Squidoo has created a template for online quizes that I've been having some fun with. So test out if you really practice the second object of the TS by studying religion, by taking my quiz about religion in general. Or whether you know enough about the largest world religion: Christianity. Perhaps a bit closer to home: I also made Blavatsky trivia and Jiddu Krishnamurti trivia quizes.
Please tell me if any of the questions are wrong. The folks at the Krishnamurti ning helped me correct one question already.
Oh - and share how you did of course :)
More are coming up. I'll be doing all the main world religions soon enough I think.
I see my words come back to haunt me. You quoted me correctly, but quite out of context. I wrote in one of my attempts at explaining my position regarding Jiddu Krishnamurti:
Perhaps that’s how I can best explain my ultimate rejection of Jiddu Krishnamurti’s teachings. I’ve studied his work, learned a lot from it, and have since moved on.
Testimony to how deeply I've studied J. Krishnamurti's work is the whole section of my website devoted to his work. I've studied his work almost as intensively as Blavatsky's. Though while I claim to have read 99% of her work, I certainly haven't read all of K's work.
I do think - as the title of that post implies (If you see the Buddha Kill Him) - that it's only possible to reject Krishnamurti once one has studied his teachings.
I did end that post with a list of things one can learn from his teachings. And memorizing the list is not the same thing as wrestling with his words. Just like memorizing a summary Blavatsky's teachings isn't the same as reading The Secret Doctrine. It's the wrestling itself that brings insight.
Now I'm not at all suggesting you or anybody else should read the whole of K's work - those 300 books you talked about. But one or two are, I think, a good thing to include in one's spiritual diet.
:) precisely why I'd be more comfortable with Katinkaji or something. I'm not a Mahatma.
I don't think I wrote about any ultimate rejection. Though I've ultimately rejected it as not too interesting for me to go deeper into. Does that make sense? Here's the main article on my blog: my disillusionment with Krishnamurti.
I did write there too that: In summary: while I feel Krishnamurti’s teachings were exactly what the TS needed at that time, stand alone they offer people (especially kids) in our time enormous risks.
and for theosophists K’s teachings aren’t a risk at all. We come packed with safeguards and K’s teachings are designed to get rid of precisely the risks theosophy as a spiritual path has:
* Too much reliance on theory
* Not looking at your life but at an image of your life
* Arrogance from thinking you are serving imaginary masters (imaginary to you at least as you’ve never met them – if that’s sentence seems to imply I did meet them, that was not my intention :) )
David: the 99 names of Allah is quite traditional.
About the Gospels: The issue is when can they be historically traced. The names of the apostles were probably added later.
About HPB and astrology: she wrote quite positively about it. She wrote only a bit about Dowsing and nothing as far as I know about Tarot and I-ching. The latter was only popularized after her death. So this one isn't so much about her opinion, but about what she actually discussed.
about Krishnamurti: I'll look at the second question. Thanks.
KH-ji? I had some trouble translating that. I'm in a mixed boat about K's teachings. In general though, for theosophists, I think their effect is more positive than negative. So I would not discourage you.
You need to be a member of Theosophy.Net to add comments!
Join Theosophy.Net