of yeah right reputational experience not all but what i'm trying to say is that is that when we have both variation um and we have both um similarity if there's that there might be a good case to to make to to discount the distal and to to focus on what is united in those claims and i'm doing this explicitly in an attempt to include um every form of of buddhism taoism i'm not i'm not making an abrahamic name here i'm not making a name for a transcendental personal theistic object i think i think most mystics even within those traditions end up sounding more like atheists than anything else i agree i'm the the and i think cats is wrong um in cats is right on these points of of that they're going to be interpreted in inevitably into their into their frameworks and katz does catch his article he he does this you know very uh clever erudite reading where it's like oh well the kabbalist is talking about tense furored and the the daoist is talking about these things these have nothing to do with one another how could there be anything and what cats is doing is if i can give an analogy let's say let's say this there's ten people walking down down a road right and they all see a tree and um and once and and they come back together a port of the tree and one was like oh well you know the bark was really brown the other one's like oh the leaves were really green the other one says oh the roots are really red it's like oh my gosh there's there's redness there's greenness there's no congruity there's nothing here there's no coarse there's nothing which they experience there's nothing um or if we if we look at their if we look at their narratives right if we if we did the the cats are the cat's famous cat's article where instead of listing out all of the differentiations between them oh look there's a god and god has a female partner look there's no god at all there's nothing else instead let's focus on the the claim which they all are making which is that there is a fundamental unity being which which the individual uh unit