Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

The false environment ?


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 83 in total
Sat, 04 Feb 2017 #1
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

"There can be struggle only between two false things, conflict between the environment and the result of environment which is the "I"."

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day | Feb 04, 2017

In this statement K says that both the 'environment' and the 'I' are false ...

We can easily understand that the 'I', which is an illusional entity created by thought, is false ... but how is it that the 'environment' is also false ?

Isn't the 'environment' - the world around us - real ? Is the world an 'illusion' too ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Feb 2017 #2
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
"There can be struggle only between two false things, conflict between the environment and the result of environment which is the "I"."

In fact this statement means that conflicts can only arise from duality: when there is a 'me' and a 'non-me' (the so-called 'environment')

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Feb 2017 #3
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 2990 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
We can easily understand that the 'I', which is an illusional entity created by thought, is false ... but how is it that the 'environment' is also false ?

I assume that K means the society when he refers to the 'environment' here. The values which create the society are what are 'false'.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Feb 2017 #4
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4837 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I assume that K means the society when he refers to the 'environment' here. The values which create the society are what are 'false'.

Yes that's the way I understood it too.

The problem with framing a question, like the one above, when you don't understand what you have read and therefore misinterpret the meanings of words, is that you can never hope to find an answer because the question was born of confusion. Must be very frustrating especially when one does that more often than not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 #5
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I assume that K means the society when he refers to the 'environment' here. The values which create the society are what are 'false'.

But then Tom, how can you explain that the "I" which is a product of this society, comes to be in conflict with this same society of which the "I" shares the values and beliefs ?

For sure the 'environment' which created the 'I' must be different from the 'environment' with which we come to be in conflict ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 #6
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 2990 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
But then Tom, how can you explain that the "I" which is a product of this society, comes to be in conflict with this same society of which the "I" shares the values and beliefs ?

In the same way I can be in conflict with myself....one fragment saying I must work hard or I must be kind, and my anger or my laziness which contradict those ideals. Society might tell me to be a good Christian and attend church. I don't feel like going, but I'm in conflict because I want to be a good Christian or Hindu or Jew. It all comes down to a conflict between the ideal or belief and 'what is'. If society tells me anger or weakness is wrong, then whenever I feel weak or angry, I will feel conflict. I AM the society because I have internalized all the beliefs of that society. There is both inner and outer conflict which originate from the same source.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 05 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 #7
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
In the same way I can be in conflict with myself....one fragment saying I must work hard or I must be kind, and my anger or my laziness which contradict those ideals.

Right Tom, this is exactly how it is ... society is fragmented and so is the self ... we live in contradictions: capitalism and scientism, which are the mainstream foundations of our modern western materialistic societies and education are in contradiction with Christian or religious values of spirituality ... it can be said that we are really 'schizophrenic' in the etymological sense of the word: 'split minds' ... fragmented minds ...

and when any of those ideals we believe are contradicted by 'what is', then conflicts arise ... and it is inevitable because one fragment will always enter in conflict with another fragment ...

Now, is there any way out of this mess ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 #8
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 2990 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
. it can be said that we are really 'schizophrenic' in the etymological sense of the word: 'split minds' ... fragmented minds ...

and when any of those ideals we believe are contradicted by 'what is', then conflicts arise ... and it is inevitable because one fragment will always enter in conflict with another fragment ...

Yes...it can be quite a shock to come face to face with the fact of the 'schizophrenic' nature of our consciousness. To really see it, not just intellectually, but to observe this inherent conflict in oneself. Outer conflict is inevitable when our 'inner' consciousness is fragmented. Can you expand upon your last statement that one fragment will always be in conflict with another fragment. Why does fragmentation always lead to conflict?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 05 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 #9
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I AM the society because I have internalized all the beliefs of that society.

Well not exactly ALL the beliefs Tom ... only the fragments corresponding to the 'environment' (or community) in which I have been 'educated' (conditioned) ... if I am born Christian or Muslim or Hindu, I share the beliefs of this community I 'belong' to ... and create conflicts with 'alien' communities ... I live in dichotomy 'we' vs 'others' ... eg. in Islam this is conceptualized by the 'dar-al-islam' (literally 'domain of Islam' meaning those countries submitted to Islam) and 'dar-al-harb' (literally 'domain of the war') referring to countries not yet submitted to Islam and that must be fought against by war or 'jihad' ... and of course this concept is the very root foundation and justification of islamic terrorism ... all this in the name of God ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

This post was last updated by Jean Gatti Sun, 05 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 #10
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4837 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I AM the society because I have internalized all the beliefs of that society. There is both inner and outer conflict which originate from the same source.

Yes Tom what you have said here certainly seems to follow logically.
But wait this clear and reasonable statement is questioned by Jean because:

Jean Gatti wrote:
Well not exactly ALL the beliefs Tom ... only the fragments corresponding to the 'environment' (or community) in which I have been 'educated' (conditioned) ... if I am born Christian or Muslim or Hindu, I share the beliefs of this community I 'belong' to ... and create conflicts with 'alien' communities ...

Do we really need to clarify one religious belief from another? Or is there there just belief? The details of the expression of belief really don't matter. It's not what you believe in that is important but rather understanding belief that is important.

The conflicts are not limited to cultures who believe differently but rather these conflicts exist within every culture. For example, not everyone in a predominantly Christian culture believes in Christianity. This often leads to conflict.

It is distinctions such as the above that Jean often introduces to a discussion that are tangential, irrelevant, inaccurate and stultifying. The latter being perhaps the most damaging to an exploration.

I think these kinds of misstatements are done not to clarify and communicate with another but to pontificate in a vain attempt to elevate one's own ego. To show another that he can never hope to know as much as the "master", the pontificator. How can you have any kind of meaningful dialogue under these conditions?

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sun, 05 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 #11
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Why does fragmentation always lead to conflict?

Because fragmentation creates a division, a separation, a duality ... and this division as K pointed to in the above statement, is fundamentally false, illusional ...

Can there be any conflict when there is unity, when there is no division ?

What must be understood is that all the divisions created by thought are fundamentally false. Therefore 'what is' can no more be resisted, and this non-resistance annihilates all the possibilities for conflicts.

This is also the sense of this enigmatic statement from K (his 'secret') :

"I don't mind what happens" ... ie. whatever happens is not resisted ... no conflict can arise from this state of mind ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 #12
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 203 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
This is also the sense of this enigmatic statement from K (his 'secret') :

"I don't mind what happens" ... ie. whatever happens is not resisted ... no conflict can arise from this state of mind ...

This is the interpretation of this story by Eckhart Tolle :http://www.tolleteachings.com/secret-to-happine...

The second approach to becoming more happy is contained in a little secret that is very simple and very potent—accept what is. The great Indian philosopher and spiritual teacher J. Krishnamurti expressed this secret in a lecture he gave near the end of his life. He said to his audience, "Do you want to know my secret?… My secret is that I don't mind what happens."

I don't mind what happens. Another way of saying this is
"I accept the present moment as it is."

"The present moment is my friend, not my enemy."

"I am in alignment with what is, as it is, in this moment."

"Whatever is happening in this moment is OK, neither good nor bad. It just is."
The secret to happiness is letting go of judgment and resistance to the way things are. When we accept and align with what is, we are not resigning ourselves to a fate we may or may not like. We are empowering ourselves with peace, tranquility and a sense of clarity that will allow us to make wise, non-reactive choices about our conditions.

When we befriend the present moment with acceptance and non-resistance, we will feel more peaceful and be less torn by what we like and don't like. To be more happy, make friends with what is.

Another version:

( The Guardian )

The world of "spiritual teachers" has more than its share of charlatans and buffoons. But it's hard not to respect Jiddu Krishnamurti, the Indian-born mystic who died in 1986. As an adolescent, he was taken under the wing of the Theosophical Society, whose leaders decided he was the new World Teacher, the messiah who'd save humankind. Awkwardly, however, Krishnamurti came to believe this was bunkum. In 1929, aged 34, he called a meeting of the organisation created to prepare the planet for his arrival – and disbanded it. Organised religion, spiritual gurus: he rejected it all. "Truth is a pathless land," he famously declared: if you're following someone else, you'll never find it. It's amusing to imagine the crestfallen expressions on his acolytes' faces, much as one relishes the thought of modern-day conservative Christians meeting the penniless, dark-skinned Jewish socialist who founded their faith.

Krishnamurti went on to give countless talks at which he frequently implied that his audience shouldn't be wasting their time listening to spiritual talks. But perhaps the most striking was a 1977 lecture in California. "Part-way through this particular talk," writes Jim Dreaver, who was present, "Krishnamurti suddenly paused, leaned forward and said, almost conspiratorially, 'Do you want to know what my secret is?'?" (There are several accounts of this event; details vary.) Krishnamurti rarely spoke in such personal terms, and the audience was electrified, Dreaver recalls. "Almost as though we were one body we sat up… I could see people all around me lean forward, their ears straining and their mouths slowly opening in hushed anticipation." Then Krishnamurti, "in a soft, almost shy voice", said: "You see, I don't mind what happens."

This line is a litmus test. Try it on your friends! The new-agey ones may nod knowingly, but many will find it objectionable. It evokes the self-help cliche of "acceptance", which sounds like a counsel of despair. Surely the greatest breakthroughs of human history – the end of slavery, votes for women, the eradication of polio – wouldn't have happened if people had simply elected not to mind.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Mon, 06 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 #13
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4837 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks Rich that is a very interesting post above. So as some of us already knew when Jean posts we are frequently getting a version of K interpreted through Tolle and then that is interpreted through Jean. So we end up with statements on this forum from Jean twice removed from K actually pointed out.

Jean is interpreting K according to what Tolle is saying he thinks K is saying.

You know I doubt that K ever said he "had a secret". If there is such a statement I would like to read it in context and not removed to be use an a misunderstood ideal as it is being used on this forum.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 #14
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4837 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Because fragmentation creates a division, a separation, a duality ...

But Jean you fragmented belief into Christianity, Muslim, Hindu in your post #9. Do you see that?

Jean Gatti wrote:
What must be understood is that all the divisions created by thought are fundamentally false.

Then do you see how your thinking, your statement, which divided belief in to particular religious beliefs........

Jean Gatti wrote:
Well not exactly ALL the beliefs Tom ... only the fragments corresponding to the 'environment' (or community) in which I have been 'educated' (conditioned) ... if I am born Christian or Muslim or Hindu

.......is fundamentally false?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Feb 2017 #15
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 203 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
You know I doubt that K ever said he "had a secret". If there is such a statement I would like to read it in context and not removed to be use an a misunderstood ideal as it is being used on this forum.

You know, I heard that he was saying this about people talking or coughing during his talks. Some have made a philosophy out of it, which is so ridiculous. He have talk for 60 years, and someone grab this little sentence just because it suit his own beleive , and think that it is the way to happiness, to the truth. Though, his message was: truth is a pathless land.

Personnaly, I think that K. was caring about what is happening. Caring doesn't mean resisting, being in conflict. It means being sensitive, it mean looking, to understand what is going on.. and so on.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 #16
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 203 posts in this forum Offline

Very bad essay. And you are a very bad impersonator. Here is the real text.

When there is an ending of psychological conflict - which is part of suffering - then how does that apply to one's livelihood, how does that apply in one's relationship with others? How does that ending of psychological struggle, with all its conflicts, pain, anxiety, fear, how does that apply to one's daily living - one's daily going to the office etc. etc? If it is a fact that one has ended psychological conflict, then how will one live a life without conflict outwardly? When there is no conflict inside, there is no conflict outside, because there is no division between the inner and the outer. It is like the ebb and flow of the sea. It is an absolute, irrevocable fact, which nobody can touch, it is inviolate. So, if that is so, then what shall one do to earn a livelihood? Because there is no conflict, therefore there is no ambition. Because there is no conflict, there is no desire to be something. Because inwardly there is something absolute which is inviolate, which cannot be touched, which cannot be damaged, then one does not depend psychologically on another; therefore there is no conformity, no imitation. So, not having all that, one is no longer heavily conditioned to success and failure in the world of money, position, prestige, which implies the denial of "what is'' and the acceptance of"what should be''.

Wholeness of Life, The
J. Krishnamurti The Wholeness of Life Part II Chapter 16 2nd Public Talk Ojai California 3rd April 1977

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Mon, 06 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 #17
Thumb_baboon-9186 dave h United Kingdom 1148 posts in this forum Offline

oh hell yeah buddy!!! yee-haw!!!!

Jean Gatti wrote:
eg. in Islam this is conceptualized by the 'dar-al-islam' (literally 'domain of Islam' meaning those countries submitted to Islam) and 'dar-al-harb' (literally 'domain of the war') referring to countries not yet submitted to Islam and that must be fought against by war or 'jihad' ... and of course this concept is the very root foundation and justification of islamic terrorism ... all this in the name of God ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 #18
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Ken B wrote:
Below is the talk.....it has to do with earning a livelihood...of course if you don't have to earn a livelihood, as he admits he doesn't, well then I guess you don't mind what happens. It's funny how the people closest to Krishnamurti apparently recall nothing he ever said. You're lucky to have me here to straighten everything out.

Krishnamurti Ojai, April 3, 1977

" I've no problem because I don't mind what happens. You understand? I don't mind if I fail or succeed, I don't mind if I have money or not money - personally I have no money, thank god. I don't want money, but I need food and clothes and shelter, and if somebody gives me, it's all right, if somebody doesn't, I live where I am. You understand my question? I have no problem because I don't demand anything from anybody or from life. "

Thanks for this excellent quote Ken ... it says it all ...

And of course this reminds us the famous 'parable of the Lily' from Jesus (Matthew 6:25-34)

"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? Look at the birds of the air: They do not sow or reap or gather into barns—and yet your Heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?
Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his lifespan? And why do you worry about clothes? Consider how the lilies of the field grow: They do not labor or spin
Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his glory was adorned like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?
Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’
For the pagans pursue all these things, and your Heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you
Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Today has enough trouble of its own."

Matthew 6:25-34

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 #19
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
K: "When there is no conflict inside, there is no conflict outside, because there is no division between the inner and the outer."

I think that this statement is of utter importance to understand K's teachings ... "no division between the inner and the outer" ... do we see what this really implies ? It is indeed an atomic discovery ...

And we touch here the question raised in this discussion: why does K refer to a 'false environment' ? Isn't 'environment' referring to what is 'outside' ? a 'center' and a 'periphery' ? But is there such a thing as an 'outer' reality ?

... or is it all the same ONE movement ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

This post was last updated by Jean Gatti Mon, 06 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 #20
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
K: "... So, not having all that, one is no longer heavily conditioned to success and failure in the world of money, position, prestige, which implies the denial of "what is'' and the acceptance of"what should be''.

Yes, therefore better accept 'what is' and deny 'what should be' :-)

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 #21
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 2990 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
better accept 'what is

One should start practicing this acceptance then, when denial/reacting is 'what is'....isn't that what you are implying? It seems that you are making a religion out of this 'accepting what is' Jean. It's what Tolle has done, isn't is....acceptance and surrender are the ideals. Did K ever speak of accepting what is? I wonder. I know he spoke of observing what is...understanding it. I don't recall him ever speaking about surrendering to what is, but correct me if I'm mistaken.

"From the beginning we must be very clear that you are not being told what to do, or what to think. We have been programmed enough. But in this talk, and tomorrow's talk, we should think together, look at the world as it is, what is actually going on, together, without any bias, without any prejudice, to look at the world that man has created; each human being throughout the world has created this society. This society is corrupt, immoral, and it has always had wars." San Francisco, Ca 1st Public Talk, 30th April 1983

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 06 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 #22
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4837 posts in this forum Offline

Jean why do you insist on continuing to abuse and misuse this forum by posting irrelevant, incorrect and biased views on nearly everything?

If you want to discuss the crap that Tolle puts out then go to the Tolle site to do that. That is if you are still welcome there. In the past two people have come from the Tolle site to lambast you to me in personal messages. One woman in particular eviscerated you. She was the one who told me you were using the name of "Phil".

And Jean where in the questionable quote provided by Ken does K say "this is my secret?" I question Ken's version because K, in all the talks I've heard and read, simply did not use the word "I" hardly at all. In Ken's "quote" the are "I's" all over the place.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 #23
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4837 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
It seems that you are making a religion out of this 'accepting what is' Jean. It's what Tolle has done, isn't is....acceptance and surrender are the ideals.

Indeed. Jean seems to be a natural born follower who quotes others but without his own understanding. The true believer.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 #24
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 203 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Yes, therefore better accept 'what is' and deny 'what should be' :-)

Find the truth of what is first. Then there is any necessity or need or question about to accept, about acceptance. But the truth can't be found in the known. So you must first deny all what you know. Including what Eckhart Tolle told you :-)

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Mon, 06 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 #25
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 203 posts in this forum Offline

Ken B wrote:
Sorry, but the phrase "I don't mind what happens" isn't in your quoted passage.

Sorry, but you disappointed me. I thought you would ( or should :-) ) find better then that.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Mon, 06 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 #26
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
One should start practicing this acceptance then, when denial/reacting is 'what is'....isn't that what you are implying?

No there is no 'practice' of acceptance ... but you can SEE (observe) all your resistance to 'what is' ... starting with all the emotional reactions of anger, fear, jealousy etc ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 #27
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4837 posts in this forum Offline

Ken B wrote:
It's funny how the people closest to Krishnamurti apparently recall nothing he ever said. You're lucky to have me here to straighten everything out.

Neither of the above statements are true. They are over-generalized opinions. But even if the first statement were true it is preferable to not remember, verbatim, what K was pointing out then to only be able to copy and repeat what K said without having any meaningful understanding of what he was saying.

Being able to find the text with a computer is not the same as understanding the text being found.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 #28
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
Find the truth of what is first.

What do you mean by that ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 #29
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4837 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
No there is no 'practice' of acceptance ... but you can SEE (observe) all your resistance to 'what is' ...

But Jean you are constantly practicing acceptance through all of the things you put on this forum that you have accepted. There is only 'what is' Jean and not the resistance to "what is" or the non-resistance. You seem to make a duality out of things instead of just seeing the things without a conclusion.

Maybe instead of letting Tolle interpret K for you you should actually read something by K. The below quote is also from April 3, 1977, Ojai, CA.

Why is there this conflict, psychologically? From ancient times, both socially and religiously, there has been a division between the good and the bad. Is there really this division at all - or is there only "what is'', without its opposite? Suppose there is anger; that is the fact, that is"what is'', but ``I will not be angry'' is an idea, not a fact.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Feb 2017 #30
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4837 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
What do you mean by that ?

Understand "what is" without making a concept out of it by saying "don't resist what is" You are not seeing what is when you are preoccupied with resisting or not resisting what is. That is just a concept you have invented through not understanding "what is".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 83 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)