es with the real or and and david lloyd makes this case very well for the buddha to include the buddhists that that the the implosion of the subject of the subject object distinction can either implode outwards or sorry explode outwards or employed inwards where where all the self or no self developing in non duality uh makes a really great case of that and i think that i think that by i'm not trying to make any particulars to claim that that any one proposition uh towards one specific interpretive you know religious those things are inevitable but i think that we can look beneath the surface of all of them um and and and look for the tree beyond all of the the the differences seen great so good so then i could make a i can so you've made a recommendation i think it's good and then here's the recommendation i'm going to make on the basis of your recommendations so ultimately what we're doing is we're i mean this is john hicks we're facing we have finite ambiguous data and then we're making judgments about similarity or dissimilarity and nelson goodman like showed there's no algorithm for doing that that's ultimately based on well this is a relevant thing this is not a relevant thing because any two objects are logic are logically indefinitely large like similar to each other and then definitely large dissimilar to each other and so what i would want to say is okay but what you're doing is you're pointing to universals right and then what i would say is what you can use is independent of the historical convergence argument which is the traditional way it's been done aldous huxley perennialism right is no no but what we can do is we can say there's another way of looking for universals which is science cognitive science and we can come up with right this argument that i've run and this argument that i've run can then constrain the kind of similarities we're looking for in the historical record we don't just find any oh it happens that all almost all these mystics were men ah there's something male about well no tha