Tag Archives: Philosophy

Buddhism, consciousness, Meditation, mind, Philosophy, Psychology

Meditating with René Descartes Part 2

Leave a comment

Are we really who we think we are? What is the sum of all our thoughts? What is god? These are all wonderful questions that mankind has been asking since beginingless time. Both western and eastern philosophers have wrestled with them but in slightly different ways. I want to explore how close western philosophers like Descartes came to an understanding of Eastern Wisdom and the Buddha Dharma.

Descartes developed 6 meditations in which he doubts and removes all that he cannot prove to exist. He then gradually builds up a new existence that became a good part of how we in the west look at ourselves. In his second Meditation found in AT 24 he explores the question does god exist and what is my relationship to him? “Is there not a god, or whatever I may call him, who puts me into the thoughts I am now having? But why do I think this, since I myself may perhaps be the author of my thoughts”. Descartes is exploring the connection between his consciousness and that of god’s. From where do my thoughts arise, he asks?

In his previous work, Discourse on Method, we find his most famous quote “Cogito ergo sum” or “I think therefore I am” we can assume that Descartes from these two quotes confirms his existence or his ego as fact based on himself as being conscious or at least the source of his own and unique thoughts.

However the Lichtenberg Point put forward by Georg Lichtenberg takes Descartes’ thinking further by supposing that Descartes “I think” could really be interpreted as “It’s thinking” This puts some distance to the supposed source of thought, I like this argument but I would take it one step further and say “There is Thinking”. Why does this matter? Well, the Buddha Dharma shows us that subject, object, and action are really one. So the thinker, the thought that is thought, and the act of thinking are really inseparable, all are one.

Descartes later writes as further proof of his existence that he could be deceived by an external power. “But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived by me.” So Descartes exists because he thinks and even if some doubt comes from outside that he does not exist, from a supreme power, he also must exist because he is being deceived.

Thinking? At least I have discovered it – thought; this alone is inseparable from me. I am I exist that is certain. But for how long? For as long as I am thinking. For it could be that were I totally to cease from thinking, I should totally cease to exist. At present, I am not admitting anything except what is necessarily true. I am, then in the strict sense only a thing that thinks; that is, I am a mind, or intelligence, or intellect, or reason – words whose meaning I have been ignorant of until now. But for all that I am a thing which is real and which truly exists. But what kind of a thing? As I have just said – a thinking thing.” What I find important here is the inseparability of thinking and the thinker. In essence, Descartes’ mind and thoughts are one.

This reminds me of the great Indian Mahasiddha Saraha, who said “if you think everything exists you are as stupid as a cow, and if you think everything does not exist you are even stupider”. This points once again to the inseparability of subject, object, and action.

In closing, I find Descartes’ of the inseparability of thinking and thinker to be quite close to the Buddha Dharma. However, the deception of ignorance that may be the supreme power used to deceive Descartes was that the thoughts themselves are separate from the thinker and the act of thinking.

QP

Advertisement
Buddhism, consciousness, how to meditate, Meditation, Metaphysics, mind, Philosophy, Psychology

Nothingness and Nihilism, Meditating with Descartes Part 1

Leave a comment

Descartes is undoubtedly one of the most influential philosophers of our time. He formed our concepts in the west about mind and our existence, although heavily influenced by the catholic church his ideas and theories are here to stay in one form or another. This discussion I intend to start is to discover what similarities can be found between Descartes’ western and christian theories and those of the Buddha Dharma one of the more influential wisdom traditions of the east. As I am here to learn I welcome as always welcome you to reach out and share your thoughts with the community here.

Descartes six meditations are truly a wonderful thought experiment in which he disassembles the foundation of all he believes to exist and then slowly builds them back up only as he in his mind can prove to himself their existence. I cannot understate how similar this process is to the Tibetan Guru Yoga that I practice almost daily. Where after focusing on the four basic thoughts and then taking refuge we dissolve the conditioned world and then slowly build it all back up again in a meaningful way.

Descartes rightfully understood that he held way too many ideas and concepts to doubt and move away from one at a time so he developed a way to deny the existence of large groups of concepts. This way instead of having to dismantle the wall one brick at a time he pulls away at the foundation and lets it all fall in on itself. He does this by doubting; if he can find a reason to believe that he might have been deceived or fooled in any way he removes everything he knows from his existence, even himself, his mind and god.

I think like most philosophers and physicists one must really come to a point where one seriously doubts or denies the existence of everything. We need to explore what the idea of nothing or nihilism might mean. Nihilism, the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless, but to an even greater degree that of existence as a whole. This is nothingness the absence or cessation of life or existence is at the centre of Descartes’ contemplation.

Over the years I have noticed in discussions with many people that a general conception about Buddhism is that we are nihilists. This misconception seems to be based on the idea that there is no right or wrong in Buddhism, only consequences or cause and effect. I would also add that when one mentions ego destruction it might seem like Buddhists want to kill themselves or something like this. The biggest misconceptions arise when we talk about emptiness, here almost every critic seem to think that Buddhists simply wish to end their existence in a pool of nothingness. These misconceptions could not be further from the truth the Buddha Dharma does not deny the existence of anything or anyone we simply say that things do not exist in the way in which it seems. The Buddha Dharma teaches us clearly that things truly exist but they do so in a way that is free of our concepts and ideas. This is the idea of emptiness, things are empty of the judgments we place on them when we decide or think that something is good or bad. Emptiness is not to be confused with nothingness. However, no thing, or no thingness, seems to be highly relevant in the discovery of our existence.

This is quite similar to the journey that Descartes begins here in his first meditation. Let’s meet soon for our next discussion in Rene Descartes’ second meditation.

QP

Buddhism, consciousness, how to meditate, Meditation, Metaphysics, mind, Neuroscience, Psychology

Carl Jung Letting Go of the Ego

4 Comments

As I approach my 50th year in life I am beginning to reflect, realize, and accept that I am well into the second half of my life.

When I was younger I would say that I did not develop a healthy ego at all as I had a rough childhood with an authoritarian mother. This is the situation of many, not just me.

The simple question arises when I read Jung’s statement, is it easier to let go of a poorly developed ego or a well-developed ego? I could surmise that by Jung’s statement that I should have an easy time letting go of my poorly developed ego. Maybe you just might have a stronger motivation to get out of the circle of samsaric suffering if things are really bad. Or another way maybe it’s easier to wake up from a bad dream than from a good dream, so say the words of my Lama.

Think about it another way, why would you jump from a perfectly fine cruise ship or a really nice ego? Not very likely, but the moment you know that you are sinking it’s not even an option to stay onboard.

One of the main teachings of Vajrayana Buddhism is to use one’s strongest emotions as fuel to fire your desire to change. This transformative potential of the Diamond-like practices are like no other. One must confront his anger or fear let them arise, recognize their essence, and let it go! The is tremendous wisdom in all our emotions,

How do we propose to do this? In one word meditation, we begin with the breath then guru yoga ngondro a yidam practice perhaps Tummo.

If we want to break free from samsara we need to see the connection we have with our emotions. Do we really feel them, do we allow them to arise, and most importantly do we let them go? For a long time I was so afraid of my feelings, all of them. I did not feel them very often, and when I noticed that one had arisen I did I had a very hard time letting it go. Sounds fun eh? not really.

Thankfully I have the tools of the Buddha Dharma to work with, firstly and most importantly MEDITATION. The practice of meditation gives us space in mind to choose better decisions, better reactions, and better outcomes for ourselves and those around us. A meditation practice helps us to look within ourselves honestly and fearlessly. A meditation practice helps us to let go of things we no longer need in our lives.

How do you turn inwards and let go of that which weighs you down?

QP

Buddhism, consciousness, how to meditate, Meditation, Metaphysics, mind, Psychology

The Science of Being Nice.

Leave a comment

Well there you have it it’s finally been proven that it’s good to be kind to others. Not that we really doubted it 😉

“What studies have shown is that when we are either thinking about kind acts or witnessing kind acts or engaging in acts of kindness to other people, there are several biochemical changes that happen in our brain,” says Dr. Bhawani Ballamudi, SSM Health child psychiatrist. “One of the most important things that happens is that it releases oxytocin, a neurotransmitter that’s been studied extensively for its role in promoting a sense of bonding.”

Source: https://www.ssmhealth.com/blogs/ssm-health-matters/november-2022/the-science-behind-kindness

Oxytocin is associated with empathy, trust, sexual activity, and relationship-building. It is sometimes referred to as the “love hormone,” because levels of oxytocin increase during hugging and orgasm. And all I have to do is be kind to get this natural high, so how do I do that?

“Physiologically, kindness can positively change your brain. Being kind boosts serotonin and dopamine, which are neurotransmitters in the brain that give you feelings of satisfaction and well-being, and cause the pleasure/reward centers in your brain to light up. Endorphins, which are your body’s natural pain killer, also can be released.”

source: https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speaking-of-health/the-art-of-kindness. Steve Siegle is a licensed professional counselor in Psychiatry & Psychology

The Buddha dharma details in the Six Paramitas how we can generate joy and love in our lives as we practice to be be Bhodisattvas on the way to enlightenment. The practice centers around generosity, meaningful behavior, patience, joyful effort, meditation, and wisdom. Read more about it here on Quantum Awareness.

Buddhism, consciousness, Meditation, Metaphysics, mind, Psychology, Quantum Mechanics, Superposition

Ego = 0

2 Comments

Much to the chagrin of many Roman/Greko philosophers the idea of zero as a number was born in India. To quote Russel Peters, a Canadian comedian the concept was first used in the well-known technique of bargaining by an individual who wanted something but did not want to pay. There are stories and proof of zero concepts in several cultures, not just in Europe and Asia. Even the ancient South Americans seem to have some idea what zero is.  There is, however, a Buddhist link expressed by my favorite philosopher Nagarjuna. Nagarjuna is famous for his groundbreaking treatises on sunyata Sanskrit for emptiness. What could be more empty than zero? Even in the cardinal script, the shape of the zero says “hey man there is nothing here look into the circle it’s empty.” One thing for certain even if the zero was not first conceptualized in India, Indians were with certainty the first people to take the concept out of the mathematical arena and into a philosophical debate. Philosophy and mathematics have always had an interesting coexistence. It is said that above the entrance to Plato’s Academy “let no one ignorant of Geometry enter” was inscribed.

The idea of emptiness is not an easy concept to understand in fact it is more often misunderstood that any other buddhist teaching. This is in part due to many translations of buddhist texts compiled by Christian scholars who had the intention of belittling and demonizing the Buddha Dharma therefore calling it Buddhism.

Nagarjuna’s premise is that things or objects in our world have no independent existence in and of themselves, this is emptiness.

The idea is that we as individuals project our own meaning, concepts, and ideas onto everything that we perceive. We label everything good or bad and so begins the constant samsaric battle of attachment and aversion. This step of labeling is a mistake of our egos as we see ourselves as separate from that object of perception. This separation or act of creating a border between that which we truly are and that which we perceive is the original mistake. Mind or our consciousness is compared to an eye. An eye cannot see itself it only sees outwards. This is why we must turn our mind’s eye inwards in the practice of meditation. Only then do we truly see that Ego = 0

QP

Buddhism, consciousness, Meditation, Metaphysics, Neuroscience, Psychology

Flowing in the Stream of Consciousness

7 Comments

There is an old saying that you can never enter the same stream twice. This seems kind of odd to the uninitiated especially if you swam in a river or stream often as a kid, so what do we mean here? We have two Buddhist terms that I would like to introduce and discuss here in relation to the steam. The first is impermanence this is understood that everything is in a constant state of change and the second is “dependent arising”. Impermanence is simple and covered in detail here, but dependent arising can be a bit complex. Let’s use the following example of a stream to discover the meaning in dependent arising. We have a stream flowing past us the fresh cool water is clean and clear. As the water flows by it erodes the banks of the stream in some places and deposits the eroded earth in others, it changes constantly. When our stream meets another stream and the two merge and flow on together, soon we have a river. Then at the end of the long river, we often have all the sand or earth carried by the river deposited in the delta where the main river once again divides into smaller streams as it slowly meets the ocean. Once the river has merged with the ocean a new process takes over as the water evaporates into the air becomes clouds and falls back to the earth as rain to be collected by the stream once again. This natural environmental cycle is dependent arising constant and ever-changing based on the impermanence of the surrounding conditions. One part of the process depends on the other and when seen as a whole there is no beginning or end to be found. Take one part out and nothing exists. No start or creation point is then necessary.

“At first practice is like a river rushing through a gorge. In the middle, it’s the river Ganges, smooth and flowing. In the end, it’s where all rivers meet, mother and child.” Tilopa Ganges Mahamudra.

It is here where we realise Dzogrim or that we are a drop of water in the whole ocean.

00660_splash_1920x1200.jpg

It is like this that we can understand our own existence here on earth one big cycle of ever-changing conditions and we can never be the same person twice like we can never enter the same stream or river twice. How do we compare to the river, certainly we are more complex? Here modern science would have to include our store consciousness, that is the sum of all the knowledge, thoughts, and actions we have ever encountered or our stream or consciousness. William James in “Principals of Psychology” used the phrase, stream of consciousness, to describe an unbroken flow of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings in the waking mind.

Buddhist theory calls our store consciousness “Alaya” this is the sum of all our experiences or our karma from all our lives since beginningless time. This Alaya is constantly mixing and interacting with our new life situation. Based on previous actions we decide the new course of action and we cycle through our existence without beginning or end just like the water in the stream. We are never the same person from each moment of mind to the next. The point here is clear we are the result of our actions and ideas, we should be more responsible.

This quote from the physicist Böhm sums it up quite nicely:

“I would say that in my scientific and philosophical work, my main concern has been with understanding the nature of reality in general and of consciousness in particular as a coherent whole, which is never static or complete but which is an unending process of movement and unfoldment….”

D. Bohm, _Wholeness and the Implicate Order_, p.ix

The coherent whole is his comparison for the cycle of dependent arising that is never static or complete. And the unending movement of the river unfolds slowly as new conditions arise in mind.

Modern neuroscientists cannot find the mechanism of how our vast knowledge or memory is stored and then recalled, there are theories but none that are generally agreed upon. There is evidence that certain areas of the brain are associated with certain types of memory but the mechanism is unknown and much of what we know is based on the theory from one man Henry Molaison who has his complete hippocampus removed. After the removal, Henry could not form new long term memories. While this part of the brain certainly plays an important role in memory there is no proof of the storage processes in the brain then the storage could be somewhere else. Just my thoughts but the hippocampus is rather small to store all those memories. Not to mention it’s removal prevented new memories from being formed. The memories formed prior to the operation were still there, showing that the hippocampus is not the storage location.

images-5.jpeg

Alaya has no specific location it is said to be non-local, or more simply said, space is information, omnipresent or everywhere, like energy. It’s simple and beautiful think of it as a cosmic conscious internet or quantum network, flowing through the universe everywhere and always new. Our entire being changing with every new situation and experience. Like always in Buddhism, this responsibility is our own to decide what direction we take, ask yourself do you want a comedy or tragedy today? The choice and answer is clear, are they not?

QP

 

Buddhism, consciousness, Meditation, mind, Quantum Mechanics

Choose your Own Adventure

4 Comments

More and more every day modern science is coming to terms with what on the outset was an uncomfortable reality. That is that the observer (you and I) play not just an important role in reality or in our universal experience but actually that we are the deciding factor at the centre of it all. I think for the most part modern science has tried to stay an arm’s length away from any of the organised or generally accepted world religions and this is not necessarily a bad thing, while many of the world’s religions seem hellbent on destroying each other and have become so inflexible because of dogma. There is, however, one notable exception the Buddha Dharma. The Buddha Dharma is without a doubt the most peaceful, humanistic, and scientific of all organised religions. Please note that I personally do not subscribe to the fact that Buddhism is a religion, and I object to the suffix of “ism” as well, but common convention begs to differ and I use the term religion here in this light. If science was ever looking for or in need of a partner to explain the world as it is, the Buddha Dharma is up for the challenge. Why do I say that? Certainly not just because I am convinced of that myself, but because a growing number of scientists are also convinced or at least make comments that lean more and more in this direction. This is not an easy thing to do as science tends to push back on individuals who cross the perceived line of separation between science and religion.

Choose your own adventure.jpg

Let’s examine and discuss three quotes that I have found inspiring and relevant to this discussion.

R.C. Henry professor of physics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University in a 2005 essay is quoted as saying:

A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction.

Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote

“The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather to hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.

– Eugene Wigner, theoretical physicist and mathematician said:

“It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”

So how is this relevant to the Buddha Dharma? The underlying theme to these three quotes can be summarized in the following points and the following ideas:

The role of the observer and consciousness in the perceived reality of the universe.
The pointing out or pointing to the idea that Subject and Object are interdependent and non separable.
1. The mental processes the observer goes through when perceiving something is described by Buddhist Theory of Perception and is traditionally called the study of the five Skandhas. Skandha is Sanskrit for heap, collection, or grouping. “The five skandhas are form, sensation, perception, activity, consciousness. A form can arise in the mind or outside of the mind. This form gives rise to a sensation, which gives rise to perception, followed by activity (mental or physical), and lastly consciousness. In the Buddha’s explanation, the five skandhas occur one after the other, very rapidly. They are not a continuous stream but rather a series of discrete or discernible moments. A form arises or appears, then there is a sensation, then perception, then activity, then consciousness.” Thank you to Americanbuddhist.net for this description, the full article can be read here. I personally find that the activity phase of this process is the most interesting, it is here where we colour the perceived experience with a combination of all the impressions in our store consciousness and immediately decide if what we perceive is good or bad. This is the very basis of aversion or attraction, this is what keeps us busy our whole lives running to or away from the things we see. Each and every time we perceive something the process of the five skandhas is repeated without stopping over and over again and we may even experience multiple events overlapping one another. Each individual instance may be named “a moment of mind or consciousness” and many moments of mind strung together is best described as our “Stream of Consciousness”. Our consciousness directs our awareness from one form or arising to another. We are very clearly caught up in a process of observation, judging or evaluating and then acting on all phenomena that we in one way or another come into contact within the universe.

2. The interdependence of subject and object are central to many philosophical discussions within the different schools of Buddhism. One can summarise the major point here with the age-old question, what came first the chicken or the egg? The answer is rather simple you simply cannot have one without the other therefore it is irrelevant as to what came first when we must have both. So to go a little deeper the thought process goes like this: if we have a universe of objects with no subjects we should have to ask what would be the point of it be? All these wonderful things with nothing to enjoy them. Conclusion, objects without subjects are meaningless. On the flip side, what use is a subjective universe full of subjects with no objects to perceive or enjoy? It simply makes no sense to have one without the other. Consciousness requires something to be conscious “of”. So we have this absolutely amazing universe and we are here to discover and enjoy it.

The only thing missing here is action. What do I mean by that? Well in Buddhism we learn that not only are subject and object inseparable co arising phenomena, so are subject, object, and action. Action is important as if there are only subjects and objects and nothing happening well this is just boring. Luckily there is unlimited action in our universe, things never stop moving and changing. Everything is in a constant state of flux as each and every time we interact with something the “Whole of the Universe” is changed as it reacts to our play with it. These are the views held by the Madhyamika school of Buddhist Philosophy.

I firmly believe that we are evidence that the universe is conscious of itself and furthermore, we are constantly creating and choosing our past, present, and our future and we then choose how we see or interpret it as good or bad, in the way the Buddha Dharma has shown us. If you can agree that we are indeed choosing our adventure, lets all consciously decide to choose a positive and joyful adventure for the benefit of all beings.

Buddhism, consciousness, Meditation, mind, Quantum Mechanics

Niels Bohr and the Buddha “Awareness or Creation”

3 Comments

Bohr_real_vs_unreal

“Everything we call real is made up of things that cannot be regarded as real” Niels Bohr. What exactly did Neils Bohr mean here? In modern Quantum Physics, we begin to understand that what we have learned such as particles or atoms to be nothing more than probabilities and potentials. We don’t actually know what an atom looks like or exactly where they are and we likely never will. We guess as to their exact positions and properties with complex mathematical equations and complex experiments some costing billions of dollars. To a Quantum Physicist, the idea of a Ven Diagram showing how oxygen and carbon atoms react is like teaching the Dalai Lama about the Buddhas birth. Quantum Physics has completely changed how modern science looks at the reality in which we think we live. To a Buddhist, this is music to our ears. It sounds very much like the teachings of emptiness. To some, the concept of emptiness is troublesome and it can be hard to wrap your mind around it. It has been described by some very early Christian translations to mean nothingness. This makes us Buddhists sound like nihilists. This was likely done on purpose as to discredit, to falsely portray, or confront Buddhism and further the creation myth by the Church and her missionaries. However, Buddhism is as far from nihilism as Christians are from hell. We define emptiness by saying that all phenomena have no intrinsic or independent existence of their own. To detail this teaching classicly we need to discuss the twelve points of dependent origination. But to make things easy I will simply try to answer that age-old question “if a tree falls in the forest does anyone hear it?” For example, let us take something beautiful like a rose. Does a rose really exist? Another way to ask this is to say does the rose exist independently in and of itself? In Buddhist Philosophy for something to really exist it must be independent of all other phenomena. The answer is no, the rose does not exist independently of anything, it is as we know dependant on sunlight for example. One step further and we see that there is no sunlight without the sun. There is no sun without the sun’s ongoing nuclear reactions and no reactions without Helium and Hydrogen. We see here that rose is empty of independent existence. Or as some might say the rose is an expression of emptiness or empty in nature or essence. We agree with Niels Bohr and we understand the rose to be real but it is not.
Is there another way that we can understand the rose to not exist independently? Yes, if the rose is to be considered to be real and independent it must exist as it does now without changing. It cannot grow, bloom, and we could not even cut one from the plant as it would die and rot away. We know this independence to be false because the rose changes in every moment fully dependent on all the conditions it requires to be as it is. This is also understood as impermanence, as no thing lasts forever.

Now if I stop here I can imagine that some of you might say, “see this is Nihilism no things exist in Buddhism. And you might be right, however, I am reminded of a quote from a famous Buddhist Philosopher Nagarjuna, who said “If you think things are real you are as dumb as a cow, if you think they are not real you are even dumber” If you think trains are not real please do not stand in front of one that’s moving, as you will be suddenly surprised. We know phenomena are there because we can perceive them and be aware of them, they are however dependent on our perception and awareness. The famous double slit experiment is good evidence of this. Our observation imparts a temporary existence to them as we observe them. Just as the waveform collapses into particles that we can perceive as we observe them. They arise, exist, and dissolve back into the space or the field where all information exists as space is information. It would seem that we give phenomena their essence or that our observation is responsible for their creation. When we look around and see the sheer complexity and beauty around us it is clear that life is amazing and so full of potential and joy. We just need to slow down and simply pay attention to it; this is what we learn in meditation. So clearly Buddhists are not nihilists. Now for one to think that the traditional biblical creation myth we talked about earlier as the truth, one needs to assume that all of creation was finished after just 6 days. I firmly understand that it is preposterous and hubris to think anything other than, that creation is continuous and infinite. And when you come this far you might just see yourself as an integral part in all of it.

So the falling tree in the forest is dependent on the sun, the rain, and many other conditions around it not the least of which is us. Without someone to notice it there simply is no meaning or reason for the tree to exist in the first place.

“If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet.” Niels’ words here are truly inspiring, I would expand to say this: If Buddhism hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet. The more I learn the more I am shocked by the Buddha Dharma. I am often moved to tears when concepts like emptiness finally begin to sink in and are understood on deeper and deeper levels. I am convinced that Niels Bohr must have understood things in a similar fashion or he would not have said what he said.

QP