Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Experimenter's Corner | moderated by John Raica

Are we actually machines?


Displaying posts 541 - 570 of 790 in total
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 #541
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
speaking of starting points, what do you think K meant when he said that "freedom is at the beginning, not at the end"?

That's a very interesting point, Jan. Do you think it could be related to the capacity and/or inclination in an individual to as it were 'find' this 'start point'? In other words, do you think K might be suggesting that freedom begins at the point where (and when) the work really starts? After all, when the work really starts, that is the point at which we step out of the of the circular, isn't it?

(If that question isn't clear or needs expansion please say).

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Thu, 27 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 #542
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 174 posts in this forum Offline

K talks about fear of not being / immortality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H0hyleK9Vg&...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 #543
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Tom

Let me put it to you this way: I have seen K at a meeting say to the gathering, "You are so infantile." Was he, would you say, 'projecting an image', or was he just stating a fact?

I say to you that you keep saying what needs to be done but you don't do it. That's all I point out. How is there offence in that? And in defense you say there's nothing you can do. That, you say, is your understanding of K.

Isn't there, to your mind, something awry in this? Mightn't you be missing something?

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Wed, 26 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 #544
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
I say to you that you keep saying what needs to be done but you don't do it.

But how would you know? If you say you do know, I say, that can only be an image. Where did I say 'what needs to be done'?

John Perkins. wrote:
Let me put it to you this way: I have seen K at a meeting say to the gathering, "You are so infantile." Was he, would you say, 'projecting an image', or was he just stating a fact?

An image.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 26 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 #545
Thumb_stringio Jess S Portugal 3 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
then you leave those old ideas and you begin. There is only 'beginning'. There is only 'now'.

Yes, that's a crucial moment as I understand it.There is this discussion between Krishnamurti and David Bohm which has brought about the book The Limits of Thought where in the chapter 'Living in Truth' Krishnamurti addresses David Bohm like this: '«Are you saying , sir, when the operation of thought is straight, rational, sane, healthy, holy, that has a relationship to this space?» And they start enquiring about 'reality' operating on thought so that by seeing the distortions that 'old habits' cause in our lives, an energy produced by this seeing eliminates the distortions... Then a further interesting question put forward by Krishnamurti is: «is there harmony between the two?» ... and he adds further on: «Thought is measure, time; that measurement can be distorted or rational». It's all to be pondered on.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 #546
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But how would you know? If you say you do know, I say, that can only be an image. Where did I say 'what needs to be done'?

Tom, if you're going to play these games we need to call it a day. The conversation is pointless because it's evidenced there's no real interest.

I hope to chat with you on some other issue as things move on.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 #547
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins wrote:

Let me put it to you this way: I have seen K at a meeting say to the gathering, "You are so infantile." Was he, would you say, 'projecting an image', or was he just stating a fact?

.

Tom Paine wrote:

An image.

OK. So I see now why you think I project images. (Though you refuse to examine them to see whether they might really have substance).

This doesn't constitute an inquiry, Tom, it's a charade; which I suppose has been my point.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Wed, 26 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 #548
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
OK. So I see now why you think I project images. (Though you refuse to examine them to see whether they might really have substance).

Right. I refuse to examine any of your images of any of the forum members. Case closed :)

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 #549
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
Tom, if you're going to play these games we need to call it a day.

I'm not playing games with you, John. But if you think I am, it's time to move on... yes, let's call it a day.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Apr 2017 #550
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 162 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
K talks about fear of not being / immortality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H0hyleK9Vg&...

Good video in which K. points out that the 'content of consciousness' is the 'me' and asks, can the mind see the limitations of it and end it, 'die' to it, through an understanding of attachment and dependance and find a real 'immortality'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Apr 2017 #551
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Good video in which K. points out that the 'content of consciousness' is the 'me'...

Yes, the 'content' of consciousness, ie. as opposed to consciousness itself. I think that's where we should differentiate between 'mechanical life' and 'life itself'.

...and asks, can the mind see the limitations of it and end it, die to it...

In other words, can 'life' spot its own reduction to mechanistic operation, and in such spotting, bring an end to the process?

It MUST be able to; otherwise there is no such thing as reality; a totally absurd notion since all that there is is reality.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Thu, 27 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 May 2017 #552
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 174 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I agree with all that but I do think that the "intellect" has a function. My intellectual understanding that running away from 'what is' is the source of sorrow, leads to a 'meditative' exploration of the truth of that. What does it really mean to stay with 'fear' and not move to do something about it, in myself? What happens when I try that without any goal, just to 'let it flower'?

Your "intellectual understanding" is no understanding at all. You were conditioned by Krishnamurti, you read that "we should stop all escapes" and you want to practice it to achieve a result. And this whole process stands between you and your actual feelings. Stop trying to understand yourself according to Krishnamurti or anyone or anything else. Just look at what is, without the intellectual screen. Look into your heart and find out what you really want, what you really feel, what your real values are and not what Krishnamurti tells you to feel or see.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 May 2017 #553
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 162 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
Look into your heart and find out what you really want, what you really feel, what your real values are and not what Krishnamurti tells you to feel or see.

Yes Jan, it is a good message: to be a light unto oneself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 May 2017 #554
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 174 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Yes Jan, it is a good message: to be a light unto oneself.

yes, I only recently understood that. I discovered K some 10 years ago. I was enchanted and I always read about he marvellous reality and about his insights into human mind etc and I always found his constant mentoring about autority somehow boring or self-obvious. Being born in one of the most atheist countries in the world (we have about 30% self-confessed atheists and the rest believes in some vague higher power and no one bothers going to church) and never caring about politics, I thought that I have no autority, no ideology. I was very wrong. K understands the word authority in a much deeper sense, as a conditioning influence on the mind, according to which we are trying to mould ourselves. Anytime you want to gain something, to become something, to achieve something, you are under such as influence of external authority. I was totally unaware of it in myself and when I understood it, it was like a revelation. So be a light onto onself has a really deep meaning. For example here

"But to me there is no path to truth; truth is not to be understood through any system, through any path. A path implies a goal, a static end, and therefore a conditioning of the mind and the heart by that end, which necessarily demands discipline, control, acquisitiveness. This discipline, this control, becomes a burden; it robs you of freedom and conditions your action in daily life. Inquiry after truth implies a goal, a static end, which you are seeking. And that you are seeking a goal shows that your mind is searching for assurance, certainty. To attain this certainty, mind desires a path, a system, a method which it can follow, and this assurance you think to find by conditioning mind and heart through self-discipline, self-control, suppression. But truth is a reality that cannot be understood by following any path. Truth is not a conditioning, a shaping of the mind and heart, but a constant fulfillment, a fulfillment in action. That you inquire after truth implies that you believe in a path to truth, and this is the first illusion in which you are caught. In that there is imitativeness, distortion"

So a mind trying to become, to achieve, to gain is under a conditioning influence (that comes from outside) and is trying to mould itself accoring to its authority, thus losing its freedom. In this sense, freedom is deconditioning of the mind, becoming your own light, becoming responsible for yourself. It is really deep. And we should not run to the opposite. Having now read, that all authority cripples the mind, we could be tempted to make another pattern, another ideal and we would be making effort to rid ourselves of authority, but that would be just another pattern, another conditioning. When the mind really rejects all patterns, and it can be done, it is free.
So let us be light to ourselves :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYLNbZGpDmE

This post was last updated by Jan Kasol Wed, 03 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 May 2017 #555
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
Yes, the 'content' of consciousness, ie. as opposed to consciousness itself.

I think you'd have to explain that one, John, bearing in m ind K constantly pointed out that consciousness IS its content, they being one and the same. See in this dialogue for example:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

K: If I may ask: What do you mean by the word "consciousness'? Let us start from the beginning: What is consciousness? What does it meanto be conscious of? I want to be clear that we both have the same understanding of the meaning of that word. One is conscious, for instance, of the microphone. I am conscious of it and then I use the word microphone'. So, when you are conscious of something naming begins; then like and dislike. So"consciousness, means to be aware of, to be conscious of, to be cognizant of sensation, cognition, contact.

A: I feel that consciousness is prior to sensation. It is the field and at any one time I am aware of some part of it through sensation; I feel consciousness is much more vast. I see that I am aware of only a part of a very wide thing. That whole field is not in my awareness.

So, I do not want to restrict consciousness to something that exists at any given moment. My awareness may not be extensive, but consciousness can be seen to be much more vast.

K: What is the relationship between that consciousness and the brain cells? Pupul used the word `consciousness' and asked what is the relationship between the brain and consciousness. I am asking: What is that relationship?

P: When K says the content of consciousness is consciousness, it would imply that the content of the brain cells is consciousness. If there is a field which is outside the brain cells and which is also consciousness, then you have to say all that is consciousness. But then you cannot say that the content of consciousness is consciousness.

K: Is that clear? I have said the content of consciousness is consciousness.

http://jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 May 2017 #556
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

http://jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 May 2017 #557
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
I think you'd have to explain that one, John, bearing in mind K constantly pointed out that consciousness IS its content, they being one and the same.

Yes it's an interesting area isn't it, into which falls the difference between 'consciousness' and 'self-consciousness' of course.

I'd say that all creatures could be said to aware of 'self' at least in as much as that each is aware of their own physical boundaries; of where they begin and end. Creatures don't tend to eat themselves regardless how hungry they get. (It's quite a funny thought: his own hand or arm would sustain a starving man for awhile and stave off the worse calamity of death but yet it never occurs).

But might this very basic awareness of 'self' in, say a snail, ie. its consciousness, be properly described as the 'content' of that consciousness? Or is K just referring to humans? In other words is he only addressing the issue of a very different consciousness, viz. the 'self-consciousness' of man; the consciousness that gives him eg. not only to look out from the tops of hills but to know that he looks out from them?

The latter, I would say, is a very different kettle of fish to that of the snail. The mechanistic (ie. owing to its being utterly conditioned) nature of fully self-conscious consciousness might switch things so that the content of its consciousness does indeed represent the whole thing. This would mean of course that the snail's consciousness is of a different nature; possibly even none-mechanistic! I've tried to argue this difference between 'man and beast' before in various ways in the past incidentally, but it has never gained any traction. People don't like comparing themselves in any sense unfavourably to animals. But I would point out (for what it's worth) that in the allegory, man is the only creature 'removed' from the garden, and that he spends much of his subsequent efforts trying to get back in.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Wed, 10 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 May 2017 #558
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 174 posts in this forum Offline

K does not use the word consciousness consistently. Sometimes he equates the consciousness with its content, othertimes not. But what he means is clear. The "self" (or self-consciousness) is created by thought. The self is nothing but a series of images about itself, it is memory, the reactions of memory, sensations, ideas, theories, psychological past and future, pleasure, fear, experiencing. When you empty the consciousness of its content, you empty it of the self, of the self-consciousness, of the experiencer. Experencing is possible only when there is an experiencer, who names the experience and stores it as a memory.

When you empty the consciousness of its content, what is there? There is something, or rather there is nothing. K himself said, that the emptying is not annihilation. But what there is you cannot put into words, you cannot experience it, you cannot name it, it is not a sensation. K uses words like "pure being", "pure action", "truth", "reality", "movement of life", "energy", "Life". But the tao that can be named is not the eternal tao. The self or the me is the center of recognition. Whatever you recognize, you bring down to your known. Recognition creates the experiencer and the experience. But in this pure being, there is neither the subject, nor the object. You cannot imagine this pure being to be outside of yourself, because it is your innermost self, which is the innermost self of everyone and everything. Maharishi spoke about "self" (ego) and Self (Brahman).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU5cAR82wWI

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 May 2017 #559
Thumb_untitled5 Ken D United States 4 posts in this forum Offline

JK: The content of our consciousness makes up the consciousness, the content.

DB: Yes, I think that requires some understanding. The ordinary use of the word content is quite different. If you say that the content of a glass is water - right?

JK: Yes.

DB: So the glass is one thing and the water is another.

JK: No.

DB: The glass contains the water, otherwise the word content would suggest that something contains it - right?

JK: All right. Consciousness is made up of all what is has remembered, beliefs, dogmas, rituals, the nationalities, fears, pleasures, sorrow.

DB: Yes, now if all that were absent would there be no consciousness?

JK: Not as we know it.

DB: But there would still be a kind of consciousness?

JK: A totally different kind.

First Conversation With David Bohm at Brockwood Park 11 June 1983

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 May 2017 #560
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
K does not use the word consciousness consistently. Sometimes he equates the consciousness with its content, othertimes not. But what he means is clear. The "self" (or self-consciousness) is created by thought.

I think, actually, there is a dire need to understand and differentiate benign and malignant 'thought'. The term 'thought' is much abused in these places as a consequence of the lack of any such discernment, and/or the recognition of a need for it. It's as if people want to say that the human brain, the universe's most magnificent achievement, is a nothing; worse, a detriment. I think we'd find ourselves differing with K on that one.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Wed, 10 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 May 2017 #561
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
JK: The content of our consciousness makes up the consciousness, the content.

DB: Yes, I think that requires some understanding. The ordinary use of the word content is quite different. If you say that the content of a glass is water - right?

JK: Yes.

DB: So the glass is one thing and the water is another.

JK: No.

DB: The glass contains the water, otherwise the word content would suggest that something contains it - right?

JK: All right. Consciousness is made up of all what is has remembered, beliefs, dogmas, rituals, the nationalities, fears, pleasures, sorrow.

DB: Yes, now if all that were absent would there be no consciousness?

JK: Not as we know it.

DB: But there would still be a kind of consciousness?

JK: A totally different kind.

First Conversation With David Bohm at Brockwood Park 11 June 1983

Thanks Ken. Exactly!

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 May 2017 #562
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
K uses words like "pure being", "pure action"

K used the term "pure being" only once, in 1945, and he used "pure action" four times, from 1934 to 1936. Neither term are representative of the teaching, so far as I can tell. He referred to "right action" quite often throughout his teaching however.

He used "pure being" in reference to a state of integration, not in relation to the emptying of consciousness, though one might infer the other.

But his phrase "consciousness is its content" is used so often and so consistently in his teaching its meaning becomes quite clear. For K, consciousness included all learning, everything learned through experience. And he said that all of that has to go, period. I may not understand that and I may not agree with it, but I should know he said it, and said it often. It was not ambiguous.

Jan Kasol wrote:
K does not use the word consciousness consistently. Sometimes he equates the consciousness with its content, othertimes not.

But please show me where he separates consciousness from its content and says one can have one without the other. That is the point at issue here.

Jan Kasol wrote:
K himself said, that the emptying is not annihilation.

Did he? I have never read that. I'd be interested to read it. But really, we are not talking of something called "annihilation." We are asking if K was correct or not in saying that consciousness is its content. One is perfectly entitled to take another view but it cannot be said that K was ambiguous on the issue.

Here is another passage:

K: In that state, I might scratch myself - you follow - flies come and sit on me. That is the action of the senses, but it does not affect that.

M: The knowledge that there is scratching going on is present.

K: That is a natural thing. You must go very, very slowly with it Any movement of the known, any movement, potential or non-potential, is within the field of the known. I want to be quite clear that you and I are understanding the same thing. That is: when the content of consciousness with its experiences, demands, its craving for something new, including its craving for freedom from the known, has completely come to an end, then only does the other quality come into being. The former has a motive; the latter has no motive. The mind cannot come to that through motive. Motive is the known. So, can the mind come to an end which says: `It is no good investigating into it, I know how to make it come to an end, ignorance is part of the content, ignorance is part of this demand to experience more?' When that mind comes to an end - an end not brought about by conscious effort in which there is motive, with direction - then the other thing is there.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 May 2017 #563
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

K: We said the content of consciousness is consciousness. If there is no consciousness, there is no accumulation.

M: I have not said that.

K: I have said it, we started with it.

M: The content of consciousness is consciousness. That means, when there is no content there is no consciousness.

K: That is what it means.

D: So it means that there is non-dual consciousness.

K: No, no. That is a speculation. Stick to what we started out with. Consciousness is its content. The content is consciousness. This is an absolute fact.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 May 2017 #564
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

K: We said consciousness is its content. Its content is put together by thought. An incident takes place where the energy shock drives out consciousness for a second or for days or months or whatever it is. Then, as the shock wears off, you begin to name the state. Then, you bring that into consciousness. But it is not in consciousness when it takes place.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 May 2017 #565
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

From 1985

Your consciousness is not yours. Your consciousness is its content; consciousness is made up of its content. Without the content there is no consciousness. Your consciousness, like the rest of humanity, is made up of beliefs, fears, faith, gods, personal ambitions and all the rest of fears and all that. Your whole consciousness is made up of all this, put together by thought. One hopes that we have taken the journey together. Together we are walking the same road, not that you are listening to a series of ideas. We are not pursuing ideas or ideologies, but facing actuality. Because in actuality and going beyond that actuality is the truth. And when you discover, when there is truth, it's the most dangerous thing. Truth is very dangerous because it brings a revolution in oneself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 May 2017 #566
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

It seems to me that if one hasn't got what K is saying here one has not got K at all.

Bringing in snails and other creatures adds nothing to the basic statement that K repeats, "Consciousness is its content." Without content there is no consciousness.

Personally, I have found nothing that disproves his statement and much that indicates its veracity.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 May 2017 #567
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
JK: A totally different kind.

K has been pushed by Bohm on the question and answers that whatever state is there after consciousness goes would be something of a totally different kind. K would not have called it 'consciousness.' His use of the word "totally" makes that absolutely clear.

In other places he calls the state "total attention" rather than consciousness and refers to a mind in total attention as being fully integrated.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 May 2017 #568
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
We are not pursuing ideas or ideologies, but facing actuality. Because in actuality and going beyond that actuality is the truth. And when you discover, when there is truth, it's the most dangerous thing. Truth is very dangerous because it brings a revolution in oneself.

It is a 'dangerous thing' to the 'I'. It is 'dangerous' to it because it separates content from freedom. In other words it does away with the 'content/container' scenario, leaving only the other.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Wed, 10 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 May 2017 #569
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
I think, actually, there is a dire need to understand and differentiate benign and malignant 'thought'.

Maybe so, but that is not the issue here. It seems to me that K is correct to say consciousness is put together by thought. He does not differentiate between malign and benign thought. He meant all thought. All your thinking is consciousness, not just one part. K was talking of the whole lot going, of consciousness stopping, of the mind coming to a halt, for the other to be. That is the referent point. It does not mean that there will never more be consciousness or thought. He was saying that for the other to be, the mind must be totally empty of consciousness and its content, which amount to the same thing. His statements are so clear and so emphatic on that point that if it is not understood then K has not been understood.

Consciousness starts up again when thought starts up, he says. He is not against it, he is just pointing to what he saw as the fact of it. Let us please try to understand that.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 May 2017 #570
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
It is a 'dangerous thing' to the 'I'. It is 'dangerous' to it because it separates content ('I') from freedom.

When you equate content with 'I' you confuse K's message. The content of consciousness is thought, both the malign and the benign, all thought, the psychological and the technical, the 'I' center and everything else not determined by that center.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 541 - 570 of 790 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.)