Your understanding of this question is incorrect. The first "Tao cannot be Tao". The former Tao refers to the laws and nature of the operation of all things in the universe. The latter Tao refers to "speaking", which means expression, etc. It is said that the laws and nature of the operation of everything in the universe cannot be expressed. No matter how to express it, it is not the most appropriate. It cannot be expressed in words and words. I reluctantly use the word Tao to represent this Tao. It is just a name and it is not the real thing. Get back to things. It’s just a title. The five thousand words left by Lao Tzu are also an explanation of the Tao. They use the things in our world to explain the Tao. They also talk about the principles for us people to live in the world. This is the Tao mentioned. This is also the Tao that Lao Tzu practices. If we say Lao Tzu understands the truth and has left nothing behind and taught nothing to future generations. If he does this, he is going against the grain and is not Lao Tzu. The principles of Buddhism are also the same. The names and titles are just representations. All the classics spoken by the Buddha are for the Dharma. A note