in that we can see and touch a cell's DNA. We can observe the idiosyncratic
development of an individual to maturity. Can anyone see and touch Buddha
nature? The DNA and the cells can be sensed -- seen and touched. The
hypostatization, Buddha nature, cannot be sensed with any of our sense
organs. Thus we may say that the scientist's statement makes sense; the Zen
master's must be called "non-sense."

We now come to the second part of our inquiry, the Zen master's description
of the practice of zazen. Shunryu Suzuki strives in many pages to tell his
"students" what he means by "zazen." He writes (pp. 108-109), "For a plant
or stone to be natural is no problem. But for us there is some problem,
indeed a big problem. When what you do just comes out from nothingness, you
have quite a new feeling. For instance, when you are hungry, to take some
food is naturalness. You feel natural. But when you are expecting too much,
to have some food is not natural. . . . The true practice of zazen is to
sit as if drinking water when you are thirsty. There you have naturalness.
. . . This naturalness is very difficult to explain. If it comes out of
nothingness, whatever you do is natural, and that is true activity. You
have the true joy of practice, the true joy of life. . . . From true
emptiness the wondrous being appears. . . . True being comes out of
nothingness, moment after moment. Nothingness is always there, and from it
everything appears. But usually, forgetting all about nothingness, you
behave as if you have something. What you do is based on some possessive
idea or some concrete idea, and that is not natural."

Can you think of any observable operations you can perform to describe
"naturalness," "nothingness," "emptiness"? What can you do to become
natural, to realize nothing, to be empty?

Suzuki has given us a clue. He tells us that plants and stones have no
problem in being natural, but that for us there is indeed a big problem.
What makes us so different -- and unlucky -- is that we have language. We
alone live in two worlds, the world of no-language and the world of
language. I shall call these worlds "Reality-1" and "Reality-2,"
respectively. Reality-1 really exists outside our mind. Reality-2 "exists,"
but only as thoughts-feelings, semantic reactions, in our mind.

Recall that the author(s) of Genesis described the harmonious life enjoyed
by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Life at that time existed as
Reality-1; no Reality-2. Then one day they ate the fruit of the Tree of
Knowledge. Let us suppose that fruit symbolizes language. After that they
lived in two worlds; they perceived Reality-1 through the filter of
Reality-2. They transformed the seeing of each other's naked body into an
act of sin. Their feeling of shame made them hide from God. With language,
they could now conceive ideas and judgments, and feel emotions like shame.
They could say, "We're bad; we've sinned; God will punish us for disobeying
Him. Let's cover our genitals with fig leaves and let's hide from our
angry, father." The result of gaining language was getting kicked out of
the Garden. Gone was the wordless harmony of living like animals with the
other animals. Ahead lay the miseries of living belanguaged.

The possession of language has enabled us to create for ourselves more
wonders than any other animal has done. it has also enabled us to damage
ourselves and our environment as no other plant or animal has ever done.
Like fire, language is a good servant but a bad master. The Buddha came to
this realization and devoted the rest of his life to helping us master our
language -- and thereby our language-created Reality-2. He told us to
become natural, to realize nothingness, to open ourselves to emptiness. His
followers who accepted his teaching and developed his practice have been
helping people to adjust their R-2 so that it does not distort their view
of R-1 in a life-degrading way. This process usually takes many years, for
we have been conditioned ever since birth to believe that R-2 is identical
with R-1.

Is there a way to describe in observable terms the Buddha's way of speaking
about this human condition? I believe that describing the actual processes
involved in our seeing and talking about the world will make more sense to
our Western minds. The key word in that statement is "sense." How do we use
our senses to create our Reality-2, our pictures of Reality-1?

Here is my attempt to capsulize the very complex series of processes
involved in our seeing Reality-1 through the filter of our Reality-2. Our
limited senses register some, but only some, of the stimuli that impinge on
them. Our brain responds to this input by transforming it into "pictures."
These pictures constitute symbols that stand for but are not the same as
what is "out there." Put simply, R-2 is not R-1 and is certainly not
identical with R-1.

In the transformation process, our language plays a decisive role. For