Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
A Quiet Space | moderated by Clive Elwell

When there is attention, there is no centre


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 64 in total
Sat, 20 May 2017 #31
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
the insight of my previous post. It came from silence,

Clive, I don’t understand this.

You say you have insigh from a place you call silence, but when I ask you to ask yourself the question: ”What is it that sees, hears, touches, smells, without superimposing.”, you experience an entity.

What is your experience?

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 20 May 2017 #32
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 348 posts in this forum Offline

re #9:

Huguette . wrote:
Clive, it seems to me that you have actually said what is essential about the incompatibility of thought and awareness in your post #1 (and elsewhere):

Clive Elwell wrote:
Yes, one might have said it, but still there is an ongoing investigation, beyond the verbal. There is letting the awareness BE, and act.

Seems to me this is the real work. What do you say?

Of course, Clive. I was not suggesting that “oh well, you have said what is essential and so we are done now, it’s all settled, everything is understood, we have reached the end of learning”.

The mind sees that thought is incapable of ending suffering, doesn’t it? Don’t we? This understanding is not put together by thought, is it? And we are (the mind is) on the lookout for the illusions of thought to creep in, distort and corrupt understanding. We are vigilant. We look at the whole thing anew - self, time, thought - and it is seen anew. So this understanding is not held in the vast storehouse of conclusions, ideas, beliefs, conceits, images, and so on, which constitutes our consciousness. It is not trotted out and displayed for social or asocial exchanges.

We have investigated, examined, looked into the source of suffering, the nature of self and time, the limitations of thought, and so on. Awareness has opened the door to self-understanding and awareness also has not ended suffering. But the fact remains, doesn't it? - the mind clearly sees that there is nothing that thought can do to end suffering and that anything thought decides to do only perpetuates and increases suffering. That fact is immovable, unavoidable, undeniable to the mind, isn’t it? And yet the mind still does not want to let awareness BE and act. This fact is also immovable, isn’t it? So where does that leave the mind, meaning, what does the mind DO?

As you said previously more or less, “what is” is fluid, it changes from moment to moment. There are errands to run, tasks to perform. And there is suffering, fear, anger, joy. So in a moment of suffering, the mind doesn’t resist, rebel or pretend that suffering is not there. And in a moment of love or joy, it doesn’t cling to it. It makes no effort either way. And it still takes care of its errands and tasks, it sees to life's demands. Whatever presents itself in the moment, it faces, understanding that any effort it wants to make is not right action, that any effort it makes is rooted in the past and the past is the source of conflict. Isn’t this what happens? Isn’t this what IS?

So at this point, I don’t see awareness as an “investigation”. The investigation is done. I’m NOT saying "done" in that there's nothing left to learn. Of course, there is. But we started investigating because we wanted to find answers to our particular problems, issues, discontent, no? Are we looking to solve something now? The process of desire and effort too is understood. Now, as you say, there is only awareness. One can perhaps put it as the pure learning in/of awareness; not learning with a goal, desire or hope, not learning about a particular thing or problem, not learning to understand a particular difficulty or behaviour. Just the “free” undirected learning of awareness, without breaking up, squandering, life’s energy.

But I can't say anything for sure.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 20 May 2017 #33
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 709 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The process of desire and effort too is understood.

I came upon through Jan's recent link in his 'Eye of the Needle' thread to a 1928 talk by K that was interesting in light of our recent conversation. Specifically regarding 'Desire' where his description of its two fold function made more sense than what I had previously thought. Simply that desire could direct itself at the 'non-essential' or the 'essential'...

This too I thought was relevant to our thoughts on sorrow, suffering etc.:

"Wherever there is sorrow, it is the outcome of this struggle to distinguish between the essential and the non-essential. All men have the desire to fight sorrow, to escape sorrow, and to treat it as a terrible thing. But sorrow and pleasure alike are the soil in which to grow, in which to diminish this sense of separateness, and this diminution is true growth. So there must be born within each one the faith of certainty. This is not come at by reason alone, but by the continual groping through experience, urged on by desire, in its search for the ultimate reality."

This "faith of certainty' he explains in the talk...a 'faith' that we are not separate...

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 20 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 May 2017 #34
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3560 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Not sure about the 'wake up call' part. Can you elaborate?

To put it very simply, Tom, thinking is not awareness. So if one “catches oneself thinking”, even about awareness, that is an indication, a pointer, that one is not aware – this is the “wake up call” I was referring to.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 May 2017 #35
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3560 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
And what is conflict? Isn’t it the effort to solve a problem? Conflict is not the problem itself but the effort to solve it, isn’t it?

Another way to put this, Huguette, is it not, is that one pretends that one is separate from the problem. Is it that this is the only way we feel we CAN solve a problem?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 May 2017 #36
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3560 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
You say you have insigh from a place you call silence, but when I ask you to ask yourself the question: ”What is it that sees, hears, touches, smells, without superimposing.”, you experience an entity.

There is some misunderstanding, Olive. Can you give me the # number of the post you are referring to? It is a weakness of the mechanism of the forum that it doesn't do that.

I was under the impression I had said there was no entity. And surely there isn't?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 May 2017 #37
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 348 posts in this forum Offline

re #33:

Dan McDermott wrote:
This "faith of certainty' he explains in the talk...a 'faith' that we are not separate...

Dan, you have thrown my understanding on its ear. I read the whole linked speech from 1928 because I didn’t understand the excerpt. In it, K’s style is obviously completely different. It is youthful, less mature … which is not surprising of course. His vocabulary, the meaning he gives to certain words, and his reasoning are understandably different. For the most part, the mind at 50, 60, 80 does not speak, think and reason like the mind of a small child, a teen or a young adult - though there is a “modern” obsession with the pursuit of youthful appearance and even childish ways. When a child speaks like a child, it’s adorable. When an 80-year old speaks like a child, it’s sad, no? So it makes perfect sense that K or any of us at 33 do not sound like at 50, 60 and 80, doesn’t it?

“When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.” - 1 Corinthians 13:11.

I’m not discounting what K says here, and I don’t want to analyze his style and his words. I’ll just say that I see what he says here as incomplete understanding. I don’t want to pretend otherwise and I’m not saying I’m right about how I see it. How do you feel about this? It is important to understand the psychological process of self, the process by which self separates itself. But is it faith that is needed or is it awareness and understanding?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 May 2017 #38
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 709 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
But is it faith that is needed or is it awareness and understanding?

Why not all three?

"Liberation is not an impossibility. But it is difficult to maintain a concentrated, sustained effort towards liberation, and hence the few who attempt it. That which is in all things is not difficult to achieve, or difficult to realise, but there are many things between you and that realisation which, through continual effort, continual choice, discernment, you must eschew and put aside. That requires intense faith, recollectedness, concentration and continual energy, but that is not limited by outward conditions, by time or by age. Life has no age limit. The body wears out, as a coat wears out, but young and old, at any time, may achieve, may realize, if they are willing to concentrate, if they have this intense faith. As I said before, do not misunderstand what I mean by faith. It is not the faith in something external, but the certainty that within yourself lie the potentiality and the totality. That liberation everyone can achieve; it is not reserved for the few. So, achievement does not depend on age or environment, but on your effort, on your interest, on your desire -of which you alone can judge."

(1928)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 21 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 May 2017 #39
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 348 posts in this forum Offline

re #38:

Dan McDermott wrote (quoting K):
....do not misunderstand what I mean by faith. It is not the faith in something external, but the certainty that within yourself lie the potentiality and the totality.

Yes, I glimpse another meaning than what I had considered. It can be understood differently.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 May 2017 #40
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 348 posts in this forum Offline

from #26:

Huguette . wrote:
Can I NOT escape? Not because it will get me somewhere or something but because escape is a waste of energy and solves nothing. Then there's just living ... in awareness, not ignorance, not seeking.

Clive Elwell wrote:
What you are talking off is acceptance, is it not? And I think you are suggesting that with this acceptance, there is no conflict.

Clive, I don’t mean “acceptance” exactly. Acceptance comes from “me”, doesn’t it? “I” accept that escape is a futile waste of energy and so “I” relax and stop struggling. But there’s still subtle thought in that acceptance - a subtle conclusion, decision or opinion - isn’t there?

Fear, discontent, the loss of a loved one, the loss of cherished beliefs and images, suffering, death, and so on. There’s no getting around it. These FACTS are immovable. The desire to try to effect a change is immovable. And SEEING the fear and desire is also immovable, isn't it?

There it all is. Both fear and desire spring from the movement of thought, conscious or unconscious. Is it so? Two immovable and irresistable movements opposing each other. Then the seeing of the whole process is not thought, is it? Isn't the seeing of it - “passive yet alert fallowness of the mind” - an energy which is whole, undivided, so that there is no conflict, no attempt made to end either the fear or the desire?

Maybe I’m mistaken.

Collected Works, Vol. IV, 206, Choiceless Awareness:

“...unlike the farmer who allows the
field to lie fallow during winter, the
mind never allows itself to lie
fallow. As the rains, the storms, and
the sunshine recreate the earth, so
during that passive yet alert
fallowness of the mind, there is
rejuvenation, a renewal...”

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 May 2017 #41
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3560 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The mind sees that thought is incapable of ending suffering, doesn’t it? Don’t we? This understanding is not put together by thought, is it?

All I can say in honesty is that it is (sometimes) seen that thought is incapable of ending suffering, or putting an end to any psychological problem, or a problem with its roots in the psyche. I do not know what it is that sees this, "the mind" is a convenient word.

Huguette . wrote:
We look at the whole thing anew - self, time, thought - and it is seen anew.

Indeed seeing must always be anew - that is the essence of seeing, is it not?

Huguette . wrote:
So this understanding is not held in the vast storehouse of conclusions, ideas, beliefs, conceits, images, and so on, which constitutes our consciousness.

No, it is certainly not a matter of knowledge. And this is a curious thing, something I often ponder. Although it must be said that there has been change in one's life, in one's perceptions, it does not lie in the accumulations of knowledge. So where does it lie? Have the brain cells themselves changed?

Huguette . wrote:
It is not trotted out and displayed for social or asocial exchanges.

No, it is of no advantage in social exchange :-)

Huguette . wrote:
the mind clearly sees that there is nothing that thought can do to end suffering and that anything thought decides to do only perpetuates and increases suffering. That fact is immovable, unavoidable, undeniable to the mind, isn’t it? And yet the mind still does not want to let awareness BE and act. This fact is also immovable, isn’t it? So where does that leave the mind, meaning, what does the mind DO?

I would say that it is a fact, if anything is a fact. K has used the phrase "painting oneself into a corner" - thought cannot rationally, sanely, move in any direction without being in contradiction to itself. Yet for me, it still tries.

I have sometimes thought this is the difference between K and normal human beings - for him, seeing was action, pure and simple.

Huguette . wrote:
So at this point, I don’t see awareness as an “investigation”. The investigation is done. I’m NOT saying "done" in that there's nothing left to learn. Of course, there is. But we started investigating because we wanted to find answers to our particular problems, issues, discontent, no? Are we looking to solve something now? The process of desire and effort too is understood. Now, as you say, there is only awareness.

I take your point, Huguette, that awareness is not an investigation. But I hope I have not said "now, there is only awareness". There is a huge amount of unawareness 'in me'. Astoundingly so. I would say everything POINTS to awareness, points to awareness being the essence - but the pointing still creates a space, a distance.

Only the total inaction of thought, brought about by seeing its own futility, only when it is seen that there is no where to go, nothing to become ..........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 May 2017 #42
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3560 posts in this forum Offline

Link Smickman wrote:
I think i understand exactly what you are trying to say, Clive.

i would like to put aside what I might have said or thought in the past. What relevance has it to the present moment? Understanding cannot be accumulated, can it? And who knows, everything I have ever said in the past might be wrong.

I myself am continually putting aside what was said, what was thought in the past. No, that is not a good way to put it, "I am putting it aside", rather it is continually dying to itself.

What I wanted to post, and your post encourages me to this, Link, is the simple question:

What is awareness?

One thing I am beginning to see about awareness is that it is nothing whatsoever to do with me.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 May 2017 #43
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3560 posts in this forum Offline

What is awareness?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 23 May 2017 #44
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 544 posts in this forum Offline

Do you take yourself to be a person? Or are you awareness?

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Tue, 23 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 May 2017 #45
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3560 posts in this forum Offline

Link Smickman wrote:
Wouldnt it be the complete abandonment of the "I"?

Well, until the "I" has been completely abandoned, I am unable to answer that question.

What will bring about such abandonment is the issue K seemed to be concerned with all his life. And indeed it the fundamental issue of any somewhat serious individual, as clearly the self is behind pretty much all of mankind's problems, behind all his suffering, conflict, sorrow.

I am not intending to duck the question by writing this.

Link Smickman wrote:
The complete abandonment of any will to achieve, overcome, go beyond what is truth or know what is beyond truth or what is?

Yes, all of this. It must imply the ending of all psychological knowledge.

Link wrote:
Doesnt awareness mean to be aware of something which is real? If i was someone who was aware wouldnt that mean that i would be aware of everything

But what would "everything" mean, Link. THe word seems to encompass the movement of the stars and galaxies, all human knowledge, all that is going on in politics, entertainment, the whole human world, all in one moment. This is hard to accept.

Does it mean to be aware of all that senses are taking in? Even that seems an enormous thing.

Link Smickman wrote:
They arent very good at managing themselves and their actions, they dont go about this carefully.

I would rather say they are not aware of themselves - and this is what makes them so destructive in their actions.

Link Smickman wrote:
Is this forum not a social environment like any other?

I think the forum is what we make of it, Link.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 May 2017 #46
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3560 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
Do you take yourself to be a person? Or are you awareness?

Both of these questions are the source of fairly continuous inquiry, or rather observation, Peter.

But no conclusion can be drawn.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 May 2017 #47
Thumb_stringio Link Smickman United States 54 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Well, until the "I" has been completely abandoned, I am unable to answer that question.

What will bring about such abandonment is the issue K seemed to be concerned with all his life. And indeed it the fundamental issue of any somewhat serious individual, as clearly the self is behind pretty much all of mankind's problems, behind all his suffering, conflict, sorrow.

I am not intending to duck the question by writing this.

No, i do insist, we are talking about the same thing. Please lets go into this further. I do understand what you are saying. I am not saying this to spite you. Communication is very difficult to initiate. Its hard to know if someone is genuinely interested in something. Most people are burnt out and have little energy and such a thing requires energy. One must also question everything and i hope that one would question everything i say also and not feel that i will hurt them or react violently or be frightened. Its important to understand something first hand, however that is done.

Please dont translate this in a manner which triggers you if you are indeed serious. I do give you alot of credit for being honest enough to say that you havent quite found it yet.

You didnt answer my question. I feel it is very important in understand what we are trying to understand here. Lets go into it.

You have basically asked how one is to abandon all these things. Or have you?

I asked the question - Isnt the very desire to do this the factor which prevents it? Isnt the desire to go beyond ones state the very factor which prevents understanding or awareness inward or outward? It sounds like trickery and there are many things involved. There are many people who are trying do this, in various ways and they are actually narrowing their awareness down without realizing, blocking out awareness, building a wall around themselves. I dont mean any sarcasm in any of this or to present any difficulty in what you are trying to understand.

Does one need to be concerned with going beyond or becoming aware to actually be aware? Can one actually become aware from trying to become aware, which implies time and effort, concentration?

The very fact that you have narrowed down to this and are asking these questions means that you are very serious about it and that is necessary, it doesnt mean that one needs to scrap the whole thing and think in black and white. It seems as though you may need to go about this with a little more tenderness and a little more slowly. There isnt just a simple answer that one can receive from another, one has to feel it out themselves. Can one become aware by trying to become aware, which implies concentration, a narrowing down, a straining activity? Go about it slowly, dont just condemn this and look for simple answers.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Does it mean to be aware of all that senses are taking in? Even that seems an enormous thing.

Yes, thats basically what i meant. To see, to percieve as K put it. And also to learn all the time about everything while using the intelligence gathered from all this. It happens naturally if one is not straining.

Also you may wonder why i seem to criticize the world, people or the forum often. You may think this is trite, but it is not. There is a very good reason for that. It is because it is important to question everything and our world is filled with tyrannical and very hurt people that are looking for security and find it and assert it. This forum does this in a more subtle manner. Most people are very assertive and agressive and that is what im used to. I dont feel that i was ever being unreasonable in doing this. If someone is hurt very deeply then one must question them, that doesnt mean that the questioner is angry or hates them.. Infact to do that is the only way to be free of such hurt and to be free of hurt is the only way to truly understand someone and what they go through.

Our society is a very sick society which shuns some peoples hurts and condones others. It is a war zone, a terrible place. No one cares about anything, dont just hear words and condemn them. No one is being educated to properly get along or understand anything, none of this is about peace. It is more about what K said in the past, pleasure, fear, carelessness etc. One must be totally free of that society to understand what other people go through. It sounds dreadful but that is because we are naming it in the manner K spoke of. We are naming it how we name our emotions.. anger, sadness, etc. This can become an enormous hinderance yet if one understood these reactions a bit deeper it may be resolved without time or effort.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 May 2017 #48
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3560 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
What is awareness?

To attempt an answer to my own questions, it comes that awareness, or part of awareness, is to observe, to see. And also to listen. To be attentive to what any of the senses are communicating, in fact.

To put it another way, another part of awareness, is to be conscious of something. Unless something is in our consciosness, we cannot be aware of it, can we?

Thi leads to another question, what is it to be conscious?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 May 2017 #49
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3560 posts in this forum Offline

Why is awareness sometimes there, and sometimes not there?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 May 2017 #50
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3560 posts in this forum Offline

Link Smickman wrote:
No, i do insist, we are talking about the same thing. Please lets go into this further

[cut]

You have basically asked how one is to abandon all these things. Or have you?

Clive: Not exactly. I don't like the word “how”, it suggests one is looking for a method to follow, and that has certainly been abandoned.
Even the phrase I used “what will bring about....” is suspect, as it implies there must be a cause with a definite effect.
One sees that there must be change, fundamental change. No one in their right mind would be content to continue in this darkness which is the world, which is me. But the more one looks at things, the more one sees the mind is trying to find an answer IN the darkness, or FROM the darkness, and such answers only continue the darkness.

I asked the question - Isnt the very desire to do this the factor which prevents it? Isnt the desire to go beyond ones state the very factor which prevents understanding or awareness inward or outward? It sounds like trickery and there are many things involved. There are many people who are trying do this, in various ways and they are actually narrowing their awareness down without realizing, blocking out awareness, building a wall around themselves. I dont mean any sarcasm in any of this or to present any difficulty in what you are trying to understand.

Clive: the mere desire to go beyond does not seem to lead anywhere, to offer a way out of the darkness. At least desire in the conventional sense. Desire in the sense of trying to become other than I am. This movement to become seems to be the very essence of the darkness – which I think is what you are saying, Link.

Does one need to be concerned with going beyond or becoming aware to actually be aware? Can one actually become aware from trying to become aware, which implies time and effort, concentration?

Clive: Good question. I think in the past I have probably squandered a lot of energy in this “trying to become aware”. Whatever I try to become is a mere image, a projection of the mind, isn't it?

The very fact that you have narrowed down to this and are asking these questions means that you are very serious about it and that is necessary, it doesnt mean that one needs to scrap the whole thing and think in black and white. It seems as though you may need to go about this with a little more tenderness and a little more slowly. There isnt just a simple answer that one can receive from another, one has to feel it out themselves.

Clive: This is certainly true, Link.

Can one become aware by trying to become aware, which implies concentration, a narrowing down, a straining activity? Go about it slowly, dont just condemn this and look for simple answers.

Clive: I am going into it slowly. For some time I have been quietly watching the mind, day and night, and I think the futility of trying to become anything is pretty much seen. By “watching the mind”, I am not implying that “I” am separate from what is watched. This movement of separation is exactly what needs to be watched.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Does it mean to be aware of all that senses are taking in? Even that seems an enormous thing.
Yes, thats basically what i meant. To see, to percieve as K put it. And also to learn all the time about everything while using the intelligence gathered from all this. It happens naturally if one is not straining.
Also you may wonder why i seem to criticize the world, people or the forum often.

Clive: Not really, I am quite a criticiser myself :-)

You may think this is trite, but it is not. There is a very good reason for that. It is because it is important to question everything and our world is filled with tyrannical and very hurt people that are looking for security and find it and assert it. This forum does this in a more subtle manner. Most people are very assertive and agressive and that is what im used to. I dont feel that i was ever being unreasonable in doing this. If someone is hurt very deeply then one must question them, that doesnt mean that the questioner is angry or hates them.. Infact to do that is the only way to be free of such hurt and to be free of hurt is the only way to truly understand someone and what they go through.
Our society is a very sick society which shuns some peoples hurts and condones others.

Clive: No doubt. Of course it is a sick society because the human mind is sick. Any other society built by our collective sick mind would be equally sick, wouldn't it?

It is a war zone, a terrible place. No one cares about anything, dont just hear words and condemn them. No one is being educated to properly get along or understand anything, none of this is about peace.

Clive: No, there is very very little in the way of right education. Or right upbringing of children generally.
Someone said, no matter how cynical one this, one always falls short of the actual. And indeed it is hard to find words to describe the enormity of the world we have created. But still, the more I look at it, the more I come to ask: “What is my response to all this?”

It is more about what K said in the past, pleasure, fear, carelessness etc. One must be totally free of that society to understand what other people go through.

Clive: yes, we have to step out of the world. As Mina said, I have to end the world in myself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 May 2017 #51
Thumb_stringio Link Smickman United States 54 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Clive: yes, we have to step out of the world. As Mina said, I have to end the world in myself.

Hmmmm... I honestly dont know what you mean. K said the inner was the outer and that awareness meant to become aware of the world, not end it. If i end it then what am i aware of? How can i see what others go through if i am not aware of it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 May 2017 #52
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3560 posts in this forum Offline

Link Smickman wrote:
Hmmmm... I honestly dont know what you mean. K said the inner was the outer and that awareness meant to become aware of the world, not end it. If i end it then what am i aware of? How can i see what others go through if i am not aware of it?

Is this not the power of awareness? If one becomes aware of what is false, what is unreal, then that falseness withers away, does it not? Illusion, which is darkness, cannot continue in the light of awareness.

I suggest the whole of the psychological world is false, illusory.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 31 May 2017 #53
Thumb_stringio Link Smickman United States 54 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Is this not the power of awareness? If one becomes aware of what is false, what is unreal, then that falseness withers away, does it not? Illusion, which is darkness, cannot continue in the light of awareness.

I suggest the whole of the psychological world is false, illusory.

If this is true then what is the fuss? Why do you keep making these threads and asking questions suggesting that you arent quite clear? If you see the truth of it then why is there a problem? You seem to feel that there is some friction, you act contradictory to your words. If you are hurt or there is sorrow or fear that is part of awareness. You cannot be aware of the outer without being aware of the inner. As K said, there is no separation. One must go into their psyche to the core to be free of it, not just deny it, which it appears we are doing however much we play with words.

For all intents and purposes, Clive, you and most of the other people on this forum do seem to be concerned with what you are saying on a very shallow level. We dont actually feel this with our whole being. It seems to be a mostly intellectual affair. If i am only concerned with something with part of my being or only my mind there must be conflict, contradiction.

On the krishnamurti forums we get annoyed and angry when someone is not playing along with this game. It has been like this for the 15 years i have visited. Its very childish. Do you just want to play satisfying games or do you actually want to understand with your entire being? If you wanted to understand with your entire being why would there be friction when someone is honestly and truthfully going into all this?

What does it mean to be someone who is filled with all of these Krishnamurti ideologies and concepts in their mind only? Would not someone who understood krishnamurtis message feel it with their entire being in a unified manner?

It is obvious that someone who asks the questions that ive asked disturbs the social environment of this board very much and what is wrong with that? Do you want to understand? Cant we understand together? If i was to merely agree then i would not be doing that. If i was to accept the word of someone who is fortressed off by hurt and will not even communicate i cannot do that.

I dont want anyone to condemn this but it is very difficult. If i was to even give the hint of agreeing with something false, someone would run with it. I have had people use these things against me and i do feel how important it is to go about such a thing very carefully.

What is it that you feel is damaged? This social environment? The psychological factors involved in the people connected to that?

I remember many people in the past on these forums suggesting that one cannot be hurt if they have fully understood Krishnamurti's message and i agree. So what is damaged? The false? The ego? The perceived flow of conversation? Havent you all been doing that for 15 years now?

You must have eaten alot of caviar by now and cracked open many bottled of fine wine. And thats alright, although at what point all of these things come into conflict with krishnamurtis message about greed and how luxury and respectability makes one callous, insensitive, disordered?

Im not angry or scornful, please feel free to discuss anything you would like.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 #54
Thumb_stringio Link Smickman United States 54 posts in this forum Offline

I believe this is a very good article so let me illustrate it again... I feel it relates heavily to this discussion.

http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/commentari...

I am not saying that you should enjoy the pain of it, or merely put up with it; but why should you try to escape from it through an interesting occupation, or through some other form of abiding satisfaction?

J. Krishnamurti quoted:
Commentaries on Living Series 3
Commentaries on Living Series III Chapter 16 'The Flame of Discontent'

IN THE EARLY morning sunlight, the leaves of the tree just outside the window were making dancing shadows on the white wall of the room. There was a gentle breeze, and these shadows were never still; they were as alive as the leaves themselves. One or two moved gently, with grace and ease, but the motion of the others was violent, jerky and restless. The sun had just come up from behind a deep-wooded hill. The day was not going to be hot, for the breeze was blowing from the snowy mountains to the north. At that early hour, there was a strange quietness - the quietness of the slumbering earth before man begins his toil. Within this quietness were the screeches of the parrots flying crazily to the fields and woods; within it were the raucous calls of the crows and the chatter of many birds; within it were the distant hoots of a train, and the blast of a factory whistle announcing the hour. It was the hour when the mind is as open as the heavens and as vulnerable as love.

The road was very crowded, and the people walking on it were paying scant attention to the vehicular traffic; they would smilingly step aside, but first they had to look around to see who was making so much noise behind them. There were cycles, buses and bullock carts, and men drawing lighter carts loaded with sacks of grain. The shops, selling everything that man could want from needles to motorcars, were spilling over with people.

This same road led through the wealthy part of the city, with its usual aloofness and tidiness, into the open country; and not far out was the famous tomb. You left the car at the outer entrance, and went up a few steps, through an open archway, into a well-kept and watered garden. Walking along a sandy path and up more steps, you passed through another archway, blue with tiles, and entered an inner garden with a wall completely around it. It was enormous; there were acres of luscious, green lawns, lovely trees and fountains. It was cool in the shade, and the sound of falling water was pleasant. The circular path that went along the wall on the edge of the lawn had a border of brilliant flowers, and it would have taken quite a while to walk around it. Following the path that cut across the lawn, you wondered how so much space and beauty and work could be given to a tomb. presently you climbed a long flight of steps, which opened on a vast platform covered with slabs of reddish-brown sandstone. On this platform rose the stately tomb. It was built of smooth, polished marble, and the single marble coffin within it shone with the soft light of the sun that filtered through the intricately latticed marble window. It seemed lonely in its peace, though surrounded with grandeur and beauty.

From the platform you could see where the ancient town, with its domes and gateways, met the new, with its steel pylons for the radio broadcasting station. It was strange to see the coming together of the old and the new, and the impact of it stirred your whole being. It was as though the past and the present of all life lay before you as a simple fact, without the interference of the censor and his choice. The blue horizon stretched far away beyond the city and the woods; it would always remain, while the new became the old.

There were three of them, all quite young, a brother, a sister and a friend. Well dressed and very well educated they spoke several languages easily, and could talk of the latest books. It was strange to see them in that bare room; there were only two chairs, and one of the young men had to sit uncomfortably on the floor, spoiling the crease in his well pressed trousers. A sparrow that had its nest just outside suddenly appeared on the sill of the open window but seeing the new faces, it fluttered and flew away again.

"We have come to talk over a rather personal problem," explained the brother, "and we hope you don't mind. May I plunge into it? You see, my sister is going through a beastly time. She feels shy about explaining it, so I am doing the talking for the moment. We like each other very much, and have been almost inseparable ever since we were youngsters. There is nothing unhealthy about our being together, but she has been twice married and twice divorced. We have been through it all together. The husbands were all right in their way, but I am concerned about my sister. We consulted a well known psychiatrist, but somehow it didn't work out. We needn't go into all that now. Though I had never met you personally, I had known about you for several years, and had read some of your published talks; so I persuaded my sister and our mutual friend to come along with me, and here we are. "He hesitated for a few moments, and then went on. "Our difficulty is that my sister doesn't seem to be satisfied with anything. Literally nothing gives her any sort of satisfaction or content- ment. Discontent has become almost a mania with her, and if something isn't done, she's going to crack up completely."

Isn't it a good thing to be discontented?

"To some extent, yes," he replied; "but there are limits to everything, and this is going too far."

What's wrong with being totally discontented? What we generally call discontent is the dissatisfaction which arises when a particular desire is not fulfilled. Isn't that so?

"Perhaps; but my sister has tried so many things, including these two marriages, and she hasn't been happy in either of them. Fortunately, there have been no children, which would have further complicated matters. But I think she can speak for herself now; I only wanted to set the ball rolling."

What is contentment, and what is discontent? Will discontent lead to contentment? Being discontented, can you ever find the other?

"Nothing really satisfies me," said the sister. "We are well off, but the things that money can buy have lost their meaning. I have read a great deal but as I'm sure you know it doesn't lead anywhere. I have dabbled in various religious doctrines, but they all seem so utterly phoney; and what have you left after that? I have thought about it a great deal, and I know it isn't for want of children that I am like this. If I had children, I would give them my love, and all that kind of thing, but this torment of discontent would certainly go on. I can't find a way of directing or channelizing it, as most people seem to do, into some absorbing activity or interest. Then it would be easy sailing; there would be an occasional squall, which is inevitable in life, but one would always be within reach of calm waters. I feel as though I were in a perpetual storm, without any safe port. I want to find some comfort, somewhere; but, as I said what the religions have to offer seems to me so utterly stupid, nothing but a lot of superstitions. Everything else, including worship of the State, is only a rational substitute for the real thing - and I don't know what the real thing is. I have tried various entertaining side issues, including the current philosophy of hopelessness in France, but I am left empty handed. I have even experimented with taking one or two of the latest drugs; but that, of course, is the ultimate act of despair. One might just as well commit suicide. Now you know all about it."

"If I may put in a word," said the friend, "it seems to me that the whole thing would be resolved if she could only find something that really interested her. If she had a vital interest that occupied her mind and her life, then this discontent that is eating her up would disappear. I have known this lady and her brother for many years, and I keep telling her that her misery arises from not having something that will take her mind off herself. But nobody pays much attention to what is said by an old friend."

May I ask, why shouldn't you be discontented? Why shouldn't you be consumed by discontent? And what do you mean by that word?

"It is a pain, an agonizing anxiety, and naturally one wants to get out of it. It would be a form of sadism to want to remain in it. After all, one should be able to live happily, and not be ceaselessly driven by the pain of dissatisfaction."

I am not saying that you should enjoy the pain of it, or merely put up with it; but why should you try to escape from it through an interesting occupation, or through some other form of abiding satisfaction?

"Isn't that a most natural thing to do?" asked the friend. "If you are in pain, you want to get rid of it."

We are not understanding each other. What do we mean by being discontented? We are not inquiring into the mere verbal or explanatory meaning of that word, nor are we seeking the causes of discontent. We shall come to the causes presently. What we are trying to do, is to examine the state of the mind that is caught in the pain of discontent.

"In other words, what is my mind doing when it is discontented? I don't know, I have never before asked myself that question. Let me see. But first of all, have I understood the question?"

"I think I see what you are asking, sir," put in the brother. "What is the feeling of the mind that is in the throes of discontent? Isn't that it?"

Something like that. A feeling is extraordinary in itself - is it not? - apart from its pleasure or pain.

"But can there be any feeling at all," asked the sister, "if it is not identified with pleasure or pain?"

Does identification bring about feeling? Can there be no feeling without identification, without naming? We may come to that question presently; but again, what do we mean by discontent? Does discontent exist by itself, as an isolated feeling, or is it related to something? "It is always related to some other factor, to some urge, desire or want, isn't it?" said the friend. "There must always be a cause; discontent is only a symptom. We want to be or to acquire something, and if for any reason we cannot we become discontented. I think this is the source of her discontent."

Is it?

"I don't know, I haven't thought that far," replied the sister.

Don't you know why you are discontented? Is it because you haven't found anything in which you can lose yourself? And if you did find some interest or activity with which you could completely occupy your mind would the pain of discontent go? Is it that you want to be contented?

"God, no!" she exploded. "That would be terrible, that would be stagnation."

But isn't that what you are seeking? You may have a horror of being contented, yet in wanting to be free of discontent, you are pursuing a very superior kind of contentment, aren't you?

"I don't think I want contentment; but I do want to be free from this endless misery of discontent."

Are the two desires different? Most people are discontented, but they generally tame it by finding something which gives them satisfaction, and then they function mechanically and go to seed, or they become bitter, cynical, and so on. Is that what you are after?

"I don't want to become cynical, or just go to seed, that would be too stupid; I only want to find a way to soften the ache of this uncertainty."

The ache exists only when you resist uncertainty, when you want to be free of it.

"Do you mean I must remain in this state?"

Please listen. You condemn the state you are in; your mind is opposing it. Discontent is a flame that must be kept burning brightly, and not be smothered by some interest or activity that is pursued as a reaction from the pain of it. Discontent is painful only when it is resisted. A man who is merely satisfied, without understanding the full significance of discontent, is asleep; he is not sensitive to the whole movement of life. Satisfaction is a drug, and it is comparatively easy to find. But to understand the full significance of discontent, the search for certainty must cease.

"It is difficult not to want to be certain about something." Apart from mechanical certainties, is there any certainty at all, any psychological permanency? Or is there only impermanency? All relationship is impermanent; all thought, with its symbols, ideals, projections, is impermanent, property is lost, and even life itself ends in death, in the unknown, though man builds a thousand cunning structures of belief to overcome it. We separate life from death, and so both remain unknown. Contentment and discontent are like the two sides of one coin. To be free from the ache of discontent, the mind must cease to seek contentment.

"Then is there no fulfilment?"

Self-fulfillment is a vain pursuit, isn't it? In the very fulfillment of the self, there is fear and disappointment. That which is gained becomes ashes; but we again struggle to gain, and again we are caught in sorrow. If once we are aware of this total process, then self-fulfillment in any direction, at any level, has no significance at all.

"Then to struggle against discontent is to smother the flame of life," she concluded. "I think I understand the meaning of what you have been saying."
Commentaries on Living Series 3
Commentaries on Living Series III Chapter 16 'The Flame of Discontent'

Texts and talks of Jiddu Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti quotes. Books about
J Krishnamurti. Philosophy.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Jun 2017 #55
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3560 posts in this forum Offline

Link Smickman wrote:
If this is true then what is the fuss? Why do you keep making these threads and asking questions suggesting that you arent quite clear?

Clive: Clearly because there is not total clarity, there is only clarity in parts.

Link Smickman wrote:
If you see the truth of it then why is there a problem? You seem to feel that there is some friction, you act contradictory to your words.

Clive: There is contradiction in psychological thought, this seems to be inherent in its nature.

Which “you” do you refer to, Link? What is this implied separation. I do get weary of saying it, but I do not see a “me” separate from the words, separate from thought. There is only thought, in its different guises.

(cut)

Link Smickman wrote:
For all intents and purposes, Clive, you and most of the other people on this forum do seem to be concerned with what you are saying on a very shallow level.

Clive: Seems to me Link, it is shallow to presume to know other people. And that is what a lot of your posts are about. “Know” meaning creating images. If there is any depth in a person, then they question their own judgements do they not?

Link Smickman wrote:
We dont actually feel this with our whole being. It seems to be a mostly intellectual affair. If i am only concerned with something with part of my being or only my mind there must be conflict, contradiction

Clive: Indeed, the predominance of the intellect, of thought, is one of the major obstacles to understanding.

Link Smickman wrote:
On the krishnamurti forums we get annoyed and angry when someone is not playing along with this game. It has been like this for the 15 years i have visited. Its very childish.

Clive: Over the last 18 months or so I have not observed this on this forum, as I have said before. (and this forum has been in existence for less than 2 years, not the 15 years you mention). On the whole I have seen people very willing to question themselves. Seems to me, Link, that you have a strong tendency to put up “straw men” arguments.

Link Smickman wrote:
Do you just want to play satisfying games or do you actually want to understand with your entire being? If you wanted to understand with your entire being why would there be friction when someone is honestly and truthfully going into all this?

And

Link Smickman wrote:
Cant we understand together?

Are you referring to yourself here, Link? If you look back over the posts I have made in response to yours, you will see I have tried to take up not a few of your points- but have you come back on these? Have you really taken up the discussion? As far as I can see you usually ignore what I have said, and continuing making your own "points".

Link Smickman wrote:
It is obvious that someone who asks the questions that ive asked disturbs the social environment of this board very much and what is wrong with that?

Clive: Perhaps you will present evidence of this “disturbing the board very much”, on this forum? Not that we should not be disturbed.

(cut)

Link Smickman wrote:
You must have eaten alot of caviar by now and cracked open many bottled of fine wine.

Clive: This is indeed presumptuous. Is this what you mean by “understanding with your entire being”? Is this "honestly and truthfully going into things together? You talk about inquiring together – is this possible when you have such preconceived ideas of how people on the forum are, when you have drawn such images of them? In truth, what you do know about people's personal lives, how they live?

Link Smickman wrote:
Im not angry or scornful, please feel free to discuss anything you would like.

People on this forum are free to discuss what they like, at least if it is concerned with serious issues, with self understanding. But it is helpful if they do this under the appropriate threads. Your post above, what has it got to do with the topic “When there is attention, there is no centre”? If you want to write about “the inadequacies of the forum”, I request you to start a new thread and make your comments under that heading. At the moment you are frequently interrupting the flow, the focus of various discussions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Jun 2017 #56
Thumb_stringio Heather Strong United States 15 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
"Of course it is a sick society because the human mind is sick."

Not all and it doesn't have to be. People make choices from the moment they are born. They know the difference between right and wrong even as very small children. It seem to me that there can be peace when human beings learn to accept responsibility and choose to be peaceful instead of sick. We have to be aware enough to make positive choice that lead to a more human existence.

And if that is one of the causes of war, one of the causes of conflict between human beings, this fallacy that each one of us is entirely different, we are questioning that very thing. And if we are not, then we are the rest of mankind. You are the rest of mankind. With that goes tremendous responsibility which you may not like to have. We like to avoid responsibility. Only in Peace Can the Human Mind Be Free. Krishnamurti Aug 1983

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Jun 2017 #57
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 348 posts in this forum Offline

Heather Strong wrote:
People make choices from the moment they are born. They know the difference between right and wrong even as very small children. It seem to me that there can be peace when human beings learn to accept responsibility and choose to be peaceful instead of sick. We have to be aware enough to make positive choice that lead to a more human existence.

Heather,

Is there global agreement on what is right and wrong? And isn't usually the right thing done for the wrong reasons? In such a case, doesn't doing the right thing cause conflict and harm? The child knows from a young age what he's told is right and wrong. But is right and wrong a choice? If I must choose, doesn't it mean that it is not obviously clear to me, that there is confusion? When something is clear, there is no choice to be made, is there?

Does one choose to be sick (psychologically) or is sickness the result of disordered thought? Is acting responsibly a deliberate choice, is it the result of effort based on ideals, or is it only when there is understanding that the mind spontaneously acts responsibly?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #58
Thumb_stringio Heather Strong United States 15 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Huguette . wrote:
"Is there global agreement on what is right and wrong?"

There probably isn't global agreement on anything. However, our brains know kindness. Our brains know what it is to be helpful. Our brains know what murder is. We justify our actions...but our brains know.

Huguette . wrote:
"And isn't usually the right thing done for the wrong reasons? In such a case, doesn't doing the right thing cause conflict and harm?"

Hmmmm...Usually? What might that include? I don't tell a lie because I don't want to get in trouble? as opposed to...I don't want to hurt people?
Yes, I would agree...if the right thing is done for the wrong reasons then that action could cause more conflict and harm. And maybe the general human population does do the right thing for the wrong reason, I'm not sure why. But I would think that a start to a more productive life is being aware of that behavior...so that once it is named there might be a way to begin doing the right thing for the right reasons.

Huguette . wrote:
"The child knows from a young age what he's told is right and wrong. But is right and wrong a choice?"

Actually, check out Just Babies: The origins of Good and Evil. by Paul Bloom. He documents several studies done with babies, usually over the age of three months. These results of these studies point toward babies knowing the difference prior to adult intervention. These babies made definite choices. Developmentally we change...and then adults do become more involved, as with a child over the age of three. But we have the ability to differentiate between what will cause harm...and what will not at a very young age, prior to being told. It is just this data, that makes me believe we have no need for a god. We know the right path. We make choices. Not because our brains are sick...but because we have free will.

Huguette . wrote:
"If I must choose, doesn't it mean that it is not obviously clear to me, that there is confusion? When something is clear, there is no choice to be made, is there?"

Sitting in front of you is a can of coke...and a can of pepsi. Both have psychological connections. Maybe you don't remember what you didn't like about coke once...but....you choose pepsi. There's a choice because two things are in front of you. But you are clear about what you want. But you could have taken a coke, because it was offered.

Huguette . wrote:
"Does one choose to be sick (psychologically) or is sickness the result of disordered thought? "

You can choose to connect with disordered thoughts. You can choose not to. You can change the way you think. If you re-frame your thinking, have positive self talk as opposed to negative self talk, you can be less psychologically sick. Sometimes it takes outside influences to get you to the point where you can be positive in your thoughts. again, free will.

Huguette . wrote:
"Is acting responsibly a deliberate choice, is it the result of effort based on ideals, or is it only when there is understanding that the mind spontaneously acts responsibly?"

If everyone's ideals leaned toward peace, I would say acting responsibly wouldn't even be a choice. It would be a given.

It seems that there is limited desire by most people to understand the importance of a peaceful world, but if they did, understanding might make them act more responsibly. Wouldn't that help to heal a psychologically sick mind?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #59
Thumb_stringio Link Smickman United States 54 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Clive: Clearly because there is not total clarity, there is only clarity in parts.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Clive: There is contradiction in psychological thought, this seems to be inherent in its nature.

Suppose a UFO comes crashing down out of the sky. It tells me things that confirm without a doubt what is right and wrong. Not because i need something to tell me what is right or wrong, but because i have good judgment already, because i question, because i deduce, because i use intelligent judgment.

Suppose someone else sees the UFO and has a conditioned response that the UFO is a childish conspiracy theory. At that point they feel they already have the answer and later they ask the questions like Clive, saying they obviously only are partially clear.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #60
Thumb_stringio Link Smickman United States 54 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

Clive: Clearly because there is not total clarity, there is only clarity in parts.

Clive Elwell wrote:

Clive: There is contradiction in psychological thought, this seems to be inherent in its nature.

But partial clarity is no clarity. So what are you seeking out? And why do you make no progress in it? Are you Mr. Magoo? Is this a scam? Are you honest or playing games? Do you honestly learn that slowly and then claim the self-righteous high-ground without mere humility? Are you just looking for a circumstance to trigger a situation that you call victim-hood so you can fall back on a scapegoat? It appears that way, you appear like a man throwing himself in front of traffic to get insurance monet over and over for 30 years, 3,500 times as if you were a pathological liar. If a person is trying to seek out an experience through experience then what are they trying to find? More experience? We're some goofy guys trying to play some slight-of-hand word tricks.. oh but dont look, dont call it that.

You sound as if you are trying to investigate something like Sherlock Holmes which can only lead to further conflict and confusion.

You are like a detective that wants to find the answer of experience and you are telling all others to leave you alone so you can find more experience and therefore more conflict and confusion.. then you substitute words and claim that others arent on the same trail.

All it takes is the slight of hand then you are in Mina Martini's panties, then she denies you as she hasnt been slick in 26 years, but hey what does that matter when you have a woman with a penis acknowledge your existence in the easiest place that can happen with training wheels?

I mean what are we even talking about? Our own autism? Our own stupidity? We want Muslims to rule over us right? We want to be killed by Muslims isnt that right? Ok, so lets do that... The kids these days say that when you are strangled, when you are close to suffocating, the orgasm is better, more intense..

I say its more intense when you arent lobotomized, then you also realize that these things arent of the most importance in life.

Dont you dare criticize Allah, though.. Dont you dare. Christian jokes are ok here on the Krishnamurti Forum, but to criticize or question a vague god in the sky is intolerable. We dont accept that here.

TL;DR: hurry up an ban me, guy. Burn the books, burn the history, just like Hitler. What is the purpose of leaving your writing on a forum without acknowledging that the world is censoring such things in an extreme an authoritarian manner? I guess if we just say that it is non-sense, then it is. Do you honestly read all that i have written and just believe that i am only typing it out of my behind? As if i am just fooling around making all this up? You cant talk sense into Mr. Magoo if Mr. Magoo is Mr. Magoo on purpose. That would mean he was a pathological scam artist who want actually concerned with getting to the truth or bottom of anything. Then it would be a waste of time. But if, if we can clump ourselves into those save the children commercials then hey, we're bullet-proof.

We are the world, we are the children, we are the ones who make a better day so lets start giving.. (and if you act now this laser-disc player can be yours if you are a gold-club-elite-member.. Remember, you only have to donate $4,500 to the charity of your choice to be a gold-club-elite-member.. Then you are enlightened...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 64 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.)