Acharya Prashant explains the Zen concept of 'Mu' through the dialogue between a monk and Joshua regarding whether a dog has Buddha nature. He clarifies that as long as one identifies with a specific form, such as a dog or a person, there is only difference and diversity. The dog and the Buddha are alike only in their nothingness; therefore, the dog is Buddha only when it has lost its 'dog-hood,' just as a person is Buddha only when they have lost their personhood. Buddhahood is described as a state of vast emptiness and the total disappearance of the self-concept. He further discusses the nature of Maya, which prevents the present from being seen and causes one to identify with what they are not. Acharya Prashant emphasizes that questions about one's true nature are often barriers to realizing it. Providing a 'yes' or 'no' answer to such spiritual inquiries is problematic: saying 'yes' implies the current ego-self possesses Buddha nature, which is false due to conditioning and biology; saying 'no' implies that something other than the singular Truth exists, which is also false. Thus, 'Mu' serves as the only befitting response, transcending the duality of existence and non-existence. He concludes that silence or 'Mu' is the most accurate representation of the Truth, as language cannot properly capture the reality of the Atman or Brahma.