not want to understand, does not want to change the state he is in and, since an unalterable law of the existing is that everything must evolve and change , here is that suffering becomes a necessity. Scifo

---