m and non-theism for example about mystical experiences and john hick talks about this in the interpretation of religion um and whether or not right um and mystics themselves of course have gotten into hot water about this historically cross-culturally cross-historically right um whether or not the experience that of at one minute ultimately is best understood non-theistically or theistically um and i think there is variation on on that uh and the reason why i say that is because i i i am worried about i'm not accusing you of this you're sensitive and you're careful and i want to pay the compliment back to you that you paid to me but you know there is there is kind there is a pernicious kind of perennialism that is a kind of just an ethnocentrism right that all religions are somehow versions of or like the abrahamic religions and i think that's something that i i want to i want to open up the possibility uh for you know for buddhism and taoism for for sunyata and the dao as also ways of talking about this and and you and and and you were careful to bracket that off you said you know they're not making claims about a particular entity or being and and so i think that's right here's the problem i'm trying to i'm kind of a counter problem your problem which is but it's not it's also not the case that the mystic just stays within the mystical experience the mystic almost always and this was katz's whole point the mystic always also tries to weave it into sometimes conforming sometimes trying to transform but tries to weave it into their religious framework and their religious heritage and therefore makes a lot of claims that do are sort of more specific claims about specific entities and specific uh you know obligations to those entities and things like that and that's where i see all that tremendous variation i i don't i so i'm trying to acknowledge that yeah yeah what what what i'm saying is something different i'm acknowledging that there is variation i'm not i'm not trying to say that there's a homogeneity of of