Tao is not a thing.
Sure, if you say so, but then, nature is not a â€œthingâ€, and yet I understand it and that depends on something understanding it, (In and of duality). Causality is not a â€œthingâ€, and the same goes for that too. So what is so special about Tao?
I can perfectly conceive of a â€œunityâ€ already through the word nature, which is not any particular thing; neither is A â€˜unityâ€™ a stand alone thing, for that cannot exist without me conceiving of it, in and of duality.
Tao, if at all, is nothing more than duality itself. Carry water, chop woodâ€¦ if you remember. Why superimpose an idea of non-dual when it is actually impossible to hold absolutely any idea beyond in and of duality â€“ consciousness?
By pointing AT something (although claiming that it is not a "thing") like non-dual, we are already creating a God of some kind; something Ultimate, something Absolute. Chopping up Reality into Ultimate or Absolute - which automatically implies that there is something that is NOT-Absolute, NOT-Ultimate, which is not the case as far as existence - totality is concerned; and that too is not a thing, but simply a conceivable thought that without any doubt points to absolutely ALL that there is, conceivably.
Nothing can escape logical reasoning, if thought deeply enough, including the impossibilities of what a word may point to.
The words nature (with a small â€˜nâ€™), and causality (again with a small â€˜câ€™), things (with a small â€˜tâ€™) are more than enough to understand the nature of existence, totality. What the â€˜chop wood carry waterâ€™ really implies. I see no need to introduce a non-conceptualizable idea that a word Tao could point to. In fact, it seems pointless actually.
I think that is one of the main reasons that we have so many misconceptions emerging from words like Tao, Emptiness, Nothingness, Ultimate Reality, Absolute Truth, so on and so forth. All following a capitol alphabet indicating that those are not â€˜thingsâ€™ in themselves, but something to be realized. What exactly can those words achieve that the understanding of the words nature â€“ causality â€“ things â€“ canâ€™t? Which are perfectly understandable, logically.
Nat, I know that I am kind of shaking the foundations of what you or some great people have worked so hard on to express their realizations, but actually, Tao implies a philosophical God in my books. Look at it closely, and you shall see the reflection of â€˜toilet brushâ€™; once and for all.
I am terribly sorry if I speak out of place or through ignorance, but I know that people here are philosophically tolerant, hence I speak what I think. But Iâ€™d love to know where my ignorance lies.
Keep up with your Toa in any case, Nat; at least it is not for me.
With all due respects :)