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

Following up on the Terence Stamp extract


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 86 in total
Fri, 25 Jan 2019 #31
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5152 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
So why 'psychological thought/time at all? Why any activity at all? Is it just 'habitual' like a garden hose left running or a leaking faucet with a bad washer. It is one thing for thought to apply its 'know-how' to a technical problem, then it can even co-operate with other 'thinking brains' and work things out without conflict...but now that the illusion of its creation of a 'permanent, individual thinker/'I', struggling against the cold brutal world, has been seen as false, why does it continue to pump out thought after thought with no real 'aim' behind them? What is behind, driving these incessant thoughts anyway? Desire? For what? Does it fear 'silence'? And if it is not thought itself that is afraid of being still,(K. has said that "thought is fear") is it something in the brain? Thought obviously doesn't (can't) know , can it, because it is totally limited to the past and 'life' is in the present, in the Now?... Does any of this make any sense?

I cannot help smiling at the analogy of "thought as a leaky tap" :-). But it may be like that.

I have no final answers to these questions of yours, Dan, but I want to acknowledge them, to keep them going.

We can only watch, watch, watch. And we can only watch when there is no condemnation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Jan 2019 #32
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1356 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
And we can only watch when there is no condemnation.

There's no condemnation Clive, just questions about how this works. How does thought work when there is no-one controlling it, no 'I'? How does it come up with what it comes up with? These are questions from observation. When the 'I' is seen as false, as the illusory 'thinker', the illusory controller...then what governs 'thinking'? Why does it 'think' the way it does? Why does it 'think' about what it 'thinks'? What now that the 'I'/'me' is seen as actually not existing, what now determines what thought thinks about? Who or what is doing the choosing? Based on what?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 26 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Jan 2019 #33
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5152 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
There's no condemnation Clive,

I find that there is a lot of condemnation! isn't thought, as the thinker, "always" condemning thought? And this seems to be the major barrier to simple observation of what goes on in the mind.

Dan McDermott wrote:
How does thought work when there is no-one controlling it, no 'I'. How does it come up with what it comes up with? These are questions from observation.

Does it not work through its conditioning? Is this not sufficient explanation? Thought reacts according to its conditioning, does it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Jan 2019 #34
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 829 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
..but now that the illusion of its creation of a 'permanent, individual thinker/'I', struggling against the cold brutal world, has been seen as false, why does it continue to pump out thought after thought with no real 'aim' behind them?

Dan,

How did thought creates a permannt individual thinker, surely this was not out of thought, so where did this came from ??

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Sat, 26 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Jan 2019 #35
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1356 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
How did thought create a permanent individual thinker, surely this was not out of thought, so where did this come from ??

The assumption made here was that the thinking/brain created the 'center' or the 'thinker or the 'I' to give itself a kind of permanence, a continuity, that there was a 'security' in that...K. called it a 'trick of thought' and that was never questioned by me. What do you say?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Jan 2019 #36
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1356 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I find that there is a lot of condemnation! isn't thought, as the thinker, "always" condemning thought? And this seems to be the major barrier to simple observation of what goes on in the mind.

Maybe but now the 'thinker' has been 'put back' into thought...no duality, nothing to condemn or accept or like or dislike; only the thinking process...nothing outside of it except the 'state of observation'. And the question that thought is asking here (and it may be just a chance for thought to continue) is why doesn't thought with time end,... stop? Isn't that where the "freedom" that has been spoken about lie? In the silence of thought? There may not be an answer to what is being asked here...the answer lies in thought being silent?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 26 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Jan 2019 #37
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

And the question that thought is asking here (and it may be just a chance for thought to continue) is why doesn't thought with time end, stop?

I think it has its own self perpetuating mechanism due to fear and pleasure. Thought creates fear and then acts on fear to try to eliminate it, and it acts on pleasure to attempt to continue it or repeat it. That’s just the nature of thought itself.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 26 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Jan 2019 #38
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1356 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
That’s just the nature of thought itself.

Does 'thought' create these images of possible bad things that can happen in the future in order to 'ward' them off? Like its 'imagining' the psychological future, it can 'head off bad situations that 'might' take place? That makes sense if you're involved in sending someone to Mars but negatively imagining what might take place psychologically to oneself in the future seems to be 'responsible' and smart but is it? Is that what K. was pointing at when he said "thought is fear"? And that psychologically, there is no such thing as security?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Jan 2019 #39
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1356 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I think it (thought) has its own self perpetuating mechanism due to fear and pleasure. Thought creates fear and then acts on fear to try to eliminate it, and it acts on pleasure to attempt to continue it or repeat it.

That does not sound intelligent but it does seem to be true. Is it because 'thought' is not 'aware' of the consequences of its actions so it goes blindly on in this way: creating fearful, unpleasant scenarios and then trying to escape some way from the fear it has created?

Same with 'pleasure': creates the pleasant image from memory and then attempts to re-live the original sensation but can't because the image is only that; an image in memory?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 26 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Jan 2019 #40
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

That does not sound intelligent but it does seem to be true.

Right. There’s no intelligence in these mechanical, psychological movements of thought, but there is survival value of projecting a potential future problem in the physical realm....obviously. If we didn’t plan ahead for the cold winter and store food we’d starve here in the North East and the colder parts of the planet.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 26 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Jan 2019 #41
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5152 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote :
And the question that thought is asking here (and it may be just a chance for thought to continue) is why doesn't thought with time end,... stop?

As you recently said, thought created the thinker, or the illusion of the thinker, in an attempt to provide itself with continuity, or the illusion of continuity. As long as there is this thinker, with its 'continuity', how can thought end? That implies the ending of continuity, does it not? Can the thinker want this, desire this? In fact doesn't the thinker (me) do its best to hang on to continuity.

And is this why thought is so tenacious?

This description or explanation (and I am not saying that we should be satisfied with explanations) is not so far removed from what you suggested recently, Dan, that thought is trying to avoid what it perceives of as emptiness, or nothingness - is it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Jan 2019 #42
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5152 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I think it has its own self perpetuating mechanism due to fear and pleasure.

I read a while back K saying that thought perpetuates itself through fear and ignorance. I would find it difficult to locate the exact quote now. but I know by "ignorance" K means the lask of self-understanding.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Jan 2019 #43
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5152 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
? Is that what K. was pointing at when he said "thought is fear"? And that psychologically, there is no such thing as security?

As long as thought is operating as the 'permanent' thinker, there must be fear, surely? Fear, basically, of its non-existence. Is this what you meant, Tom, by saying "That's just the nature of thought itself"?

Curious, isn't it, a non-existent thing fearful of not existing? One can only echo the question, why isn't this paradox, if one can call it that, seen through, completely, and so end?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Jan 2019 #44
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5152 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
it goes blindly on in this way: creating fearful, unpleasant scenarios and then trying to escape some way from the fear it has created?

Yes, this is what it does. But I am not understanding why it should create such scenarios. I can see how destructive this is, when the self extends itself into, say, nations, and each nations imagines itself to be threatened with attack, and so has to make plans to "defend" itself - or actually do that.

As Tom describes, this movement may be another example of the physical (where it is necessary) being carried over into psychological (where it is destructive)

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sat, 26 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 27 Jan 2019 #45
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
it goes blindly on in this way: creating fearful, unpleasant scenarios and then trying to escape some way from the fear it has created?

Clive: Yes, this is what it does. But I am not understanding why it should create such scenarios.

I think the answer to ‘why’ is that it’s simply the action of memory.....in this case a frightening one or ones.

C: I can see how destructive this is, when the self extends itself into, say, nations, and each nations imagines itself to be threatened with attack, and so has to make plans to "defend" itself - or actually do that.

Yes memory projected into an imaginary future makes it seem frighteningly real. This applies to fear on the personal level as well.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 27 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 27 Jan 2019 #46
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I think it has its own self perpetuating mechanism due to fear and pleasure.

Clive: I read a while back K saying that thought perpetuates itself through fear and ignorance.

And fear is unpleasant so we pursue our pleasurable attachments.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 27 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 28 Jan 2019 #47
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5152 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

I think it has its own self perpetuating mechanism

We have been looking at the question of why thought continues, why it is so persistent. Why is it "self perpetuating"? Various ideas have been suggested. I am not, at the moment, trying to decide which are true and which false – in fact they all seem to have some truth in them.

It’s a pretty basic question, isn’t it? Considering how our lives are based on thought, considering how society, civilisation itself is based on thought, the question seems a crucial one. Seems to me if this “issue” of thought is not urgently “resolved”, mankind is going to destroy itself quite soon, and take a lot with him. it seems worth while to spend time on this issue.

And yet I am not aware that the question is even looked at outside of the “Krishnamurti World” (sorry to use that phrase). I am probably wrong in saying that, but most discussion among people is based on the idea that thought IS truth. Seems to me that it definitely isn’t. Here on the forum I think there is a certain appreciation of the limitations of thought.

So a thought appears in the mind/brain, in consciousness, fades away and another thought appears. There is a space between thoughts, which one cannot really get hold of, but leaving that aside for the moment, one asks why does thought so quickly, so predictably arise to fill up that space? Clearly the process of association plays a major role – but why has the brain wrapped life up in such an endless chain? Why has knowledge become so dominant. Stretching its tentacles into every aspect of living?

If the intellect suggests an answer to that, isn’t that more of the limitation of thought? Can the answer be seen, be understood, by direct perception, without thought?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 28 Jan 2019 #48
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1356 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
but why has the brain wrapped life up in such an endless chain? Why has knowledge become so dominant. Stretching its tentacles into every aspect of living?

Because it cannot accept its own demise?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 28 Jan 2019 #49
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5152 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Because it cannot accept its own demise?

Why not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 28 Jan 2019 #50
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

...why does thought so quickly, so predictably arise to fill up that space? Clearly the process of association plays a major role – but why has the brain wrapped life up in such an endless chain? Why has knowledge become so dominant. Stretching its tentacles into every aspect of living?

I would say, because of fear. We seek solace in knowledge because of fear.....fear which is a product of thought/memory. But this ‘psychological knowledge’ has become the cause of the world disorder....knowledge which divides the Jew from the Christian from the Hindu from the Muslim, and all the rest of the countless divisions in the world. This is the ‘wrong turn’ that K. spoke of....that has the brain “wrapped up”.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 28 Jan 2019 #51
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 829 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:

Wim Opdam wrote:

How did thought create a permanent individual thinker, surely this was not out of thought, so where did this come from ??

The assumption made here was that the thinking/brain created the 'center' or the 'thinker or the 'I' to give itself a kind of permanence, a continuity, that there was a 'security' in that...K. called it a 'trick of thought' and that was never questioned by me. What do you say?

Let us start completely afresh with our observations !

We have one brain, who is helpful in manage our body. this one brain makes memories which are helpful to find our way back to home, to learn a language, to learn crafmanship, to distinguish one thing from another.
In doing so the side effect is: 'there is a someone doing something !'

Memories are brain constructions, as well as the someone and the something. The brain is constantly active, which is movement as long as it is living, one is physicaly dead if the brain is dead !

Now we distinguish physical from psychological, both are brain constructions and as such matter, but he physical object is as well as outside the brain as well as inside the brain, matter.

however, psychologically it is another situation, this is just a matter of brainconstruction and not outsite, although this brain construction has enormous consequences in the material world.

we do not distinguish those brainconstructions while we should, because the side effect is that the brainconstruction 'someone' is given properties which it does not have but are treated as if they have.

Looking back this seems to me the wrong turn we are still making.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 28 Jan 2019 #52
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1356 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
psychologically it is another situation, this is just a matter of brainconstruction and not outsite, although this brain construction has enormous consequences in the material world.

we do not distinguish those brainconstructions while we should, because the side effect is that the brainconstruction 'someone' is given properties which it does not have but are treated as if they have.

Looking back this seems to me the wrong turn we are still making.

Yes the creation (brain construction) of a 'permanent me' is different than 'thought' just solving a technical problem. The 'permanent' 'I'/'me' which K. is saying "doesn't exist" has been the cause of much anguish. So everything that happens to this brain/body goes into memory but with the addition of this illusory 'I'/'me'...and when the experience is recalled from memory, we say that "that happened to 'me'"..."'I' did that"..."that hurt 'my' feelings", etc. But there was no 'me' who got hurt!...There was no 'me' who did that! They're all just memories with this 'brain construction' of a psychological 'I' tacked on. Do you see it that way?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 28 Jan 2019 #53
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 829 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Do you see it that way?

Not quite.

you say:

Yes the creation (brain construction) of a 'permanent me' is different than 'thought' just solving a technical problem.

But I meant that that brain construction is constantly in motion and you seem to be attaching a permanence to it.
It seems to me that it is precisely because that brain construction is given too much value that arouses the appearance of a permanence.

also something else is: one is an abstraction a copy of something existing and the other is an abstraction of something that does not exist. Because we treat both equally, there is a disorder in that abstract world in our brain construction, which then has consequences for the disorder in the material world.

I now observe my own thoughts about this without building on those of Krisnaji and / or David Bohm.

perhaps this perspective gives a more complete picture of their findings, which I very much appreciate, i do not know, what do you think?

P.S.: If we should see this as for what it is, we immediately let the wrong abstraction go and it would die as movement but stay as a fairy tale and so the mind is in silence.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Mon, 28 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 28 Jan 2019 #54
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1356 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Dan: Yes the creation (brain construction) of a 'permanent me' is different than 'thought' just solving a technical problem

Wim: But I meant that that brain construction is constantly in motion and you seem to be attaching a permanence to it.

No not attaching a permanence, thought is creating the 'illusion' that there is such a 'thing' as 'me'. It creates the 'illusion' of a 'thinker' outside of itself.
A 'someone' who thinks...but there is no 'someone' thinking...there is only 'thinking'. Yes?

There is only the 'movement' of memory (material thought)? as well as physical sensations of the body, sensing (sight, sound, smell, touch etc.) and 'feelings'.... but no 'self', yes?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 28 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 29 Jan 2019 #55
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5152 posts in this forum Offline

Thought and feeling are in constant movement, constant flux. For me (“me”) this is a fact that has to be lived, it is not a theory, not an abstract description. As Wim says, this is not just based on what K has said, although doubtless he has said it. These “constructions of the brain”, are changing, and often in contradiction, from the moment one wakes each day. There IS no static mind. So one cannot say what the mind IS. In the midst of this ceaseless change, I cannot say what “I” am. The concept of an entity that is somehow “above” this change, that is non-changing, that stands apart from it, that has permanency, is in fact an illusion. I think we can take that as understood.

Society is based on this illusion, and perhaps in some situations it is a useful illusion – I am not sure. But the concept of a permanent I, an entity that is separate from its supposed characteristics, is surely false. I cannot see a shred of evidence for its existence.

Naturally, seeing the terrible consequences of this imaginary “self”, one wonders what can be done about it. One wonders if ANYTHING can be done about it. And if it can, who or what would be the do-er? The self has been accepted as the usual do-er, but that has not seemed to solve any problems. It seems that is just the wrong approach.

Where does that perception “leave one”?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 29 Jan 2019 #56
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 829 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
No not attaching a permanence, thought is creating the 'illusion' that there is such a 'thing' as 'me'. It creates the 'illusion' of a 'thinker' outside of itself.

we probably mean the same, but for me 'thought creates' sounds not right it creates nothing.

wherever in the world we see the sun rise in the morning and undergo the evening, that gives the impression that this is always the case, the constant repetition, the ever-present that gives the impression of a permanence, so it is not thought on its own who creates this impression, it is a wrong conclusion .

Another question stays: like if truth comes in, is there still an abstraction ? To me is seems that in that circumstance all abstractions are wiped out, there is no movement and no distance to overcome.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 29 Jan 2019 #57
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1356 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Naturally, seeing the terrible consequences of this imaginary “self”, one wonders what can be done about it. One wonders if ANYTHING can be done about it. And if it can, who or what would be the do-er? The self has been accepted as the usual do-er, but that has not seemed to solve any problems. It seems that is just the wrong approach.

Don't we have to come to terms, not "come to terms"...but see the fact that I am the "imaginary self"...it's not over there, I'm it! The 'trick' that thought does is to always keep me separate from whatever conclusion it has (which is to say "that I have"...)
How can I doubt thoughts ability to 'create' when it has created me? Language makes it confusing, doesn't it? As far as your (thought's?) question about how is it possible for thought/time to come to a stop (which it obviously must), as K. says, there is no other "factor" but thought itself that can bring that about. As I see it, that's where self-knowledge (learning) comes in. Which is to say, thought becoming aware of itself and 'piercing' the illusion of a duality between 'me' and 'it'. Between it and the world...And it has already done this with seeing irrevocably the dangers and divisiveness of organized religions, beliefs in an after-life, nationality, and many other 'activities' that most in society take as truisms. But the 'belief' in my own 'individuality' persists. And the unpalatable truth, that I am nothing and that I don't actually exist; persists. It seems that whatever 'freedom' is, it may be 'found' there, in the moment when the duality ends?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 29 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 29 Jan 2019 #58
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5152 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
wherever in the world we see the sun rise in the morning and undergo the evening, that gives the impression that this is always the case, the constant repetition, the ever-present that gives the impression of a permanence, so it is not thought on its own who creates this impression, it is a wrong conclusion .

Reading your words, Wim, a very strong realisation came to me – I think it could be called an insight; that we – I – live all the time with an utterly false sense of permanency.

Trying to find words to describe this – and I am not describing the known, it is like describing the view from a train window, everything seen for the first time – I find myself confronted with K’s words “the outer IS the inner”. The impermanence is both inner and outer.

Putting it another way, we have turned what is essentially the unknown into the known, and we live in that known. The known carries the sense of permanency, but the known is not the real, it is not the real world.

“the constant repetition, the ever-present that gives the impression of a permanence”. That is fascinating Wim. I glimpse the truth of it.

When there is not a sense of permanency, there is creation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 29 Jan 2019 #59
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5152 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Don't we have to come to terms, not "come to terms"...but see the fact that I am the "imaginary self"...it's not over there, I'm it!

Yes Dan, that's exactly it. This brings everything alive, it means it is all actually happening. Otherwise everything is a theory.

Dan McDermott wrote:
Which is to say, thought becoming aware of itself and 'piercing' the illusion of a duality between 'me' and 'it'.

Yes. Would you say another way to put this is "for thought to see its own falseness"?

Dan McDermott wrote:
But the 'belief' in my own 'individuality' persists. And the unpalatable truth, that I am nothing and that I don't actually exist; persists. It seems that whatever 'freedom' is, it may be 'found' there, in the moment when the duality ends?

This falseness that we are trying to describe, that K spent his life pointing out to us, precisely because it IS false, is a great pointer towards truth, is it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 29 Jan 2019 #60
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1356 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Would you say another way to put this is "for thought to see its own falseness"?

Just a 'thought' here: Humanity, unlike as far as we know, any other creature on earth has to deal with a 'state of wonder'...why am I here?,where did I come from?, where am I going? This in 'myth' is what got us 'thrown out of the garden'.didn't it?..this wondering, reflecting, pondering, thinking, etc., that nothing else here seems capable of doing but us. And because we have this exotic possibility, it has led us to much pleasure but also to much pain. (and will possibly lead to our demise). But looked at in one way, it has all come about for us 'lawfully'. The desire to 'become' led to greed, led to violence, led to poverty, to suffering, to pollution, to wars....so all we can do is to see the 'wrong' road we are on and to stop walking down it? Is that right?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 86 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.)