Why would there be anything mystical about arriving at this particular concept? It would be no different from other conceptual thought processes. Tao can be named after all, only weasels deny that. Applying logic and honesty would be key, as well as having interest to delve in this particular topic.
Yes I know Tao can be named, but at the same time, it is not the eternal Tao, nor is it the eternal name, which I believe points to wishful thinking.
By mystical (which actually did not relate to what the speakers said) I meant as in â€œmysticalâ€ experiences. It was Just an offshoot of a thought in seeing connections between mystical experiences and the gap of missing proofs, which I believe will not remain once majority of humanity, or at least a vast portion experiences such things.
Kevin says that they are not really two different things, and dual and non-dual exist at the same time.
A claim of the existence of non-duality made while remaining in and of duality, and knowing and stating that nothing lies beyond consciousness (which is duality itself), tells me that that is but a wishful thinking. How logical is it to claim that some un-conceptualizable thing lies beyond conceptualizations. The, not the eternal Tao... not the eternal name... thing.
However, you donâ€™t seem to have such problems. Do you? I am not satisfied yet, so I simply want to understand what the speakers really mean by, or how did they arrive at the existence of a thing such as non-dual.